If you want to encounter the imperial, anti-democratic mentality that many military and media elites in the U.S. subscribe to, you could do worse than to read this Thomas E. Ricks editorial in the Washington Post:
In October 2008, as I was finishing my latest book on the Iraq war, I visited the Roman Forum during a stop in Italy. I sat on a stone wall on the south side of the Capitoline Hill and studied the two triumphal arches at either end of the Forum, both commemorating Roman wars in the Middle East.
To the south, the Arch of Titus, completed in 81 A.D., honors victories in Egypt and Jerusalem. To the north, the Arch of Septimius Severus, built 122 years later, celebrates triumphant campaigns in Mesopotamia. The structures brought home a sad realization: It’s simply unrealistic to believe that the U.S. military will be able to pull out of the Middle East.
It was a week when U.S. forces had engaged in combat in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan — a string of countries stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean — following in the footsteps of Alexander the Great, the Romans and the British. For thousands of years, it has been the fate of the West’s great powers to become involved in the region’s politics. Since the Suez Crisis of 1956, when British and French influence suffered a major reduction, it has been the United States’ turn to take the lead there. And sitting on that wall, it struck me that the more we talk about getting out of the Middle East, the more deeply we seem to become engaged in it.
It is “our fate,” as a great imperial power — on the model of imperial Greece, Rome, and Britain — to “become involved” in the Mideast, to take our “turn.” We can “talk” about leaving the region to its own devices, but all the while we will inevitably “become engaged in it” more deeply.
We apparently don’t choose policy in this country — and Ricks is apparently unwilling to argue for his preference that we stay in Iraq as a matter of policy, to in other words take responsibility for his preference — but hide behind vague references to fate and inevitability and the tragic role that great powers by necessity must adopt in the wider world.
Meanwhile, talking to military personnel in Iraq, Ricks concludes that:
The quiet consensus emerging among many who have served in Iraq is that U.S. soldiers will probably be engaged in combat there until at least 2015 — which would put us at about the midpoint of the conflict now.
“What the world ultimately thinks about us and what we think about ourselves,” U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said to me last year, “is going to be determined much more by what happens from now on than what’s happened up to now.”
In other words, the events for which the Iraq war will be remembered probably haven’t even happened yet.
It’s nice to know that the “quiet consensus” that is emerging does not take into account the unambiguous and well-documented preferences of either the American or Iraqi people. To be clear here: what bothers me most about Ricks’ editorial isn’t his preferred policy — staying in Iraq for years, if not decades, to come — but his attempt to conceal his preference behind the vague passive-voiced rhetoric of inevitability, fate, and the imperial-minded White Man’s burden.
I can argue with — and respect — someone who takes responsibility for his preferences and political stances, but there is no reasonable way to argue with those who dishonestly speak in the self-effacing language of inevitability, of the fact that we will “probably be engaged in combat” without recognizing that — though we can’t make the world conform to our dreams and wishes; that is, we live in the world we have, not the world we want — we nonetheless get to choose whether we’re engaged in combat in Iraq, and accept the consequences of withdrawal. We decided to go in; we can decided to leave.
If you think we ought to say — or that the cost of leaving is too high — Thomas E. Ricks, tell me why.
This post is highly misleading. I don’t necessarily agree with Ricks’s conclusions, but your post is unfair to Ricks — as is obvious to anyone who reads Ricks’ entire column.
Ricks explicitly warns of catastrophe — genocide, civil war, a military coup — if we leave Iraq. These are serious possibilities that anyone who supports withdrawing from Iraq should address head-on — but instead of debating Ricks’ legitimate points, you attack his character, and suggest he is part of some conspiracy to manufacture our consent. It’s true that Ricks doesn’t explicitly state some of the assumptions that underlie his argument — but he does make an honest argument.
They “why” you are looking for — why we may feel compelled to stay in Iraq — is right there in Ricks’ editorial:
“The thought of having small numbers of U.S. troops dying for years to come in the country’s deserts and palm groves isn’t appealing, but it appears to be better than either being ejected or pulling out — and letting the genocidal chips fall where they may.”
In other words, Ricks is saying there may be genocide if we leave. So that’s the “why”, the reasons we “ought” to stay, the cost we’ll encounter if we pull out.
Ricks fleshes out this why, warning of a civil war that could emerge if we leave:
“Many worried that as the United States withdraws and its influence wanes, the Iraqi tendency toward violent solutions will increase. In September 2008, John McCreary, a veteran analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency, predicted that the arrangement imposed by the U.S. government on Iraqi factions should worry us for several reasons. First, it produces what looks like peace — but isn’t. Second, one of the factions in such situations will invariably seek to break out of the arrangement. “Power sharing is always a prelude to violence,” usually after the force imposing it withdraws, he maintained.
