Pollack is up to #9 on Amazon; interesting. Curious if the folks who have looked at it have been impressed by it, and whether it's changed anybody's opinions (either way)...
You know I'm impressed. And agree with the argument that the Bush folk would best be served by making Pollock's book the poster for its campaign to save the world for democracy (excellent argument by Zakaria about the Wilsonian character of the Bush arguments, even the neocon arguments, in the New Yorker).
As you will see, I've worked on these some since Tuesday.
I'm beginning, though not finished, to see what frames of discussion I can bring to it. Those won't be factual grounds; I don't have and am unlikely to find those. At the moment, I'm thinking of the following framing issues.
1. One of the reasons the US now devotes so much money to military matters is the enormous shift in the political culture away from improving the lives of its citizens through serious health insurance, improving schools, improving policing resources, carrying its citizens through serious economic downturns of which we have yet to see any, at least since the early 70s, etc. So the framing argument which says we have such enormous military resources, while true, leaves the costs out. What are the tradeoffs? When the bill finally comes due on that, since much of the population still expects such but has been carried by a booming economy, what happens down the road? And, most important, all this is really about, at its most fundamental level, just what kind of country are we? Are we, as Hendrik Hertzberg argued in this week's New Yorker, on our way to becoming the cops of an international police state--I should hope not; or are we a model of how to maintain a humane social order? Which says something like "we'll help out of the rest if you need it."
2. The importance of oil resources. Much of the importance of the Iraqi intervention, if not all of it, is conditioned on the critical importance of cheap oil for the global economy. What is that likely to be like in 10 years? Will that still be true? Could we wait that long? Much to think about here.
3. Skidelsky's argument that the US simply does not have the will to stay around for Wolfowitz' dream of a secular democratic state in Iraq (assuming that statement from him was not pure political cynicism), does that completely undercut the argument to invade?
4. Assuming one can unlock the Bush preemptive doctrine from arguments to invade Iraq--the last speech argument that you make, that Iraq is unique, not an illustration of the pins in the bowling alley that need to be knocked down, does that make it more or less pressing. Back to the "can we wait" argument.
Finally, I should add, as you know, but perhaps others do not, that the Pollock book is, far and away, the best information on the Iraqi options I've seen (which doesn't say a great deal, since I haven't seen a great deal, but is to say I recommend it, as they say, highly.)
Moreover, I think it not only contains essential information one needs to think about Iraq, but, even more important, contains a methodological model for thinking about critical foreign policy issues. One could do worse than emulate that model. |
