Editorials mark war anniversary

Few editorials marked the fourth anniversay of the start of the war in Itraq. Here are summaries of a few posted by Editor & Publisher which plans to add to the list:

-- The Washington Post accepted blame for helping to ease the U.S. into the war but said it continued to support our open-ended presence in Iraq. The Los Angeles Times and New York Times did not offer new general statements on the war.

-- The Ventura County (Ca.) Star, on the other hand, wants out now, declaring that "shock and awe" has become just "shock." It concluded: "More Iraqi and American casualties in 2007 and beyond will bring us no closer to a harvest of democracy in Iraq. The war has brought less, not more, security to the region. We have stayed too long already.

-- The Toledo (Ohio) Blade said much the same: "The failure of Congress to pass decisive legislation to limit the Iraq war reflects more closely the personal and political interests of its individual members than the will of the American people. It is clear that the great majority of Americans are ready to see the Iraq war draw to an end....But Congress either doesn't get it or doesn't have the courage to bring the matter to an end.

--The Daytona Beach (Fla.) News Journal: "There isn't a neat solution Americans can embrace -- no conditional occupation that Iraqis will accommodate, no withdrawal with honor, not even a peace negotiated under American aegis. The objective, in any case, can no longer afford to be illusory. Democracy won't work for now. American policing isn't working. But the killing must stop.

-- The Detroit News, which supported the "surge" in Iraq, continues to back a strong effort, for now: "Our expectation is for the administration to do everything necessary to achieve whatever it is that will constitute a victory in Iraq, in a very short time, and then get out. The nation will not tolerate the marking of a fifth anniversary in Iraq with no discernible progress toward completing the mission."

--The North County (Ca.) Times backed the partioning of Iraq: "A divided Iraq might even redeem the sacrifice in blood and treasure we've made, though we've unequally distributed that burden among today's military families and tomorrow's taxpayers. At the very least, a divided Iraq might have a chance."

Click on the headline to see the E&P story.