The reality about teenagers is that they are at a level in
their mental development where they would do something which says they have the
reach of an adult, and then do something else which says they only have the
grasp of a child. And this is what comes to mind at times when you read the
editorials of the Wall Street Journal – works that the editors want you to
believe are the best there is because they are the best that can be.
Those editors have done it again with an editorial that came
under the title: “The Iraq Debacle” and the subtitle: “An extended civil war is
likely. A terrorist caliphate is possible.” It was published on June 14, 2014.
After describing the current Iraqi situation as one in which the army of the
“Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham or ISIS” is poised to march into the capital
city of Baghdad , they make the acerbic point
that “If the war on terror was over, ISIS
didn't get the message.”
That was a barb directed at President Obama who had said
earlier that the core of al-Qaeda was close to being defeated and that, in the
future, terrorism will come from less capable groups that would threaten not
the American homeland but diplomatic facilities and business abroad. The
trouble with the Journal editors, however, is that they were not satisfied
arguing the President made the wrong prediction; they wanted to show it was
this false prediction that made things go bad in Iraq. What to do to achieve
that goal? Well, this is what they did: “Iraq was largely at peace when Mr.
Obama came to office in 2009.”
That was January 2009 and this is June 2014, a time lapse of
more than five years, and these people poke the President for not seeing this
far ahead? Having done this to him, they start the process that leads them to
brag about their own ability to predict the future. They put it this way: “The
possibility that a long civil war in Syria would become an incubator and
destabilize the region was predictable, and we predicted it.” Never mind the
fact that in 2009 there was no civil war in Syria when Obama made his
prediction, they say they made the correct prediction less than a month ago,
and brag about it like this: “We don't quote ourselves to boast of prescience
but to wonder...” This is teenage stuff; it makes you feel like you're back in
high school.
In fact, they begin the editorial by admitting in the first
paragraph that the situation in Iraq
is becoming clearer only now. But they do something dishonest by calling it a
debacle to insinuate that someone should be blamed for it. And they do just
that when they blame the whole thing on President Obama. But leaving all that
political bull aside, you want to know if they are saying something that would
indicate they have – if not full grasp – at least some grasp of the situation.
Well, there is something to that effect but it is awareness
and not grasp. They speak of “the price Iraqis and Americans are now paying for
Mr. Obama's failure to successfully negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with
Baghdad that would have maintained a U.S. military
presence.” Well, that's a mouthful of deceptive writing formulated by a
mentality that has the grasp of a teenager. First of all, negotiation is done
between two parties – usually equal parties. Thus, it must be said that the
negotiations were conducted either between Obama and Maliki, or between Washington and Baghdad .
But the way they put it is between Obama and Baghdad . Why did they do that? To say that it
was “Mr. Obama's failure to negotiate.” This puts all the blame on Obama, and
fully exonerates Maliki.
Only traitors behave in this manner, and the extent of the
treachery can be assessed when you know what was in the agreement that Maliki –
not Obama – rejected. It was the immunity that Washington
wanted for the American service personnel from the laws of Iraq (which
they may not be familiar with) so that any allegation against an American may
be dealt with under American law. No, said Maliki. No deal, said Obama.
Having done this, and not realizing they have stripped
themselves naked, the editors of the Journal confidently put it that Mr. Obama
faces two choices that would be strategic defeats, and an alternative that
would be an admission that his policy in Iraq has failed. And then with a
condescending tone, they reveal: “We would support such an effort if we felt
this Administration would do the diplomatic and military lifting needed to
succeed.” But no, they go on to say, they cannot count on this President doing
the right thing.