What are the various newspaper Editorials on Post-Saddam Iraq?  
(Also see PS Pro-War Columnists FAQ , PS Anti-War, and PS Wavering.

Note: Many editorials are very specific to a topic such as Torture, US Politics, etc. They will therefore be found only in many of those sections.

Among editorials in the press in early 2003, the Washington Post's first editorial in two weeks looked at the UN mission and "Another Try in Iraq."  Concerned that the administration faces "a scramble to settle on a new and more workable political and military strategy" the paper urges "an active roll for the UN "is the right course...The administration has repeatedly attempted to move forward without forging a broad consensus or seeking a popular mandate--partly for logistical reason, but also in the hope of ensuring that liberal principles and pro-Western leaders prevail in the postwar order.  It should now be obvious that such shortcuts won't work."

The Post concludes, "It can and should continue to insist on upholding basic principles of democracy and human rights; but, the more it does so as part of a coalition and in partnership with the UN, the greater the chances of success." 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A813-2004Feb23?language=printer

From the Washington Post come two late April 2003 editorials. "The War Decision" understands why the White House is recommending the Woodward book but also sees much to "reinforce" the conclusion that the US was poorly prepared for the post-war.  The president reached out to few allies besides Blair.  Bush allegedly never asked Rumsfeld or Powell for their recommendations on going to war.  "...Even though he himself was unimpressed by a CIA presentation of the evidence of [WMD] in December 2002, Mr. Bush did not press for better answers or question his government's assumption."  The editorial concludes,   "Much has gone right in Iraq in the past year, starting with the removal and capture of Saddam Hussein. But the troubles, ranging from the failure to find banned weapons to the...costly violence, has caused Mr. Powell, Mr. Blair and other protagonist of the war to wonder whether the decision was correct  Such questioning strikes us a appropriate and necessary; the result can be to reaffirm, as Mr. Blair recently did, the decision to intervene.  But Mr. Bush told Mr. Woodward that he suffered no doubt.  He acknowledged no error; he denied that he failed to anticipate the postwar challenges.  With some passion, he said  he believed that Iraqis were entitled to freedom and that it was the duty of the US to make that possible. His idealism would inspire more confidence if it were filtered through more reflection than is evident in Plan of Attack."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38199-2004Apr23.html

The Washington Post's first editorial in weeks, "Facing Reality in Iraq" (7/8/03), summarizes the situation on the ground and suggests that the U.S. reach out more to internationalize the occupation.  Urging patience on all sides, "Wait for the facts" was their views as of July 16.  Their last editorial on Iraq in August was "A New Plan for Iraq" which dealt little with the intelligence controversy. The Post's thorough post-war special is entitled "Weapons of Mass Destruction". 

It was interesting that the Washington Post had many op-ed pieces but not a single editorial for over one week in mid-December 2003.  Perhaps they thought no new arguments could be made. One from October 12 is entitled "Iraq in Review" and deals with responding to the frequent reader question, "When are you going to admit you were wrong" citing surprises on WMD, alQaeda links and continued violence.  The Post sees the need to look back and "where necessary, re-evaluate--something the Bush administration so far has resisted."  the rare 3-page editorial looks at:  
1.  WMD and worthiness of fighting the war ("Saddam Hussein was a threat");
2.  Resolution 1441  ("He was aggressively defying it");
3.  Al Qaeda (administration officials "particularly Dick Cheney exaggerated the connection and implied without foundation that Saddam Hussein may have had something to do with the attacks of 9/11");
4.  Continuing costs ("Were we wrong?...We don't know yet...The gains so far have outweighed the costs."  

The Post editorial concludes, "The administration could improve the odds of success by forging a broader international coalition. for that to happen, the administration must drop its insistence on monopolizing power over Iraq' political transition, as well as the contracts for reconstruction. It must comprise with those well-meaning allies who want Iraq to succeed but disagree with U.S. tactics.  Success or failure in the effort to stabilize Iraq under a reasonably representative government that poses no threat to the world  will provide the ultimate answer to the question of whether the war should have been undertaken.  Because we continue to believe that U.S. security is at stake, we also believe that the U.S. must be prepared to dedicate troops and financial resources to that goal until it is achieved, even if it takes years." 

