Washington Post Editorial Board Peddles 'U.S. Knows Best' Position on Iraq

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 4:59 PM on July 23, 2008.

The editorial board of the Washington Post continues to be a mysterious group, making strange arguments that are detached from the paper's own reporting. Indeed, the gap between the quality of the WaPo's news division and editorial division is greater than at any major newspaper in the country.

The Post's unwavering editorial support for the war in Iraq has been well-established, but today, the WaPo outdoes itself with an editorial that seems to reject reality altogether.

The initial media coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

Over the last several days, we've learned that both the democratically-elected prime minister and the spokesperson for the Iraqi government support Obama's withdrawal timeline of 2010. Maliki, in fact, did so, by name, without prompting. But the Post still doesn't believe Iraq's principal political leaders are on board with Obama's policy.

And why does the WaPo editorial board continue to deny what is plainly true?

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's.

But this, too, is wildly disconnected from the facts.

First, if Maliki's public endorsement of Obama's policy was "tailored" for "political purposes" -- and that remains an open question -- it's still not good news for supporters of the Bush/McCain policy. As Matt Yglesias explained the other day, "Even granting the premise that Maliki's statements are purely about Iraqi domestic politics, all this amounts to is the fact that Barack Obama's plan for Iraq is, according to both the Maliki government and the McCain campaign's analysis, the only way forward that's politically viable in Iraq."

Second, it's not at all "clear" that the Maliki timetable would "extend at least seven months beyond" Obama's. Iraqi officials, including the prime minister, said 2010. Obama said 2010. More importantly, Maliki specifically said Obama's policy was the way to go.

And third, is this really the argument the WaPo wants to hang its hat on? As Josh Marshall noted, "The reckless inexperience of Obama is now contained within the yawning gap between Obama's plan for 16th months and the Iraqis' plan for as long as 23 months."

The Post editorial added this bizarre point about Iraq's oil:

While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves.

I see. Afghanistan -- where 9/11 was launched, and where the Taliban and al Qaeda are -- isn't as important because it doesn't have oil.

Not only is this ridiculous from a national security perspective, it's also wrong from a policy perspective.

It's important to be clear about what's at stake when it comes to Iraqi oil. Lots of oil is already under the control of hostile (Iran, Venezuela) or not especially-friendly (Russia) governments. But that doesn't deprive American consumers of oil. Nor does it make oil more expensive. The Saudis and the Norwegians don't sell us discount oil. There's a global market and a global price. The American consumer filling up his tank doesn't see a difference if the oil's from Mexico or Equatorial Guinea or Kuwait, doesn't see a difference if the oil's owned by TotalFinaElf or ExxonMobil or Citgo. War for oil doesn't mean cheap oil for you.

What it does mean is protection for companies that have invested in Iraqi oil. Those fields could be a good investment. But there's a lot of "political risk." And insofar as Iraq is playing host to a large occupying military force and has a government that's dependent on that military force to stay in power, that political risk is mitigated. Which is great if you have a contract to drill for Iraqi oil, but really stinks as a national security priority for the United States (and it's bad for the economy to boot). Certainly I wouldn't say that it's more important than taking the fight to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Osama bin Laden.

I wonder how often Post reporters are embarrassed by the paper's editorial page. After today, I suspect the number has gone up considerably.

Tagged as: oil rigs, iraq, obama, maliki, washington post, washington post gets it w, mainstream media is terri

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.