Forget headlining the print newspaper; this story wasn't even featured online—not even a photo. Apparently, the fact that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il went to a parade is more important than the fact our nation is resolving a war.

The Mercury News isn't alone in its (lack of) coverage. Across the U.S., the future First Puppy is getting more media attention than the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

It doesn't make sense. Wasn't a timetable for withdrawal one of the biggest issues during the presidential debates? Wasn't there at least a month of media anticipation before the U.S. declared war on Iraq?

The newspapers seem to think that starting a war is more interesting than ending one. Is that true?

I can't remember the last time I talked about— really discussed—the war in Iraq. Our generation has pretty much grown up with the war, and it's always seemed a foregone conclusion that it was badly handled. But we don't go beyond that and try to fix it.

But now talk of fixing things is pointless speculation because the war is ending, which means it has been fixed—in a way. Withdrawal is always the end of any war. What determines whether a country has won or lost a war is the manner in which it withdraws, and that's where the problem lies. We're not leaving Iraq victoriously having spread freedom and protection. It's a total downer to know that we failed. So why talk about it? Mercury News doesn't.