Post editorials from 2004 and 2005 are mostly included in other PS FAQs, such as Abu Ghraib or Politics/Democracy.  One of the exceptions is from June 15, a piece pleased that "the Iraq debate" has surfaced again.  "Iraq, Then and Now" argues that more than memos should be examined (See "Downing Street Memo" details).  The editorial reviewed the views of the Post from its pre-war pages. It also argues the President to "talk frankly" about where we are and realistic prospects for the future. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401383_pf.html

"The Truth About Abu Ghraib" came in late July 2005 looking at Gen. Miller, stonewalling and the "shameful story." 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/28/AR2005072801745_pf.html

Most Washington Post editorial are found in other content areas (Politics, Violence, Torture, etc.) but one from February 2, 2006 examines the President's State of the Union address.  "Retreating on the Offensive"...

On December 21, 2006, I noticed that for the first time in at least weeks, there was not a single op-ed on Iraq. The press is waiting for President Bush's new plan, to be announced in January. Gates was in as new Defense chief, and the Iraq Study Group was old news.

Taking stock of the war after a full four years was a March 18, 2007 Post piece, "Lessons of War."

On the week of September 11, Gen. Petraeus reported to Congress and the President supported his plan for a deduction in troops. The goal was to return to the pre-escalation levels of 130,000 by July. The Washington Post felt the plan was "the least bad option."

In addition to the Washington Post, The New York Times of May 25, 2003 looked into "Completing the job in Iraq" after the prison scandal and the first of Bush's speeches leading to June 30.  The editorial opened, "Obstacles remain.  Doubters abound.  But President Bush made it forcefully clear Monday night that neither he, his nation not its most loyal allies will cut and run.  Instead, Bush is committed, come June 30, to the rise of a sovereign Iraq--and to the extinction of the Coalition Provisional Authority that now governs there.

Global leaders who have long called for a more internationalized effort to build a free postwar Iraq should now put their troops, their foreign aid and their hearts into crafting a nation that enhances the security of the world."  The paper highlights some of the President's speech:   "'The terrorists will not determine the future of Iraq...We must keep our focus...We must do our duty'...The building blocks of progress he outline--in education government, commerce and exercise of personal freedom--could, if they flourish, ease the hate-filled toxicity of that often impoverished region."

The editorial concludes, "Sooner rather than later, Iraqis must take responsibility for their security.  That's their only way to insure that democracy  and freedom will survive long after coalition soldiers depart.  The current unrest, this second battle for Iraq, underscores the importance of convincing the Iraqi people that a county stolen form them long ago will soon be theirs." 

Three days later the Times editorial envisioned the challenge for Americans to see "the road to a better Iraq" when they "have not been introduced to Iraqi leaders with popular backing who are committed to tolerance, civil rights and democracy...The feckless IGC created by the occupation authorities has lost credibility by its mute passivity" to the April violence in Fallujah and elsewhere.  The paper urged making the UN "a real partner."  They are concerned that the rationale for the war "has quickly morphed into a negative one.  If the troops leave, bloody civil war would probably follow and Iraq, which had not been a haven for terrorists, could easily become one."  Only two days before the President's prime time press conference, the Times concludes, "What we need desperately is a clear mission, a believable strategy for success, a morally viable exit plan and international involvement.  Instead, the administration's current strategy seems to be simply urging perseverance  Staying the course is noble when the cause is right.  But perseverance for the sake of perseverance is  foolhardy" (4/11/04). 

The paper's "A Stronger Force in Iraq" (4/25/04) felt that Rumsfeld was "right about the lightning strike into Baghdad, but he was tragically wrong about everything else...The White House does not talk about it much, but the Pentagon is planning to stay in Iraq at least until the end of 2006.  Event that timetable is extremely optimistic It assumes everything will go precisely according to a plan that no one outside Mr. Bush's circle seems to understand and that has certainly not worked well so far."  The Times criticizes the administration's failure to refuse to "take the political risk that comes with asking the voters for real sacrifice.  The president led the public un underestimate the time it would take to turn Iraq into a stable democracy and the likely cost in money and blood.  Even now he is trying to avoid admitting that Congress needs additional appropriations for war...Iraqi civilian casualties mount and the Iraqi people, who were supposed to get their freedom, are prisoners in their homes while street crime, terrorist violence and insurrection are rife." The New York paper concludes....

