« So Long As They Can Speak American | Main | Vocab Time »
December 11, 2006
Looking Back
In fall 2006, the United States turned on the NeoCommentators. Furious that their smug, wrongheaded chatter had help lead the country into a catastrophic war and then, without missing a beat, turned to browbeating those who sought to end it, readers nationwide began agitating for their removal from op-ed pages, magazine columns, and television roundtables alike. And so began the Pundit Purge of '07 -- the first time in recent history that the predictive failure of an ideology led to actual occupational consequences for its peddlers.
Historians differ on what, precisely, sparked the upheaval, but no small number point to a December 10th column by David Brooks, which pretended to peer back at America's foolish withdrawal from Iraq from some point in the future, when it was well-understood that the folly of exit had triggered what Brooks termed "the Second Thirty Years' War." Experts differ on what proved so infuriating about this column: Some name Brooks' total avoidance of better solutions for a disastrous conflict he'd helped create; others point to the intellectual sleight-of-hand that identified the withdrawal from Iraq, rather than the invasion of it, as the start of the disaster. And yet others believe the column's conceit was so insufferably irritating and superficial that reprisal was inevitable.
What isn't in doubt is what came next: Widespread disgust, not only at Brooks, but at the entire class of pundits who had helped enable the doomed invasion, then miraculously and shamelessly retained their sense of moral superiority as the conflict deteriorated and their ideology -- and proposed solutions -- proved bankrupt and harmful. These columns, speeches, manifestos, and appearances all followed the same structure: Acknowledgment that Iraq had deteriorated into a murderous hellhole, though with no mention of how we got there or how enthusiastically the speaker/writer had stumped for the invasion. Then would come a dark, despairing portrait of the death and murder that would follow withdrawal, followed by insinuations or explicit assertions that the left is being naively, or even maliciously, irenic. And absolutely no alternative proposals or explanations of how a different approach could calm the forces tearing the country apart -- forces that the war, not it's end, had triggered.
The problem was, the left had enlarged. By the end of 2006, it included most of the middle, and a fair bit of what had once been called the right. A poll taken by Newsweek on December 6-7 found that nearly 70 percent of Americans thought we were "losing ground" in Iraq. Barely 20 percent thought we were "making progress." And 62 percent thought we should set a timetable for withdrawal. It turned out these same majorities were tired of being hectored by discredited pundits peddling nothing but warnings that abandoning their doomed project would bring...doom. And so they rebelled. Letters poured into op-ed pages. Subscriptions were canceled. Calls erupted for the elevation of a couple -- at least a couple -- of pundits who'd called the Iraq War right, and were willing to offer up something beyond dodges and projection. And they were heeded.
Hah. Yeah right.
Also at Tapped.
December 11, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
"Irenic"? Tres cool
I remember when Joe Klein wrote for Rolling Stone. I still wear my ponytail. Ya know, you may not believe it, but the grownups like Brooks and Klein and Broder are trying to avoid confrontation and chaos. The 30% that are crazy, or the 5% that control the money will tear the country to shreds. The rest are easier to handle, will blink before violence. It ain't about Iraq.
I love confrontation and chaos. I hate grownups.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Dec 11, 2006 10:19:29 AM
I love how you clowns conveniently forget the 30 something Democratic senators who voted for the war and made a stronger case for war than the administration (there are endless quotes by Dem senators saying Saddam definately has WMD and is an imminent threat, etc.). Are those Democrats brave cuz they changed their minds? Cuz they have no resolve?
For all you libs who think we just need to leave Iraq, do you really think it will be better if we leave? Do you care? You hear libs talking about the Iraqi civilian deaths now, imagine what will happen if we left. Not to mention the positive affect for international terrorists.
The propopaganda put out by the media and the Dems desire for power may cause the US to lose this war. Both(the Dems and the media) have wore down the US public. If we had had these circumstances in 1940, I fear we would have lost WWII.
I would love to hear one feasible exit strategy. C'mon, you guys have been clamoring for this moment for years(when Dems were back in power).
It is time for solutions, "we need change" isn't going to cut it anymore.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Dec 11, 2006 10:48:52 AM
It's time for solutions, Captain Toke. "We need change" isn't going to cut it anymore. I would love to hear one feasible exit strategy.
Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Dec 11, 2006 10:53:26 AM
Great post, thanks. Don't know if you've seen these two short videos from Iraq yet or not, but both show the US Military engaging in some very dubious actions. I have them up on my site at www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com ..You have to wonder what these soldiers were thinking when videotaping this stuff...