Many of those closest to the situation in Iraq expect a full-blown civil war to break out there in the coming years. “I don’t think the Iraqi civil war has been fought yet,” one colonel told me. Others were concerned that Iraq was drifting toward a military takeover. Counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen worried that the classic conditions for a military coup were developing — a venal political elite divorced from the population lives inside the Green Zone, while the Iraqi military outside the zone’s walls grows both more capable and closer to the people, working with them and trying to address their concerns.”
And Ricks also discusses the possibility that Iraq will end up under the influence of Iran.
Civil war, genocide, a dictatorship that serves Iran’s interests — these are clearly the issues Ricks raises in making his argument that leaving may not be an acceptable option.
The most important thing to understand about Ricks’ column is that he disputes THE central claim Republicans have been making about the war for years — that the surge in Iraq was a success. Ricks is saying the surge was NOT a success — it may have temporarily stopped the violence, but it has not brought Iraq closer to stability and peace. If Ricks is right, then people on the left need to understand WHY Ricks is right.
You write, “there is no reasonable way to argue with those who dishonestly speak in the self-effacing language of inevitability, of the fact that we will “probably be engaged in combat” without recognizing that — though we can’t make the world conform to our dreams and wishes; that is, we live in the world we have, not the world we want — we nonetheless get to choose whether we’re engaged in combat in Iraq, and accept the consequences of withdrawal. We decided to go in; we can decided to leave.”
Ricks’ argument is not about historical inevitability. Ricks is explicitly warning of catastrophe if we leave Iraq. Ricks’ arguments need to be taken seriously especially if we decide to pull out of Iraq.
If we leave Iraq and then the country erupts into a horrific civil war — and if the consequences of that civil war are bad for America’s safety — then Republicans will tell the following story: Republicans may have stumbled at first, but ultimately they brought peace to Iraq, which was good for America and good for Iraqis; Then Democrats took over and irresponsibly withdrew, and immediately the region exploded.
If Democrats are willing to take a moment NOW and acknowledge the possibility that withdrawal could lead to catastrophe in Iraq, Dems can formulate a political strategy to rebut the inevitable Republican line of attack. Ricks provides a key element in the Democrats’ strategy by making the argument that the surge failed, there is no peace in Iraq but only the illusion of peace, and the violence that erupts when we leave will be evidence of the surge’s failure.
What Ricks doesn’t explicitly say but implies is that the United States cannot accept withdrawal from Iraq if we beleive our withdrawal will likely lead to civil war, genocide, a destabilized Iraq, a greatly-strenthened Iran. Do you agree? Or do you disagree? You’re unwilling to say, so instead you create a straw man and then tear him down.
The attitude you take in your post is no less myopic and ideological than Bush’s approach to the war — and if Democrats approach the war with your attitude, our blunders could be just as horrifying as Bush’s. Obama said we must be as “careful getting out as we were careless getting in,” but your post suggests we should simply get out as a matter of principle and then let the consequences of our actions take us completely by surprise. I’d rather listen to what Ricks has to say and then make a responsible decision, like an adult.
Comment by Ian — February 16, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
My post does nothing to argue against the idea that we should be “as careful getting out as we were careless getting in”; I would be curious to see if you could find a single quote from anything I’ve ever written on this blog or elsewhere that suggests that we should not be “careful” when leaving Iraq. As I say in this post, “what bothers me most about Ricks’ editorial isn’t his preferred policy — staying in Iraq for years, if not decades, to come.”
My post is entirely about the way that Ricks, in my view, conceals/passive-aggressively presents his argument — that he thinks we should stay in Iraq — behind a rhetoric of inevitability and the imperial responsibility to quell the “the Iraqi tendency toward violent solutions.” The Greeks, Romans, and British had their turn in their day as great powers; now it’s “our turn.” I didn’t make those quotes up; that’s explicitly how he frames his own argument.
My argument is it isn’t “our turn.” We choose whether we stay or we go. Do you agree with my argument or do you disagree with it? If you disagree with it, why?
If we move from Ricks’ mode of representation to the feebly-substantiated content of Ricks’ argument — his primary form of evidence seems to be “I talked to this or that colonel who told me X, so X must be true” — I tend to trust the opinion of Iraqis, who will have to bear the brunt/price of their preferences more than colonels and analysts.
