6:25PM
Better late than never?
Abu Ray
I read the recommendations and descriptions of the Iraq Study Group report wit a mixture of elation and rage. Elation because this was the final nail in the coffin of the whole incredibly destructive US neo-con mission to remake the Middle East. It was the reassertion of traditional realpolitik over US policy -- not necessarily the best and most constructive approach, but certainly less destructive that Bush Jr. and his psychopaths. I’m sure many would say it’s not even the lesser of two evils, but under the cold calculating approach by people like Baker and the others, Iraq would not have been so horrifically destabilized. As the cartoon in the Guardian said, it was time for the adults to get back into politics. God save us from the visionaries.
But if the price for Bush’s humiliation was the wholesale dismantling of Iraq’s social fiber, was it really worth it? And that’s where the rage comes in. It’s a good report, it’s familiar reading because all of us – media, Iraqis, international organizations – have been saying this for years. Where the hell was this panel a year and a half ago before got quite so awful?
Why do these old fogies say it and everyone, including the president, nod sagaciously and accept it, while everyone else was ignored before. The upbeat military weekly military press conferences, the blog attacks on the “liberal media�, the Bush administration’s defense of the situation … suddenly it’s all gone, as though it never was, and everyone seems to have no problem acknowledging that the situation in Iraq has become beyond awful.
Better late than never. I guess.
Unless of course it’s too late.
But if the price for Bush’s humiliation was the wholesale dismantling of Iraq’s social fiber, was it really worth it? And that’s where the rage comes in. It’s a good report, it’s familiar reading because all of us – media, Iraqis, international organizations – have been saying this for years. Where the hell was this panel a year and a half ago before got quite so awful?
Why do these old fogies say it and everyone, including the president, nod sagaciously and accept it, while everyone else was ignored before. The upbeat military weekly military press conferences, the blog attacks on the “liberal media�, the Bush administration’s defense of the situation … suddenly it’s all gone, as though it never was, and everyone seems to have no problem acknowledging that the situation in Iraq has become beyond awful.
Better late than never. I guess.
Unless of course it’s too late.
Reader Comments (7)
Kagan in a recent article in FT objected to the idea that realpolitik characterises "traditional" US foreign policy and that Bush's adventures would be an exception...
Interesting point of view.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f035e656-84e0-11db-87e0-0000779e2340.html
Not sure about the "better late than never" bit. Quote from the Guardian:
British Middle East experts generally welcomed the report, though some thought it had come too late. "Engaging with Syria and Iran is the right thing to do, but this is the wrong time," said Nadime Shehadi, an associate fellow at the Chatham House thinktank. "The US and its allies are in too weak a position now to have a constructive dialogue. It will be perceived as capitulation."
I'm not sure a mea culpa from the neocons/visionaries is all that relevant at this point, or should be a cause for celebration, even if it does suggest a return to a more realpolitik and less wild-eyed US foreign policy in the Middle East. In fact, the US media's focus on the report as a reflection of internal administration politicking is irritating. I'd want to know if the proposals have a chance of fixing the broken mess that said wild-eyed neocons are now responsible for. Particularly if the focus on Iran and Syria's role is appropriate, or even realistic.
I found this cheat sheet, er, summary table useful:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/world/middleeast/06report_summary.html
It's unquestionably too late for a lot of dead people. And the ISG report is unlikely to lead to any concrete change in policy.
But we can feel better because the "grown ups" said what everyone with a grain of sense has said for years?
I think there's another way of coming at this. Look at it this way: Baker is about damage control and correcting tactical errors. Horrific tactical errors, but still tactical. The establishment about-face you refer to is all on that level. There isn't any change in the underlying creed based on divide and conquer, and the ultimate authority of military solutions.
The other dimension--meetings of the minds, negotiation, multilateralism--is all missing from this. (Except in the specific emergency case of Iraq and in the cosmetic references to Palestine). This came to me in a bolt of lightening as I was preparing summaries of recent opinion pieces from Lebanon and Syria, (http://arablinks.blogspot.com/2006/12/samaha-america-still-dangerous-despite.html" rel="nofollow">here and http://arablinks.blogspot.com/2006/12/there-will-come-person-after-bush-who.html" rel="nofollow">herewhere the writers point to the superficiality of the current "changes", where if I shut my eyes I could imagine it was from the American Left of the middle of the last century, but a Left that doesn't exist any more.
I think that's the problem in America. There's no fundamental critique. It is a one-creed state.
So I guess what I'm saying is it might be too soon to be elated.
what about the reference to the question of palestinian refugees' return? it's not nothing, for a mere "cosmetic" reference; or maybe simply a mistake from their part (they didn't know it was a taboo?)
I need to take some time to read the report, but the little that I have read of it, indicates to me that the Iraq Study group has officially stated what has been obvious to many of us for, I don't know, about 2.5 years. There really is a sense of no shit, Sherlock, among many that I know. And that maybe Bush will listen because Daddy's clean up man said it.