It’s like asking O.J. Simpson for advice on how to be a good member of society or Bernie Madoff for counsel on financial ethics. Why on Earth does the liberal media still expect anyone to listen to what the architects of the Iraq War have to say about the Middle East?

I found myself asking this question after former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz took to the op-ed pages of the New York Times on Nov. 21 to lecture Americans about how terrible President Trump’s Syria policy is, and what the administration could do to turn things around. Why the Times would provide Wolfowitz — a driving force behind the Iraq War, the worst U.S. foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam War — with such a high-profile platform is a mystery. One possible explanation is that they’re so anti-Trump they’ll platform anyone willing to blast the president.

If you care to read the full piece, have at it . But the basic argument Wolfowitz makes is that the United States would be dangerously naive to walk away from Syria and create a vacuum that would inevitably be filled by nefarious actors who hate us. In his words, “Walking away from that region has a way of sucking America back in. American strategy needs to protect our critical interests but at sustainable costs.”

Wolfowitz, of course, would know plenty about sucking the U.S. into the region. He did it quite well during his time in government.

To the long-time national security bureaucrat, a solid Syria strategy apparently means sitting in place next to Syria’s oil fields and providing the Kurds with the muscle they need to strike a permanent political arrangement. That Syrian dictator Bashar Assad has largely won the war and has no incentive whatsoever to compromise his position either eludes Wolfowitz completely or is conveniently ignored for the sake of his argument.

Frankly, we should just we roll our eyes at Wolfowitz’s argument because his judgment has proved absolutely awful. He may continue to have admirers in certain corners of the Beltway, but our misadventures in Iraq and Wolfowitz’s central role in the tragic failure should have shut the door on whatever credibility he might have once had.

Sure, everybody deserves a second chance, and people make mistakes every day. But Wolfowitz’s series of mistakes couldn’t have been any bigger or more detrimental to our position in the Middle East. The public record is quite clear: On issue after issue during the lead up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, Wolfowitz’s judgment was terrible. He's the last person we should take our lead from now.

Before 9/11, Wolfowitz advocated for a plan that would have not only placed northern and southern Iraq under U.S. military protection but would have also created a new governing entity called a “Free Iraq” out of whole cloth. The plan was derided by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell as ludicrous , and the idea went nowhere.

Wolfowitz was fixated on removing Saddam Hussein long before he was confirmed as the Bush administration’s number-two official in the Pentagon. The 9/11 attacks provided him with additional room to make his case.

In his recently-released memoir, The Back Channel, former Deputy Secretary of State William Burns recalls hearing about Wolfowitz’s lobbying for a pro-regime change strategy in Baghdad during a National Security Council meeting held at Camp David less than a week after the 9/11 attacks. The idea was brushed aside and viewed by even President George W. Bush at the time as a step too far.

Until it wasn’t. A year later, the Bush administration was set on pushing Saddam aside. Wolfowitz was a key Bush administration official who made the intellectual case to the American public for why the war was necessary and why it wouldn’t be as difficult as (much wiser) detractors in the State Department were saying.

On March 27, 2003, Wolfowitz testified to the House Appropriations Committee that the operation wouldn’t cost the American taxpayer very much.

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people,” he told lawmakers. "We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.”

That, too, turned out to be a ridiculous assessment. Operation Iraqi Freedom winded up costing the American people over $800 billion and perhaps as much as $2 trillion when taking into account veterans’ benefits and healthcare costs.

So, a question for the liberal media: Why would Paul Wolfowitz’s counsel on Syria be any better than his advice on Iraq a decade prior? Don’t expect the New York Times to come up with a good answer anytime soon.

Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.