Misleading Headlines

Anyone reading today’s Journal quickly would probably think that things are going better in the U.S. war effort. “Civilian Deaths in Iraq Fall” (A-1 above the fold) and “NATO Quashes Taliban Spring Offensive” (A-5). To the Journal’s credit, the Iraq article’s subhead is “U.S. Casualties up since Operation Began,” and the record level of our soldiers’ attrition is noted.

This is the second day in a row the Journal has put our soldiers’ sacrifice on the front page, a crucial story for keeping our citizens informed about one dimension of the horrific cost of this war.

The Afghanistan headline is misleading, as the body of the article actually shows that we have many military problems there, and things are not going well. Additionally, any article on this war needs to mention the Russians military disaster in Afghanistan, as the Taliban resurgence ominously builds up again. These folks have beaten great powers before!

‘Impressions’ are important, and one has to read closely to absorb the details in both articles indicating the long term problem that both wars represent.

The articles provide no hint of the historical and political morass that our involvement in both countries represents, not to mentions the fact that almost all observers, including former and current military men, believe that there is NO MILITARY solution to these conflicts.

More importantly, the articles do not suggest that when (if) we leave Iraq and Afghanistan, the region will undoubtedly remain unstable and bloody, as it has for centuries.

The Iraq headline could have more accurately read, “‘Progress’ in Iraq?: At Heavy Cost.” The Afghanistan HL could have read, “Illusory Gains Against Taliban.”

Lastly, one continues to wish for the Journal to run a page one series on the totality of the cost of these wars, balanced against the probability that all our blood and treasure are being wasted.