David Brooks rethinks

David Brooks once called John Kerry "a fraud with a manly bearing." He made fun of him for correctly understanding the nature of terrorism–that it wasn’t a question of armies and generals and nation states, but rather a matter of politics, and of course, law and order. Now this:

The war on terror has shredded the reputation of the Bush administration. It’s destroyed the reputation of Tony Blair’s government in Britain, Ehud Olmert’s government in Israel and Nuri al-Maliki’s government in Iraq. And here’s a prediction: It will destroy future American administrations, and future Israeli, European and world governments as well.

That’s because setbacks in the war on terror don’t only flow from the mistakes of individual leaders and generals. They’re structural. Thanks to a series of organizational technological innovations, guerrilla insurgencies are increasingly able to take on and defeat nation-states.

So he was wrong. But it turns out that it wasn’t anyone’s fault after all. Not so. The mistakes in Iraq–and in Afghanistan–flow from one single source–the commander guy. Had he not envisioned the whole thing–wrongly–as an epic battle between good and evil, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now. And it seems wrong therefore to call all insurgency, as Brooks does, "war on terror." If you take what he says seriously, that’s the problem.

5 thoughts on “David Brooks rethinks”

  1. “So he was wrong. But it turns out that it wasn’t anyone’s fault after all. Not so. The mistakes in Iraq–and in Afghanistan–flow from one single source–the commander guy. Had he not envisioned the whole thing–wrongly–as an epic battle between good and evil, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now.”

    Remember that the this term that Brooks uses, the War on Terror, is n ot synonymous with the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He, like many pundits around the nation, see the War on Terror as something much larger and more expansive then those two conflcits. President Bush wasn’t in power when Britain and France begun their pilaging of the Middle East after the 2nd World War, nor was he our leader when we supported Hussein in the fight against communism. One could argue, that the ‘War on Terror’ really began then, as small rebel groups emerged under the reigns of the British and French occupiers and really has not ceased then. President Bush’s mistakes have certainly elevated Terror in the Middle East, but he alone is not to be blamed for the setbacks that International Forces have seen in those two contiues. Just as we found our large military model to be inadequate when dealing with the Vietnamese, it is failing to counter the Islamist threat we face now.

  2. First of all, I think you’re too kind. My post was hurriedly written and therefore sloppy. Nonetheless, I think the problem, as many have pointed out, consists in calling the war on terror, the “war on terror.” It may be intellectually convenient–and rhetorically effective–to lump everything together, but in actual fact it isn’t. As someone pointed out the other day, there isn’t even one civil war in Iraq, but rather several different ones–with different objectives and different belligerents. But keep” in mind that the phrase “war on terror” begins with Bush and was fervently supported by his flatterers in the media (see the links above on Brooks). Those who questioned its wisdom and effectiveness had their sanity–and oftentimes their sexuality–questioned. In actual fact, as you point out, some of the conflicts mixed up in the “war on terror” have a long history (and much of it not with us), but that doesn’t change the fact that whatever it is we’re doing isn’t a war.

  3. If we choose to limit the ambiguous ‘War on Terror’ to the two US-Led conficts in the Middle East, then you’re right to direct the blame to the President. It is he who decided that the threat of nuclear activity in Iraq was sufficent to justify an invasion, and that engaging Afghanistan for the actions of the Taliban, was appropriate. Many pundits who supported the invasion, now turn to the President, not to criticize the invasion itself, but how poorly the conflict has been managed since. The underlying assumption behind that position, is that had another, more competent President directed the War, we could have been successful. While, the President had made a number of blunders since the War began, I can’t see how another Chief, regardless of his competency, could have invaded Iraq, and actually reduced the influence of extremism in that country. Many people, including John Mccain, endorse this idea, as a way of defending his position on Iraq. He is not proud of his decision to have supported the initial invasion, but believes that Mr. Bush has inadequately directed our forces, and that should he become president, we could actually win. What needs to be accepted, is that no candidate in the 2008 election is capable of significantly altering our fortunes there. There are many more problems, which prexisted President Bush, and will continue to plague whoever takes over there. Unless the our military model change tremendously, we are going to simply accept that a military solution in Iraq, and elswhere in the Middle East, is no longer feasible, regardless of who’s President. Mr. Bush’s decision to conflate the War in Iraq with the larger goal of reducing the spread of Islamist Extremism in the Middle East, has been detrimental to our success. So, has other decisions in his ghastly Presidency. However, placing the burden of our problems with Iraq solely on his shoulders, allows us to forget the role that other larger problems that also contribute. By illuminating these problems, we can prevent conservative pundits from convincing Americans that with another President, or with another aptly named strategy, we can actually achieve results. Its time to accept that ‘victory’ is simply untattainable there. Richardson, the candidate from New Mexico, offered several in the last debate from economic alternatives, to diplmoatic talks with Iran and Syria. In that light, I don’t see much problem with this column.

  4. “Unless the our military model change tremendously, we are going to simply accept that a military solution in Iraq, and elswhere in the Middle East, is no longer feasible, regardless of who’s President.”

    how, then, should the military change and exactly what is flawed about the “military model?”

  5. PM, I’m not suggesting that the U.S Military is in need of fundemental change, just that a miliaristic solution, in general, is simply not appropriate for combating Islamic Fundementalism in the Middle East. While the diction could have been improved upon, it really isnt critical to my larger point, that the ‘warrior mentality’ of pundits needs to come to an abrupt end if we are to make serious progress.

Comments are closed.