New York Times editorial: "The United States cannot walk away"

Usually, when the New York Times editorial page prints something I agree with, I'll do a teaser here, and make you click through to see who wrote the article. Not this time, though.

That's because I want it in the title. I want everyone to know that even the New York Times understands that abandoning Iraq would be suicide for the West, and the the US is the only one that can prevent that.

My friends over at NewsBusters are predicting that as the Democrats, and the press, warm up to this new conventional wisdom, that we'll hear a lot of "I always said..." and "I've always believed..." related to the continued effort in Iraq, and that the press will give the Democrats a pass on the flip-flop. I agree with this, and it's their job to focus on that.

However, as someone who's quite fond of Western civilization, I am very happy about a couple of things that seem to come from this.

For many months, those of us with our head on straight have been asking those who would quit on Iraq what they thought would happen to Iraq after we left. They didn't really answer, because the truth is ugly and nasty, and conjures images that deeply offend liberal sensibilities... genocide, civil war, ethnic oppression, aggression by neighbors, and the potential for an Al Qaeda stronghold in an advanced, educated Middle Eastern society that has had chemical weapons, biological weapons, and a nuclear program that was ready to go.

So, instead of answering the question, they changed their position. They put their own emotions aside, and saw reality, and they are starting to recognize the job that lies ahead of us.

It's also interesting that the press - and the Democrats - don't seem to think that giving up and going home is the key to winning elections.

This is good news.