The Geniuses at the Washington Post (and their BS editorial on Iraq)

[ProSense]

The Geniuses at the Washington Post

Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

The Washington Post Editorial Board really outdid itself today with an editorial page piece that essentially argues that America's entire foreign policy should be based on what the Maliki government and Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari wants us to do. Of course it's important to take advice from allies and to get feedback from people on the ground, but it's also important to remember that Maliki and his allies have a vested interest in maintaining an unconditional commitment of American forces to Iraq, while they continue to dither along on critical political questions such as the integration of the Sons of Iraq into the Iraqi Security Forces, agreements on sharing oil revenue, agreement on the status of Kirkuk, and other key political questions.

Perhaps our decisions on troops should be based on America's interests not Iraq's interests? You know, like the fact that things in Afghanistan seem to be deteriorating further with the recent prison break near Kandahar. Or that our military is under severe strain? Just a thought.

The post also quotes Zebari as saying that "there would not be much difference" between Obama and McCain. But let's be clear. Obama wants to eliminate the moral hazard that the Post is pushing for by setting a responsible timeline for the withdrawal of American forces and making very clear that if Iraqi politicians want more American support they must step up and take responsibility for a political solution. According to the article he specifically told this to Zebari. McCain is advocating keeping American troops in Iraq no matter what and thus putting little real pressure on the Iraqis to come to a political accommodation, while American troops continue to backstop their internal political fights. That's a big difference. A huge difference.

Let's see: withdrawal vs. 100 years, hmmm?

[thecrow]

1. Spell check is your friend

THEIR is the possessive of they, not "there"

[TreasonousBastard]

2. This is where spell check is your worst enemy...

since homonyms get through as spelled correctly.

Spell check makes you too lazy to reread what you wrote and catch the sneaky errors.

[ProSense]

3. Oops. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

4. Interesting analysis of the WP editorial. It's wrong, but interesting.

If you're going to insult someone, come with your guns loaded. I fear that Ilan Goldenberg's chamber is empty. Here's the WP editorial in its entirety:

Mr. Zebari's Message

Iraq's foreign minister has a chat with Barack Obama.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA told Iraq's foreign minister this week that he plans to visit the country between now and the presidential election. We think that's a good thing, not because Sen. John McCain has been prodding the candidate to do it but because it will give Mr. Obama an opportunity to refresh his badly outdated plan for Iraq. To do that, the Democrat needs to listen more to dedicated Iraqi leaders like Hoshyar Zebari, the foreign minister -- who, it seems, didn't hold back during their telephone conversation.

Mr. Obama laid out his current strategy for Iraq in November 2006, shortly before announcing his candidacy for president. At the time, Iraq appeared to be on the verge of a sectarian civilian war, and Mr. Obama was trying to distinguish himself in the Democratic primary race by offering a timetable for withdrawal. Nineteen months later, the situation in Iraq has changed dramatically, with violence down 75 percent from its peak and the Iraqi government and army in control of most of the country. But Mr. Obama has not altered his position: He still proposes withdrawing most U.S. troops according to a fixed timetable, set to the most rapid pace at which commanders have said American forces could be pulled out.

Mr. Zebari, who has served as foreign minister in every Iraqi government since 2003, finds Mr. Obama's proposal worrying. In a meeting with Post editors and reporters Tuesday, he said that after all the pain and sacrifices of the past five years, "we are just turning the corner in Iraq." A precipitous withdrawal, he said, "would create a huge vacuum and undo all the gains and achievements. And the others" -- enemies of the United States -- "would celebrate."


Mr. Zebari said he told Mr. Obama that "Iraq is not an island." In other words, an American withdrawal that destabilized the country would also roil the region around it and embolden U.S. adversaries such as al-Qaeda and Iran. "We have a deadly enemy," Mr. Zebari said. "When he sees that you commit yourself to a certain timetable, he will use this to increase pressure and attacks, to make it look as though he is forcing you out. We have many actors who would love to take advantage of that opportunity." Mr. Zebari says he believes U.S. forces can and should be drawn down. His point is that reductions should be made gradually, as the Iraqi army becomes stronger.

The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field." Certainly, it makes sense to consult with those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen carefully to what they are saying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/17/AR2008061702034.html

The last paragraph of this editorial is the single place where the WP is offering any opinion at all: "Certainly, it makes sense to consult with those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen carefully to what they are saying."

I don't get the scathing critique. The WP suggests that Obama listen to the members of the government of Iraq, and that's bad? Obama already indicated he will talk to and listen to North Korea, Iran, Cuba, etc, but he cannot listen to Iraq?