David Brooks Mangles History to Mask Neocon Failures

Nobody spins neocon failures as artfully as David Brooks. Who else could write a column titled "The Postwar Election" and be taken seriously? Stripped down to its essentials, his basic argument is that since the surge is such a success, voters are turning their attention away from the war in Iraq. Consequently the 2008 election will be decided on other issues. It's his backhanded way of insinuating - without saying - that the occupation in Iraq is a success, and that a Democratic landslide will not be a referendum on the war.

"The main point is this: money and organization matter less right now than getting in tune with the zeitgeist shift. In 1945, Prime Minister Winston Churchill had formidable advantages over Clement Attlee. But when a public turns from a war mentality to a peace mentality, it turns with a vengeance -- even though in this case no armistice has been declared."

In referencing the 1945 election that turned Winston Churchill out of office, Brooks doesn't rewrite history so much as he twists or perverts it. As any high school student can tell you, by the time of the 1945 election, World War II in Europe was over. It did not end in an armistice, but in Germany's unconditional surrender. No one doubted the legitimacy of the war. Britain was unified in its resolve to win, and there was a sense of shared sacrifice across the nation.

If anything is a sure bet for 2008, it's that the Iraq occupation will not be over, but the majority of the country will continue to believe that the invasion was not worth it. Strains on government funding will remind us how the Iraq war squandered treasure as well as lives. And who came up with the fantasy that an armistice is anywhere on the horizon?

Bogus historical references are Brooks' specialty. A month ago, he insinuated that Condi Rice was on the brink of a diplomatic coup analogous to the formation of NATO. Our allies share a common view that "an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance is on the march," writes Brooks. So Rice is constructing an "anti-Iran counter-alliance." That's right. Behind the scenes, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Palestinians and the U.S. are working together to thwart Iranian hegemony. Brooks points out that Rice is "an admirer of former Secretary of State Dean Acheson and is now present at the creation of a containment policy across the Middle East." (Acheson's memoir was titled, Present at the Creation. "Containment" was the policy first articulated by George Kennan.)

The fatal flaw is obvious if you think about it for 10 seconds. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the rest of the Middle East have gone out of their way to undercut Western sanctions and America's military belligerence. (See Money Talks. It says "We Like Iran!" The details may be dated, but the trend has only accelerated.) And the notion that Israel and the UAE are on the same page when it comes to dealing with Iran is a bit of a stretch.

Brooks' coup de grace was published exactly one year ago. The Second Thirty Years' War is coming, writes David Brooks, who blames Iraq's disintegration on "Arab society" instead of U.S. mismanagement. "Efforts to exhort Iraqi and other leaders to behave 'responsibly' -- as defined by Western nationalist categories -- were doomed to failure," Brooks argues, because Arabs are driven by those all-too-familiar attributes: dual loyalties, international conspiracy and media control.

With the deftest slight-of-hand, Brooks repackages his bigotry in the vernacular of the social sciences:

"Subnational groups -- like Hezbollah and the Mahdi Army -- and supranational groups -- like loosely connected terror networks, the new Sunni and Shiite Leagues and the satellite television networks -- went from strength to strength while central national governments toppled and fell."

[]
"The core weakness of Middle Eastern nations was that over centuries Arab society had developed intricate social organizations based on family, tribe and faith. Loyalty to these superseded national bonds. Notions of federalism and impersonal administration -- the underpinnings of the nation-state -- had trouble flourishing in these sands."
[]
Ergo, "Americans engaged in a moronic debate about whether Iraq was in civil war, which illustrated that American vocabularies were trapped in the nation- state paradigm, and how unprepared Americans were to understand the non-nation-state world."

It's classic Brooks. Invoke poli sci clichés like "intricate social organizations" or "federalism and impersonal administration" to deflect away from the obvious - that U.S. occupiers allowed chaos and disorder to fester in Iraq, and thereby enabled insurgents and criminals to fill the vacuum. As for our own difficulty in discerning who is friend and who is foe, "Americans engaged in a moronic debate about whether Iraq was in civil war." Did you ever notice how pseudointellectuals tend to be patronizing?

Comments

[mellene]

David Brooks probably had pressure put on him to do that. Although he's pretty right wing in his views, he's not been known to ever undercut this administration.

[larry278]

The NYT still prints Mr Brooks's work in hope that Mr Murdoch's HR people have a clipping file on Mr Brooks to augment & update his CV for Mr Murdoch. The HR clipping file could still get Mr Brooks on the WSJ's Washington bureau or a line in the NY POST's "Page 6" in '08.

