Editor's note

Yesterday, in linking (favorably) to an article by Thomas E. Ricks, I described him as a former "cheerleader" for the Iraq war. Mr. Ricks has objected to this characterization. After some research and reflection, I agree that the remark was overly flippant and unfair to him. Before reviewing the relevant facts, let me say that in recent years, Mr. Ricks has been one of the most important critical voices on the actual conduct of the war. He has made a notable contribution to public understanding and we have often linked to his work.

As for the period roughly from 2003 through 2004, my personal opinion is that his record was mixed. For example, this piece, written on April 6, 2003, draws attention to risks and difficulties ahead at a time when the prevailing mood was one of unalloyed triumphalism, but it does so in a very mild tone, giving the possible time frame remaining for the war as "one week to one year." This piece, written in February of 2003, describes special forces operations in Iraq prior to the invasion (implying pretty strongly that it was indeed going to happen). He concludes with "[B]y radically reducing the combat zone, the war plan promises to substantially lessen the disruption on the Iraqi population. That in turn would ease humanitarian problems."

More creditworthy, in my view, is this piece, written with colleague Rick Atkinson and published March 16, 2003, which clearly and presciently describes some of the risks of the adventure. (Though its timing may be criticized.)

The firmest basis for my comment, in my view, is this, written April 21 2003, in which he sees Donald Rumsfeld bestriding the narrow world like a Colossus. "He has triumphed in a military success in Iraq that featured an audacious war plan he helped to shape. He also looms large outside the Pentagon, injecting himself far more into intelligence matters than his predecessors and playing an unusually large role in shaping Bush administration foreign policy. He even has turned around a sour relationship with Congress.
He now is in position to reshape the U.S. military along the lines he has talked about since taking office, "transforming" it into a more agile and precise force built not around firepower but around information, and willing to take risks to succeed." And it goes on in that vein.

In this, published on April 18, he uncritically channels Rumsfeld's complaints about the media not covering all the good news from Iraq and concludes with "But another retired Army four-star general, George Joulwan, said he thought Rumsfeld and Myers had a point. "I think they made a wise decision, taking prudent risks," he said. At any rate, he added, "We need to get beyond this."

Finally, I refer to Brad DeLong's post-mortem on Ricks's early coverage of the war. DeLong writes, "But go back to clips, and you discover that Tom Ricks was writing "he said, she said" articles in the first six months of 2004. Witness this one, with none of the context necessary to show his readers that Wolfowitz is a fool living in an ideological fantasy land: [article excerpt follows] Tom Ricks could have done any of a huge number of things to tell the Washington Post's readers that Wolfowitz was--as Ricks knew he was--either lying through his teeth or the most deluded man north of the Picketwire. .. Why, Tom, why? Why in the name of the Holy One couldn't you have told us what you knew was going on back in 2003 or 2004? What did you think you were doing? Why keep your real views of Wolfowitz and Bremer and Odierno and company secret, so that they show up two and a half years late and many, many brave men and women's lives short?"

So, not exactly a cheerleader. Again, that was a flip remark for which I apologize. But still, often less skeptical and forthright than we could have hoped for. I hope that Mr. Ricks will accept this as a sincere attempt to view his work in that era in a balanced way -- certainly he was no Judith Miller. This was a dark time indeed for U.S. journalism, and there are very few prominent reporters who can claim an unblemished record. I acknowledge his important and praiseworthy work since then.

I have offered Mr. Ricks the opportunity to respond to this post, and if he decides to do so, I will be happy to post whatever he says exactly as he writes it. We all know how important it is for reporters to look back on that period and consider what they got right and what they got wrong. I'm sure it isn't easy.