"Seriousness" on Iraq
Posted on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 09:57:51 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Spencer Ackerman upbraids his former employers at The New Republic for their lack of seriousness on Iraq while feigning "seriousness." This is exactly the problem with the Establishment Beltway and, frankly, anyone who wants to "Stay the course" without asking for real sacrifices from Americans. I tell you, just one time I would like to hear a stay the course person propose a draft, tax increases to pay for the Debacle and, in essence a reconquering of Iraq with 300,000 soldiers - because then I would know I am dealing with a person who is arguing honestly about the problem. Instead we get this:
The coming debate over timetables and troop levels will likely generate much anger, shattering postelection illusions of bipartisanship and provoking intra-party squabbles. But, in the end, this struggle will be over the difference between a largely intolerable outcome and a completely intolerable one....
What in blazes does that mean?
Ackerman gets right to the heart of the "seriousness" (which means the opposite of course):
Among the most annoying of TNR tropes is the flight to meta-analysis as soon as the recognition dawns that the magazine can't win an argument. And here, it pains and saddens me to say, TNR embraces it like a security blanket. First, TNR concedes that nothing it can possibly desire is likely to occur: "The U.S. presence in Iraq will not last long. Perhaps this new political reality will serve as shock therapy, scaring Iraq's warring factions into negotiations that can prevent the worst sectarian warfare. But perhaps not." The "perhaps not" is an intellectual prophylactic: it changes the subject before one can ask what in the world the U.S. could tell the Sunnis and the Shiites that could make them believe that that their interests are better served by peace than by war. If TNR has any idea what it means by this, it has an obligation to say so. But -- and, my friends, I can tell you, because I went to those Thursday editorial meetings for years -- these people have no idea what they mean. No matter. Then the magazine calls for super-duper diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors -- but the kind of diplomacy that rushes blood to TNR's crotch: "It, too, must be brutal: It must include threats and promises, alliances and coalitions -- with the threat of being left out. A new campaign should lay the groundwork for agreements prior to the calling of a peace conference that would include Iraq's parties and its neighbors, as well as the United States, the European Union, and Russia." Hysterically, the magazine concedes in the next sentence that it has no idea what the endgame of that diplomacy ought to be -- or, in TNR-speak, "That's not clear." As long as we bloviate around the negotiating table, apparently, the magazine will be satisfied. (In this sense, TNR's posture is modeled after Bush's approach to North Korea.)
The lack of seriousness from the "serious" people on Iraq is a big problem for actually trying to address the problem. TNR is emblematic of this.
| < Abramoff, Rove and Ralston | Hoyer Beats Murtha for House Majority Leader > |
