First the article, then a few comments.
A More Humble Hawk
DAVID BROOKS
I didn't get this job because I was self-effacing, but today I'm really going to beg for your indulgence. I thought it might be useful to describe the doubts and thoughts going through the mind of one ardent war supporter — me — during these traumatically bloody weeks in Iraq.
The first thing to say is that I never thought it would be this bad. I knew it would be bad. On the third day of the U.S. invasion, I wrote an essay for The Atlantic called "Building Democracy Out of What?" I pointed out that we should expect that the Iraqis would have been traumatized by a generation of totalitarianism. That society would have been brutally atomized. And that many would have developed a taste for sadism and an addiction to violence. On April 11, 2003, I predicted on "The NewsHour" on PBS that we and the Iraqis would be forced to climb a "wall of quagmires."
Nonetheless, I didn't expect that a year after liberation, hostile militias would be taking over cities or that it would be unsafe to walk around Baghdad. Most of all, I misunderstood how normal Iraqis would react to our occupation. I knew they'd resent us. But I thought they would see that our interests and their interests are aligned. We both want to establish democracy and get the U.S. out.
I did not appreciate how our very presence in Iraq would overshadow democratization. Now I get the sense that while the Iraqis don't want us to fail, since our failure would mean their failure, many don't want to see us succeed either. They want to see us bleed, to get taken down a notch, to suffer for their chaos and suffering. A democratic Iraq is an abstraction they want for the future; the humiliation of America is a pleasure they can savor today.
Second, let me describe my attitude toward the Bush administration. Despite all that's happened, I was still stirred by yesterday's Bush/Blair statements about democracy in the Middle East. Nonetheless, over the past two years many conservatives have grown increasingly exasperated with the administration's inability to execute its policies semicompetently.
When I worked at The Weekly Standard, we argued ad nauseam that the U.S. should pour men and matériel into Iraq — that such an occupation could not be accomplished by a light, lean, "transformed" military. The administration was impervious to the growing evidence about that. The failure to establish order was the prime mistake, from which all other problems flow.
On July 21, 2002, my colleague Robert Kagan wrote the first of several essays lamenting the administration's alarming lack of preparation for post-Saddam Iraq. Yet the administration seemed content to try nation-building on the cheap.
Many of us also assumed, wrongly, that the administration would launch a fresh postwar initiative to globalize the reconstruction effort. My friends at the Project for the New American Century urged the U.S. to go to the U.N. for a reconstruction resolution, to build a broad coalition to aid rebuilding and to establish a NATO-led security force. That never happened.
Despite all this — and maybe it's pure defensiveness — I still believe that in 20 years, no one will doubt that Bush did the right thing. To his enormous credit, the president has been ruthlessly flexible over the past months and absolutely committed to seeing this through. He is acknowledging the need for more troops. He is absolutely right to embrace Lakhdar Brahimi's plan to dissolve the Governing Council and set up an interim government. This might take attention away from the U.S, and change the atmosphere in the country.
It's also inspiring to see the Iraqi center working so hard to keep political conflict under control, especially during these horrible weeks. Every time they get a chance to vote, Iraqi citizens show they are ready for democracy. A young diplomat, Tobin Bradley, is going around the country organizing local elections. In almost every case, the parties that do best are professional and practical, emphasizing the people's concrete needs.
This time, unlike 1920, say, Iraqis can see a panoply of new and thriving democracies. They have witnessed Iran's horrible experience with theocracy. Once the political process moves ahead, nationalism will work in our favor, as Iraqis seek to become the leading reformers in the Arab world.
We hawks were wrong about many things. But in opening up the possibility for a slow trudge toward democracy, we were still right about the big thing.
nytimes.com
I've never been a fan of Brooks. In observing him on the PBS News Hour and reading some of his "stuff", I'm consistently struck by the superficiality of his (lack of) of analysis. The poorly reasoned pablum he offers has led me to refer to his "depth perception" problem. Rather than see what was obvious to many on this thread a year and a half ago, even now he still doesn't "get it".
