Like nearly everyone else, I’ve been deeply disappointed by David Brooks’ Op-ed columns in the NYT. But it’s not only out of a sense of fairness that I’m giving a favorable link to his latest – it’s not only good relative to the other stuff he’s written but better than most other commentary[1]. Referring to the debates over the Clarke and Woodward books, occurring at a time when Iraq looks like sliding into chaos, he says
Right though this is, it’s obviously helpful to the Republicans, as is the observation thatThis is like pausing during the second day of Gettysburg to debate the wisdom of the Missouri Compromise.
But his final para raises the real issuemany Americans have decided that it’s time to persevere and win.
Brooks might want to ponder the point that the Bush Administration appears to have no answer to the question he has posed here. They have set up rules that let them ignore the supposedly sovereign government they plan to establish, but it’s obvious that any such action will bring the whole structure crashing around their ears.Over the next weeks, U.S. forces are going to jump from the fires of unilateralism to the frying pan of multilateralism. What’s going to happen when our generals want to take on some insurgents but Brahimi and the sovereign Iraqi appointees say no?
Update 29/4 Well, no-one at all in the comments thread agreed with me, but I haven’t seen anything to change my mind on the central point. Of course, the he said-she said stuff reported by Woodward and Clarke will be relevant to the election in November, but the “handover” in Iraq is due to take place at the end of June, and the crucial issues seem to me to have received no discussion at all in the (mainstream) media.
Can any readers point me to any prominent old-media commentator who has addressed the issue raised in Brooks’ final paragraph, and quoted by me? And if the whole thing falls in a heap, as looks increasingly likely, will anyone really care about the precise alignment within the Administration that got us to this point ?
fn1. Obligatory blogplugging: That’s old-media commentary, of course. This whole post is a subtle reminder that blogs, including this one, have already moved on from point-scoring and asked the questions that are now being raised by Brooks.
{ 40 comments }
dsquared 04.28.04 at 2:15 pm
I’d be a lot happier about this if Brooks was proposing a clearly defined date on which it was appropriate to have the blame exercise. I meet too many of this kind of person in a corporate setting; always with the “well, let’s not worry about who killed who, the important thing is the task in hand”. There’s always something going on which can be used as an excuse for not having a proper audit of previous projects, and failure to audit and learn from past mistakes is the single biggest cause of incompetent managers remaining in post.
nofundy 04.28.04 at 3:22 pm
it’s not only good relative to the other stuff he’s written but better than most other commentary
I’d call this statement a tragedy of lowered expectations from corporate media whores. When Brooks writes something that doesn’t advocate GOP talking points or defend them, and only then, will I credit Brooks with any credibility as a real journo.
Mat2 04.28.04 at 3:26 pm
From the great Busy^3, shorter Brooks:
Silly Washingtonians waste time on trivial pursuits, like investigating how we got into the hole we now find ourselves in, when they really should be pitching in to help with the digging.
John Isbell 04.28.04 at 3:39 pm
“many Americans have decided that it’s time to persevere and win.”
Yes, I can imagine that thinking about the 9/11 commission could distract us Americans while we are taking Iraqi fire. Americans should hold off on books like that until we’ve won the war.
It does occur to me that we Americans in Iraq may nevertheless be exposed to criticism of our recent history from other nations on this planet. But like Brooks, I have a solution. I propose a worldwide moratorium on all comments on US history post-2000, to avoid distracting us in Iraq. Let us all pull together.
Bernard Yomtov 04.28.04 at 3:46 pm
Brooks’ Gettysburg analogy is not quite right, though it certainly echoes the Bush camaign theme on the subject.
A more appropriate analogy is that we are debating whether we should stay with the commander who has totally botched the battles so far, or replace him. And this is exactly the appropriate time for that discussion.
rea 04.28.04 at 3:48 pm
“many Americans have decided that it’s time to persevere and win”
An absolutely infuriating comment. How do we win, apart from “perservering”? And what constitutes “winning”?
“Captain, sir, with all this gear no man will be able to swim
Sergeant, don’t be a nervous nellie, the Captain said to him
All we need is a little determination, follow me – I’ll lead on
We were neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the damn fool kept yelling to push on”
Barry 04.28.04 at 3:51 pm
With two additions:
1) This is the commander who chose the war, and who has botched it repeatedly.
