August 14, 2005Michael Kelly, who was killed in the spring of 2003 in a humvee accident, was the first American journalist to die in the Iraq War. (The, uh, second Iraq war, I guess. And, of course, the first American journalist to be murdered in Iraq was Steven Vincent.) Both were for the war, in slightly different ways. And both, apparently, won't be getting what they advocated for.
In February of 2003, Mr. Kelly wrote in the Washington Post:
I understand why some dislike the idea, and fear the ramifications of, America as a liberator. But I do not understand why they do not see that anything is better than life with your face under the boot. And that any rescue of a people under the boot (be they Afghan, Kuwaiti or Iraqi) is something to be desired. Even if the rescue is less than perfectly realized. Even if the rescuer is a great, overmuscled, bossy, selfish oaf. Or would you, for yourself, choose the boot?
Today, the Washington Post's front page, in an article headlined "U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq," says:
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say. [...] "We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning...