Most Times  editorials from 2005 are included under a more specific topic, such as Abu Ghraib.or Iraqi Elections.  Among the exceptions was "A Divided Iraq" of May 20, 2005,  It opens, "The Bush administration has finally awakened to the grave dangers Iraq' new government is courting by failing to reach out convincingly to credible representatives of the disaffected Sunni Arab minority"  The paper worries about the end of the post-election high hopes.  'Iran is already reinforcing its ties to Iraq's new Shiite leadership."  The Times is concerned that only two Sunnis are among the 55-member parliamentary panel to be drafting a new Constitution.  

The editorial concludes, "unless lower and middle echelon Baathists are allowed to serve, much of the Sunni professional class will remain excluded from government and sympathetic to the insurgents.  Millions of Shiites and Kurds risked their lives to vote in January because they wanted to help build a better, more democratic Iraq  The intervening months have been hugely disillusioning , with polls now showing a stunning 40-percentage-pint drop in public confidence since January, as politicians have squabbled, insurgent attacks have soared and public services have further deteriorated."

A more general Iraq Times editorial (6/25/05) highlights "Three Things About Iraq" Sept. 11, safety from terrorism, and the war faulty war plan.  It opens, "To have the sober conversation...that American badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:  The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11...Yet the president and his supporters continue to duck behind 9/11 whenever they feel pressure about what is happening...The war has not made the word, or this nation, safer form terrorism.  The breeding grounds for terrorists used to be Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; now Iraq has become one. Of all the justification for invading...the only one that has held up over time is the desire to create a democratic nation that could help stabilize the Middle East....  If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan...A top general said this week that the insurgency is growing...If things are going to be turned around, there has to be an honest discussion. about what is happening. But Mr. Rumsfeld was not interested.  Sneering at his Democratic questioners, he insisted everything was on track and claimed 'dozens of trained battalions are capable of conducting anti-insurgent operation' with American support.  that would be great news if it were true."  The piece concludes, "Americans cannot judge for themselves because the administration has decided to make the information secret." 

A late July editorial from the Times (7/27/05)similarly saw that we are "Off Course in Iraq"  and opened. Most of the Bush administration's justification for invading Iraq have turned out to be wrong" but the one "surviving argument" if bringing freedom and equality.  "For those of us holding onto that hope, this week brought disheartening news on multiple fronts."  Rights for Iraqi women may have backwards with the August constitution.  "Unless these draft provisions are radically revised, crucial personal freedoms that survived Saddam Hussein's tyranny are about to be lost under a document government sponsored the protected by the US.  Is this the kind of freedom president Bush claims is on the march in the Middle East?  Is this the example American hopes Iraq will set for other states in the region? Is this what American soldiers, men and women, are dying to bring about?  

The editorial worries about the Sunni majority being treated with "contempt and suspicion", its leaders assassinated, and Chalabi firing judges.  The piece concludes, "Mr. Bush owes Americans a better explanation for what his polices are producing in Iraq than tired exhortations to stay the course and irrelevant invocation of Al Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  Most days, the news from Iraq is dominated by suicide bombers and frightening scenes of carnage.  Occasionally the smoke clear for a day or two to reveal the underlying picture.  That looks even scarier."

Reacting to the President's speeches of late August, the August 24 Times feels he said "exactly the wrong thing" by "repeatedly invoking Sept. 11...No one wants young men and women to die just because others have already made the ultimate sacrifice...Most American believed that their country had invaded Iraqi to eliminate WMD, but we know now that those weapons did not exist.  If we had all know then what we know now, the invasion would have been stopped by a popular outcry, no matter what other motives the president and his advisers may have had.  It is also very clear, although the president has done his level best to muddy the picture, that Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11.  Mr. Bush's insistence on making that link, over and over, is irresponsible,.  In fact, it was the American-led invasion that turned Iraq into a haven for Islamist extremists."  