2) Brooks’ analaogy is, because of that, not only false, but a flat-out lie.
John, I expect better for you. Brooks is scum, please don’t grade him on his own curve.
bull 04.28.04 at 4:03 pm
“Scum†and “media whores.†This is all too typical. David Brooks is a decent and intelligent man. Disagree with him – fine. Revert to your childhood by calling him names – ridiculous. “Scum†and “media whores†are the “stupid†and “poopy†of persons who have aged but not matured.
rea 04.28.04 at 4:18 pm
“’Scum’ and ‘media whores.’ This is all too typical. David Brooks is a decent and intelligent man.”
Are you talking about the same David Brooks who, in the linked article, compares his political opponents to people who like looking through keyholes at women in their underware?
Dan Hardie 04.28.04 at 4:24 pm
‘This is like pausing during the second day of Gettysburg to debate the wisdom of the Missouri Compromise.’
Indeed, it’s as if the British House of Commons had debated the conduct of the Prime Minister and his government at a time of maximum crisis in the war- say, May 1940. If the naysayers and nervous nellies had been around then, insisting on arguing about who was responsible for the failure of the Norway campaign or of pre-war rearmament and failing to back good old Mr Chamberlain, who knows what might have happened.
Dan Hardie 04.28.04 at 4:25 pm
‘This is like pausing during the second day of Gettysburg to debate the wisdom of the Missouri Compromise.’
Indeed, it’s as if the British House of Commons had debated the conduct of the Prime Minister and his government at a time of maximum crisis in the Second World War- say, May 1940. If the naysayers and nervous nellies had been around then, insisting on arguing about who was responsible for the failure of the Norway campaign or of pre-war rearmament and failing to back good old Mr Chamberlain, who knows what might have happened.
Dan Hardie 04.28.04 at 4:25 pm
‘This is like pausing during the second day of Gettysburg to debate the wisdom of the Missouri Compromise.’
Indeed, it’s as if the British House of Commons had debated the conduct of the Prime Minister and his government at a time of maximum crisis in the Second World War- say, May 1940. If the naysayers and nervous nellies had been around then, insisting on arguing about who was responsible for the failure of the Norway campaign or of pre-war rearmament and failing to back good old Mr Chamberlain, who knows what might have happened.
Dan Hardie 04.28.04 at 4:26 pm
Oh God- please delete multiple posts.
Walt Pohl 04.28.04 at 4:49 pm
Actually, it’s more like debating the revelation in the middle of the Spanish-American War that the Spanish didn’t really blow up the Maine after all.
Barry 04.28.04 at 4:53 pm
“Indeed, it’s as if the British House of Commons had debated the conduct of the Prime Minister and his government at a time of maximum crisis in the war- say, May 1940. If the naysayers and nervous nellies had been around then, insisting on arguing about who was responsible for the failure of the Norway campaign or of pre-war rearmament and failing to back good old Mr Chamberlain, who knows what might have happened.”
Posted by Dan Hardie at April 28, 2004 04:24 PM
Contest! How many major non-valid parallels are in that analogy? I can only see a couple, but I’m sure that others can spot at least a dozen.
bull 04.28.04 at 4:53 pm
Rea, Nope. Wrong David Brooks. I’m talking about the one who said “Some people in other places may like to look through keyholes to see women in their underwear. We here in the political class like to look through keyholes to see what happens when a bunch of alpha males (and females) with the jobs we wish we held sit around a table and curse about people not in the room.” In short, he’s saying that “we in the political class” – “we,” on both sides – are voyeuristic about the mistakes made by the powerful.
Dan Hardie 04.28.04 at 4:56 pm
Walt- you’re right, mate. Bullseye.
claude tessier 04.28.04 at 4:58 pm
John Isbell: “I propose a worldwide moratorium on all comments on US history post-2000, to avoid distracting us in Iraq. Let us all pull together.”
Whew! We can continue blaming everything on Bill Clinton!
Huzzah, Huzzah!
rea 04.28.04 at 5:08 pm
“In short, he’s saying that ‘we in the political class’ – ‘we,’ on both sides – are voyeuristic about the mistakes made by the powerful.”
