Perhaps more than any news organization, the Washington Post steered the United States into the illegal invasion of Iraq. But a Post editorial, which belatedly takes note of the war\u2019s tenth anniversary, admits to no mistakes and acknowledges no lessons learned.<\/i><\/p>\n
Four days after the Iraq War\u2019s tenth anniversary, the Washington Post published an editorial<\/a> about the disastrous war of choice, a conflict\u00a0which the Post\u2019s neocon editors promoted with falsehoods and distortions both before the invasion and for years afterwards.<\/p>\n However, if you thought there would be some admission of the newspaper\u2019s long litany of mistakes or some apology to the war\u2019s critics who were routinely maligned in Post editorials and op-eds, you would be sorely disappointed. There was not even a mention of the nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died.<\/p>\n After a brief acknowledgement that the war\u2019s tenth anniversary \u201cgenerated plenty of commentary about the lessons of that war,\u201d the Post\u2019s editors said nothing about what, if anything, they had\u00a0learned. Instead, they remained in positive spin mode, citing one supposed accomplishment from the invasion.<\/p>\n \u201cFor the first time in decades, contemporary Iraq poses no threat to its neighbors,\u201d the Post declared. However, even that is a lie on two fronts.<\/p>\n First, Iraq under Saddam Hussein had not been a threat to its neighbors since the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, unless the Post\u2019s editors were having a flashback to the glory days of 2002-03 when they were disseminating President George W. Bush\u2019s bogus WMD propaganda. Do they still believe that nonsense?<\/p>\n Second, today\u2019s Iraq under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has<\/i> become a threat to its neighbors because al-Qaeda-affiliated Sunni extremists from western Iraq have crossed the border to Syria where they have assumed a major role in the violent opposition to President Bashar al-Assad\u2019s regime.<\/p>\n But the Post\u2019s editors want you to believe that the Bush-neocon expedition to Iraq was on the cusp of some great success until President Barack Obama showed up to squander the victory \u2013 by not insisting on a continuation of the U.S. military occupation of Iraq.<\/p>\n \u201cIran\u2019s influence over Mr. Maliki\u2019s government is mounting, thanks in part to the Obama administration\u2019s failure to agree with Baghdad on a stay-on force of U.S. troops,\u201d the Post wrote, making it seem as if it were Obama\u2019s petulance that prevented the continued U.S. military presence, not the insistence by Maliki\u2019s government of terms in a \u201cstatus of forces agreement\u201d unacceptable to the Americans.<\/p>\n Lost Influence<\/b><\/p>\n In the Post\u2019s frame of reality, however, this failure to keep tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers\u00a0in Iraq has led to other terrible consequences: \u201cAccording to U.S. officials, Iraq has been allowing Iran to fly weapons through its airspace to the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. Repeated appeals from Washington to stop the traffic have gone unheeded.\u201d<\/p>\n But an objective observer might have noted that it was the Bush-neocon hubris, rushing into a war to oust Hussein\u2019s Sunni-dominated regime that led inevitably to the expanded influence of Shiite-ruled Iran within the new Shiite-controlled regime in Iraq. Yet, the Post instead placed the blame squarely on Obama.<\/p>\n The Post\u2019s editorial then returned to its current campaign to pressure the Obama administration into entering a new military conflict in Syria, accusing the President of unmanly softness.<\/p>\n \u201cThe civil war in Syria, and the passivity with which the Obama administration has responded to it, have reinforced these negative trends. Mr. Maliki fears that the downfall of the Assad regime could lead to a Sunni-dominated government that would back insurrection in Sunni parts of Iraq.<\/p>\n \u201cAs with leaders across the Middle East, he perceives that the United States is unwilling to defend its interests in the region, either by stopping the Syrian bloodbath or countering Iran\u2019s interventions. The risk of greater turmoil or even a return to civil war in Iraq is one of several compelling reasons for more aggressive U.S. action to end the war in Syria.\u201d<\/p>\n The Post then summed up its case by suggesting that Obama has betrayed the great victory that the neocons supposedly had won in Iraq.<\/p>\n \u201cPresident Obama has often given the impression that he has turned his back on Iraq, and many Americans understandably sympathize with him. But a failure to engage with the fragile state U.S. troops left behind would endanger U.S. interests and break faith with the many Americans who made sacrifices there.\u201d<\/p>\n What is particularly startling about the Post\u2019s editorial, which curiously appears four days after<\/i> the Iraq War\u2019s tenth anniversary, is that the dominant newspaper in the nation\u2019s capital continues to live in a neocon fantasy world or at least refuses to acknowledge key Middle East realities.<\/p>\n In Neocon-land, the big U.S. mistake in Iraq was not forcing the Iraqis to accept an indefinite U.S. military occupation, compounded by the Obama administration\u2019s hesitancy to join Israel in bombing Iran and to jump into another bloody quagmire in Syria \u2013 in other words to continue the neocon grand plan of \u201cregime change\u201d across the Middle East. [See Consortiumnews.com\u2019s \u201cThe Mysterious Why of the Iraq War<\/a>.\u201d]<\/p>\n Not only did the Post editorial, entitled \u201cIraq, 10 years later,\u201d offer no self-reflection on the Post\u2019s many factual errors about Iraq\u2019s non-existent WMD, no apology for its bullying of war skeptics, and no recognition of its complicity in a criminal invasion, but the newspaper\u2019s editors appear to have absorbed not a single lesson from what happened a decade ago.<\/p>\n That inability to utter even the most obvious and necessary mea culpa<\/i> is disturbing in itself. Indeed, if the Post were still a serious news organization committed to the principles of honest journalism, it would have undertaken a major overhaul of its editorial-page staff rather than keeping in place the same leadership and punditry that was so embarrassingly wrong on Iraq.<\/p>\n But, even worse, the Post\u2019s editors continue to pontificate with an arrogance resistant to the undeniable reality of their own misjudgments, incompetence and immorality. In that sense, the Washington Post has become a threat to the Republic and to the world. [For more details, see Consortiumnews.com\u2019s \u201cWhy WPost\u2019s Hiatt Should be Fired<\/a>.\u201d]<\/p>\n _________________________<\/p>\n Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book,\u00a0America\u2019s Stolen Narrative,\u00a0either in\u00a0<\/i>print here<\/a>\u00a0or as an e-book (from\u00a0Amazon<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0barnesandnoble.com<\/a>).<\/i><\/p>\n