David Brooks is a brilliant columnist whose work I’ve always appreciated. But even the brightest pundits can be wrong at times, and Brooks is certainly no exception. In his latest column, he makes claims that are so shamefully naïve that they border on willful ignorance:
The first thing to say is that I never thought it would be this bad. I knew it would be bad. On the third day of the U.S. invasion, I wrote an essay for The Atlantic called "Building Democracy Out of What?" I pointed out that we should expect that the Iraqis would have been traumatized by a generation of totalitarianism. That society would have been brutally atomized. And that many would have developed a taste for sadism and an addiction to violence. On April 11, 2003, I predicted on "The NewsHour" on PBS that we and the Iraqis would be forced to climb a "wall of quagmires."
Nonetheless, I didn't expect that a year after liberation, hostile militias would be taking over cities or that it would be unsafe to walk around Baghdad. [emphasis added]
One of Brooks most endearing characteristics is his ability to make connections that others sometimes overlook. So it’s unfortunate to see his skill failing him now. He has missed the perfect opportunity to place recent events in their proper perspective. Perhaps if he had re-read the news reports from a year ago he would have picked up on a clue to the current troubles: the fact that before the war, Saddam released over 100,000 hardened criminals from prison. When you take into account that approximately 1 out of every 200 Iraqis is not only a criminal but a convicted rapist, robber, murderer, etc., it starts to make sense why Baghdad is not a safe place to take a stroll.
Unleashing such a horde of convicts would have a devastating and detrimental impact on any society. Imagine what life would be like if we emptied every prison in Texas, a state that has approximately the same land area and population as Iraq. How safe do you think it would be to walk the streets of Austin or Dallas? Imagine also that the police forces had been disbanded and were having to be reconstituted. How long do you think it would take before the state was able to reach a level of 'stability?"
Even if such an event were to occur here in the U.S. during a time of peace, it would be impossible for even the best police forces and military units to capture and reincarcerate all of these criminals within a year. The problem is compounded exponentially by occurring during a time of post-war reconstruction in a country run by a former dictator. Given such circumstances, how can anyone seriously claim that the country should even be close to being stable?
While I don’t think that all of the security issues in Iraq can be blamed on these criminals, a significant amount of the 'insurgent activity" can reasonably be attributed to old fashioned lawlessness. Yet I can’t recall having heard anyone, either from the Left or from the Right, even mention this as a factor. Such an omission is inexcusable and I find it difficult to take any pundit seriously -- even an insightful one such as Brooks -- when they fail to take such realities into account.
This morning I blogged about whether we should change our tactics in Iraq. I'm for the war, but the increasing number of casualties, insurgents and snipers is getting to me.
iraq is unstable because the US is an invading, occupying force with no international backing. if someone was patroling my street, shooting women and children, threatening to kill me, I would shoot back too. it is a resistence movement. someone please explain to me how it is in any tangible way different from america's own revolution?
Dear Dicknbush: Let's see in 1776, all of the colonies had working representative governments, which the British government sought of override (for example in Massachusetts the old custom of town meetings were abolished when General Gage declared maritial law), if the British had come to restore (or create) democratic institutions our ancestors would have been wrong to oppose them. Secondly, I don't think that the Minutemen used women and children as human shields. Finally, do I understand that you would be okay with an occupation so long as it was comprised of detachments of Finns, Albanians, Belegians (fresh from their peacekeeping triumph in Rwanda) and commanded by an Indian general, but that the United States command would be intolerable?
"When you take into account that approximately 1 out of every 200 Iraqis is not only a criminal but a convicted rapist, robber, murderer,"
So now it's accepted fact that Iraq's justice system was fair? Isn't Saddam's imprisonment of thousands and thousands of INNOCENT people one of the post facto reasons given by many pro-War people to justify our destruction of the government?
If only our own criminal justice system was so "efficient"! No doubt it could be if Asscroft were allowed to finish ripping up the Constitution. Fortunately that won't happen because after November we will have a new President with a new administration (who will spend 4 years at least cleaning up the dogpile left by Bush and the incompetent goons in his cabinet).
"[Brooks] missed the perfect opportunity to place recent events in their proper perspective."
I agree. Brooks should have stated that given the obvious problem with the felons running around, Bush should have given up on his idiotic war (as many experts suggested at the time) or put more troops on the ground (as many experts had advised his cabinet to do).
The obviousness of the problem is only further evidence for how blind and morally corrupt this administration is.
Glen,
I agree. Brooks should have stated that given the obvious problem with the felons running around, Bush should have given up on his idiotic war (as many experts suggested at the time)...