No, he’s not saying that. He’s using “we” as a rhetorical device to mean “my opponents”. Otherwise, he’s confessing complete ignorance of Iraq, isn’t he?
“The first duty of proper Washingtonians is to demonstrate that they are smarter than whomever they happen to be talking about. It’s quite easy to fulfill this mission when you are talking about the past. It’s child’s play for a salad-course solon who spent the entire 1990’s ignoring foreign affairs to condemn the administration piously for not focusing like a laser beam on Al Qaeda on Aug. 6, 2001.
“It’s harder to be a smart aleck about the future, especially in regards to Najaf and Falluja, where none of the choices are good ones. Do the Baathists win a victory every day they hold off our siege? Or if we take them out now, do we undermine Sistani? We Klieg Light Kierkegaards will give you the right answer — three years from now, after whatever option the president takes has been judged and found wanting.
“Some people in other places may like to look through keyholes to see women in their underwear. We here in the political class like to look through keyholes to see what happens when a bunch of alpha males (and females) with the jobs we wish we held sit around a table and curse about people not in the room. After two years of Iraq obsession, many of us couldn’t tell you what the Dawa Islamic Party stood for if our kids’ Sidwell admissions depended upon it, but the frisson we feel hearing the nasty words Colin Powell said behind the back of Douglas Feith! C’est délicieux!”
Anthony 04.28.04 at 5:12 pm
I’d be a lot happier about this if Brooks was proposing a clearly defined date on which it was appropriate to have the blame exercise.
Yes, because in a battle over the democratic future of Iraq and the security of its people, we have to make sure we know when to blame Bush.
The point about this Daniel, is that we know if it was a mistake or a success for another 5 years at least. Personally, I’ve seen enough evidence to suggest it was not a mistake, and time will tell when it is a success.
dsquared 04.28.04 at 5:38 pm
Contest! How many major non-valid parallels are in that analogy? I can only see a couple, but I’m sure that others can spot at least a dozen
I’m sure there are millions. There’s also one, very important, valid one.
rea 04.28.04 at 6:02 pm
“Rea, Nope. Wrong David Brooks.”
Okay! Then, for example, this would pass your civility test:
“Thirty five years ago, abortions were performed in back alleys by ham-fisted high school dropouts clutching rusty coathangers encrusted with old blood. We here today have David Brooks writing op-ed columns for the New York Times.”
No comaprison there, right? Just like Brooks never compared opponents to Peeping Toms?
JRoth 04.28.04 at 6:05 pm
You’re right, Barry, the Missouri Compromise analogy is so completely relevant to our current situation, whereas the May, 1940 comparison is irrelevant. Because, you know, the Missouri Compromise had, uh, something to do with the Civil War. And so did Gettysburg. So that’s apt. But an example of a democracy finding its wartime leadership wanting is entirely unrelated to the situation at hand since, of course, we are led by the best of all men.
The fundamental flaw in Brooks’ arguments is the idea that these criticisms are only 20/20 because they are in hindsight. On the contrary, most opponents of the war predicted pretty much exactly the current situation. Mr. Davies made a number of posts, pre-invasion, that suggested that the course of events would follow the path it has. In contrast, Messrs. Bush, Brooks, and Perle (to name 3 of many) were wrong, wrong, and wrong. So why should we listen when any of them try to suggest that it’s pointless to fix blame, and that no one could have predicted the current situation?
Answer: we shouldn’t.
It’s not about “knowing when to blame Bush.” It’s about getting some f-ing competent leadership. And if examining the current leadership is off limits, then we can’t judge its competence, can we?
Piraisoli 04.28.04 at 6:27 pm
Anthony, you say, “The point about this Daniel, is that we know if it was a mistake or a success for another 5 years at least. Personally, I’ve seen enough evidence to suggest it was not a mistake, and time will tell when it is a success.”
Personally, I have seen enough evidence to suggest that the war was a terrible mistake, and that calling US post-war decisions “incompetent” is an exercise in charity. The point really is that at each decision point we need to make decisions based on the best information available, we need to decide in the next election if our current leaders are competent and honest and should be relected, or incompetent and dishonest and should be ousted, and for this we desperately need the discussion that Brooks disapproves of. Using your style of argument, we will never be able to decide on anything — after all, Chou en Lai famously said when asked about the effects of the French Revolution, “It is too soon to tell.”
