New York Times Forced To Admit That Trump Is Winning Against ISIS… by Robert Gehl
In a surprising admission, The New York Times has been forced to admit that President Donald Trump has defeated ISIS.
The article – written by Ross Durant – is simply called “A War Trump Won” and not only gives Trump credit for defeating the Islamic State, but takes the mainstream media to task for ignoring this massive “win.”
It’s a dramatic turnaround – and a bit of a mea culpa – for an institution that has been aggressively anti-Trump since he announced his candidacy.
After giving Barack Obama credit for actions and decisions that led up to ISIS’ defeat (whether they’re true or not), Durant points out that the reason most American’s haven’t taken notice is because the left-wing media doesn’t want to cover it.
Other reasons for the lack of attention are suggested by National Review’s David French, in a piece that helped inspire this one: a war-weary assumption that if you crush one terrorist group another just springs up (true to a point, but crushing an ambitious terrorist state is still a real achievement); a popular appetite for bad news that leaves little room for celebrating victory; and the inability of Trump himself to take credit for anything without immediately firing up some unrelated controversy.
But this is also a press failure, a case where the media is not adequately reporting an important success because it does not fit into the narrative of Trumpian disaster in which our journalistic entities are all invested.
Durant is quick to admit he was one of the skeptics. “Foreign policy is the place where the risks of electing Trump seemed to me particularly unacceptable,” he writes. “And I’ve tended to focus on narratives that fit that fear, from the risk of regional war in Middle East to the perils in our North Korean brinksmanship.
Durant even gives Trump credit for demonstrating skill that other Republican presidents have lacked.
In particular, Trump has avoided the temptation often afflicting Republican uber-hawks, in which we’re supposed to fight all bad actors on 16 fronts at once. Instead he’s slow-walked his hawkish instincts on Iran, tolerated Assad and avoided dialing up tensions with Russia. The last issue is of course entangled with the great collusion debate — but it’s still a good thing that our mini-cold war has remained relatively cool and we aren’t strafing each other over Syria.
It’s a dramatic admission for the newspaper. Durant is still skeptical, writing that by praising the White House, they may turn around and do something “disastrous” shortly after. But still, must have found it especially difficult to write the last line of his column:
But if you had told me in late 2016 that almost a year into the Trump era the caliphate would be all-but-beaten without something far worse happening in the Middle East, I would have been surprised and gratified. So very provisionally, credit belongs where it’s due — to our soldiers and diplomats, yes, but to our president as well.
What do you think? Why did the New York Times write the piece? Sound off below!