Leaving Iraq

Armored vehicles extend into the blue horizon in a photograph taken by Johan Spanner on the front cover of "The New York Times." The Friday October 9, 2009 edition shows these armored vehicles in an infinite space at Camp Victory in Baghdad stationary as the military awaits orders on where to transport the equipment. From dismantling 300 bases to shipping out 1.5 million pieces of equipment the military said that this is the largest movement of soldiers and material in more than four decades. The withdrawal as been complicated due to attacks from an insurgency that remains active, disagreement with the Iraqis about what should be left for them and what soldiers in Afghanistan need immediately. Most missions are carried out at night because Iraqi politicians prefer that the American presences be less visible. Congress as also limited what the military can leave the Iraqis to around $15 million in equipment per base, which does not include infrastructure. Colonel Gust Pagonis, one of the leading logisticians, as been assigned to extricate America from the desert. I am curious how different aspects of a war that is six and a half years old can still make the front cover of "The New York Times." At what point does a war lose its hard news quality? Why does society become immune to information about a war? If it were not for the staggering figures of troops and equipment, would the attention of the average civilian be engaged through informative war coverage? Talk of bring our troops home as been the topic of conversation among civilians and political figures for months in not more. However, 124,000 troops must continue to hold their positions across the country while determining what supplies to leave for the 50,000 troops that will remain until 2011.