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. 

Comments

[peace]

It seems that if John McCain gets elected the United States armed forces will act as nothing more than Maliki's personal gendarmerie used against the prime minister's internal oppositon. Thus the United States could find itself stuck in an Iraqi civil war. With John McCain as president Maliki could continue not to include Baathists and Sunnis in the Iraqi police and army which would make any political reconciliation impossible. At least Obama would at least talk to Iraq's neighbors like Iran so that a political settlement can be reached and the American forces can leave Iraq.

[TW]

Agreed that US troops should be deployed to serve US interests. But I think the wishes of the Iraqi people should also be relevant here ... the point being that the current government doesn't really speak for the Iraqi people when it comes to continuing the occupation & supporting a permanent US presence, or 'alliance' as the Post winsomely refers to it. (Odd, isn't it, that the political system we imposed on them isn't any better than ours is when it comes to acting on a clear majority's opposition to the occupation? Go figure...) An Obama Administration's policy in Iraq would be free to acknowledge the wishes of the Iraqi majority, in a way that a McCain Administration's poliyc could not. That's an important difference, too, no?

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[r4 firmware]

I would say the fact is that international efforts in Afghanistan are under-resourced, the Afghan government is under-funded and lacks capacity, and its institutions like the Afghan police, who were responsible for security at the prison in Kandahar, are frequently corrupt and poorly trained. Furthermore, the United States has pursued a flawed policy in Pakistan since 2001, which has contributed to a growing safehaven in Pakistan for anti-Afghan insurgents.