We have hit botÂtom in Iraq. And you know it because the debates over Iraq (whether the war was just, whether we planned it adeÂquateÂly, whether we have a meanÂingÂful exist stratÂeÂgy, etc.) have ground to a halt. The big defendÂers of the war effort have mostÂly gone silent, or they’re no longer takÂen seriÂousÂly, and what we’re left with is a deficit of ideas all around. There are those who talk about stayÂing in Iraq, but can’t articÂuÂlate a credÂiÂble stratÂeÂgy for movÂing forÂward. And those who talk about leavÂing, but can’t outÂline how we’ll leave Iraq in a moralÂly defenÂsiÂble posiÂtion. We hear a lot in the way of platÂiÂtudes, litÂtle in the way of subÂstance.
This Fresh Air interÂview (stream it here) with Thomas Ricks, author of the bestÂseller FiasÂco: The AmerÂiÂcan MilÂiÂtary AdvenÂture in Iraq, helps fill the idea void a bit. (His book, by the way, comes out in paperÂback latÂer this week.) HavÂing recentÂly returned from Iraq, Ricks talks about the real options now availÂable to the US, and what steps the Bush adminÂisÂtraÂtion will likeÂly take durÂing its last 18 months. Also, he disÂcussÂes how the AmerÂiÂcan milÂiÂtary has changed its m.o. in Iraq. Gone are the days when polÂiÂtics dicÂtatÂed a sunÂny outÂlook and no real plans. Now, adults are runÂning the show, and they’re getÂting a good deal more realÂisÂtic and pragÂmatÂic. But even they recÂogÂnize that this newÂfound wisÂdom is comÂing perÂhaps too late.
RelatÂed Note: George PackÂer, the main jourÂnalÂist who covÂered the war effort for The New YorkÂer, has recentÂly rolled out a blog for the magÂaÂzine. It’s called “InterÂestÂing Times” and it’s sure to help fill the idea void as well. Give it a look here.
Want to downÂload free coursÂes from top uniÂverÂsiÂties? Check out this new podÂcast colÂlecÂtion.
> The big defendÂers of the war effort have mostÂly gone silent, or they’re no longer takÂen seriÂousÂly, and what we’re left with is a deficit of ideas all around.
Um… what this says is that the only peoÂple with ideas were the defendÂers of the war. because once they go silent, there’s a deficit of ideas.
All the ideas the anti-war crowd floatÂed before and durÂing the war — things like underÂstandÂing why AmerÂiÂcan forÂeign polÂiÂcy has caused so much hate, things like learnÂing to work in colÂlabÂoÂraÂtion with othÂer nations rather than uniÂlatÂerÂalÂly, learnÂing to respect interÂnaÂtionÂal agenÂcies and laws rather than floutÂing them at every turn — are still valid and viable.
True, the rest of the world — even that part that actuÂalÂly likes AmerÂiÂcans — doesÂn’t trust the U.S. very much these days, givÂen its inexÂplicÂaÂble inabilÂiÂty to do the right thing. LearnÂing to lisÂten to the voicÂes of reaÂson in your own midst — the peoÂple silent in this post — would be a good start.
There is only one viable option for the U.S. in Iraq — get out. The rest of the world has long ago reached this conÂsenÂsus (in fact, they reached it before the U.S. went in).
I think all I was sayÂing is that the iniÂtial debates at least forced peoÂple to think, and, in the midst of it, the critÂics made some halfway nuanced points.
With the debate havÂing died down, I don’t see much in the way of fresh thinkÂing. GetÂting out of Iraq may make sense. But there is still the quesÂtion of how, and at what cost, and, on that score, I don’t see much in the way of seriÂous thinkÂing. Hence why I focused on Ricks who has been on the ground and underÂstands what the most realÂisÂtic next steps will/can be.
The quesÂtion for me is not whether the iniÂtial critÂiÂcisms were valid. It’s whether the curÂrent thinkÂing is informed and realÂisÂtic, and I am not sure that it is.