This war is idiotic, the work of a madman.
News reports should be making that clear.
And newspaper editorial boards should be calling for it to stop.
This is not a tough one. People are dying and killing for no good reason. The U.S. is committing war crimes (and bragging about it.) The war is illegal and unconstitutional. Americans oppose it by wide margins.
And yet the only major American news outlet that I’ve seen calling for an end to war in its editorials is… actually British. It’s the Guardian. And even they were pretty meek about it.
The Guardian Wants Out
In its Thursday editorial, the Guardian actually focused on how “it is the world’s poorest and most vulnerable who will be worst hit” — certainly an important point. Almost as an afterthought, in the middle of the final paragraph, the editorial noted that “what is needed most is an end to this disastrous and illegal war.”
The New York Times Ducks
And don’t look to the New York Times editorial board for a principled stand on the most important issue of the moment. Although it’s the most influential editorial board in the country – which is not necessarily saying much — it has published only two editorials about the war.
One was on the first day and it boldly concluded: “We lament that Mr. Trump is not treating war as the grave matter that it is.”
Then there was one more editorial, on the second day. It noted that Trump had gone to war “without explaining his strategy for the future and without the support of almost any other ally.” Therefore, “there are reasons to worry about what comes next,” it said. It urged Trump to “work with Congress” and “bring international partners into the fold.”
So weak.
And since then, crickets.
How shameful.
The Washington Post Whiffs
My expectations were not high for the Washington Post editorial board, which Jeff Bezos has stocked with semi-literate reactionaries. But I was still disappointed.
The Post has published one sole editorial about the war, on the first day, which inanely concluded: “Whether Trump has made the right call will hinge on factors now beyond his control.”
The Post’s board does seem to have a thing about oil prices, though. It published a quickly belied editorial on March 3 headlined: “The U.S. has oil insurance; It’s called the free market.” Then on March 9 it published another piece about oil that I can’t decipher enough to summarize.
The Los Angeles Times Really Whiffs
The Los Angeles Times editorial board, which appears to consist only of its loony billionaire owner and one other person, doesn’t publish much these days, and hasn’t opined about the war at all.
Among other major newspapers, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Chicago Tribune editorial boards haven’t called for the war to end, but they have been highly – sometimes blisteringly — critical.
The Philadelphia Inquirer Stings
A Philadelphia Inquirer editorial published on March 2 opened with a bang: “Donald Trump, the president of war, keeps killing people at home and abroad.” In this case, it said, “Trump violated the Constitution (again) by going to war without consent from Congress and unleashed more chaos.” It reproached “the bloodthirsty leaders of Israel and Saudi Arabia” for egging Trump on. And it concluded: “Now, with no clear exit strategy in Iran, Trump appears poised to continue to try to bomb his way to a Nobel Peace Prize, while making a mockery of America.”
And a March 12 editorial bemoaned that “The U.S. is now led by a confederacy of dunces,” and said that “Trump has no idea what he is doing, and his word is no good.” It concluded that “the president wreaks global chaos and accomplishes little beyond sowing death, destruction, and suffering.”
The Chicago Tribune Warns
The Chicago Tribune editorial board wrote on March 1 that it “won’t miss” Ali Khamenei, but warned of the possible consequences: “We only wish we had more confidence in Trump’s follow-through skills.”
On March 8, it published an editorial headlined “Israel’s rationale for change in Iran is clear. But the American rationale is murky indeed.”
On March 10, it called attention to the human costs of war: “Behind every military objective are ordinary people who will live with the brutal consequences long after the bombs stop falling.”
And on March 11, it called on the White House to “take the possibility of a draft off the table.”
The Albany Times-Union Scolds
The Albany Times Union, in a March 2 editorial, criticized Trump for initiating a war without a credible case or a plan. “It’s one thing to degrade Iran’s navy and re-obliterate its nuclear program. It’s quite another to turn a repressive, terrorism-sponsoring state into … well, what? Mr. Trump has given no sign that he has even a vague concept of what long-term success would look like.”
Another Times Union editorial, on March 23, decried Trump’s dishonest attempt to blame Iran for the U.S. attack on an Iranian girls school. “In a time of war, the American public needs honesty more than ever. When our sons and daughters may be asked to put their lives on the line, when we are asked to weather risks to our economy and international relationships, we need to know why, and we need to be able to believe the answer.”
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Says Scale It Back
The editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which is closing in May, urged Trump to seek narrow goals.
A March 3 editorial warned: “There is no better way to ensure an open-ended and ruinous commitment, as Trump and his advisors should know better than most, than having unclear war aims.”
