Missing The Point.

In October 2002, Anatol Lieven wrote in the London Review of Books:

The most surprising thing about the push for war is that it is so profoundly reckless. If I had to put money on it, I'd say that the odds on quick success in destroying the Iraqi regime may be as high as 5/1 or more, given US military superiority, the vile nature of Saddam Hussein's rule, the unreliability of Baghdad's missiles, and the deep divisions in the Arab world. But at first sight, the longer-term gains for the US look pretty limited, whereas the consequences of failure would be catastrophic. A general Middle Eastern conflagration and the collapse of more pro-Western Arab states would lose us the war against terrorism, doom untold thousands of Western civilians to death in coming decades, and plunge the world economy into depression.

No, no and no. To be less succinct and only slightly less belligerent: it should be pointed out that while Mr. Lieven took care to preface his doomsday rant with a specious supposition, he so far has been proved to have gotten everything wrong. He is inferring in this paragraph that what he terms a Middle Eastern conflagration is a fait accompli along with the imagined collapse of US allies in the region. Recent history is showing in fact that it is the anti-Western states that are feeling the heat (although none have as yet actually collapsed) while friendly states are signaling that there now is considerable, if tentative, movement towards more open societies.

We are only two-and-a-half years from Mr. Lieven's dour predictions but aside from the Madrid bombings there has not been a large-scale terror attack in the West and the untold thousands of Western civilian deaths have yet to materialize. Tomorrow is another day, of course, but at this date it seems that the efforts of counter-terror operations worldwide has put a serious knot in the al Qaeda chain. It would be irresponsible and naive to believe that there won't be another spectacular terror attempt in the future but arguing whether or not the war in Iraq would cause more deaths than would otherwise have happened is a false notion. What Mr. Lieven seems to be implying is that if the United States had not provoked war, all would have reverted to what must be an imagined norm. This is the corner that anti-war partisans paint themselves into when they start to make predictions about the ramifications of the war.

What is missed in the argument is an acknowledgment that the US had been drawn into a war by the attacks of September 11 and that the Iraq Campaign is but one front in the larger effort. There is a presumption that no other attacks would have followed September 11 if the US had just promised to play nice. This again is being revealed as hollow. The turn-around of Libyan poo-bah Khadafi is but one example of the fruits of the American defeat of Saddam Hussein. Now that Iraq has a new parliament, citizens of neighboring countries are beginning to express their desire for the same sort of freedoms now accorded Iraqis.

Mr. Lieven's third prediction is his weakest and most ludicrous. Economic disaster scenarios are among the easiest memes to cook up and the hardest to battle. "It could happen" arguments don't cut it in globalized economies where capital can be moved by the billions across great distances with a few keystrokes. Whatever, the world economy is most definitely not in a depression. The market turmoil of the few years past was actually in full swing before September 11, 2001. And thanks to strategic tax cuts in the US, the resultant recession was shallower and shorter than many "non-disaster" recessions in the past. In other words, Enron and Worldcom and the tech bubble all operated independently of al Qaeda. To confuse markets and economies is a mistake. In fact, the US economy is doing quite well despite some rough spots. It is the stagnant economies of Europe that are the most bothersome and there the fault is one of governmental fiddling and over-regulation.

So all in all, Mr. Lieven's worries have so far been undeserved.

Now he has penned a book-length critique of American nationalism and its dangers titled America Right Or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism in which he explains why the world hates the US. If you don't have time to go through it all, you can read Michael Hirsh's seemingly well-intentioned review for Washington Monthly. Either way, the reader will come away with the same impression: It's all our fault.

Hirsh says that Lieven explains in his book just why "so many people around the world" distrust the post WWII security framework--the very same framework that has allowed European nations the freedom to mock and seek to damage their protector:

“Following World War II,” he writes, “the United States itself played the leading part in creating the institutions which between 2001 and 2003 the Bush administration sought to undermine.” The real question now, Lieven notes tartly, is why America is “kicking to pieces the hill of which it is king.” His book seeks “to explain why a country which after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, had the chance to create a concert of all the world's major states—including Muslim ones—against Islamist revolutionary terrorism chose instead to pursue policies which divided the West, further alienated the Muslim world and exposed America itself to greatly increased dangers.”

Baloney. If anyone has undermined the institutions Lieven cryptically identifies it is the institutions themselves. I'm assuming, though I may be wrong, that here Lieven is talking mainly about the UN and NATO. The recent "revelations" about the oil-for-food program, accounts of UN peacekeepers raping young girls they where sent to protect, the refusal to address the genocide in Darfur and the clown show that is the Human Rights Commission have done more to undermine the credibility of the institution than anything George W. Bush could have whipped up.

And NATO member nations--France and Germany in particular--demonstrated that the alliance means little to them now that their freedom is sixty years old by ignoring Article 5 of the treaty in all but name.

But this is an old canard brought up by envious Euros and Democratic presidential candidates and has lost whatever traction it once had now that Bush's name is being invoked on the streets of Beirut. What Lieven gets down to is not merely a criticism of White House policy but of America itself. Or rather, a certain "red" part of America that he finds distasteful and dangerous.

