From the WSJ Opinion Archives
The
Agony of Deceit
Last month, before the shooting started in Iraq, we
noted a conspiracy theory that was making the rounds among various unsavory
figures of both left (Edward Said) and right (Pat Buchanan): that, as Pat Buchanan
puts it, "a cabal of polemicists and public officials" are "colluding with Israel"
to "ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests."
There is, it turns out, a respectable version of this theory, and Joshua Micah Marshall outlines it in a cover story in The Washington Monthly. Marshall's article came out just as the Iraq action was beginning, and it's already been widely discussed; two of the most interesting responses, from Jonah Goldberg and Stanley Kurtz, appeared last week in National Review Online.
The Marshall argument deserves to be taken seriously. Unlike Buchanan and Said, he does not deal in anti-Semitic accusations of "dual loyalty." He presents the "neocon" vision for the Middle East more or less honestly (we'll explain that qualifier below). The idea--to which this column also subscribes--is that Iraq's liberation is the first step in bringing democratic reform to the Middle East, and that it is in America's interest to do so because this would reduce the risk of terrorism by addressing the real root cause--namely, the tyranny and misrule that prevail in much of the Arab and Muslim worlds. This vision could, but will not necessarily, require future American military interventions in countries other than Iraq.
Marshall's view is that the neocons are overly optimistic about the prospects for reform in the Mideast and that they underestimate the costs of the policies they urge. His complaints are familiar enough--U.S. intervention risks inflaming Muslims and inspiring more terrorism; the breakdown of the U.N. is bad for America and the world--and while we don't find these arguments persuasive, they're not unreasonable either.
Marshall goes badly wrong, however, in one important respect: He accuses neocons and the Bush administration of engaging in a grand deception. His article is entitled "Practice to Deceive," and the magazine cover depicts a stylized President Bush operating a shell game, with a giant block letters that read NEO CON.
But Marshall has an odd idea of what constitutes deception. He offers this historical example:
Achieving moral clarity often requires hiding certain realities. From the beginning, the neocons took a much more alarmist view of Soviet capacities and intentions than most experts. As late as 1980, the ur-neocon Norman Podhoretz warned of the imminent "Finlandization of America, the political and economic subordination of the United States to superior Soviet power," even raising the possibility that America's only options might be "surrender or war." We now know, of course, that U.S. intelligence estimates, which many neocons thought underestimated the magnitude and durability of Soviet power, in fact wildly overestimated them.
This willingness to deceive--both themselves and others--expanded as neocons grew more comfortable with power.
Does Marshall really think that the failure to anticipate the Soviet Union's collapse was an act of bad faith? If it had been, there was scarcely an honest man in America during the Cold War. It's much more likely that the overestimation of the Soviet system was an honest mistake, and the few people who foresaw the collapse (such as Ronald Reagan and Pat Moynihan) were unusually prescient or perceptive.
But Marshall also accuses the Bush administration of actually deceiving the American people, by concealing its true purposes:
The president has not even leveled with the public that such a clean-sweep approach to the Middle East is, in fact, their plan. This breaks new ground in the history of pre-war presidential deception. . . .
The great majority of the American people have no concept of what kind of conflict the president is leading them into. The White House has presented this as a war to depose Saddam Hussein in order to keep him from acquiring weapons of mass destruction--a goal that the majority of Americans support. But the White House really has in mind an enterprise of a scale, cost, and scope that would be almost impossible to sell to the American public. The White House knows that. So it hasn't even tried. Instead, it's focused on getting us into Iraq with the hope of setting off a sequence of events that will draw us inexorably towards the agenda they have in mind.
Jonah Goldberg asks the pertinent question: "If this is a secret plan, how did Josh Marshall stumble on it? Marshall's proof that there is a secret plan afoot actually derives from on-the-record quotes and public statements." Marshall might respond that the average American doesn't read Foreign Affairs or The Weekly Standard and isn't familiar with the thoughts of Richard Perle and Max Boot. But look at what President Bush himself has said:
- Sept.
20, 2001, address to Congress: "This war will not be like the war
against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift
conclusion. . . . Americans should not expect one battle, but a
lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. . . . And
we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every
nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us,
or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues
to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a
hostile regime."
- Jan.
29, 2002, State of the Union: "States like these [Iraq, Iran and
North Korea], and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming
to threaten the peace of the world. . . . All nations should know:
America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security. . . .
Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun."
