David Brooks: War Good, Rummy Bad

By: Greg Mitchell Given the recent events in Iraq?hell, given the past two years?you would think pundits who agitated for an attack on Iraq, largely on false pretenses, would by now be on their knees begging the American public for forgiveness. With nearly 60% of their fellow Americans now calling the war a ?mistake,? and agitating for troop withdrawals?and the president?s approval rating still heading south, thanks to their war--it would seem to be the right thing to do. We won?t even mention the death or maiming of more than 10,000 young Americans.

In fact, several prominent pro-warriors (from Francis Fukuyama to William F. Buckley) have gone halfway there in recent weeks, but a column by David Brooks in The New York Times today reveals the fallback position for the unapologetic: Blame Rumsfeld. The war was a swell idea that the Pentagon chief somehow screwed up.

Of course, he did screw it up, and if a Secretary of Defense could be impeached, he?d probably be in the dock by now. But from the pro-war pundits, blaming Rummy is mainly a way to avoid taking responsibility for their own tragic and profound misjudgments.

Brooks opens his column today with: ?Some weeks nothing happens; some weeks change history. The week of March 24, 2003, was one of those pivotal weeks.?

There you have it right at the start. The week that changed history was not the week Bush took us into war, but the folllowing week when Rumsfeld started to mess it up, by not listening to generals who said they would need more troops to handle a surprising, and surprisingly strong, insurgency.

This presumes, of course, that even if Rumsfeld has sent more troops that the country would have been pacified, sectarianism stilled, and the country blossoming secular democracy today, with Americans troops long gone. About 2000 of those now buried in the ground would be enjoying life with their friends and families, instead. Still, it?s a neat way of saying: War good, Rummy bad.

It also ignores that there were voices predicting a strong insurgency before the invasion that Brooks and his brethren ignored at the time. Veteran war reporter Chris Hedges, in an E&P interview, had predicted that Iraq would turn into our own "West Bank."

Brooks emphasizes that many of his fellow pundits had it right at the time in urging more boots on the ground. They were ?prescient? he relates. But Rumsfeld and his crowd ?got things wrong, and the pundits often got things right.?

He doesn?t cite any of his own views at the time, obviously hoping that readers will place him among those pundits that ?got things right.? And also: forget that he was a strong supporter of the invasion. In fact, he bears special blame, not only for his writing, but for serving as senior editor of the most influential pro-war publication, The Weekly Standard.

[UPDATE. On March 19, the third anniversary of the invasion, Brooks' own paper, in an editorial, gave him a little slap: "Many who supported the invasion have taken this anniversary to argue that it all would have been worthwhile if things had been run better....We doubt it. The last three years have shown how little our national leaders understood Iraq, and have reminded us how badly attempts at liberation from the outside have gone in the past. Given where we are now, the question of whether a botched invasion created a lost opportunity might be moot, except for one thing. The man who did the botching, Donald Rumsfeld, is still the secretary of defense."]

Brooks may want you to forget what he wrote three years ago, but here?s a trip down memory lane with Our Mr. Brooks.

--From his column in The Weekly Standard, March 24, 2003:

?The president has remained resolute. Momentum to liberate Iraq continues to build. The situation has clarified, and history will allow clear judgments about which leaders and which institutions were up to the challenge posed by Saddam and which were not?.

?Over the past 12 years the United States has sought to disarm or depose Saddam--more forcefully since September 11 than before. Throughout that time, France and Russia have sought to undermine sanctions and fend off the ousting of Saddam. They opposed Clinton's efforts to bomb Saddam, just as they oppose Bush's push for regime change. Through the fog and verbiage, that is the essential confrontation. Events will show who was right, George W. Bush or Jacques Chirac?.

?What matters, and what ultimately sprang the U.N. trap, is American resolve. The administration simply wouldn't let up. It didn't matter how Hans Blix muddied the waters with his reports on this or that weapons system. Under the U.N. resolutions, it was up to Saddam to disarm, administration officials repeated ad nauseam, and he wasn't doing it. It was and is sheer relentlessness that has driven us to where we are today.

?Which is ironic. We are in this situation because the first Bush administration was not relentless in its pursuit of Saddam Hussein. That is a mistake this Bush administration will not repeat.?

--From his column in the same publication two weeks earlier:

?The American commentariat is gravely concerned. Over the past week, George W. Bush has shown a disturbing tendency not to waffle when it comes to Iraq. There has been an appalling clarity and coherence to his position. There has been a reckless tendency not to be murky, hesitant, or evasive. Naturally, questions are being raised about President Bush's leadership skills?.

?Meanwhile, among the smart set, Hamlet-like indecision has become the intellectual fashion. The liberal columnist E. J. Dionne wrote in the Washington Post that he is uncomfortable with the pro and antiwar camps. He praised the doubters and raised his colors on behalf of ?heroic ambivalence.? The New York Times, venturing deep into the territory of self-parody, ran a full-page editorial calling for ?still more discussion? on whether or not to go to war?.

?In certain circles, it is not only important what opinion you hold, but how you hold it. It is important to be seen dancing with complexity, sliding among shades of gray. Any poor rube can come to a simple conclusion--that President Saddam Hussein is a menace who must be disarmed--but the refined ratiocinators want to be seen luxuriating amid the difficulties, donning the jewels of nuance, even to the point of self-paralysis. ?

"But those who actually have to lead and protect, and actually have to build one step on another, have to bring some questions to a close. Bush gave Saddam time to disarm. Saddam did not. Hence, the issue of whether to disarm him forcibly is settled. The French and the Germans and the domestic critics may keep debating, which is their luxury, but the people who actually make the decisions have moved on to more practical concerns.

?Bush has decided that Saddam is a menace to the world. All of the difficulties that now arise--a negative vote in Turkey, for example--complicate the issue of how to achieve the goal. They do not change the goal. You can call that dangerous certainty. Those of us who agree that Saddam is a menace may choose to call Bush resolute, which is a much finer word.?