This is why I love Ted Koppel
Former Nightline host and a journalist with plenty of liberal credentials Ted Koppel had a dead-on commentary on the Iraq War debate this morning on NPR.
How Honest is the Debate over Iraq?
This is the money quote:
"The administration is right. The consequences of a premature U.S. withdrawal would have disastrous implications for the region...
...So setting benchmarks for Iraqi achievements and behavior is nonsense. What are we saying? It's too dangerous to leave because of possible consequences to the region; but if the Iraqis show that they're incapable of preventing anarchy and chaos by not meeting our benchmarks, then we're going to leave?
I think what we ought to be saying is that U.S. troops will start withdrawing as Iraqis do meet the benchmarks."
Exactly. And the exact same problem with the No Child Left Behind Act and politicians and activists and journalists and even citizens pressuring others to be responsible for results that they themselves are not responsible for creating.
That is the problem with pressure versus genuine commitment and support to solve problems.
And it is one of the most fundamental problems in the current discussion of policy.
I'm reposting the whole commentary in full because it's just so chock full of good stuff.
"There is something profoundly dishonest about the way the current debate over troops in Iraq is unfolding.
The administration is right. The consequences of a premature U.S. withdrawal would have disastrous implications for the region. And the region, in case anyone has forgotten or is too polite to mention it, is the oil-rich Persian Gulf.
So setting benchmarks for Iraqi achievements and behavior is nonsense. What are we saying? It's too dangerous to leave because of possible consequences to the region; but if the Iraqis show that they're incapable of preventing anarchy and chaos by not meeting our benchmarks, then we're going to leave?
I think what we ought to be saying is that U.S. troops will start withdrawing as Iraqis do meet the benchmarks.
We've been given so many bad reasons for why we went to war in Iraq — those weapons of mass destruction, Hussein and his neighbors, Hussein and al-Qaida, establishing democracy — that we've actually convinced ourselves that we did it for them… for the Iraqis; not because it served the U.S. national interest.
That makes it easy to depict the Iraqis as a bunch of underperforming, ungrateful wretches; and if they don't start shaping up, we're pulling out.
Well, despite the vice president's bravado, things are not better in Iraq and the Persian Gulf than they were before the U.S. invaded. They are much worse and much more dangerous to American interests.
That's something the Democratic candidates for president seem to believe also.
So, exactly how and why do they justify pulling our troops out? Their slant on the debate, it seems, is equally dishonest."
Exactly. The whole thing is so self-serving, by Democrats and Republicans, that I can barely stand it.
What we need is a genuine commitment and proactive support of the Iraqi people and their need for security and a workable political arrangement. But so much of the current debate is about people trying to get out from under a mess that they don't want on their plates, anymore.
That is why I love the best journalists. Because they cut through the bullshit better than the rest.
Love,
Ben
5 comments:
Amazing, isn't it?
The whole Iraq narrative, as read by GWB, has been fiction that even Tom Clancy imitators wouldn't think worthy of print.
The response to the lousy story is to concoct an equally tall tale.
Honesty doesn't sell in November, though. Never has and never will. We could really use a collection of decent, honest people to sit back, scratch their heads and concede that Iraq is one incredibly fucked up situation that is way, way, way too complicated to address with "surges" or "pull outs" and to start trying to put together something meaningful--explaining it honestly along the way--even though it will be a tough chore with a strong risk of disappointing results.
That, however, would be boring. It would not be easily condensed for the likes of Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olberman, or the radio hacks.
That, however, would require people with strong understandings of the area and its politics, culture, history, current players, etc., etc., etc.
Am I wrong to believe that we aren't going to find people like that in a crowd of folks who spend a lot of time kissing babies, making speeches about gay marriage, and promising "no new taxes" on regular 2- or 6-year cycles?
Koppel is pretty cool, all things considered.
Two long rants in one day. You keep setting them up, I'll keep trying to knock them down.