One week before the October 15 Constitutional referendum, the Times was upset over the changing of the rules, which turned out to be temporary.  "It Depends on What 'Voter' Means" feels the change was "an excellent way to subvert the entire idea of a democratic process."  With a flash back to Clinton and Lewinsky, the Shiites and Kurds "are interpreting the word 'voter' to mean two things in the same sentence" which is "patently absurd" and the Sunnis are right to resist.  After the UN confirmed that the change would violate international electoral standards and the US no doubt pressured from behind the scenes, the interim Parliament changed its mind.  What responsibility should Sunnis have?  "...It is also important for Sunni Arabs to start assuming responsibility for what they have done to subvert hopes for a peaceful and democratic Iraq...Few Sunni leaders have spoken out against the terrorist attacks." 

Two editorials reacted to the President's major speech of early October, 2005 with a few comments on 9/11 and other on Iraq:  "It seemed as if the President was still trying to live in 2001..He seemed to be reading from a very old and familiar script."

The "old themes on Iraq" included frustration at the President  telling Americans "to ignore their own eyes and ears and pretend everything is going just fine...Mr. Bush suggested that people who doubt that nation-building is going well are just confusing healthy disagreements with dangerous division...American want to believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel...and Mr. Bush offered quite a bit.  'Area by area, city by city, we're conducing offensive operation to clear out enemy forces and leaving behind Iraqi units to prevent the enemy from returning.'"  But, the paper points out, towns which are "cleared out" often have insurgents soon return.  "If Mr. Bush still cannot acknowledge the flaws in his policy, how can he fix them?  

The Times concludes that it is maddening "to listen to him describe the perils that Iraq poses while denying that his policies set them in motion.  It is hard to argue with his assertion that if militants controlled Iraq they would be well positioned 'to develop WMD; to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the America people and to blackmail our government into isolation.'  It is also hard to resist the temptation to say he should have thought of that before invading."

October 2005 Times editorials included "A Flicker of Hope in Iraq" (10/13/05)during the Constitution vote.  What is the logical basis for staying the course?  It is the hope that in the end, Iraqis "can be put on the road to a stable, inclusive government.  That hope has come close to extinction many times.  But today it seems a little more substantial...Plainly, this isn't textbook democrat procedure" to amend the document at the last minute and assumptions that it "may soon be radically rewritten....The most important part" is that the Sunnis are "still smarting over their loss of power, but at least some now appear ready to channel their grievances into constitutional and electoral processes.  And an encouraging number of Shiites and Kurds appear at last to recognize that they have been endangering their own dreams of peace and a national recovery by stoking the alienation and rage that have been consuming much of the Sunni community."

The piece worries about Kurds and Shiites being willing to compromise on the document later.  "And that will still leave the fundamental legal rights of Iraqi women insufficiently protected."  The "paper or record" concludes hopefully:  "But if the tentative political trends that produced this weeks' deal can be sustained and extended, those who have sacrificed so much to give Iraq the opportunity for freedom will have some reason to believe their efforts many not be in vain." 

The President, low in poll ratings, went on the offensive in mid-November.  He claimed that opponents of the war of irresponsibly "rewriting history" about how the war began.  The Times was harsh and direct in their criticism. 

"Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials" (11/15/05) begins, "To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statement before the war...[he] has tired denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence.  He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as...Clinton.  He's tried to pass he buck and blame the CIA.  Lately he's...accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists...He claims that question his actions three years ago is betrayal of the troops in battle today.  It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance.  But like the WMD reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true."

The Times then looked specifically at the use of pre-war intelligence.  For careful readers of this web site, much of the editorial is old information.  A summary of the main points follows:

"A Timetable for Mr. Bush" (11/17/05) affirms that "Americans must ask themselves every day whether the troops who are risking their lives in Iraq are doing anything more than postponing the inevitable.  The one frail hope for a better outcome lies with the ongoing struggle to create a democratic central government...We are encouraged by the high participation in elections."  The paper, less liberal now, than some in Congress, warns that "a precipitous withdrawal at this point would be counterproductive."

On political matters, the constitution is "unsatisfactory. It shortchanges the Sunni minority and fails to provide Iraqi women the guarantee that they will not wind up worse off...The Iraqi leaders have promised to change it....Washington needs to carefully scrutinize how quickly and how fully they honor that promise."  