Posted by: MinorRipper | Dec 11, 2006 10:56:24 AM
Yes: Withdrawal is a solution. You may not agree with it, but it's a solution nevertheless. I'd love to hear one from you. As it is, you're just another of these post-war cowards, demanding better and ideas and blasting the left while hiding from your own culpability and offering precisely nothing constructive. So yes, I think it would be better if we left Iraq over the next year. What do you think we should do? Send 60,000 troops we don't have? How will that change the course of the conflict? How do we do anything to stop their civil war?
What's the solution, Toke? Stop lashing out. Bless us with your wisdom.
Posted by: Ezra | Dec 11, 2006 10:57:34 AM
"Yes: Withdrawal is a solution. You may not agree with it, but it's a solution nevertheless."
Do you want less killing in Iraq?
I'll get into more detail later(gotta take a test) but basically we need to fight it like a war, not a police action. Kill people like Al Sadr, etc. You know, be a little more ruthless. I know, it's mean, but hey, we are at war.
I hope you can get the direction I am going in.
But hey, it is your party that won the election, so let's hear some solutions.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Dec 11, 2006 11:08:42 AM
Why does David Brooks still have a job? This type of crap is exactly why I will never subscribe to the Times Select. I wont pay to have someone tell me bald-faced lies disguised as opinion.
Posted by: MarvyT | Dec 11, 2006 11:12:14 AM
Solution one: withdraw completely before the end of 2007.
Solution two: withdraw completely by July 31, 2007.
Solution three: withdraw as quickly as we can that ensures protection of forces (and contractors) as we withdraw, but no later than end of 2007.
Solution four: helicopters on the rooftops evaculating troops and contractors, NOW. Let the Iraqi's have our broken-down, worn-out equipment to build a real army and thereby create a local industry for rebuilding our discards.
Solution five: replace troops with drafted US vocal supporters of continued occupation - with or without training and not regarding age or physical condition. (This means YOU, toke). [and note, we are occupying a sovereign state so those occupation-supporters sent to replace the troops are subject to local justice, formal or informal].
Solution six: Hold a referendum within 60 days (purple fingers and all) to let the Iraqi's decide if we withdraw 1)Now (within 90 days); 2)by July 31, 2007; 3)By December 31, 2007; 4) Stay until another referendum is held on Jan. 1, 2007. [no other choices on ballot].
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Dec 11, 2006 12:14:57 PM
But hey, it is your party that won the election, so let's hear some solutions.
And herein lies the thrust of Ezra's post: wingnuts who find themselves choking and sputtering at their first taste of Reality Cocktail are now looking around frantically, demanding that someone re-mix their drink for them so it can be swallowed. Someone who looks nice, someone who just walked in--anyone--other than the bartender or the company he works for, to whom they just handed a few hundred billion dollars.
Posted by: litbrit | Dec 11, 2006 12:25:51 PM
I agree with the basic thrust of your topic post, Ezra, which, while using the same conceit as Brooks', manages to be less irritating, I'm sure. (And I'm not one as easily irritated by Brooks as many here.)
So yes, I think it would be better if we left Iraq over the next year. What do you think we should do? Send 60,000 troops we don't have?
These aren't the only two options, of course. I'm not persuaded that additional forces are practical, but I do think there is a far better chance of reaching a political solution while we're there keeping a lid on things and in a better position to twist arms than if we withdraw and the place descends far deeper into hell.
Posted by: Sanpete | Dec 11, 2006 12:48:03 PM
The propopaganda put out by the media and the Dems desire for power may cause the US to lose this war.
Riiiiiight. It has nothing to do with a few score thousand Iraqis trying to kill the troops who invaded their country, or the larger militias jockeying for power.
I'll get into more detail later(gotta take a test) but basically we need to fight it like a war, not a police action. Kill people like Al Sadr, etc.
So - given the objective is a "stable pro-West democracy", how many people do you think it will be necessary to kill before the survivors love you?
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Dec 11, 2006 12:53:20 PM
OK,
1)Dems complained for years about civilian deaths.
2)Dems are now in power.
3)Dems decide leaving NOW is a solution even though they will ackowledge that the amount of civilian deaths will be astronomical.
Nice....
Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 11, 2006 1:19:58 PM
So - given the objective is a "stable pro-West democracy", how many people do you think it will be necessary to kill before the survivors love you?
How many you got?
Posted by: Pooh | Dec 11, 2006 1:20:56 PM
For all you libs who think we just need to leave Iraq, do you really think it will be better if we leave? Do you care? You hear libs talking about the Iraqi civilian deaths now, imagine what will happen if we left. Not to mention the positive affect for international terrorists.
This is an interesting collection of sentiments. Let’s take them one at a time.