But I thought they would see that our interests and their interests are aligned. We both want to establish democracy and get the U.S. out.
Wrong. Not now and not ever was this our goal. Long term control through "enduring bases" was the objective.
They want to see us bleed, to get taken down a notch, to suffer for their chaos and suffering. A democratic Iraq is an abstraction they want for the future; the humiliation of America is a pleasure they can savor today.
Wrong again! What they want is simple - to throw the occupiers out of their lands. Is this simple fact difficult to understand? It's what they wanted when the Turks were there, and when the Brits occupied them. So here come the Americans dragging along the Brits, and trying to get the Turks as well. There's no surprise here, except to the self deluded like Brooks.
I was still stirred by yesterday's Bush/Blair statements about democracy in the Middle East. Nonetheless, over the past two years many conservatives have grown increasingly exasperated with the administration's inability to execute its policies semicompetently.
Let me get this straight. "Strred" by the neo-con "wrapping", but exasperated by the incompetence of the execution? Look deeper! First, get a clear picture of what the real, unstated policies were - not the superficial "wrapping" offered to the gullible. Does anyone think Halliburton just happened? The incompetence was ab initio in the formulation of the crackpot policies. Only after, was it compounded by dunderheaded execution.
The failure to establish order was the prime mistake, from which all other problems flow.
Wrong again, but consistent. The failure to have sufficient troops to "establish order" was merely the route that was chosen. If more (and it would have taken a whole lot more) troops had been used, the route would have been different, and the timescale of events would have perhaps changed, but not the end result. What some call "establishing order", others call repression. It fuels rebellion against those doing the "establishing". The problem is fundamental. More troops would have meant more targets, nothing else.
My friends at the Project for the New American Century urged the U.S. to go to the U.N. for a reconstruction resolution, to build a broad coalition to aid rebuilding and to establish a NATO-led security force. That never happened.
Yeah, right! After "thumbing their nose" at the UN, and arrogantly "showing the world" that they were the "big boy on the block", at their moment of triumph, a complete reversal of form was expected. If they were of the mindset to behave as the deluded "expected", the invasion would never have occurred.
I still believe that in 20 years, no one will doubt that Bush did the right thing. To his enormous credit, the president has been ruthlessly flexible over the past months and absolutely committed to seeing this through. He is acknowledging the need for more troops. He is absolutely right to embrace Lakhdar Brahimi's plan to dissolve the Governing Council and set up an interim government. This might take attention away from the U.S, and change the atmosphere in the country.
Bush is "flexible" only when cornered. After Plans A through D collapsed, he's hoping-against-hope that the UN plan to "hand off" to a set of appointed Iraqis will buy him enough time to get reelected. As for Bush's place in history, well Brookie baby has already exhibited his prediction abilities.
Every time they get a chance to vote, Iraqi citizens show they are ready for democracy. A young diplomat, Tobin Bradley, is going around the country organizing local elections. In almost every case, the parties that do best are professional and practical, emphasizing the people's concrete needs.
So why does the CPA, in plan after plan, preclude the possibility of an Iraqi election prior to Bush's hoped for reelection day? The answer is obvious to those who aren't deluding themselves.
This time, unlike 1920, say, Iraqis can see a panoply of new and thriving democracies. They have witnessed Iran's horrible experience with theocracy. Once the political process moves ahead, nationalism will work in our favor, as Iraqis seek to become the leading reformers in the Arab world.
We hawks were wrong about many things. But in opening up the possibility for a slow trudge toward democracy, we were still right about the big thing.
This from a former employee of the Weekly Standard, with many friends at the PNAC. Let us remember that this group believes in an American hegemony, where America is not loved, but feared. To not see an inconsistency between being the feared hegemonic power, and the benevolent purveyor of democracy is beyond delusion. It's total madness.
JMO
lurqer |