[Manx]

David Brooks has a way with words but not with facts or logic.

[Spookcatcher]

Does anyone on Earth not know Brooks is a NOC? His only regret is not having been born early enough in history to serve as a reporter for the Third Reich.

[Boyaca]

Don`t you all think it would be interesting to have the right wing take the White House for another 8 years and see where they could really take all of you. How far would they really go? Would your prison population, already the industrial worlds highest, double yet again. Would kids be ordered to spy on their parents and families? Would there be the death penalty for , say crimes like desecrating the flag. Would non christians be put to death for blasphemy? Would all communication between americans be monitored by the government, and any non american language be punished by a stint in a federal prison to be re-educated in the american way? How far would they go? Look at the progress towards that type of society they have managed to enshrine in law in just 8 years. It leaves you breathless.

[dontlikeanyofthem]

Talk about rewriting history? What do you think Sandy Burgler was trying to do, under orders from the Clintons? Huh?
And what did he get? A slap on the wrist and, to my knowledge, an as yet unfulfilled mandate to take a lie detector test!
Don't preach to me about rewriting history until you stop trying to do so yourself.
It would be wise for you, and all the rest, to stop thinking through a biased filter and realize that ALL OF THEM, regardless of party affiliation, have become corruptly beholden to special interests instead of what's good for America!

[waiguoren]

I will give 100 Chinese Yuan to anyone able to cite ONE novel, insightful, original, or interesting thing David Brooks has ever published about anything.

[rmreddicks]

The war is over. It isn't but it is. The election stems from the economy. Americans without kids in Afghanistan or Iraq have been marginalized. The oil people laugh up Brook's sleeve and pat him well. At the risk of sounding conspiratorial GWB has some good oil friends. Who's winning? Americans never vote about war. They vote comfort.

[michael098762001]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/peter-beinart-as-cautiona_b_76340.html
Course neither Sirota or Greg Mitchell and Editor and Publisher
cite the trend data.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/103132/Iraq-Economy-Healthcare-Immigration-Top-Vote-Issues.aspx
In the three times Gallup has asked the question this year, the war
in Iraq has consistently been the dominant issue in the public's eyes.
But the percentage mentioning the war has gradually declined from 42%
in April to 36% in the new poll.

[Mark701]

Iraq is only one thing Americans are concerned about. There's the economy, corruption of the Justice Department, lying about WMDs, getting caught lying about Iran, torture, suspension of habeaus corpus, no bid contracts, health insurance, special rendition, secret prisons, illegal spying etc., etc., etc. Most Amercians feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. If we left Iraq tomorrow, it would result in AMericans focusing in on the rest of the BS caused by this administration. Mr. Brooks should be careful about what he's wishing for.

[wsblake]

Brooks is a war propagandist and an enabler of the most criminal administration this nation has ever had to face. No good will ever,ever come from this obscene, immoral war of aggression and greed. I don't care how these fascists hedge with language and the truth. If every single troop was to be gone by this afternoon, it will always be an unmitigated failure that will haunt us forever.

[onlinesavant]

Oh, and about the NY Times: Supreme court goes against regressive precedent about "states rights" and stops FLA recount on page one, and prints that GORE on every possible statewide recount scenario on page 16a a year later.

[joja]

Brooks is merely employing an old trick of Karl Rove's: when the facts don't match one's take on history, change the facts. Or deny that they ever existed, or simply dismiss them as being irrelevant.

Example: W's cocaine use. Never happened, and if it did, it wasn't important. Let's move on.

Brook's greatest flaw is that he has no common sense and too much imagination. What an ass!!

[darker]

D Brooks, right-wing apologist is
A LIAR, just like the rest of the
Bush-Cheney corruption squadron.

[StevenHyde]

.

While I most definitely agree with the gist of the article...

"deftest slight-of-hand"?

Please. You give credit where no credit is due. Put a six-year-old in front of the television while he and Mark Shields are interviewed by Jim Lehrer for ten minutes every Friday night. Afterward, ask the kid if he or she thinks either one of them might perhaps be lying about something.

The six-year-old will finger Brooks in a heartbeat.

First tell: Watch the uncomfortable grins, head bobs, and exhalations during questions.

Second tell: Watch for him to open his mouth and begin speaking. That's when you know the lying is taking place.

I will admit that lying is harder to suss out in the written word, but this guy? Seriously. Bush league (as it were.)

--Hyde

.