CDB
God, it is awesome to see you back, Carson. Talking to myself always gets boring and its so nice to read someone have something meaningful to say.
Yeah, I have to say, Carson, that your's and Nye's concern/opposition to a surge really has humbled my sense of what will get Iraq turned around because I trust that both of you are in good faith. Honestly, I don't trust that about most of the politicians/activists I encounter because I don't trust that they are genuinely engaging people who disagree with them on this one or on other issues. And I can trust both you and Nye because I know that both of you do.
And I do think you are kind of getting to heart of it in this post, Carson, which is that the grandstanding is no substitute for an honest, serious, and humble conversation by people who are concerned about the same goals rather than some grudge match that, as Koppel is alluding to, here, doesn't even seem to be about the Iraqis at all, no matter how much our government's actions have fucked things up for them (and which many, many Iraqis are responsible for as well, right now, obviously). So much of it seems to be about what will position people for elections, what will make people look good with their base, what will look most "liberal" or most "conservative" to those they associate with, or create a sharper choice between leadership options, etc.
Some conversation needs to take place between concerned people of all stripes about how to most sustainably maintain security for Iraqis, as Koppel argues here, until Iraqis are clearly able to do so themselves and have a workable political arrangement resolved.
Aside: That's why it's like NCLB; because the typical solution to problems when kids or students are struggling is kick kids or students or schools when they are down rather than supporting them until they are up, something that colleges and universities are, actually, far more guilty of than K-12 schools, where students are regularly weeded out in lieu of a commmitment to success for all students as university professors ironically and hypocritically expect of K-12 teachers. The NCLB/education policy analogy is more complicated because I think a lot of the solution, there, is setting them free to screw up and succeed on their own, whereas my concern for the Iraqi army is that they really are not ready for civil security that could very easily overwhelm them if they do not have sufficient back-up from American or other forces. Perhaps I am wrong, in which case perhaps setting the Iraqi army free to handle this situation on their own is another option - meaning versus pressuring them - to getting Iraq to a political solution. But I do think we should listen to the Iraqi government, and when they say they need help, I think we need to take that seriously.
One thing is for sure, though, at this point, to me, Carson, which is that there is certainly no certain enough knowledge about how to handle this thing to be pressuring anyone to be doing anything. It's arrogant to press people to do something that you're not certain is going to be the effective route, and yet the more "certain" people are - meaning they don't know but they pretend that they do - the more likely they are to pressure others to do their bidding.
And that is where the more honest, concerned, thoughtful discussion gets skirted and made much more difficult, especially if those looking to pressure are powerful and less powerful underlings don't feel safe disagreeing with their bosses, no matter what their political stripe (meaning there are most certainly Richard Clarke's in Joe Biden's and Nancy Pelosi's and Carl Levin's offices as much as there are in the Bush White House).
And that is the most serious casuality of pressure to achieve results, in my experience. Is that people stop speaking up for fear of losing their jobs or incuring the wrath of those doing the pressuring.
Your's and Koppel's comments and Nye's recent observations make it clearer for me, Carson, that what is needed more than anything else, on this thing, right now, is to to turn down the heat and turn up the light. There needs to be more assumption of good faith and more genuine collaboration and brainstorming and common humility among people working on this thing to come to some workable solution.
The two major alternatives - pulling out or threatening to as a means of leverage to speed Iraqi responsibility for security or committing more troops to establishing some basic security and to help Iraqis take over those responsibilities - are not terribly difficult for people to get their heads wrapped around them.
So it's not like this incredible depth of thinking has gone into either proposal. It's more both an artificial left/right divide based on ideological animosities and of a simple commitment of one group to get out as soon as possible and keep as many troops safe from harm as possible (an important goal) and a simple commitment to stay the course to fix our mess, as much as possible, and to create realistic space for Iraqis to bring the violence in their country into reign (another important goal).