They want us to go, so we should go. The exact circumstances of our departure can be negotiated with the Iraqis and their elected government, and we should by all means be “careful” when leaving — those are details entirely independent of the argument of my post.
Your claim that “The attitude you take in your post is no less myopic and ideological than Bush’s approach to the war” is therefore a misrepresentation of my views, and an unsubstantiated form of personal attack. Myopic? What is it that you’re accusing me of being unable to see? Ideological? What’s ideological about accepting the preferences of the Iraqi people?
Comment by Lee — February 17, 2009 @ 12:47 am
Lee, you write, “If you think we ought to say — or that the cost of leaving is too high — Thomas E. Ricks, tell me why.”
But Ricks did tell you why quite clearly. But you ignored Ricks’ clear, explicit argument for why we should consider staying. Instead, you said there’s “no reasonable way to argue” with Ricks because he is being dishonest.
I don’t have a problem with your basic point that it is our responsibility to choose whether we stay in Iraq or leave. But your assertion that Ricks is making his argument in terms of historical inevitability is a mischaracterization of his column. Ricks isn’t saying we should stay because that’s what the Romans did — he’s saying we may find we’re tragically drawn into the same quagmires they were drawn into.
You write, “What’s ideological about accepting the preferences of the Iraqi people?”
What about the possibility of genocide? Civil War? A military coup? I agree that the preferences of the Iraqi people are important, but you are using the Iraqi people’s preferences as an excuse to completely avoid engaging the substance of Ricks’ argument about what could happen if we leave.
Your myopia comes from the fact that you have launched a personal attack on Ricks’ integrity in order to smear his column, but you are incapable of addressing the seriousness of his arguments. Democrats need to pull out of Iraq with their eyes open to all possibilities — not with a myopic believe that the Iraqi people’s preferences justify our actions, no matter the consequences for them or for us.
As for the feebleness of Ricks’ argument, I am a big fan of Ricks, and I would advise you to take him more seriously. Ricks isn’t all-knowing, but he isn’t a kook either.
Comment by Ian — February 17, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
I think you’re misreading my post entirely. Ricks ought to be taken very seriously — I am sure he’s a smart man who has written intelligent books about Iraq; Fiasco is on my list of books I’m meaning to read, etc. But no one put a gun to his head and told him to write the editorial that he did. He chose to do that himself. And I took him seriously enough to assume that he wrote exactly what he meant to say, and framed his argument exactly in the way he wanted to.
Possessing an imperial mentality doesn’t logically imply that you’re a drooling idiot with poor impulse control, as you seem to think it does. Apologists for British and Roman imperialism were undoubtedly extremely intelligent men — indeed, they may have also been highly honorable — from whom we could learn a lot. They were also people who justified their preferences in terms of “tragic necessity,” fate, inevitability, etc. The primary purpose of my post is to outline this form of argument — and to show that Ricks thinks that the public opinion of Iraqis and Americans should have no impact on what we’ll end up doing in Iraq.
You accurately write that Ricks argument is something like, “we may find we’re tragically drawn into the same quagmires they were drawn into,” but seem not to want to acknowledge the plain meaning of that paraphrase. Ricks’ argument is something like this, as my long excerpts make plain: “You may think we’re leaving, American voters, but I have determined, talking to the colonels on the ground, that we’re not.
Note: he’s not arguing that “we shouldn’t leave because the cost is too high” but that “we’re not,” since it’s “our turn” to be the region’s imperial power, on the model of Britain and Rome and Greece, defending the Iraqi people from “the Iraqi tendency toward violent solutions.” It is our tragic burden to have to stay in the region if not forever then at least until 2015.
Finally, for my insistence on listening to the preferences of the Iraqi people to be single-mindedly ideological rather than merely my preference based on the known facts of the situation, you would need to prove among other things that (i) my belief that we should leave implies a particular dogmatic strategy for leaving (and that that implied strategy is irresponsible and dangerous); (ii) that I actually don’t care what the Iraqi people think but am only invoking their preferences as a cover for my own dogmatic desires, which additionally have no basis in fact; and (iii) that using the opinion of Iraqis as evidence for the likely effect of withdrawl (on the theory that Iraqis don’t want a self-destructive civil war or mass death) is not legitimate. You prove none of these — or even make miminal arguments justifying your claims — so it’s hard for me to take serious your accusation — which, understand, is a very serious accusation.
Comment by Lee — February 17, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
Do you or do you not believe Ricks is being dishonest?
Do you or do you not believe that Ricks provided the “why” you claim to want?