Lieven sees the fall of the "Eastern elite" to the Southern/Western "extremist" factions as particularly troublesome. His personal ire is saved for one big red state: Texas. Lieven sees Bush the Younger as having forsworn his eastern elitist upbringing (the "pragmatist president" George H. W. Bush was, and is, the "moderate" here) and rebelling against his WASP pedigree, going so far as to *gasp* adopt a Texas twang.

Hirsh breathlessly agrees.

The coarsened sensibility that this now-dominant Southernism and Frontierism has brought to our politics is unmistakable. Things seem to be out of whack. We have reimported creationism into our political dialogue (in the form of “intelligent design”). We routinely demonize organizations like the United Nations that we desperately need and which have been critical to the success of nation-building in Afghanistan.

By out of whack Hirsh means that the eastern elitist tradition is emasculated to the point that it can no longer counter "Southern/Frontier warrior culture and Wilsonian messianism." Lieven's--and Hirsh's--portrayal of Southern and Southwestern Americans comes close to depicting them as Saxon hordes armed and belligerent, rallying around the bonfire of American might.

Hirsh also recounts, from what source he doesn't say, of how the EU confronted Bush on the Iranian nuclear weapon issue and tossed off NATO as essentially finished:

Berlin and Paris decided they'd had enough of being humiliated, and that the European Union, not NATO, would now be the principal forum for dealing with America (in other words, a forum that does not include Washington). This could mark the beginning of a classic “balancing” that usually occurs against the major power on the global stage—but which America, because it had been viewed benignly until Bush, had managed to avoid until now.

So here we have canard number two. Or three. I've lost count already. By what means were Berlin and Paris "humiliated?" Was any White House official invoking Hitler? Was Washington cutting secret deals with France's enemies on the eve of war? If there is any nation guilty of trying to humiliate an ally it must be France along with their toady state of Germany. And as for "balancing;" until the European Union can float more than one creaky aircraft carrier and defend member states there will be no such thing as balance. This gives Chirac's dream of a European (read super-French) counter to US power way too much credit.

What seems to have Lieven in such high pique, and Hirsh in embarrassed fawning, is that America has often acted with "arrogance" and "ignorance" and yet, somehow, ended up doing the right thing. Europeans and our own "elites" take American idealism and "messianism" as evidence of stupidity and lack of maturity. Europeans are so used to killing each other and rampaging across the third world that when met with an optimistic American foreign policy they heave a weary sigh and check off another box in the "reasons to hate America" column. This is odd because it is Europe mainly that has enjoyed the fruits of American idealism.

Both Mr. Lieven and Mr. Hirsh miss the point when talking about American power. America does not propel its considerable and unchallenged power for the sake of doing so. Prior to September 11 the country was content to trudge along with an unremarkable president who had a funny way with the language. America was required to answer the terrorist attacks and has every right to decide how and when it will fight the war that was brought to its shores. When Mr. Lieven complains that the US "missed a chance to create a concert" he ignores the fact that so many where intent on playing a different tune. He also fails to bring up any logical alternative. Further, he repeatedly ignores opportunities to point out how America's traditional allies worked to stymie its efforts.

The largest point that is missed is that, as in the article from 2002, Mr. Lieven is almost universally wrong. It is amazing that one who considers himself a historian can get the facts so terribly fouled up. At least Mr. Hirsh allows for the possibility that George Bush just might be right. But if he had bothered to do a little digging, or reading of a few blogs, he would have found that editorial writers and politicians from der Speigel to Walid Jumblatt had already come to that conclusion.

Comments

[Maggie]

Mr. Lieven will have more than just egg on his face...rather a large souffle. Last evening I once again heard a report on the Fox about the new Iraqi 'REALITY' show which has viewers enthralled.

Apparently in an effort to prove to its citizenry that terrorists were being captured, the Iraqi government is trotting them out on TV to speak about WHO hired and trained them, WHERE they trained, WHAT was their country of origin, and HOW they were paid.

There was a short video clip of a terrorist but the most compelling clip was of the mother of a victim verbally chastizing him, pointing her finger at him, and calling him an assortment of names. An Iraqi mother taking on a FOREIGN terrorist.....now shown all over the Arab world...no longer having anything to do with Americans.

And the election of a Kurd for President (which was IMHO a brilliant stroke of political savvy) puts the seal on the deal.

Terrorist organizations are furious with Al Jezeera and other stations for televising this program...is it any wonder?

Chirac will no doubt have to ban a few more Arab stations before the news of this success in Iraq truly gets out.

[Daniel]

Exactly. The theory isn't keeping up with the reality. The critics have made the perfect the enemy of the good and exposed themselves as disaffected pikers. I want to predict that sometime in the future some senator will lionize George Bush has having brought democracy to the Middle East. And most of the media will be oblivious to the irony.

[Maggie]

With the deepest respect, Daniel, might I suggest a qualifier on that "media" in the last sentence.

Today I was surfing ...MSNBC now has their viewers e-mailing them in a segment now called

"Citizen Journalists" !!!!!!

For the sake of time I will assume (;D) you meant the infamous MSM... and not the rising shining "sphere" - which clearly the MSM DEFINITELY doesn't "GET" if they're calling
e-mailing TV watchers journalists!

That title (Citizen Journalists) belongs to a few select bloggers -- although the ranks are growing....case in point this week Michael Totten!