The paper concludes, "President Bush has lost the confidence of the American people, and his own party, when it comes to handling Iraq.  If he wants to win it back, he must come up with a very clear road map for what he expects, both politically and militarily, from the Iraqi government...If the president fails, the American public has a timetable of its own.  Elections for the House and the Senate are less than a year away." 

Four days later "Accountability Begins at Home" (11/21/05) focused on uncovering of Shiite torture and the hypocritical US criticism of torture. Criticism of Iraqis would be much easier "if it were not for American's tarnished reputation when it comes to torture...the moral high ground...is lost by refusing to deal honestly with the abuse of prisoners by American forces...This same administration, however, has spend the last 18 months obstructing the Senate' inquires into Abu Ghraib and other aspects of the prison abuse mess."  The editorial concludes, "We're happy the administration pressed for a full accounting of abuse of Iraqis by Iraqis.  Now, about the abuse of Iraqis by Americans..."

"Iraqis Getting Together" (11/24/05) is concerned with a vague constitution , encouraged by the Cairo conference, but "scarcely encouraged" by the situation on the ground.  "The papers continued to not support "a precipitous US troop withdrawal...based on an arbitrary American timetable." 

Reaction to the President's October 31 speech from the New York Times felt that the President needed a "better sense of reality," as they editorialized in "Plan:  We Win." 

The Times of 2006 included the Feb. 12 "The Trust Gap."  It highlighted domestic spying, prison camps, and the war in Iraq.  "We can't think of a president who has gone to the American people more often...to ask them to forget about things like democracy, judicial process and the balance of powers--and just trust him. We also can't think of a president who has deserved that trust less."  On prison camps, "nothing has changed" in two years since the first Abu Ghraib pictures.  On the war, the administration blocks investigations on the use of pre-war intelligence, cherry picked intelligence (see "Was the War Inevitable?"), and "never asked for as assessment on the consequences of invading Iraq until a year after the invasion." 

A September 24 Times editorial covered a number of topics. "Facing Facts on Iraq" included the "dominant feature" of life is growing violence not growing democracy. "Every Iraqi knows this. Americans needs to know it too. Beyond the futility of simply staying the course lies the impossibility of keeping the bulk of American ground forces...indefinately." 42 months is longer than World War II and is "undermining the long-term strength of the Army and Marines, threatening to divert the National Guard from homeland security and emboldening Iran and North Korea."

"The Age of Impunity" came on October 12, with news of Darfur, Iran, and a North Korean nuclear test. "It wasn't supposed to be this way. The Iraq war and President Bush's with-us-or-against-us war on terrorism was supposed to frighten the bad guys so much that they wouldn't dare cross the US. But the opposite has happened. President Bush has squandered so much of America's moral authority--not to mention our military resources-that efforts to shame or bully the right behavior from adversaries (and allies) sound hollow...There is plenty of blame to go around." The paper concludes, "We fear it will take a lot more than the trials of a few low-level prison guard to repair the damage, whether from Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the secret prisons or the whole mismanaged Iraq war. There can be no impunity at home either."

Reaction to the Iraqi Study Group of December 2006 came with "Without Deliberate Speed."

Reaction to the President's January 2007 "surge" speech came with views that it is "past time to get real" (1/9/07) because this time down the same road will not be different. The President repeats and promises "the same old set of failed approaches and unachievable objectives. Americans need to hear Mr. Bush offer something truly new-not more glossy statements about ultimate victory, condescending platitudes about what hard work war is, or aimless vows to remain 'until the job is done." The paper wishes Bush would focus on political solutions as much as military. Yet, We can't "turn our back" on Iraq after our troops leave.