Lindsay Beyerstein 04.28.04 at 7:10 pm
According to our Commander in Chief, we already won the war. This is the occupation. Aspiring to “win” the occupation is a category mistake.
Besides, my attention span is broad enough to monitor both Iraq and the 911 revelations. I know Brooks’ is, too. So, why is he offering us this shabby false dichotomy?
The war in Iraq is supposedly part of the war on terror. We are now learning that the administration botched 911, the first major “engagement.” Their next step was to plot an illegal foreign adventure in collusion with a terrorist state (Saudi Arabia).
So, here we are, a year into the occupation of Iraq. We still don’t have a coherent rationale for invasion, let alone a vision for the future, let alone a viable tactical plan to bring it about. Now we’re learning that the leaders who got us into this mess are the last people we should trust to tell us how to “persevere.”
I’m going back to my peephole now. Check it out, girls, the Emperor has no clothes!
bull 04.28.04 at 7:46 pm
“most opponents of the war predicted pretty much exactly the current situation”
This is reminiscent of the old joke that economists have successfully predicted 10 of the last 5 recessions. Opponents of the war predicted all sorts of things. The Battle of Baghdad will rival the Battle of Stalingrad springs to mind. Famine in Afghanistan was a good one too. In point of fact, opponents of the war predicted various specific disasters. No doubt some opponents made some or many prescient predictions. In general, though, opponents’ track records for predictions have been laughable at best. If you predict a disastrous hurricane and a disastrous blizzard arrives, you were wrong.
Phill 04.28.04 at 7:46 pm
Surely a much more apposite comparison than Gettysberg would be the WW2 debate in the House of Commons that followed the failure of the Norway campaign?
The stakes then were far higher than anyone could claim the US faces today. If the UK lost WWII it would mean the end of Britain as an independent nation and the end of European civilization.
Despite the stakes, in fact because of them the House decided that it was time to dispense with the failed leadership of Chamberlin and replace him with Winston Churchill. At the time this move was a major risk, the last time Churchill had directed a military campaign it had led to the Galipoli disaster.
Churchill was chosen because all along he had predicted the outcome of Chamberlin’s policies correctly and Chamberlin had not.
Compare this to the current situation where the Bush administration has consistently failed to predict the outcome of its policies while with few exceptions opponents have predicted with 20-20 foresight.
The only thing that Bush opponents have got wrong is that some opponents (but not all) predicted that the Bush administration was capable of turning the invasion itself into a fiasco in addition to the occupation. Given the choice to start the invasion with an entire division stuck in the Suez canal together with the post invasion fiascos it appears that these opponents were actually raising a valid concern.
The Bushies keep on complaining that hindsight is 20-20. Bullshit! Their hindsight appears to be little better than their foresight. They still cling to the myths of Al Qaeda/Iraq collusion on 9/11 and the existence of WMD. This administration is not capable of hindsight, what they mistake for hindsight is in fact revisionism of the Orwellian kind.
Zizka 04.28.04 at 8:27 pm
If “facts on the ground” was the goal, the war has been a success. We got lots of facts on the ground in Iraq.
Brooks’ argument is Step Two of “facts on the ground”. “It may be all very well and good to talk about the fraud that got is in this mess, but that won’t help us solve the problem”.
Bush’s goal was to screw things up badly enough that no Democrat could suggest a way to make things any better, thus naking it seem sensible to leave Bush in there. “What would YOU do, smartypants?”
rea 04.28.04 at 8:38 pm
“The Battle of Baghdad will rival the Battle of Stalingrad springs to mind.”
That didn’t happen, but it could have. Saddam’s army lacked the will to fight for Baghdad house-to-house, not necessarily the power. That it didn’t happen doesn’t demonstrate that the risks we took were wise, any more than spending your paycheck on lottery tickets, and winning the lottery, demonstrates that it is wise to spend you paycheck on lottery tickets.
If we keep running these risks, one of these days we’ll run into the equivalent of the Vietcong rather than the equivalent of the Republican Guard–whereupon the Neocion crowd will tell us no one could have anticipated that level of resistance.
