On CNN’s Newsnight last night, David Brooks took his favorite rhetorical trope — that there are two kinds of people in the world — to its realpolitik conclusions:
You’ve got to have a political strategy and you’ve got to have a military strategy. … You’ve got to use our Iraqis, the Iraqis who want a democratic Iraq to give them something concrete, win them over. But then you’ve got to have a military strategy too and those are the people who, like Zarqawi, who just want to spread death and destruction. So, what you do is you win over the people you can, town by town and then you kill the people you can.
Brooks was ready to fly to Iraq and lead the army from house to house in Iraq using his magic glowing finger to distinguish the Iraqis we must kill from those we must win over, he did not go on to say.
You’ve probably seen this already but if not: Be sure to read Brooks’ take on breakfast.
It’s linked in the post above — the link to ‘two kinds of people in the world.’
Brooks is apparently one of the few people in this world who give Bush, Rumsfeld, and team less credit than I do. Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but I actually assumed they already knew that it’s probably best to treat our unalloyed supporters in a different matter than vicious,cold-blooded killers.
Oy — that’ll teach me not to follow links… sorry…
Surely, on a point of logic, his last post should read “You win over the people you can, and then you kill all the rest?”
Brooks’ last “sentence”, not “post”. I spend too much time reading blogs. Sorry.
it’s probably best to treat our unalloyed supporters in a different matter than vicious,cold-blooded killers.
Well, exactly. Either he’s just saying “We should be kind to our friends and hard on our enemies” or he’s saying “We should be kind to our friends and raze to the ground cities containing our enemies.” The first it true, but unhelpful, and the second is just plain unhelpful.
There is a third kind of person Brooks failed to mention. People like Brooks who articulate this kind of “reasoning” as rational and sensible. I wonder how many viewers heard that and did not even blink and completely bought it as the next meme to repeat endlessly until it is made into truth. These would be the fourth kind of people. And it could go on.
Every time I think things cannot get worse, no one else can possibly get uglier, someone steps forward and does just that. I am so tired of picking my jaw off the floor. I am beginning to develop a perpetually surprised expression on my face and I blame that wholly on this WH, their lackeys and their foot-in-mouth disease.
Brooks’ unironic use of the term “our Iraqis” is an especially nice touch.
You’ve got to use our Iraqis, the Iraqis who want a democratic Iraq to give them something concrete, win them over.
How patronizing.
If it weren’t for bloggers, I would be very happily unsullied by Brooks’ bullshit. It is an easy matter to skip his NYT column, and no problem to surf past his gleaming pate when Bobo is punditifying on the TV. My question, then, is why serious people pay attention. If we ignore him, won’t he just go away?
Babbling Brooks strikes again?
As Philboid suggests, if the NY Times hadn’t enlisted him (apparently as the result of an “affirmative action” campaign for intellectually disadvantaged white conservatives) would anybody be paying attention to him? If so, why?
Brooks may be saying something simple, but he’s addressing a fairly common misperception: that “the Iraqis” believe or want one thing or the other. This shows up in arguments both pro and con: “the Iraqis will greet us as liberators,” “the Iraqis hate us,” etc. Different Iraqis want different things. If this is already obvious to you, congratulations.
Brooks’s theory is so yesterday.
Didn’t he read Rummie’s brilliant observation that Iraqis will eventually get tired of getting killed?
When that happens, they’ll all become “our” Iraqis. And voila — Victory!
There’s a grain of truth to what Brooks says, but I’d recast his terms. There are what the Irish refer to as the “Hard Men”, the folks who do the actual hands-on shooting, bombing and stabbing.
There’s everybody or the potential sympathizers. The sympathizers greatly outnumber the Hard Men and can be won over via ordinary politics. Fixing up their sewer systems, re-establishing electricity, organizing garbage collection, etc., will go a very long way towards winning over the sympathizers. That’s why people are so furious over the Bush Administration’s failure to spend more of the $18 billion Congress voted for reconstruction.
Once the sympathizers have been won over, do you go around shooting the Hard Men? Not necessarily. Without popular support, people to provide services such as lookouts, places for sleeping quarters, food, etc., insurgents become plain vanilla criminals.
So Brooks’ prescriptions have a germ of a good idea, but he misreads the situation in an excessively bloodthirsty way.
