The Washington Post had another "Topic A" feature onAugust 31, headlined "Is the War in Afghanistan Worth Fighting?" Acrucial debate, to be sure;the Post found one person (Andrew Bacevich) to argue that it is not, which is probably a position close to the majority view of the American public. That position is "balanced" by four contributors whoargue the war is worth fighting, in different ways or for different reasons. This imbalance echoes the Post'sprevious presentationof the Afghanistan debate, showing once again that the paper seems to believe that a public that increasingly sees the war as a lost cause needs to be talked out of that position.
It's worth noting that conservative Post columnist George Will has written today against escalating the war (9/1/09)– under the headline "Time to Get Out of Afghanistan." While Will calls the idea of a long occupation with increased troop levels "inconceivable," it's worth noting what he's actually for:
So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.
More bombing, drones and cruise missiles. That's the Post's peacenik.