NYT Editorial, Plus Six Months

Six months ago, last July 8, the New York Times published an editorial entitled "The Road Home"  and called for the U.S. to exit from Iraq and abandon a lost cause.  The first sentence read:

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.
In short, the NYT called for an orderly withdrawal-something akin to the U.S. Marines' 1950 retreat from the Chosin Reservoir in the Korean War. The editorial read:

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs-after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops.  But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush's plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor.  Whatever his cause was, it is lost.  
The scions of the Gray Lady, declaring the war lost, announced that:

Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.
The editors dispensed their wisdom with dispassionate candor. In withdrawing from Iraq, Americans should expect undesirable outcomes to impact on the people of the region.

Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave.  There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide.  Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria.  Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs.  Perhaps more important, the invasion has created a new strong from which terrorists activity could proliferate.
The editors offered insights into the logistical considerations required for the execution of a strategic withdrawal, sometimes known by participants as a "bug out."  Under the sub-heading of "The Mechanics of Withdrawal," the editors displayed no Order of Battle maps, nor printed any echelon of redeployments.  But the journalistic generals standing post on the 600 block of 8th Avenue in New York City did provide counsel in the military art of extracting troops and materiel from a hostile environment.

The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of tons of military gear inside Iraq.  Getting that force out safely will be a formidable challenge.  The main road south to Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are organized.  Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality and backed by adequate resources.
Next, versatile minds removed their Pentagon hats and donned the wingtips of Foggy Bottom as they delivered foreign policy suggestions reference consulting with Congress and nations in the region so as to minimize the impact of a U.S. departure.

Although not the last paragraph, this summarized the assumptions driving the editors' opinion:

The United States military cannot solve the problem.  Congress and the White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome.  To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war. 
This was the collective wisdom of the New York Times editors six months ago today when they locked-and-loaded their armchairs and boldly called for the U.S. to retreat (though they avoided that word) from Iraq, and to do so without delay

In light of what's happened in Iraq since last July 8, this saying applies to the New York Times

Once a clock strikes thirteen, it's no longer wise to consider it an accurate source for telling time.   
Six months ago, last July 8, the New York Times published an editorial entitled "The Road Home"  and called for the U.S. to exit from Iraq and abandon a lost cause.  The first sentence read:

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.
In short, the NYT called for an orderly withdrawal-something akin to the U.S. Marines' 1950 retreat from the Chosin Reservoir in the Korean War. The editorial read:

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs-after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops.  But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush's plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor.  Whatever his cause was, it is lost.  
The scions of the Gray Lady, declaring the war lost, announced that:

Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.
The editors dispensed their wisdom with dispassionate candor. In withdrawing from Iraq, Americans should expect undesirable outcomes to impact on the people of the region.

Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave.  There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide.  Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria.  Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs.  Perhaps more important, the invasion has created a new strong from which terrorists activity could proliferate.
The editors offered insights into the logistical considerations required for the execution of a strategic withdrawal, sometimes known by participants as a "bug out."  Under the sub-heading of "The Mechanics of Withdrawal," the editors displayed no Order of Battle maps, nor printed any echelon of redeployments.  But the journalistic generals standing post on the 600 block of 8th Avenue in New York City did provide counsel in the military art of extracting troops and materiel from a hostile environment.

The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of tons of military gear inside Iraq.  Getting that force out safely will be a formidable challenge.  The main road south to Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are organized.  Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality and backed by adequate resources.
Next, versatile minds removed their Pentagon hats and donned the wingtips of Foggy Bottom as they delivered foreign policy suggestions reference consulting with Congress and nations in the region so as to minimize the impact of a U.S. departure.

Although not the last paragraph, this summarized the assumptions driving the editors' opinion:

The United States military cannot solve the problem.  Congress and the White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome.  To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war. 
This was the collective wisdom of the New York Times editors six months ago today when they locked-and-loaded their armchairs and boldly called for the U.S. to retreat (though they avoided that word) from Iraq, and to do so without delay

In light of what's happened in Iraq since last July 8, this saying applies to the New York Times

Once a clock strikes thirteen, it's no longer wise to consider it an accurate source for telling time.