David Brooks offers a somber assessment in his column today: For Iraqis to Win, the U.S. Must Lose
I don’t agree with his central premise (“we were blinded by idealism”; I think we were blinded by fear, but that’s another post), but I do agree that the situation requires a more complex reading of what “winning” will mean/require than we’ve collectively considered to date and that our ideals are central to how we’ll get out of this, if not how we got into it.
I’m a relentless optimist. Can’t help it. No matter how bleak the horizon, I won’t rest until I find one sliver of sunshine, some tiny break in the clouds, the feintest hint of a silver lining. I’m seeing that lining in what’s happening across the blogosphere and the op-ed pages of the mass media. On both sides of the political fences, folks are arguing that we need a new plan because we must not fail Iraq. This is remarkable because in many ways it’s actually circumventing the political process. It’s Americans rhetorically pushing aside the politicians and saying: We believe in these ideals, we don’t need to believe in this or that messenger of those ideals. The ideals are much bigger than any one politician, any one administration, any one party. In what have been the darkest three years of my life as an American, the strength of that clarity shines through the darkness and truly gives me hope.
And it’s a testament to who we are that when the future looks the darkest, when there’s no clear way forward, when self-doubt threatens to paralize us, these ideals lead us up above the fracas, above the politics, and to a place where die-hard believers, such as Sullivan, see past party interests and can understand that “Finding a way to win this war while keeping our leaders answerable for their failings is what a democracy does.”
That’s winning folks. In the long run, that, in and of itself, is an American victory.
The Brooks piece is the only thing I remember him writing that I could at least partly agree with. A remarkable transformation in so few days.
On an darkly overcast day in Portland, Edward’s ray of sunshine is welcome. It is nice to see some signs of non-partisan ideals being raised up. Edward’s comment “We believe in these ideals, we don’t need to believe in this or that messenger of those ideals.” is some hot cocoa (and whipped cream) for a bleak morning.
Not wanting to prick anybody’s balloon of euphoria (including my own), I’ll refrain from adding some realistic or snarky comment that the renaissance is not quite ‘complete’ yet.
Sure I’m no political Donatist, and I’d trust the motives and execution in the hands of thousands of people more than the current administration, but despite these voices the details, which we’ve seen snowball into issues of tremendous importance, are always going to be screwed up if you have the wrong people running them. Even when you can find consensus, which, well, good luck, you’re not likely to drum up a movement for ideas like “Don’t disband the Iraqi army, you twits!” in time to avoid damage.
That’s the Kiesling strategy. Tacitus derides it.
Well, if Tacitus derides it, it must be bad!
In all seriousness, I think Edward has done Brooks a favor here. I read the original as kind of vapid and Edward’s coda as much more sincere and uplifting. Maybe that’s just because I like Edwards and not Brooks.
Anyway, well done.
For Iraqis to Win
Obsidian Wings: Losing is Relative. Hat tip to Katherine on her thoughtful comments. This is from David Brooks (a Iraqi war supporter) in the NY Times today: This has been a crushingly depressing period, especially for people who support the…