- June
25, 2002, address in the Rose Garden: "I have a hope for the people
of Muslim countries. Your commitments to morality and learning and tolerance
lead to great historical achievements, and those values are alive in the Islamic
world today. You have a rich culture, and you share the aspirations of men
and women in every culture. Prosperity and freedom and dignity are not just
American hopes or Western hopes, they are universal human hopes. And even
in the violence and turmoil of the Middle East, America believes those hopes
have the power to transform lives and nations."
- Sept.
12, 2002, address to the U.N. General Assembly: "The people of Iraq
can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan
and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world.
These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect
for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the
Middle East and beyond."
- Feb. 26, 2003, speech to the American Enterprise Institute: " A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. . . . The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. . . . A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region."
Now, maybe Marshall is right and this is all a recipe for disaster. Maybe Howard Dean or John Kerry will become president in 2005 and reverse course, so that we'll never find out. But it's hard to see how anyone can accuse the president of deceiving the American people about his reformist ambitions or the possibility of a long war on many fronts. He's said it all, over and over, to anyone who'll bother to listen.
Not
Right Now
Our item
yesterday on Syria contained a quote from Colin Powell, which we took from
an Associated
Press dispatch. A State Department account, however, offers a version of
the quote that is A BIT different. Here's the State Department's version of
the quote; the words in all caps do not appear in the AP's quote: "There
is no war plan RIGHT NOW to go attack someone else, either for the purpose of
overthrowing their leadership or for the purpose of imposing democratic values."
Who's
Distracted?
"Saddam Hussein's regime was linked to an African Islamist terrorist group,"
London's Daily Telegraph reports, citing documents it found in the Iraqi intelligence
service's headquarters. A representative from the Allied Democratic Forces,
"Ugandan guerrilla group with ties to other anti-western Islamist organisations,"
wrote to Fallah Hassan Al Rubdie, Iraq's charge d'affaires in Nairobi, Kenya,
and "offered to 'vet, recruit and send youth to train for the jihad' at
a centre in Baghdad, which he described as a 'headquarters for international
holy warrior network.' It was not clear whether the centre was established."
Winning
Hearts and Minds
Here's another extraordinary bit of war reporting from the Arab News: Barbara
Ferguson, the paper's U.S.-based correspondent, was "embedded" with
the U.S. Marines, and while she's distinctly unsympathetic with America's war
aims, the fighting men won her over. "I have often found many similarities
between Marines and Arabs," she writes. This isn't a comment on military
tactics, but rather on the "generosity of spirit" that is the best
thing about Arab culture:
One of my "hooch mates," or tent mate, saw me shivering in my sleeping bag one cold desert night, got up and gave me her blanket to pin over my sleeping bag. I was never cold again, and she assured me she was warm. I wonder. . . .
Others, knowing I'm a vegetarian, became concerned about my diet, and would give me their nuts and hard-boiled eggs. Marines constantly give me food sent to them from home--candy bars, sweets, gum, snacks, whatever. Everyone shares. The Marines have a term for it. It's called: "Share the wealth." Care packages from home are made available for the entire group, never just for the addressee. . . .
A Chaplin [sic] told me that some of his hardest young Marines' hearts turned soft "up north" as they witnessed the hard life and poverty Iraqi civilians and military live.
I am greatly concerned that this war has polarized many Arabs and Americans. Knowing these Marines, however, has given me hope for the future of America and its relationship with the Arab world.
Protecting
Iraq's Antiquities
The Wall Street Journal (link requires WSJ.com subscription) reports that the
looting at Baghdad's Iraq National Museum wasn't as bad as early reports had
it:
Thanks to Iraqi preparations before the war, it seems the worst has been avoided. Donny George, the director-general of restoration at the Iraqi Antiquities Department, Wednesday said his staff had preserved the museum's most important treasures, including the kings' graves of Ur and the Assyrian bulls. These objects were hidden in vaults that haven't been violated by looters.
"Most of the things were removed. We knew a war was coming, so it was our duty to protect everything," Mr. George said. "We thought there would be some sort of bombing at the museum. We never thought it could be looted."
And why didn't America stop such looting as did take place? Lt. Col. Eric Schwartz of the U.S. Army's Third Infantry Division "said he couldn't move into the museum compound and protect it from looters last week because his soldiers were taking fire from the building--and were determined not to respond."
In
a War? Who'da Thunk It?
"U.S. Troops Accused of Killing Iraqis"--headline, Associated Press,
April 17
Or
at Least Those Whose Enemies Have Them
"Russian Weapons Make All Countries Feel Safe"--headline, Pravda,
April 15
Didn't
Castro Have Something to Do With It?