Because Saddam clears out the jails we should have given up on overthrowing his regime? Is that really the best you could come up with?
...or put more troops on the ground (as many experts had advised his cabinet to do).
Shouldn't the military commanders in Iraq be the ones to decide how many troops are needed? When the Marines took over for the Army they were free to take as many people as were needed. So are you saying that you are in favor of increasing the troop strength in the country?
"Because Saddam clears out the jails we should have given up on overthrowing his regime? Is that really the best you could come up with?"
Are you kidding? No it's not the "best" but on top of all the other great reasons for not invading Iraq, it's an obvious one that I hadn't considered until you pointed it out.
"Shouldn't the military commanders in Iraq be the ones to decide how many troops are needed?"
Sure. But where have you been? Rummy was told that more people needed before the war. He was warned of a lot of stuff that is happening now but he ignored those warnings. He blew the military experts off because they needn't to keep costs down in order to sell the stupid war in the first place. Don't you remember about how the Iraqis would be throwing flowers at our feet?
"When the Marines took over for the Army they were free to take as many people as were needed."
If you say so. I thought Bush was the Commander in Chief. Doesn't he have the final say? Doesn't Rumsfeld have any input?
"So are you saying that you are in favor of increasing the troop strength in the country?"
I'm in favor of no more dead U.S. soldiers and no more dead Iraqi families. Whatever minimizes that I'm in favor of. The situation in Iraq is a total mess, in case you hadn't noticed, and I'm not sure whether it is better for us to stay or get the hell out and say "Damn that was a terrible mistake. Help us fix this and we won't do it again."
Regardless we are going to pay for it because a lot of Iraqis who watched their sisters and mothers get their legs, arms and faces blown off by people flying a U.S. flag are going to be pissed for a long time. Wouldn't you be, Joe?
"I don't have the stones to say what should be done, but if you want someone to second guess those who do, I'm your man." - Glen Robinson
"Oh Holy Father Bush, tell me when to stop kissing your butt and I will do so. Until then, my lips remain planted firmly on your behind. I shall never question you. Amen." - intense
Glen,
You're going to wake up November 3rd, with another Bush Presidency. Sorry to pop your little bubble with six more months to go, but I do delight in giving liberals nothing to be happy about.
so...everything that is happening now is still Saddam's fault and President Bush has not made a single mistake?
I am sorry, but I think you are the one being naive if you believe that it is only those 100,000 criminals who are causing havoc in Iraq. Even U.S. allies like Egypt and Jordan are now saying that muslim hatred for the U.S. is at a historic high.
Let me ask you a question, what would have to happen for you to acknowledge that Bush's policies have only made the situation in the Middle East worse?
It's hard to imagine how the Middle East could have been worse. A slew of kleptocracies, no functioning republics (save Turkey), and about fifteen nations whose primary foreign policy aim is the annihilation of the Jewish state.
But you ask the wrong question, which should be this: are Americans safer today than they were three years ago? Are Americans better off having taken the war to the enemy, than the enemy bringing it to us? Is it not better to have a handful (yes, a handful of a few hundred or so) insurgent attacking our well-armed and -trained troops, as opposed to attacking us in our shopping centers and office buildings?
"But you ask the wrong question, which should be this: are Americans safer today than they were three years ago?"
Very hard to say. Certainly airport security has improved. On the other hand, it seems as if we may created a lot more enemies since 2001. I don't believe we've done anything since 2001 to foster greater understanding or stronger ties between our country and any Middle Eastern country.
"Is it not better to have a handful (yes, a handful of a few hundred or so) insurgent attacking our well-armed and -trained troops, as opposed to attacking us in our shopping centers and office buildings?"
Kevin, do you really suppose there are only just X amounts of terrorists in the world and that right now they're all totally pre-occupied with killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq? I think that is a ridiculous proposition. I would GUESS that there ten times as many fundamental Islamic nutcases plotting activities against the United States as there were before the war in Iraq. And from what I've read, all of our intelligence data is consistent with increased anger, hostility and continuous planning of large scale activities against the U.S. on U.S. soil.
At least you should recognize that your "flypaper" strategy didn't distract al Qaeda from blowing up a bunch of Spain's citizens on their own soil.
Regarding the "fifteen nations whose primary foreign policy aim is the annihilation of the Jewish state," to the extent that is true (which I won't bother to debate now) Bush has done anything to reduce those numbers. Why do you suppose that a government legitimately elected by Iraqis wouldn't harbor AT LEAST intense suspicion (if not enmity) towards the U.S. and Israel for years to come?
