The Media Ignore Progress, Yet Again

In May, 19 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq. This marks the lowest monthly death toll of U.S. troops since the war began in 2003. While this by no means erases the meaning of the individuals' lives lost, it does show that there have been improvements in the war-torn country. So, with death rates declining and with progress more than immanent, why have the U.S. media been so reluctant to cover Iraq? The Washington Post's editorial board weighs in:

"THERE'S BEEN a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war."

This lag in news coverage is intriguing, considering the overall progress that has been made. It's ironic that the only time the media are harping on Iraq is when death and destruction have taken center stage. Why is it that when progress is made, the media decide to turn away? What in this world could possibly be more newsworthy than the war that liberals have continuously berated actually taking a turn for the better?

Now, don't get me wrong. The war was mismanaged, which surely called for anger and responsiveness on behalf of the American people. But at a time when positive advances are being made, everyone should be standing behind the mission and recognizing the importance of completing it. Unfortunately, this isn't the case.

We've reached an odd crossroads in America. Today, the defeatists seem to have an upper hand, as their negativity has guided the nation into a mentality that continues to trick citizens into believing that this war is lost.  Unfortunately for the defeatists, recent developments show that the U.S. is actually winning in Iraq.

So, while the media fail to properly report the positives, we're forced to listen to Barack Obama and his enthusiasts devilishly try to appeal to a war-weary nation as they call for complete abandonment of a war that might actually be successful. What will Obama say once he realizes that the U.S. might actually win the mission? And wouldn't it help if the media would do their job and actually report on the positive strides that have been made?

I'm not the first person to complain about this. Conservative angst has existed since the beginning of the surge, as commentators have relentlessly made the case that the media have ignored the positive results that emerged from the troop surge.

"Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites." - The Washington Post

Perhaps Hot Air says it best:

"The defeatists have been exposed. They cannot run, but they can keep spinning. Even their colleagues in the media have begun to notice the good news, however, and the facade of defeat has begun its inevitable collapse."

Let's hope that the defeatists don't win.  Their ideology is counterproductive and could lead the U.S. to prematurely pull out of a volatile region before getting the job done.  We don't need leaders making false promises; what we need is to complete our pledge to the Iraqi people, while remaining realistic about the challenges ahead.  While the mission may not be easy, abandoning Iraq should be America's last resort.