Do we [people that advocate withdrawal] believe things will improve if we left Iraq. Yes, waybe, not sure. We believe that is one possible outcome. But we do understand that our continued presence is inflaming violence, that a large majority of Iraqis support violent attacks on our troops, that they want us to leave, and that they feel in greater danger in the presence of coalition troops. These conclusions are drawn from a number of polls conducted in Iraq over the last few years, from recognized polling groups like PIPA as well as the U.S. State Department and British military. In light of those facts, yes, it is likely that our exit will take away a common cause uniting the various factions in Iraq.
You ask us to imagine what will happen if we left. Iraqis will no longer have an occupation to deal with, radicals will no longer be able to play off the presence of foreign troops for rallying people to their cause, there will be much less destruction by way of air power, and on. I don’t know if the Civil War will continue at its current pace, escalate, or draw down after we leave. Neither do you. We have no real way to determine that, and the people that are predicting the worst if we leave tend to be the same ones that made all kinds of predictions that turned out to be wrong before the war.
Finally, what kind of victory is this for international terrorists? I don’t know. You raise all kinds of questions that you apparently intend to be rhetorical. But they are not rhetorical, and the answers are not as obvious as you suppose they are. Raising questions and not answering them is not any kind of argument.
Posted by: Justin | Dec 11, 2006 1:43:05 PM
Ha Ha, this is a good post!
Posted by: Tony | Dec 11, 2006 1:55:31 PM
Justin, while it's true that we don't know what will happen if we leave, I think we can weigh the likelihood of the possibilities and the potential costs beyond just saying we don't know. Many of the anti-American militants in Iraq have long ago shifted their focus from killing Americans to killing all figures of hope in Iraq, destroying infrastructure, and trying to stir up a total civil war. I think it's more likely that this will get far worse when we leave than it is that it will get better. And the likely costs of that are far higher than the likely costs of staying. That's the rub.
I've remarked on this a few times in other threads, but it should give us all pause that the predictions people make for Iraq correlate very closely with their general beliefs about the morality of war and their particular beliefs about the current US leadership. I think this is coloring people's views too much.
Posted by: Sanpete | Dec 11, 2006 2:24:52 PM
Yes, of course you can consider the likely outcomes and likelihoods of your plotted course of action. The tone of Toke's comment was that certain outcomes were certain if we left Iraq. They are not certain outcomes and judging by the overwhelming resentment and hatred Iraqis feel towards the military occupation, it is plausible that our exit will defuse the situation.
So long as people refuse to acknowledge this and consider it a matter of fact that we are keeping a lid on the violence in spite of all the contrary evidence, our options are limited. But I mention again that the people that are sure about what will happen if we left were equally sure, and wrong, about the consequences of invading in the first place.
Posted by: Justin | Dec 11, 2006 2:55:27 PM
it is plausible that our exit will defuse the situation.
I don't find this plausible, for the reasons I gave. To expand on that a little, the forces causing the most trouble are opposed to seeing us succeed in establishing a stable, peaceful Iraq. That would be a victory for American power and ideology in the heart of Islam. They aren't about to quit when we leave. It will just make their job that much easier. We do in fact provide a great deal of what security there is, including the security for the government. Our leaving will greatly decrease our leverage with the political factions, and will remove a substantial amount of the current checks on folks like al-Sadr just letting loose. For now he and others know we will fight them if they don't hold back, as we've already demonstrated.
And, again, the likely costs of each course have to be weighed as well. There is a lot more at stake from what seems likely from leaving than there is from what seems likely from staying. That affects what course is best to gamble with.
I mention again that the people that are sure about what will happen if we left were equally sure, and wrong, about the consequences of invading in the first place.
This isn't relevant to what I've said. I wasn't one of those people (quite the opposite) and don't rely on them for my views on this. What I said about the biases of those calling for quick withdrawal is probably more relevant, but I'll leave that to you to judge for your own case. Don't get too distracted by foolish comments by some supporters of the war. Even if they're fools, it doesn't follow we should leave.
Posted by: Sanpete | Dec 11, 2006 3:38:30 PM
War Reporter Joe Galloway chooses my options 3 and 4.
From Editor and Publisher:
Joe Galloway: 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover, But Only One Way to Exit Iraq
By E&P Staff
Published: December 11, 2006 1:25 PM ET
NEW YORK Last week's Iraq Study Group recommendations are being hit from all sides, by those who claim they go too far -- or don't go nearly far enough. Among those now weighing in with the latter view is legendary war reporter Joe Galloway.
