Now He Tells Us: Brooks of 'NYT' Says Iraq Has Always Been A Bloody Mess

By: Greg Mitchell (Commentary) In today's column for The New York Times, David Brooks reveals, referring to the history of Iraq, "Today?s crisis is not three years old. It?s worse now, but the crisis is perpetual. This is a bomb of a nation." That Brooks, a longtime cheerleader for the war, passes this off as a fresh insight is what really makes this newsworthy. "History is stubborn," he concludes.

He concludes that the U.S. may have to "end Iraq." No, that is not a typo or a drop phrase (a la John Kerry). Not end U.S. involvement: literally, "end Iraq."

With policy makers possibly considering changes in U.S. strategy there -- even though the president has just given Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld two more years of job security -- Brooks recommends that they read Elie Kedourie?s 1970 essay, ?The Kingdom of Iraq: A Retrospect.? It apparently contains the less-than-shocking message: "Disorder is endemic to Iraq." The history of Iraq, Kedouri wrote, "is full of bloodshed, treason and rapine."

Opponents of the war, of course, pointed this out even before the U.S. invasion, a view shunted aside by Brooks (and other pundits and administraton officials) at that time. The U.S. makeover, Brooks wrote then, would likely succeed. Yet Kedourie, among others, had already documented, in Brooks' words, "the endless Shiite-Sunni fighting.... Tribal wars flare and families are destroyed." And so on.

Now, Brooks admits the country is in "complete social disintegration," if not civil war, "exacerbated by the same old Iraqi demons: greed, blood lust and a mind-boggling unwillingness to compromise for the common good, even in the face of self-immolation.

"The core problem is the same one Kedourie identified decades ago. Iraq is teetering on the edge of futility. Perhaps a competent occupation could have preserved it as a coherent entity, but now the Iraqi national identity is looking like a suicidal self-delusion."

Yet Brooks is not yet ready to admit error (heaven forbid) or throw in the towel. Instead he calls for "one last effort to hold the place together." His first proposal -- fire Rumsfeld -- is already off the table. Send 30,000 more troops to Baghdad. And if that doesn't work, then it will be time to "accede to reality" and "effectively end Iraq."

End Iraq? Wait, even Saddam did not accomplish that. Brooks, when his 30,000 more troops don't work, advocates a "fig leaf central government" or none at all, with the country ruled by "the clan, tribe or sect."

So, at least, the end of U.S. involvement? Have no fear: "A muscular U.S. military presence will be more necessary than ever, to deter neighboring powers and contain bloodshed," Brooks concludes. "And the goals will remain the same: to nurture civilized democratic societies that reject extremism and terror." In other words: We would have utterly destroyed Iraq, and you could be next.