The WaPo notices in today’s editorial a signal lost on much of the MSM over the last week. The fact that the new government of Iraq stood up to Iran and signaled that they DO want a partnership with America. Just on their terms:
THOUGH IT was hardly noticed in Washington, Iraq’s Shiite-led government sent a powerful message to Iran and to the Middle East last week. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose coalition is often portrayed as an Iranian client, traveled to Tehran for a meeting with supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The ayatollah bluntly declared that Iraq’s “most important problem” was the continuing presence of U.S. troops. He pressured Mr. Maliki to stop negotiating a package of agreements with the Bush administration that would delineate a “strategic framework” between Iraq and the United States and provide for the deployment of U.S. forces beyond the expiration of a U.N. mandate at the end of this year.
Mr. Maliki refused. He assured his Iranian hosts that Iraq would not be a launching pad for an American attack on Iran. But he pointedly told a press briefing that negotiations on the strategic partnership would continue. He repeated that commitment on Friday, even after warning that the talks had “reached a dead end.” In effect, the Iraqi prime minister was saying that his country does not want to become an Iranian satellite but an independent Arab state that would look to the United States to ensure its security.
This would seem to be an obvious U.S. gain in what, according to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as well as President Bush, is the urgent task of countering Iran’s attempt to dominate the Middle East. It means that Iraq, a country with the world’s second largest oil reserves and a strategic linchpin of the Middle East, just might emerge from the last five years of war and turmoil as an American ally, even if its relations with Iran remain warm.
The WaPo goes on to wonder why the Democrats have stood in lockstep with the leaders of Iran in denouncing the US-Iraqi agreement before the thing is even written.
“It’s pretty clear their intentions are that we put in a basing system in Iraq that parallels the Korea-Japan history,”
~~~The history of every single outside occupation of Iraq over the last thousand years argues against that logic.”
-Sen. James Webb
The history suggests that it can’t be done….so why even try says the Democrats. Sure, it may be impossible but at least friggin try! In the end their mission is to make it appear that Bush wants to stay in Iraq forever, that way Obama can look good when he says he will bring them all home.
The WaPo continues:
If the United States were to make a formal commitment to defend Iraq from external aggression, congressional consideration and approval of the pact would be appropriate. For now, the biggest risk is that Tehran and its allies will pressure Mr. Maliki into backing away from a partnership with Washington. In that case, Iran would hasten to substitute itself as Iraq’s defender and strategic ally, with momentous implications for the rest of the Middle East. Surely this is not what the Democrats want.
Surely you jest?
This is exactly what they want. How else to blame Bush for it?
See author page