Something very odd happened earlier this week. The New York Times--the same paper that just recently handed down its Definitive And Infallible Judgment (TM) that the war in Iraq is lost, over, doomed, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera--published an op-ed claiming that this is far from the case.
The pollyannas over at NRO promptly convoked a symposium to discuss what this might mean--and as the title "Turning Point?" suggests, most took a rather optimistic view of the situation.
Color me a pessimist. I do not think it is a coincidence that the Times ran an op-ed like this, nor do I think it is a good sign.
The editorial board of the New York Times has, almost from Day 1 of the invasion, had one goal and one goal only with regards to Iraq: to get the US to pull out. Its editorials and columns have been working to undermine the American position there--by undermining the pro-war position here--with a single-minded tone and fervor that has been more than a little frightening to watch.
Even the token opposition columns/articles that normally bolster the paper's credibility by providing it with some pretense of balance have been, by and large, conspicuously absent...until now, that is.
I find that enormously significant.
It isn't that the Times' editors have been forced to provide an opposing viewpoint. It's that they believe they can afford to.
Even more than its "all is lost" editorial a little under a month ago, this is, I think, a declaration of victory (or, more accurately, defeat). The Times evidently believes that public sentiments have reached, not a turning point, but a point of no return--and that those sentiments are decidedly opposed to the Iraq war.
They believe they have finally succeeded in sabotaging this country's last and best chance to undercut Islamofascism in the Middle East.
All things considered, I'm hard-put to disagree with them.