From my web log:
Babbling Brooks
H.G. Wells said “There are two kinds of people in the world, those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don’t.:
The contemporary version might be, “There are two kinds of people in the world, those who take seriously David Brooks and his multiple attempts at discerning the two kinds of people in the world and those who don’t, who ignore David Brooks, or perhaps have never even heard of this “liberal’s favorite conservative”.
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who are dope and those who are dopes.
There are two kinds of people inside my single skull.
Different Iraqis want different things. If this is already obvious to you, congratulations.
True, different Iraqis do want different things, but hardly anyone wants things like, say, liver cancer or living under military occupation.
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who divide people into two kinds and those who do not.
True, different Iraqis do want different things, but hardly anyone wants things like, say, liver cancer or living under military occupation.
Whether people want to live under military occupation depends on the alternatives. My great-great-grandfather moved from Germany to Mississippi in 1867—apparently, even occupied Mississippi was better than Germany. Similarly, I agree that most/all Iraqis would prefer some Iraqi government to a military occupation; I rather suspect, though, that a considerable number prefer the present military occupation both to Saddam’s government, and to al-Sadr or Zarqawi’s desired government.
I am reminded of the Tom Robbins line,”There are two kinds of people in this world : those who believe there are two kinds of people in this world and those who are smart enough to know better.” (Still Life with Woodpecker)
Actually there are a zillion ways people can be categorized, resulting in two or however many groups, but one of the most instructive category sets is the tolerant and the intolerant. That is, those who can peacefully co-exist with others and those who cannot. You can have any number of groups differing in any number of characteristics, but if they are otherwise tolerant everything will be cool. But introduce one intolerant group into the mix and there will be bloodshed.
Simplistic, of course, but in almost every conflict there is at least one group of people (however small) that simply must be killed or otherwise neutralized for there to be resolution. The tough part, of course, is identifying those people.
From the Good the Bad the Ugly
You see, in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend… those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.
Why all the fuss. Just kill them all; God will know his own.
Why all the fuss? Just kill them all. God will know his own.
If we ignore him, won’t he just go away?
No. He’ll go uncontradicted, and his views, however moonbatesque, will progressively gain mainstream credential.
Then there will be two kinds of people in the world, those knowing it’s stupid, and those surprised that somemone finds something so mainstream stupid.
Any typo to be credited to Spaten, Franziskaner-Bräu, München.
He’s already gained mainstream credentials. Along with Friedman, Dowd, Safire and Kristof whose opuses aren’t any smarter.
Spoken like the truest of chickenhawks, Mr. Brooks! Give that man an honorary, lifetime membership in the American Enterprise Institute!
Kieran, right, agreed.
Elizabeth, exactly. I was clumsily making the same point y’all were making about just how unhelpful Brooks really is.
abb1: Kristof and Safire write many very stupid things, but they’re clearly smarter than Brooks. I suspect Dowd is too, but if I am correct, her writings serve to obfuscate that fact.
Why does this fucking piece of shit even have a job at the New York Times where he is allowed to publish his poisonous and idiotic spew in such a manner as to give it some kind of crediblity?
For that matter, why does anyone even read the New York Times anymore?
There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary and those who do not.
Brooks is right, he’s just about 50 years too late. This is how imperialism works. You win over those you can, and kill the rest. However, that strategy worked much better before the advent of television, the Internet and the AK-47. The AK gives those who disagree the power to fight back, which the mass media makes it harder for us “Good Guys” to go into a country and commit genocide.
Actually, there are THREE types of people in the world; those who can do math and those who can’t.
The important thing is to start the killing.
Then the ones who beg us to stop, and who bargain with us, are our allies.
The ones who fight back are our enemies.
Adducing cause is quibbling, our soldiers are being attacked; questioning the validity of their mission is treason.
Once the killing stops we can discuss causes and solutions, like reasonable men.
The killing will stop when the people we’re killing stop fighting back.
“…people who, like Zarqawi, who just want to spread death and destruction.”
maybe someone can explain how killing everyone that you can’t “win over” is different from spreading death and destruction. ‘Join me or die’, very convincing.
The tough part, of course, is identifying those people.
No, the tough part is setting yourself up to be the one who makes the decision. After that everything’s easy.
Is it really so difficult to figure out that the guy with the gun pointing in your direction is the bad guy?
Did they edit the transcript? I didn’t see the Brooks quote in there.
Never mind, I found it. Duh . . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×2408168
now this is amazing: George Bush sings!
Good old Baghdad Bobo, dividing the sheep from the goats.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review