In his most recent syndicated column, Galloway concludes, "There may be 50 ways to leave your lover, but there's only one way to leave Iraq: Load our people up on their trucks and tank transporters and Bradleys and Humvees and head for the border. Now." [emphasis added]
For the concern people:
What we need to do is what none of the commissions and their reports dared to suggest: Begin withdrawing American forces from Iraq right now. Not in 2008. Not after the American death toll has crossed 5,000. Not just in time for a presidential election.
If you worry about the future of Iraq, don't. It will remain what it's always been: a violent, angry land of warring tribes only occasionally beaten and bludgeoned into submission by a homegrown despot like Saddam Hussein.
If you worry about added turmoil and instability in the Middle East, pull some of those departing American forces back to Kuwait and leave them there on standby. Then redirect thought, energy and effort into salvaging Afghanistan, finding Osama bin Laden, saving Lebanon, negotiating peace between Israel and its enemies, rebuilding the U.S. Army and Marine Corps and, oh yes, ending the uncivil war between Republicans and Democrats.
...
He tells E&P today: "That was the 187th consecutive weekly column, and the one i knew was inevitably coming from the very beginning. God help us and protect our troops."
Galloway, who has been a persistent critic of the war for three years and early on called for the firing of Donald Rusmfeld, retired earlier this year from Knight Ridder but continues his weekly column for McClatchy and others. He has covered more than half a dozen wars, from Vietnam to Iraq, with distinction, and co-authored the book, "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young" (he is now penning a sequel).
I guess he will be dismissed since he was correct from the beginning of the Iraq debacle, and he's only been directly on-hand reporting on all the wars since Vietnam. When he says 'now', I'd bet he's thinking of helicopters on the US embassy rooftop, just as in Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City).
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Dec 11, 2006 3:48:57 PM
1)Dems complained for years about civilian deaths.
2)Dems are now in power.
3)Dems decide leaving NOW is a solution even though they will ackowledge that the amount of civilian deaths will be astronomical.
You forgot 2.5, Freddie-weddie.
2.5) Dems, along with every sane and halfway intelligent person in the world, realise that staying is not accomplishing anything, is resulting in death while the occupation continues, and will probably exacerbate the civil war that will result when (not if) the US withdraws.
Still a moron, Fred.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Dec 11, 2006 4:10:46 PM
If you worry about the future of Iraq, don't. It will remain what it's always been: a violent, angry land of warring tribes only occasionally beaten and bludgeoned into submission by a homegrown despot like Saddam Hussein.
This somehow fails to comfort me. How many lost lives are implicit in this rather cavalier analysis?
Posted by: Sanpete | Dec 11, 2006 4:19:22 PM
1)Dems complained for years about civilian deaths.
2)Dems are now in power.
3)Dems decide leaving NOW is a solution even though they will ackowledge that the amount of civilian deaths will be astronomical.
You see, Fred, in the real world, sometimes bad options are the only ones you have. Unlike in Republicanland, where all you need is will and faith to make everything come out right, sometimes you work hard and it all falls apart anyway. The 'solution' you outline is A) pretty much accurate, B) pretty much the one Deomcrats favor, and, most importantly, C) the best option we have left. Think about how bad Democrats must think staying is as an option that we accept all your bulletpoints and still want to leave. That's how bad Iraq is.
Nice war your side of things got us into.
Posted by: NBarnes | Dec 11, 2006 4:33:37 PM
Both(the Dems and the media) have wore down the US public. If we had had these circumstances in 1940, I fear we would have lost WWII.
Clearly, the wacky-backy has erased Stonerboy's memories of his history classes, or else he would've recalled that:
a) we couldn't have "lost WWII" in 1940, since we weren't participating; and
b) the Republicans were the loudest voices against getting involved, and remained so right up until December 6, 1941.
Posted by: Thlayli | Dec 11, 2006 4:54:13 PM
If we had had these circumstances in 1940, I fear we would have lost WWII.
Here are some circumstances that won WWII that you may want to think about - a military draft, compulsory rations, war bonds, taxpayers gladly paying taxes, volunteerism, women working in industry, loyal allies around the world, and probably ten dozen other things totally loathed by the Bush cultists.
Posted by: sprocket | Dec 11, 2006 5:38:20 PM
Ah, Captain toke, I would love to get rid of the 30 something Democratic senators who voted for this war, as well as the all-but-one-Republican Senator who did (and I guess that Republican is goin' out the door too). I would have liked to start with LIEberman. Unfortunately, the majority of voters of CT don't see things the same way I do.
So let's work to get rid of the Republicans and the Moderate Democrats and have only the people who were right about this war-people to the left of Kerry and Clinton-in power.
Finally we agree.
Posted by: Rick | Dec 11, 2006 9:55:34 PM