Like Lincoln’s unheeded advice to Hooker before Chancellorsville, “In you next battle, put in all your men.”
a different chris 04.28.04 at 8:40 pm
What Brooks and his defenders here don’t want anybody to realize is that the American public has a test coming up quick in Nov., and it is a comprehensive* one.
So we have to hit the books now. Sorry, but life’s complicated like that. I consider myself lucky when I only have two things going on that apparently each require 100% of my attention. You just have to figure out how to not let dealing with one f*ck up the other, but you cannot simply pick one to ignore.
The 9/11 commission need have nothing to do with what we should be doing today, tomorrow, and for the near and far future in the War On Eurasia- er, Terrorism. It has everything to do with that firing and hiring “competitive” process that our right-wing friends are always saying we liberals don’t understand.
I often shake my head at what the US spends in money and attention on professional sports, but I think our Bush supporters maybe should surf off Instapundit for a while and over to ESPN. The NFL offseason always offers wonderful tales of clear-eyed brutality in the quest to eat that dog before he eats you.
You see them draft your replacement – or you simply get cut – without hesitiation purely on the “what have you done for me lately” principle. And even if you *have* done something wonderful “lately” they then go to the “but has what you’ve done before imply that what you did recently was a fluke?” and even if you can pass those two tests it still could come down to “Thanks and all the work’s appreciated, but we can suddenly get Bill Parcells/Eli Manning so have a nice life.”
I know the Presidency isn’t as important as your home-town QB, guys, but rather than nitpicking around to find reasons not to vote for Kerry, it is your duty to evaluate these guys really seriously. Jingoism and RNC talking points don’t get it done. Nobody ever won a football game in the lockeroom, myths notwithstanding. You need players, not theories.
Aside 1: It’s funny that neo-lib economists are always bemoaning Europe’s lack of “labor flexibility” and how hard it is to fire somebody. And neo-lib economists are also always decrying what a force government is in the marketplace. Yet, if I understand correctly, most Governments can call elections anytime, therefore giving their citizenry the power, like any business, to fire and replace underperforming people before they drag the entire company/country down.
So it’s a paradox of US life that we (of the “West”) have the most labor flexibility in the private sector but the least in the public.
Aside 2: Look up the guy who won Gettysburg. General Meade. Did a good job. Wasn’t promoted-Lincoln wanted somebody better. Apparently Lincoln wasn’t as smart as our “Stay The Course” posters, huh?
*In case that’s some sort of American college lingo, when a professor says a final is comprehensive it’s shorthand for it “can and will touch everything we’ve looked at from Day 1 of this course so you may begin sweating bullets now.”
Demosthenes 04.28.04 at 9:43 pm
Michael Palin, take it away:
“This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let’s not get into an argument about who killed who!”
Bush doesn’t get a free bye on his past mistakes and misdeeds due to his current ones. History will judge, of course, but history isn’t voting in November.
jam 04.29.04 at 12:55 am
If we’re reaching for a Civil War analogy, perhaps a better one is debating the wisdom of firing on Fort Sumter as Lee’s victories occur closer and closer to Richmond. Incidently, as far as I know, the CSA leadership never did indulge in such questioning.
I had thought the Civil War over. But once again we see Brooks and Gingrich indulging in what at one time was a familiar Southern theme: revisiting the tragedy of Gettysburg. It’s astonishing how persistent the theme is. Not even Le Pen recalls the Franco-Prussian war. There is within Britain no hankering to refight Inkerman or call back the charge of the Light Brigade. But Pickett’s Charge still stands for something that modern right-wing politicians can use. Faulkner thought such obsession (usefully) nostalgic two or three generations ago. And yet it continues.
No. Brooks doesn’t make sense. He knows he has no case, so he picks on an old scab as a diversion.
marky 04.29.04 at 7:14 am
In 20 years, no one will be reading Bobo Brooks.
Doug 04.29.04 at 8:41 am
On the off chance that anyone wants to consider the question that John posed, I would say that our generals are very likely to go and take on the insurgents. Governments with limited sovereignty are nothing new, certainly nothing foreign to US military experience. Germany was not fully sovereign for more than 40 years. Occupation forces didn’t go around shooting up the place willy-nilly, but they had far more rights than, say, Nato forces stationed in nearby Netherlands. See also Afghanistan today, where US and allied troops move first and discuss it with the Karzai government later. See also Cyprus, where the UK maintains sovereign control of large bases there; Nicosia’s writ does not run on the bases.
Local government opposition to a maneuver may change the calculation about a particular operation, but if coalition forces deem something a military necessity, don’t think they won’t do it.
jam 04.29.04 at 1:36 pm
Addressing John’s update:
The question needs to be addressed to the Administration.
Let me repose Brooks question:
We hand over power on 30 June. We dissolve the CPA. A month or so later, there is another incident, similar to the Blackwater guys. We want to take reprisals. The new Iraqi government asks us not to. We go ahead anyway. The new Iraqi government resigns en masse. At that point, there’s no government whatsoever in Iraq. What do we do?
What puts the Administration in this quandary is it wants to replace the CPA with some sort of indigenous government and it wants to continue to have a free hand militarily within Iraq. And it can’t have both.
If it wants to continue to engage in independent combat operations within Iraq, it should not try to set up an indigenous government (other than an obvious puppet).
If it wants to set up a nominally independent Iraqi government, then it should forswear independent combat operations. Either it should undertake them only at the request of the new Iraqi government (in which case it makes itself a tool of some Iraqi faction–and since it’s delegated choosing the government, it doesn’t even know which faction) or it should forswear them altogether and start removing combat troops from contact with the civilian population, leaving only lightly armed (but heavily armoured) troops to maintain civil order pending their replacement by Iraqi police/army.
Yes. None of these three options looks good. But they’re the options. “None of the above” ain’t available.
Dan Hardie 04.29.04 at 3:19 pm
Brooks’s last para was:
‘What’s going to happen when our generals want to take on some insurgents but Brahimi and the sovereign Iraqi appointees say no?’
Couldn’t say for sure- but I would guess that there may not be too much chance that the sovereign Iraqi appointees will say no, given the eerie quiescence of the IGC nominees during the violence so far (yes I know, one guy threatened to resign during Fallujah, and a few others negotiated with the Fallujah rebels- but this hardly adds up to much when viewed in the light of large-scale Iraqi civilian casualties). Brahimi’s another matter.
There are plenty of equally relevant questions which Brooks fails to ask. My favourites would be :’Will the US military realise that the use of artillery, mortars and airstrikes in densely populated urban areas is a highly indiscriminate means of force that will lead inevitably to many civilian casualties? If the US military doesn’t realise this, when will the Iraqi backlash against such tactics get *really* out of hand?’
Barry, meanwhile, would like me to accept that comparing the Iraqi fighting to May 1940 is entirely unacceptable, whereas comparing it to Gettysburg isn’t. Care to give us your reasons for that, Barry, or would that be too much like hard work?
GMT 04.29.04 at 3:49 pm
A weird analogy, a series of vague statements like
many Americans have decided that it’s time to persevere and win.
Who? Time? Persevere in what? What will winning look like?
And then he ends with a hypothetical that sounds like he hasn’t been paying attention for two weeks.
Has Brooks accounted for those Canadian think tanks that didn’t exist? Has he resolved the quadruple/quintuple issue with Will over the budget change that didn’t happen?
There is no point in arguing with those who do so in bad faith. Brooks has shown himself to be a mere meatus.
John Isbell 04.29.04 at 4:10 pm
Update: that’s very nice, John, but that’s not what Brooks’s last paragraph is saying (and you have it right there). Your pseudoBrooks however shows real promise, maybe the Times can hire him instead.
Timothy 04.29.04 at 10:12 pm
Brooks poses a false dichotomy. We can either fix Iraq or we can focus on the latest relevations that help explain how we got here.
I’m not sure why we can’t do both.
BusyBusyBusy nailed the vapidity of his arguments quite well.
John Quiggin 04.30.04 at 2:40 am
It ought to be possible to do both, but who is doing it?
For myself, I’ve found that unless I avoid the blame-game stuff completely, it overwhelms any discussion of the options for the immediate future.
Comments on this entry are closed.