The New York Times, having found that it fundamentally got the war in Iraq wrong (the editorial page counseled that the US lost the war, that the surge wouldn't work, genocide was preferred, and that it was pointless to stay), is trying to replicate that success in prognostication.
It's reporting that the US and Colombia are losing the war against FARC because FARC and other terrorists continue to get financing from cocaine sales.
The Times spin is that because problems remain that the war is futile and lost.
Curious position.
How about declaring that the "war on poverty" is lost since there's a poor person somewhere in the great United States and therefore devote all the tens of billions spent circling the drain on that issue annually to something more important like infrastructure? Or perhaps that the "war on drugs" in the US is a failure and use that money for something else, like tax relief or alternative energy research?
Maybe the Times would like to explain how and why NGOs are busy supporting FARC (HT: Instapundit).
No, the reason the Times pushes this story is because they can't stand to see Colombia succeed. It flies in the face of their wishful thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment