One has to wonder what qualifications the editors of the New York Times have that make them more qualified than our generals and the president to determine what is responsible military policy.

The American people have only one question left about Iraq: What is President Bush’s plan for a timely and responsible exit? That is the essential precondition for salvaging broader American interests in the Middle East and for waging a more effective fight against Al Qaeda in its base areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And it is exactly the question that Mr. Bush, his top generals and his diplomats so stubbornly and damagingly refuse to answer.

* * *

Mr. Bush proposed no realistic new plan for more effectively fighting Al Qaeda in its heartland or for exiting from the tragic misadventure in Iraq. Instead he offered the familiar, simplistic and misleading arguments that he used to drag the country into this disastrous war to start.

Prolonging the war for another two years will not bring victory. It will mean more lives lost, more damage to America’s international standing and fewer resources to fight the real fight against terrorists. If Mr. Bush’s advisers can’t tell him that, Congress will have to — with a veto-proof majority.

Of course, the Surge is working, recent polling data shows increasing public support for the war, and the Congress does not have veto-proof majority. The New York Times, however, considers anything that disagrees with it to be "irresponsible" and "unrealistic". It may come as a shock to them, but the military ant the president are Constitutionally charged with determining the conduct of the war -- nowhere does the Constitution require that a once-great newspaper, noted for its bias and hackery, be given deference in making that policy.