For what it's worth, I avoid shopping centers like the plague. Rent George Romero's Dawn of the Dead and you'll understand why.
A quick correction:
"Regarding the "fifteen nations whose primary foreign policy aim is the annihilation of the Jewish state," to the extent that is true (which I won't bother to debate now) I don't see how Bush has done anything to reduce those numbers. Why do you suppose that a government legitimately elected by Iraqis wouldn't harbor AT LEAST intense suspicion (if not enmity) towards the U.S. and Israel for years to come?
I guess I would add that I, as well as many members of Congress (increasingly now including more and more Republicans), believe that the money and manpower spent on Iraq could have been put to much better use improving our security at home and improving our intelligence at home and around the world. There are still HUGE gaps in the U.S. security system which have not been adequately addressed. My suspicion, and greatest nightmare, is that we will find out about those gaps the hard way.
Unsuprisingly, I note that Bush et al. are thus far unwilling to present Congress with a budget down the road for Iraq, which Congress asked them to do. Bush would like to wait until after the election to let us know exactly how much his war is going to cost us.
I also note that Bush et al. are playing games with the June 30 handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis. While Bush has been very very firm about that magic date, the definition of "sovereignty" appears likely to change in the process. Just watch.
But I think you are mistaken when you presuppose that these terror groups wouldn't be planning these attacks anyhow, whether or not the US is in Iraq or not. What did Bali do to justify the bombings there? What did the French do to deserve the attack on their supertanker? What did the Muscovites in the theater do to merit the massive suicide/murder of nearly 400 people?
I agree with you--there are tremendous gaps in our security that demands immediate remedy. But you also win by playing offense, of engaging the enemy. Disengagement and neglect of the Middle East have created these problems--to be fair, I don't mind if you even blame Republican presidents who saw dictatorships in the Persian Gulf as an attractive counterweight to Communism. The notion that "he's a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch" has it backwards: he's our sonofabitch, but he IS a sonofabitch. True, certainly, of Saddam Hussein. Perhaps of the Shah, Pahlavi. Perhaps more lately of Musharraf in Pakistan. Bringing Democratic governments to the Middle East will be a painful, wrenching process, for us and for them. Just as it was in Germany and Japan, and in the former Soviet Republics. But I believe it is worth doing. And that if we fail, the Middle East will be irretrievably lost.
I respect your line of reasoning, and I can't fault you for lack of consistentcy. You, too, want what is best for the country, as I do. I just feel that your method is suspect.
"I respect your line of reasoning, and I can't fault you for lack of consistentcy. You, too, want what is best for the country, as I do. I just feel that your method is suspect."
Indeed, and I may be wrong and Wolfowitz may be right and he'll go down as a brilliant visionary in the history books. This is the close to the most elemental fork in the road in terms of U.S. policy towards the Middle East. Unfortunately, the die is cast, the experiment has begun, and we've lost the instructions. Either we've jumpstarted democracy in the Middle East or we're on some other course that is going to go badly for us. I'm an optimist by nature but I really can't see the positive from I'm standing now. I will hope for the best. Ideally no more dying and maiming.
"Just as it was in Germany and Japan, and in the former Soviet Republics."
I think Germany and Japan are much more like each other than they are like most countries in the Middle East. Bringing democracy to those countries after dictatorships was relatively non-wrenching because their populations were fairly homogeneous, culturally speaking.
Well, I think the Russian "Federation", such as it is, is hardly homogenous, but that may prove your point: Russia's transition has been far more difficult than, say, the Czech Republic or Poland.
Still, I feel that we must engage the Middle East in ways that haven't been tried before. The Brits tried partition: failure. The status quo of keeping "stability" as long as the oil continued to flow: failure. The imams ruling Afghanistan and Iran: failure.
And as bad as it would be for America and the West were we to fail in Iraq, it would be sure harder on them. Consider: if Washington concludes that ANY attempt to bring Arab sensibilities somewhat into a benign coexistence with the West is doomed to fail, whatever we may do, what options do we have? (1) Complete disengagement--we find our own energy sources, secure in the knowledge that in ten years the money stops flowing to the Middle East once and for all, and the whole place looks like Somalia or Ethiopia. Bad for them, not so much for us. (2) Overwhelming response--any attack on US forces or interests are met, not with withdrawals as in Lebanon in 1983, but with the full might of our entire arsenals, including nuclear options. Again, worse for them than for us.
This middle ground approach may or may not work. But if it does not, I fail to see how any other end is in sight for the region.