by Eric Martin
George Packer responds to recent posts by Hilzoy and myself, although in actuality he directs his response to the comments section which he bemoans as being notable for the "considerable volume of sheer vituperation." While he doesn't mention either Hilzoy or me by name, he does make a curious non-sequitur reference to our professions, philosophy professor and lawyer respectively [though I'm not an "international lawyer" for the record]. In fact, Packer, who in the opening paragraph complains about the tone of the Obsidian Wings commenters' criticisms of his work, punctuates a later argument with this snide allusion to Hilzoy: "You don’t have to be a philosophy professor to grasp these differences—it might even help not to be."
So it is that within the first couple of paragraphs Packer provides examples of what has become a persistent criticism leveled in his direction: that he is dismissive of those that disagree with him, refusing to treat arguments in good faith, instead opting for caricatured depictions and extreme opinions that are not representative but that are easier to take down.
In the present example, rather than respond directly to the core of the authors' arguments (he barely touches Hilzoy's criticism at all), he chooses to conflate comments with the posts themselves so that he can cherry pick to bolster his rebuttal. Within that context, he seeks to preemptively delegitimize the comments as a whole by pointing to the invective found in some. Finally, he attempts to pull rank in a familiar way by highlighting professional resumes: surely the analysis of a philosophy professor and lawyer would be, presumptively, of less merit than that of an actual journalist such as Packer (regardless of the actual substance of the parties' respective analysis or track records). Unless there was another, relevant point to be made in mentioning our occupations?
Although I enjoyed The Assassins' Gate immensely (and much of his other writing), the book's biggest drawback is its characterization of the anti-war movement as fringe, knee-jerk in its pacifism and lacking in "understanding" of the region. This was consistent with Packer's pre-war condemnation of the anti-war movement being part and parcel with a "doctrinaire left" that opposes any and all American foreign policy. Or as Packer put it in another piece, the antiwar movement was "controlled by the furthest reaches of the American left" - a conclusion supported in that article by reference to slogans and signs at some anti-war rallies.
A closer look reveals a different picture. Apparently, the furthest reaches of the American left included the likes of Brent Scowcroft, Stephen Walt and a host of hardnosed rightwing realists. Not to mention these people. But their arguments weren't easy to dismiss, and so they were wished away. So, too, were logistical arguments raised by such fringe leftists as General Eric Shinseki. Ironically, Shinseki's argument about troop levels (ignored at the time) was later resurrected by the likes of Packer to explain that, while his intentions were noble, the Bush administration failed to execute the plan properly. That maneuver has become known as The Incompetence Dodge.
Packer's initial rebuttal to my charge that his call for a "stronger American stand" and critique of Obama represented the wrong approach is that he wrote the piece that I challenged before Obama had made a subsequent statement that he considered adequate. Fair enough, but then I would invoke the same chronological defense: my post criticizing Packer came before his later clarification.
But Packer, and other liberal hawks, should not be so defensive. While I made a point of stressing in my original piece that I have no interest in excommunicating former Iraq war supporters such as Packer and Sullivan, nor do I endorse a blanket embargo on their works (far from it, I continue to read each with regularity), nevertheless, given Packer's role in providing a bi-partisan cover for the Iraq war (probably the biggest blunder in the history of American foreign policy) his ongoing foreign policy advocacy should receive heightened scrutiny to determine if that Iraq war support was an aberration or part of a dangerous pattern.
After all, support for the Iraq war along the philosophical lines evoked by Packer at the time was a symptom, rather than the disease itself. The actual pathology (at least for those with good intentions) is support for a hyper-interventionist strain of foreign policy that treats as a given that military intervention can be used effectively (and should) for humanitarian goals in a number of settings (from the Balkans to Iraq to Burma), and that legitimate goals could include anything from interdicting a genocide to democracy promotion. Underlying this faith in the redemptive power of war is a presumption of American exceptionalism, and the esteem it supposedly enjoys in the eyes of the world, sufficient to soften the jagged edges of shrapnel and other ordnance. They will greet us as liberators!
The question that will loom over Packer and other Iraq-war supporters is to what extent they have rethought these basic assumptions such that they will not fall into the same trap again? Is their advice worth heeding? Being subject to this initial skepticism is a small price to pay considering the harsher treatment war opponents have received- marginalized, disregarded and treated as unserious while war supporters are still turned to for counsel by the larger media outlets.
In terms of reassuring readers, Packer does himself no favors by reacting in such a dismissive way to those that take issue with what seemed like a call for inserting America into an internal Iranian electoral dispute in a way that would likely hurt the prospects of those we would, ostensibly, be seeking to help. In fact, after conceding that Obama did take the right approach by not being so vocal and partisan, he seems to revisit the argument anew casting doubt on those that suggested that too strong a role from Obama could prove detrimental: