I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call the Schwartz review diplomatic, as he essentially accused both authors of dishonest politicized hackery in one of the country's most widely read intellectual venues.
Yeah, well, in my jaundiced view it's not exactly been uncommon in the past view months for random neocons to be accusing anybody who won't get with the program of treason. So I wouldn't find the "dishonest politicized hackery" thing to be that big a deal.
With all due respect, I'd also like to leave the credentialism thing aside. If that were a requirement for the local discussion, you'd be sort of a lonely poster around here.
I don't know if Schwartz is actually misrepresenting Cohen's reading of history or not, all I know is what was in the review. But Schwartz's reading of history seems more consistent with what I know of it. Aside from post-WWII, where the occupied countries were basically first world to begin with, I don't know of any historical examples of US military occupation leading to anything that good in the near term, once the troops pulled out. The only exception I can think of offhand is Korea, and that was definitely a long haul. In fact, it's not really an exception, since the troops haven't pulled out there, and it's not at all clear if they're likely to in the foreseeable future.
If Cohen's point is something other that what Schwartz relates it as, maybe you could tell us what that point is. Personally, as I wrote about, I just don't see any good precedent for the "making the Middle East over in our image" line that seems to be the neocon goal. Even the British in the days of Empire weren't actually that good at making things over, by historical evidence. |