An overview Times editorial followed on January 14. The paper is concerned with the President's disconnect and America's "anguish over this unnecessary, mismanaged, and now unwinnable war...There are no really satisfying answers...since all of the remaining options are bad. Still, some are notably worse than others, and Mr. Bush has come up with possible the worst [surge]." Unlike the President, "our views have evolved as the evident realities on the ground have changed." Maliki seemed cold to the surge plan, and he should be "delivered an ultimatum....But even knowing all that, American cannot simply wash its hands of Iraq and go home." Congress should ask hard questions and get answers before providing more funds. "Congress has the authority to attach conditions to that money, imposing benchmarks and timetables on Mr .Bush." The "paper of record" concludes, "It's now up to Congress to...rescue this country from he consequences of one of its worst strategic blunders in modern times. History will surely blame Mr. Bush for leading American into Iraq, but it will blame Congress if it does not act to push him onto a more realistic path."

In early March came another overview editorial from the Times, entitled "The Must Do List". It focused on torture, spying, and prisoner rights.

April 12 brought "Four Years Later in Iraq" as the lead Times editorial. "Four years ago this week, as American troops made their first, triumphant entrance into Baghdad, joyous Iraqis pulled down a giant statue of Saddam Hussein. It was powerful symbolis--a murderous dictator toppled, Baghdadis taking to the streets without fear, American soldier hailed as liberators. After four years of occupation, untold numbers killed" the anniversary was marked by thousands of Iraqis again taking to the streets, this time in Najaf, burning American flags and chanting, "Death to Americas." Maliki must act or security gains are not possible. The man who helped knock down Hussein's statue says the change or regimes "achieves nothing." He has come to hate the US military presence he once welcomed. Concludes the paper, "There is no possible triumph in Iraq and very little hope left."

Late August's "The Problem Isn't Mr. Maliki" (8/24/07) expresses that "there can be no serious argument for buying still more time at the cost of still more American lives and an ever greater cost for Iraqis." A recent op-ed by seven US soldiers "underscored the extent to which American troops have worn out their welcome among Iraqis as social and economic conditions have deteriorated and rampant lawlessness has destroyed the most basic sense of personal security."

The paper of record's end of the year retrospective was the much-forwarded "Looking at America." (12/31/07). They are concerned about a number of issues, mostly relating to the Constitution and to secrecy. These issues include cover up of torture by the CIA, the image of America being "trampled on the consitutional pillars that have supported our democracy." In the illegal and immoral treatment of prisoners, "a few have been punished but their leaders have never been called to account." Another concern is "wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant." After mentioned Gitmo, the Times concludes their last lead editorial of 2007 thusly: "We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see once again, the reflection of the United States of America."

The Chicago Tribune, which supported the war and endorsed President Bush's re-election, would sometimes disagree with the New York Times and less often with the Washington Post.  The Tribune's December 28, 2004 piece, "The minority interest in Iraq", included , "It is hard to picture a postponement [of the January elections] at this late date.  The Shiite reaction would be furious--and possibly violent.  Yet the new government will have a dim future unless it can enjoy legitimacy among Iraqis of all ethnic and religious groups.  

"...a fresh spirit into Iraq" was the Chicago paper's March 29, 2005 thinking.  Stories of  Iraqis civilians and troops taking on a greater role against insurgents led the paper to encouraged President Bush to stay the course.  "...US soldiers will remain in Iraq as along as they are welcome and their mission is unfinished.  That essentially means fortifying Iraq's security forces so they can defeat the insurgent sand nurturing a stable, democratic government in the country.  These two preconditions for withdrawal are easier said than done--but doable."  The editorial concludes, "Stories of Iraqis attacking insurgents, and of democratically elected leaders crafting a government, are only snapshots in time.  But they are the snapshots that all of us who care about a safer, freer world have been waiting to see."

The Tribune's June 19, 2005 lead editorial, entitled, "The unfinished job in Iraq" recalled that four times previously Americans "have imagined a path home for US troops":  the collapse of the regime, the capture of Saddam, the June 2004 turnover of power, and the January 2005 elections.  "Telegraphing withdrawal plans to foes or to friends--You just hang in there while we pack to leave-- is lunacy...Suicide bombers will never rule Iraq.  But when, many American want to know, will Iraqis rule and protect Iraq?...It is time for the president to step forward"  The paper believes that "Jihad terror groups...will profit immeasurably and for decades if they force America to turn tail...We need to win in Iraq, because the only alternative is to lose, there and elsewhere."  

