It’s not easy to write on an unexpected deadline, but sometimes the pressure to have a quick reaction makes a journalist’s id come to the surface. This is a strange “remains-to-be-seen” paragraph in the New York Times’ lead story on the killing of Osama bin Laden:
The death of Mr. bin Laden is a defining moment in the American-led war on terrorism. What remains to be seen is whether the death of the leader of Al Qaeda galvanizes his followers by turning him into a martyr, or whether it serves as a turning of the page in the war in Afghanistan and gives further impetus to the Obama administration to bring American troops home.
Hmm. If OBL’s death demoralizes Al Qaeda, it doesn’t only (or even maybe primarily) affect Afghanistan, where the Taliban are an independent force. It has global significance. Sure, if Al Qaeda crumbles, that might encourage us to leave Afghanistan (mission accomplished). But if it helps turn the Afghan war to our advantage, it might also encourage us to stay (because the war’s not such a quagmire anymore). Why is “bring American troops home” the only good possibility allowed by the Times (the bad alternative being a galvanized Al Qaeda)? Is that because it’s the alternative the NYT‘s reporters prefer? Or is it the alternative the White House spinners were pushing? …