And when you look at it in terms of people who are looking at important goals and who need some humility and some appreciation for the fact that both need to be achieved, as much as possible, without false choices between the ideas of helping Iraqis secure their country and keep Iraqis safe and helping our troops stay safe from harm as much as possible, then you can sit down, humbly, and brainstorm solutions that are responsive to the concerns of the Iraqi government that they still need our help, in some capacity.
Ideally, in my mind, you let those troops who are willing to help help and let others opt out (though the absence of that option, I know, very much complicates this situation with troops who are volunteer recruits but who also have to follow orders put in harms' way with little choice over whether or not they are partipating in what I believe is a fight worth having but which many people believe is a fight in vain).
But I do think that we need to provide meaningful backing to a nascent democratic government that has what I think is a good shot of bringing security and a workable political arrangement given some level of monopoly of force - meaning they need the folks with the big guns on their side.
Absent that, I am concerned that Shias and Sunnis and likely Kurds will start to allign with their affiliated militias out of fear for their lives and ethnic targeting and that not only civil war will ensue but that it will be ugly and bloody in a way that is totally avoidable with a workable political solution, which isn't possible without some minimal level of security and, at some point, a monopoly on force by the Iraqi government.
But, after reading your post, Carson, I realize the that the single most important thing that is missing in the current discussion is the assumption of good faith, enough, to have a discussion that is more genuinely committed, as Ted is alluding to, here, to the fate of Iraqis and not just what it does for us or how we get out with the least damage to our own interests, even though we stirred up this hornet's nest.
We need a national conversation that takes more seriously the priority of the security of the Iraqi people than our own petty andd self-centered outside concerns, including and especially our ideological divisions which just undermine our ability to have a more reasonable and thoughtful conversation about what can be done, here.
It sounds so simple, very much like how Iraqis taking responsibility for the security of their country sounds so simple, but in reality, like that situation, it is very, very complicated and difficult to make that happen. And perhaps us working on our own divisions can make us more sympathetic to how difficult it is for Maliki and other Iraqis to transcend their own divisions substantially enough to build a workable governing arrangement.
The truth is that if politics and diplomacy and war and peace were all so easy, they'd all be resolved by now. But it's not as easy as those with simple solutions like "pressure the Iraqis to solve this mess" or "overpower all your enemies" seem to imply. Politics is difficult, messy work, even when everyone is on board together.
But the alternative in Iraq, if we were to abandon some kind of democratic future with respect for various ethnic differences, is so awful that we surely can't settle for it, no matter what these political negotiations reap.
The same old cynicism in Washington persistently undermines the kind of conversation that needs to take place with such a grave situation. But perhaps we could expect our political leaders and those of us who follow them to be more mature than all of that?
I can only hope. And in the meantime, the alternative is so base and meaningless, that I just can't settle for anything less until we get there. Because if I settle for less, they will settle for much less. And I don't want people who have not worked hard enough on the substantial conversation between people of honest disagreement to be able to fake any undeserved high ground based on which base they appeal to.
Fuck your base, is what I say. Do what's right and most thoughtful, and let the base squeal and moan because that's what they're going to do about any proposal that makes them think more and treat people more decently than their self-righteous whining affords them currently. Meaning anything other than whatever they've got cooked up already.
And at the very least, we would know that no matter how people vote thumbs up or thumbs down on any various proposal, that they did so out of honest conviction andd thoughtful engagement on not on all the million of other more petty priorities.
Right now, I think we should do exactly what Ted is arguing, here, which is listen to the Iraqi government and help them as long as they need help. And then get out of their way when they are ready to take over on their own.
I guess only time and our efforts will tell us what will work.
It's great to see your old blog, again, by the way, Carson, if only because I love your taste in music and I get to sample it on your Finetunes.
I'll talk with you later, dude.