You accused Ricks of being dishonest, and you accused him of not making an explicit argument about why we should stay in Iraq. Both accusations are false. He IS arguing that we may decide we can’t leave because the costs are too high. And he offers up analysis about why the costs might be high — analysis you glibly dismiss as “I talked to this or that colonel who told me X, so X must be true.” Where’s your evidence that the colonel is wrong?
You aren’t having an honest argument with Ricks. You are twisting the language of his column in order to avoid addressing Ricks’ most important points head-on. The reason your post demonstrates ideological myopia is because you accuse Ricks of being dishonest — but you don’t address the very serious issues he raises about genocide, civil war, etc. Instead you absurdly accuse him of not raising these issues. You are are seizing upon the comparison between the US and Rome in order to discredit Ricks, but you don’t seem to care about the issues he raises.
The danger of such ideological myopia is that we will focus so intently on the short term goal of convincing our fellow Americans to pull out of Iraq that we will minimize or glibly dismiss legitimate concerns about what will happen there when we’re gone. Then, when our departure leads to chaos and horror, all our rhetoric now will seem foolish. This approach — act wil great conviction and determination now based on abstract principles, then lose all our credibility when events don’t happen the way we said they would — will doom us to the same fate as Bush.
Do you think Ricks is wrong? Do you think the danger of genocide, civil war, etc. isn’t real?
Or are you arguing that we should withdraw anyway, and “let the genocidal chips fall where they may”?
I tend to think we should leave and let the chips fall where they may — but that’s a very difficult decision for any president to make.
I don’t have a problem with you going after Ricks. I just wish you would treat him with the respect he deserves — not for Ricks’ sake, but for the sake of every American who wants to pull out of Iraq. Stuffing our heads in the sand and pretending Ricks isn’t a serious voice in this debate will only come back to haunt us later.
Comment by Ian — February 17, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
I don’t address Ricks arguments about genocide, civil war, etc., because he isn’t making any arguments about why he believes those things will happen if we leave. He asserts them as probable outcomes, insists we assume they will happen, then asks us “Given that they will happen, don’t you see we have no choice?” But what Ricks precisely doesn’t do is offer a reasoned argument for why we should believe these to be likely; he argues by authority, with minimal details.
Of course, I’m happy to have an argument about these claims with anyone willing to give substantive arguments to back them up. I think based on my current understanding that such claims wrong, for reasons I can outline more extensively in future posts, if you’re interested. The point of my post wasn’t to argue against those who claim that genocide, civil war, etc. are inevitable or likely if we leave, but to draw attention to the frames within which these “arguments” appear. Remember the argument isn’t “we should do x,” but “we will have to do x.” Ricks assumes the likelihood of genocide he needs to argue for.
I will revise/retract one thing I originally wrote in this post. I can be convinced that Ricks isn’t being “dishonest” exactly — he perhaps sincerely holds the imperial mentality I accurately outline above, and perhaps honestly believes that it’s “our turn” to bear the burden of having to keep the savage Iraqis, with their propensity for violence, from killing each other. Perhaps he isn’t even aware of the reflexive frame of inevitability and fate and necessity within which he’s embedding his argument.
What kind of respect does Ricks deserve? He deserves to be taken at his word, as we all do, barring contrary evidence. I am happy to do so.
Comment by Lee — February 17, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
As for the issue of how much respect Ricks deserves, I respect him because I read his book, Fiasco. The book was crucial to my understanding of the war in Iraq. Since I read that book, the analysis Ricks offered in his book has been proven correct over and over again. Ricks has just written another book about the surge, and he has said publicly that the surge didn’t work the way Republicans claim it did.
To accuse Ricks of failing to provide evidence to back up his claims is crazy when Ricks has just published a book of reporting on the war. Once again, you’re falling victim to the ostrich fallacy — that you didn’t read it, so it must not exist.
Your claim that Ricks doesn’t make any arguments about why he thinks civil war and genocide could erupt once we’re gone is just false. Ricks doesn’t go into great detail about his arguments, but he does make argument — and I transcribed them verbatim in my comment above! You can argue that he is unpersuasive, or that his arguments lack details — but to simply deny that he makes any arguments at all is just ideological myopia. You read what you want to read.
You write, “Ricks assumes the likelihood of genocide he needs to argue for.” Why does Ricks “need” to argue for anything? The central premise of your post is that Ricks has a secret agenda to keep us in Iraq, and he is marshalling disingenuouis arguments in order to convince us to stay there. But isn’t it possible that Ricks isn’t “assuming the likelihood of genocide” in order to con us? Isn’t it possible that Ricks is honestly worried about the possibility of genocide if we leave?