"The challenge for Muslims" came after the July 7 bombings in London and linked it to Iraq.  "The debate about whether US polices in Iraq or elsewhere are to blame for suicide bombings or other terrorist acts is largely misguided and futile.  It not only blames the victim for the crime, but allows the terrorists to dictate American foreign policy and specify the terms upon which they may be persuade to stop the attacks...It's worth noting that suicide bombers attacked this nation...long before Iraq or Afghanistan.  And terrorists who decry the mistreatment of Muslim in one part of the world say nothing while Muslim insurgents slaughter Islamic civilians day after day...The results often is a culture that glorifies death...

But as...Blair recently said, this is no clash of civilization:  'All civilized people, Muslim or other, feel revulsion at it.'"  The Chicago paper then examined a Pew poll where  in most majority-Muslim counties "support for suicide bombings and other acts of violence in defense of Islam has declined significantly.  In Turkey, Morocco and Indonesia, 15 percent or fewer now say such action are justifiable."

On nation building, the August 3 lead editorial of the Tribune saw it as imperative that the constitution not be delayed, as only a united Iraq can defeat the insurgency.  Only then can the US start to draw down its forces.  "A constitution won't answer all question or ease all frictions between" the three major groups...A constitution is a starting point."

With the Constitution nearly complete the Tribune's August 23 lead editorial saw in the midst of rancor, optimism "that the political process toward a democratic Iraq can remain on course."  Labeling the Sunnis as "obstructionist" who should "reluctantly get on board."  Taking a broader views, the paper continued, "The inauguration of the Iraqi Governing Council, the writing of an interim Constitution , the high-turnout election last January to form a National Assembly, and now the likelihood of a Constitutional referendum in just 53 days--all must infuriate Iraq's insurgents."  Yet the paper had some doubts and warned that "staying the course indefinitely is not an option."  

At the end of August, after the new Constitution was revealed, the Tribune's "When elitist have to face facts" criticized Sunnis for not being a more positive force in the political process.  As with the January 2004 elections Sunnis had their "pride wounded anew by their inability to thwart the drafting process."  They now face a choice, to swallow their pride and work within the process or "instead oppose...and stall the creation of a permanent government--one they know they cannot dominate/"  The editorial continues, "Iraq's current dilemma isn't what the Bush administration--or many Iraqis--wanted.  That said, Sunni intransigence hasn't been able to block Iraq's march toward a Constitution and a nation election in December.  So the Sunnis have the face fats:  First, their long domination of Iraq is over.  Second, as Bush said last week, they must decide whether they want to live in freedom or amid violence.  Third, no Constitution can satisfy everyone."  

In December 2005 the Tribune concluded their nine-part editorial with conclusion on "Judging the case for war".  See "Was The War Inevitable?" for details. 

A November 22, 2005 Tribune editorial reacted to "the war in Washington" following Rep. John Murtha speech about bringing the troops home soon.  The paper spoke first of the good news from elections and the writing and approval of the constitution The "relentless violence" threatens these achievements.

Then, after Murtha's statements "the debate got ugly...They went to war in Washington.  That was a mistake.  The administration and its Republican defenders serve neither themselves not the country by attacking the patriotism of those who question US policy...The security mission goes to the heart of American unease...John Murtha offers an intriguing ideas...But it is premature to withdraw now....Congress did not authorizing this war in order to topple a dictator and then let his shell-shocked populace fend for itself.  The point was--and is--to create a free, peaceful and democratic Iraq that will play a leading, positive role in the changing landscape of the Middle East." 

"One Iraq or three?" titles the lead Tribune editorial of October 8, 2006. The complex debate is about oil, religion, sect, ethnicity, power, national identity, and politics. According to the Constitution, any split "would be delayed until at least 2008...It's impossible to tell how all this will play out." The Chicago paper warns that a Shiite bloc "is likely to become a satellite of Iran, the big winner in any split. If the goal is to tamp down the violence, a fractured Iraq isn't likely to be suddenly peaceful."