"Rising Dissent, U.S. Pressure Led to Cuba Repression"--headline,
Reuters, April 16
Life Imitates 'South Park'
"It's been six weeks since Saddam Hussein was killed by a pack of wild boars, and the world is still glad to be rid of him."--"TV news anchor," "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut," 1999
"Rampant Wild Boar Surprises Couple in Bed"--headline, Reuters, April 16
Reports
of My Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
News organizations often prepare obituaries for prominent people in advance,
and that's sensible enough. After all, the only news in an obit is the death
itself; the rest is just a biography, which can be written in advance for quick
publication.
CNN, however, seems to have goofed up and published a bunch of obits of people who are still alive. "The premature obituaries, housed in a publicly accessible area of the CNN server and searchable via Google, were apparently the work of Peter Rentz, a senior multimedia designer at CNN," reports TheSmokingGun.com. They were discovered by a Web site called Fark.com, and CNN took them down within 20 minutes. TSG, however, got snapshots of seven of them: Fideo Castro, Dick Cheney, Gerald Ford, Bob Hope, Pope John Paul II, Nelson Mandela and Ronald Reagan.
The Cheney obit screen features a quote from the vice president: "I've had a fairly successful career in the public and private sectors. . . . I am unusually blessed." CNN notes that Cheney said this "after a health checkup in 2000"--a rather snide observation, since according to the obit, Cheney died in 2001.
Of course, if Cheney, who is now 62, ever actually does die, CNN can congratulate itself for having been prescient. Or perhaps it will claim that it had to withhold the news of his death in order to ensure access to the White House while he was still alive.
Stop
the Presses
Roll Call, a newspaper that covers Capitol Hill, charges $199 a year for access
to its online edition, though congressional staff members and print Roll Call
subscribers get free access. If you're not sure you want to subscribe, the Web
site offers "teasers"--short summaries of its articles--to entice
you. Here's the teaser for a column by Stuart Rothenberg:
Sen. Peter Fitzgerald's stunning announcement that he will not seek a second term leaves Illinois Republicans looking for a candidate. That could end up being either good or terrible news for the GOP. It all depends on how circumstances develop.
Only $199 a year for such sage insights? Why, they're practically giving the stuff away.
Say
What?
"Trees Pay Tribute to Columbia's Crew"--headline, Houston Chronicle,
April 17
The World Health Organization Is on First
Among the coalition's list of most
wanted Iraqi officials are man named Izzat Ibrahim (he's the king of clubs)
and a guy named Mizban (nine of hearts). This led reader John Piro to imagine
Abbott and Costello at a Syrian border checkpoint:
Abbott: Now be on the lookout, Costello. We wanna find these terrorists.
Costello: Sure, what's their names?
Abbott: Izzat Ibrahim.
Costello: How do I know? I ain't seen him.
Abbott: I know. That's why we gotta find him. He and Mizban.
Costello: He musta been what, Abbott?
Abbott: No, not Hee Muzbin Wot. Izzat Ibrahim!
Costello: I told yuh, I ain't seen him! Is he Hussein's guy?
Abbott: No, he's Syria's.
Costello: I'm serious too. That's why I wanna find him.
Abbott: No, you don't understand, Costello. Syria's terrorist.
Costello: I know he's a serious terrorist. They're the worst kind.
Abbott: Now, if you find him, call the U.N. and get Kofi.
Costello: I got some right here. With cream and sugar.
Abbott: No, tell Kofi to get Yassir.
Costello: Yassir?
Abbott: Good. Now get going.
Costello: Hey Abbott!
In a similar vein is this Reuters headline: "WHO Says Beijing Fails to Report Full SARS Numbers."
(Elizabeth Crowley helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Josh Hendrickson, Reagan Lynch, James Williams, S.E. Brenner, Jennifer Ray, Timothy Kauffman, Barak Moore, Daniel Neely, Natalie Cohen, Dan Friedman, David Martin, Steve Staley, Joshua Brook, Bob Batts, Joe Littrell, Angeline Chiu, Scott Yenor, Alan Ogletree, Michael Segal and Jeff Currin. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- James Schlesinger: We've won a war, and taught the Middle East a lesson.
- John Fund: The left's "judicial Armageddon" is an assault on democracy.
- Collin Levey: New Yorkers rebel against tobacco prohibition.
- Christina Spencer: Canada sits out the new Gulf War, but wins the golf war.
