Translation
'Patriotic Grace' in Support of War Is No Virtue
How amazing it is to hear how some people still talk about the U.S. occupation of Iraq at this late date. You’d think even the most naive nationalist would have long ago realized that something is terribly wrong — intrinsically so — with the U.S. “mission” and that calls for “hanging in there” are preposterous. When will the war boosters learn that no one — not even the U.S. government — can manage or reform a society (using that word rather loosely in the case of the ersatz country called Iraq)?
And we still hear those calls, one of the latest coming in late August from Wall Street Journal columnist and Reagan hagiographer Peggy Noonan.
Here’s some of what this cloying writer said, with some commentary thrown in:
Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, will report to Congress on Sept. 11. From the latest metrics, it’s clear the surge has gained some ground. It is generally supposed that Gen. Petraeus will paint a picture of recent decreases in violent incidents and increases in safety. In another world, that might be decisive: It’s working, hang on.
What’s needed is not unity but debate at the bedrock level. Is war outside the narrow category of defense ever in the interest of the general public?
Measuring “success”
Noonan says “the surge has gained some ground,” but this is highly contentious. Shortly after Noonan’s column appeared, the news services reported that violence outside of Baghdad was up 20 percent over the previous month. Since the troop “surge” is concentrated in Baghdad, where violence has diminished, it’s clear that U.S. policy is simply shifting, not reducing, the so-called insurgency.
Moreover, we should remember that the additional troops President Bush sent to Iraq in the summer were supposed to help the struggling government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to achieve 18 political “benchmarks” set by the U.S. government. But reports from the administration and the Congress have documented that little or no progress has been made in that regard.
In other words, reports of the success of the latest operation are grossly exaggerated. This was driven home after two so-called harsh critics of the Bush policy, Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, declared in a New York Times op-ed that progress was being made in Iraq and that Congress should give the president more time to succeed. This optimistic account was immediately demolished by critics who pointed out that Pollack and O’Hanlon were never critics of Bush’s war and that their assessment came after a tour of Iraq that was carefully guided by the U.S. military. O’Hanlon admitted as much in an interview with Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com.
Although Noonan is hoping for “bipartisan forbearance,” she can’t help but concede that in some ways things don’t look good.
Noonan might have gone in a different direction with her quick allusion to the history of Iraq. This is a country that was pasted together from former Ottoman districts by the British imperialists after World War I. It took the iron hand of Saddam Hussein (and his predecessors) to hold the disparate parts together. It was entirely predictable that the U.S. overthrow of Saddam would unleash centrifugal forces. So why did Noonan support the invasion and why does she continue to support the occupation, hoping for a U.S. success? Because it’s the United States and it is only right that the United States — a “great power” — succeed.
The anti-war movement
She does ask the pro-war crowd to treat their opponents nicer, and for that I’ll give her credit.
Translation
The administration policy has created a context in which if Bush wins, the American people lose because success will embolden him and his successors and engender more anti-Americanism, perhaps domestic terrorism. The architects of the Iraq policy will conclude that America can govern the world’s trouble spots after all, and enough of the public may believe it. That will set the stage for future invasions and bombings, with the death roll of innocents to include Iranians, Syrians, and who knows who else.
But what about the Iraqis? Wouldn’t most of them be better off if Bush succeeds? This misses the point that many innocent Iraqis will be killed on the way to this “victory.” Better for the United States to get out now, avoid getting more blood on its hands, and let the people there figure out things for themselves.
Anti-war critics were right
Noonan tries to assume the position of neutral observer. Both the pro-war and anti-war side, she writes, are self-interestedly locked into their positions. Because of career interests, they have stopped thinking because their stake in their current stance is too great.
Without this, we remain divided, and our division does nothing to help Iraq, or ourselves.
Noonan invokes “America’s interests,” but this is the root of the problem. America is an abstraction that, when disaggregated, is seen to comprise diverse interests. The biggest divergence is between the interests of most of the people and the interests of the state. We will make no progress in foreign affairs until we talk about that explicitly.
She calls on President Bush to be kinder to his opponents: “Would it help if the president were graceful, humble, and asked for help? Why, yes. Would it help if he credited those who opposed him with not only good motives but actual wisdom? Yes.”
But don’t misunderstand her. She sides with Bush and his unspeakably bad policy of war:
Phony unity and patriotic forbearance are no substitutes for realism. It’s time to get out.
 Mr. Richman's articles on population, federal disaster assistance, international trade, education, the environment, American history, foreign policy, privacy, computers, and the Middle East have appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, American Scholar, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Washington Times, Insight, Cato Policy Report, Journal of Economic Development, The Freeman, The World & I, Reason, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Middle East Policy, Liberty magazine, and other publications. He is a contributor to the Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics. Articles by Sheldon Richman at MWC News http://mwcnews.net/sheldon-richman |
Quote this article on your site | Views: 1362Be first to comment this article |  |
|
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4
Tags: Sheldon Richman Wall Street Journal Reagan Peggy Noonan Patriotic Grace