Ben
P.S. Totally agree, by the way, that it would be really nice to see a much fuller and more thoughtful conversation involving folks with more knowledge of the history, culture, politics, etc. When I think about it, it's kind of ironic that you've seen so little of that conversation - I've heard plenty of generalists, like Joe or Eliot Cohen, who I still think are brilliant and have some of the most insightful commentary -but very few Iraqi specialists. I could have been and could be sniffing them out, myself, but I guess I have this sense that there are folks with more fundamental understandings of the dynamics involved. That may be true (I think it is) but it is interesting to me that 3 years into this war and I haven't even thought about diving into the work of Iraq specialists (other than David McCullough, whose written some fine work on Iraq and the Middle East, generally). I do have this bias that people who write more broadly tend to have better insights, but I haven't even thought to test that bias in this case by consulting more specialists. I should be working on that over the next couple months or so, as I have time. It's a bias worth investing some time in challenging and exploring.
Ben
Somewhat related thought...
The bad news: America's history is not one of subtlety and complication. Our behavior as a nation (and this may be endemic to any republic) has been generally guided by somewhat base appeals and an appreciation of what I'm going to term The Myth of Simplicity.
The good news: Our history is only 200+ years long. That's a blink compared to those of other societies, so we have a chance to shift to a more thoughtful direction. Plus, the beauty of our government's structure is that it's capable of handling that kind of transition.
The bottom line: Unless we make a serious and concerted effort to change the nature of our political discourse and surrender the horse-race mentality, we're probably doomed to have our Iraqs and other "oh, crap!" situations. We have a two-century track record of muddling through those errors and somehow surviving, but all streaks eventually come to and end, right? It's time to reject The Myth of Simplicity and embrace the idea that things are complicated and we're going to have to try harder and work smarter.
A potential hope: I've finished The Audacity of Hope and I think Obama has some of that outlook in his system. I'm not ready to anoint him as a potential savior (or even a great Prez choice yet), but I hope he can preach that particular message and "get it out there" because no one else seems willing to do that.
Later,
Carson
"The good news: Our history is only 200+ years long. That's a blink compared to those of other societies, so we have a chance to shift to a more thoughtful direction. Plus, the beauty of our government's structure is that it's capable of handling that kind of transition.
The bottom line: Unless we make a serious and concerted effort to change the nature of our political discourse and surrender the horse-race mentality, we're probably doomed to have our Iraqs and other "oh, crap!" situations. We have a two-century track record of muddling through those errors and somehow surviving, but all streaks eventually come to and end, right? It's time to reject The Myth of Simplicity and embrace the idea that things are complicated and we're going to have to try harder and work smarter."
Exactly, Carson. Everything you said here was dead-on. I agree about Barak, too. He's no savior, but he may move us in a better direction. And he has media backing amidst a period when people are taking his brand of liberal thoughtfulness seriously in a way that Bill Bradley was not afforded in 2000.
I'm also really interested in Ron Paul's run in the Republican primaries. Ron's books were always around our house, when I was growing up, because before becoming as more committed liberal and Democrat my dad was a libertarian back in the day. It's funny. I always thought Ron's ideas were pretty crazy, back in the day. But I think he can talk fairly intelligently, I hope, about a lot of the stronger ideas that Republicans have to bring to the table, I think. I'm not clear whether he is ready to lead government, yet, which is an important responsibility that more romantic libertarians always underappreciate, in my experience. But I think his campaign will be healthy for Republicans.
But what you said, Carson, is exactly the central problem. If we don't want to make the same stupid mistakes in our policy, then we have to stop engaging in the same stupid conversations around horse races, etc., rather than more intellectually honest and substantive policy debates and discussions and choose our political leaders based on who we think has their heads wrapped around issues better and have better ideas.
It sits in the background like this sad absurdity that intellectuals have to watch feeling helpless and have gotten used to because you feel like you can't change it.
But I think it needs to change if we are going to get smarter policy rather than tougher policy, all the time, which is one long excuse for why we don't think about policy matters more.
I'll talk with you soon, dude.
Ben
Post a Comment