The Chicago Tribune's lengthy lead editorial of November 24, as the reports of the Sadr City violence were coming in, was still hopeful. The central question is how to secure "a peaceful, democratic Iraq." Should we negotiate with Syria and Iraq? What should happen to troop levels? "There is little reason to believe that a short-term surge of troops would have a dramatic lasting effect on Baghdad security." We could send more advisers. The paper concludes, "the solution has to come from within Iraq. The biggest challenge: disarming Shiite militias..." Also see "US Troops Home?" FAQ.

The Chicago Tribune also blames Maliki (8/27/2007 lead editorial) for the "power failure...He's failed so far to kindle enough cooperation among sectarian factions to pass key laws. In the way, al-Maliki and his government may prove to be far more effective in pushing Americans out of Iraq than Al Qaeda could ever dream to be."

Prior to Super Tuesday of February 5, 2008, theTribune endorsed both Obama and McCain. The Clintons depicting Obama's record on Iraq as "a fairy tale" is "instructive: Think what you will of the war; but Sen. Clinton was a enabler when that was popular. In Kerryspeak, she was for the war before she was against the war." On McCain, the Chicago paper wrote, "His unswerving commitment to victory in Iraq is the likely template. He has never brooked defeatism because the consequences of defeat are so sever. McCain instead urged a troop surge to calm Iraq and, now that it's working, he deflect the credit the the general who executed it."

The Times endorsed both Clinton and McCain. On the Democratic side, the "paper of record" reminds readers that they opposed the war and disagreed with Clinton's vote "for the resolution on the use of force. That's not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq's chaos after American troops leave." On McCain, the New York paper is pleased that he was "one of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war...was being managed. We wish he could now see as clearly past the temporary victories produced by Mr. Bush' unsustainable escalation, which have not led to any change in Iraq's murderous political calculus At the last, he owes Americans a real idea of how he would win this war, which he says he can do."

Taking a long-term view was the mid-february editorial of the Tribune, "Iraq's breakthrough." The Chicago paper focuses on politics in Iraq and the US, asking Democrats to admit to positive developments. Violence has "plummeted and streams of emigres" are retuning to Baghdad." (For details on how many are returning see "Life Better for Iraqis" FAQ). And Iraq's political leaders "finally held up their end of the bargain...That's huge progress. Yes, there's still much to do." But the paper feels that one wouldn't know there was significant change by listening to Clinton, Obama, or Congressional leaders. Pelosi declared the surge "a failure." Obama and Clinton "have grudgingly acknowledged a glint of progress. But they've programmed their Iraq comments in a way that suggests they haven't read a headline in a year." Democrats need to be talking about "how to leave Iraq when it is a stable Iraq. That also means McCain will have to acknowledge the enormous costs of this war." The Sunni reversal in alliances "certainly has been a key reason--perhaps the key reason--the surge has worked."

Among other editorials during 2003 was the liberal Capital Times of Madison.  The paper feels the President is wrong that "'Because America acted...and led, America and the world are safer.'"  They feel that Iraq posed no serious threat and now living through a nightmare.  "Islamic fundamentalist terrorists groups that had not previous operated here--because of the militant secularism of...Saddam...appear now to be operating in many regions of the county...How can the president be so ill-informed?  How can he not recognize what people around the planet, and an ever-growing percentage of the American population, see so clearly:  That the invasion and occupation of Iraq drew resources, energy, and attention away from efforts to combat the most serious threats facing the US and the world?" ("Not-So-Curious George (Bush)", 8/12/04)
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0812-01.htm

The USA Today wrote "Constitution, Iraqi or US aren't' built in a day" in mid-August.  They raised the conundrum that democracy "has not chance of success in Iraq without continued US backing, but it is not at all certain that it will succeed even if the US stay indefinitely.  So when do you decide the mission is futile?  The short answer is not now...Establishing a new and democratic government is never easy...Iraq is a patchwork of ethnic and religious division, stitched together under British occupation after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire."  The largest circulating US paper concludes, "The odds that the fractious Iraqis will adopt a broadly accepted constitution--and follow through with the election of a new sovereign government later this year--may not seem very good.  But it remains the last, best hope of salvaging an acceptable outcome to the morass the Iraq war has become."

In August of 2007, the USA Today feels there is little political progress in Iraq. The Iraqi Parliament, often lacking a quorum, took a one month"ill timed" recess. When US troops leave, will any success evaporate?