The on March 8, an editorial argued that “There is only one way to minimize the costs of opening a war with Iran while still achieving some positive goal: Sharply limit the war’s scope. Iran’s ability to project power has been significantly degraded in the past week. Let that be enough.” It continued: “Now is not the time for machismo, but for sober strategizing. Blowing things up is part of winning, but it’s not winning itself. That requires virtues much harder to come by: judgment, understanding, humility and the ability to accept a limited victory that’s in America’s, and the world’s, best interests.”
The Toledo Blade Praises
The Toledo Blade, which oddly enough is owned by the same family as the Post-Gazette, published an editorial on March 3 declaring that “President Trump’s surprise attack on Iran was a legitimate exercise in diplomacy.”
The Houston Chronicle Wants Accountability
The Houston Chronicle editorial board on Thursday addressed the parallels with the Iraq war: “The American people deserved the truth in 2003, and we deserve it now.” It also called attention to the deadly U.S. missile attack on a girls school in Iran and oil price hikes. “None of this was necessary,” the editorial said. “If the American people do not hold the president accountable for what happened to the school girls in Minab, we should, at the least, do so out of our own rational self-interest.”
The Financial Times Frets
The Financial Times editorial board on March 1 declared the war an “epic gamble” and a “fateful war of choice.” It warned: “America, the region, and Iran most of all, may come to regret it bitterly if, as so often happens in wars, this one veers off its prosecutor’s script.”
On March 10, a Financial Times editorial criticized Trump for his “cavalier attitude towards a devastating war,” and said “the war he started has no good ending.” It concluded: “Whichever path Trump now takes, it will be others who pay the price of his Iran folly.”
Bloomberg Proposes a Way Out
A Bloomberg editorial on March 2 called for “a clearer plan.” It concluded: “The American people didn’t ask for this war. They’re owed not just a better explanation, but also a wide-ranging effort by the administration to ensure that the risks being taken by troops in the field, the costs paid by civilians in the region and the damage done to U.S. credibility aren’t in vain.”
In a March 10 editorial it argued that “what’s needed is a negotiated solution — one that leaves Iran whole and stable, but contained militarily.”
The Wall Street Journal Waves the Pom Poms
The cheerleading for the war has been led by newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch, particularly the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial board keeps pushing Trump to go further.
On March 1, it warned against ending the war too soon.
On March 2, it called the war “a necessary act of deterrence” that “has the potential to reshape the Middle East for the better and lead to a safer world.”
On March 3, it warned of “false inflation alarms” intended “to spook President Trump.”
The Journal’s most unintentionally laughable editorial ran on March 4, when it mocked “the media and political class” for needlessly worrying about the war’s effects on the financial markets, the possibility of a regional war, and how “there’s no plan for how this ends”.
On March 9, it warned that “stopping now amid some short-term economic discomfort would be a victory for the mullahs.”
On March 10, it urged Trump to capture Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, with troops on the ground if necessary.
And on March 13, in an editorial headlined “Will Trump ‘Fight to Win’ in Iran?,” the board urged Trump not to stop the war until Iran no longer has the capability to close the Strait of Hormuz.
The New York Post Kvells
The editorial board of the Murdoch-owned New York Post, on the first day of the war, saluted “Trump’s bold move to rid the world of Iran’s evil regime once and for all.”
On March 1, a Post editorial proclaimed that “it’s clearly time to retire TACO — the snarky claim that ‘Trump always chickens out.’”
But on March 11, a slightly less cocky editorial board acknowledged that “regular Americans and experts… have good reason to feel confused.” So, it said, “the nation’s leaders need to start giving the public a regular, clear, concrete sense of how Operation Epic Fury is proceeding.”
Press Watch Despairs
I guess the editorial boards that criticize the war but don’t call for it to end are doing so because they want to seem realistic.
And calling on Trump to explain himself better, or consult Congress, or consider limiting his goals sounds much more grown up than stomping your feet and yelling: “Out!”
Furthermore, it’s not like leading Democrats are loudly demanding an immediate cessation of the war, either. Most of them are focusing on procedural stuff, which is important but not immediate.
Me, I just watch the death toll (on both sides) grow, and I want to shout. It makes no sense and I want the killing to end.
And heck, at some point Trump is probably going to declare victory and bug out, so why not now?
Now would be better. I think a lot of the members of a lot of these editorial boards think so, too. I call on them to stop holding back, to be brave, and to shout it from the rooftops: STOP THE WAR!