As for the “imperial mentality” you’re once again attributing to Ricks, I think you’re trying to distract readers from the key issues: Will there be horrible violece if we leave? What would that mean for the security of the Middle East and the security of the United States?
You write, “I think based on my current understanding that such claims wrong, for reasons I can outline more extensively in future posts, if you’re interested.”
It baffles me that you didn’t think to present these reasons in your original post. Why is smearing Ricks more important to you than addressing the serious issues he raises? Wouldn’t your attack on Ricks’ character as an “imperialist” con man be more effective if you first dismantled the core of his argument? This is why I accuse you of ideological myopia.
Comment by Ian — February 17, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
At this point, I’ll leave it for readers to look at Ricks’ original article — the subject of my post — and determine for themselves which of us is getting him right.
Your claim that “The central premise of your post is that Ricks has a secret agenda to keep us in Iraq, and he is marshalling disingenuouis arguments in order to convince us to stay there” suggests to me that you didn’t understand the meaning of my posting.
I never stated that Ricks has a secret agenda — and I do not believe that he does. His agenda is quite open and visibile in his editorial. My argument is that Ricks should not invoke fate, destiny, and historical necessity — what I group together under the umbrella of the “imperial mentality” — as concepts to justify why we should remain in Iraq, because these figures (fate, destiny, etc.) do not exist. We make our own fate, to paraphrase Terminator 2, though within limits.
Comment by Lee — February 17, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
You wrote of Ricks’ “attempt to conceal his preference behind the vague passive-voiced rhetoric of inevitability, fate, and the imperial-minded White Man’s burden.”
You are accusing Ricks of saying it is our “fate” to remain in Iraq as a way of persuading us to stay there. This is a mischaracterization of Ricks’ column — and it is an interpretation of Ricks that only makes sense if you believe that Ricks is trying to con the American people into doing something that can’t be justified on rational grounds.
No reasonable person would accept the argument that we should stay in Iraq because it is “our turn,” or our “fate,” or our “destiny” to be there. But you are accusing Ricks of trying to make this argument. Why would Ricks make such a preposterous argument? Because he believes we have a Platonic obligation to emulate ancient empires? Obviously, your point is that he’s trying to manipulate us?
Ricks did not contextualize our current experience in terms of the histories of distant empires because he sought to encourage us to emulate those empires — he did so because he wanted to highlight the tragic consequences of becoming embroiled in the middle east. The fact is that the Romans and the British are empires no more — and emulating them means anticipating our eventual downfall. Furthermore, Ricks knows full well that he is basically advocating a course of action that will be highly unpopular with most Americans — and none of these Americans who want withdrawal will be persuaded by the argument that we should stay so we can be more like the Roman or British Empires.
The question this raises in my mind is: Why would you take Ricks’ words out of context and then interpret them in a way that makes Ricks seem like a racist imperialist? Could it be that what you found most offensive about Ricks’ column wasn’t his talk of ancient empires, but rather his suggestion that we need to stay in Iraq?
It just makes me sad to see us smearing Ricks as having an “imperialist mentality” and being “anti-democratic” and “unwilling to take responsibility,” and saying that he “hides,” and that there is “no reasonable way to argue with” him.
I personally believe Ricks’ book Fiasco was an extraordinary public service. His reporting influences public debate in a positive direction. He is one of the few journalists with enough credibility to advance the argument that the apparent success of the surge strategy was actually just an illusion.
You could raised your objections about Ricks’ rhetoric without attacking him personally. But you chose to do so. And Ricks deserves better.
Comment by Ian — February 17, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
Also, you write, “The primary purpose of my post is to outline this form of argument — and to show that Ricks thinks that the public opinion of Iraqis and Americans should have no impact on what we’ll end up doing in Iraq.”
This is just ridiculous. There isn’t a single shred of evidence to suggest that Ricks thinks the public opinion of Iraqis and Americans should have NO impact. Ricks doesn’t discuss the issue of popular opinion in Iraq or in America. YOU believe we should leave because the Iraqis want us to leave — and anyone who thinks otherwise is “anti-democratic.” But that’s YOUR ideology, not Ricks’ ideology. If you believe that our sole criteria in making decisions about Iraq should be Iraqi public opinion, that’s fine — but that’s ideological myopia in my view. You’re refusing to look beyond your own abstract beliefs about what should be considered when making policy choices.
Comment by Ian — February 17, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
I don’t know if I have much more to add this thead except that I don’t care about Ricks as an individual but rather the sort of mentality his rhetoric is evidence of. His argument is, as you correctly point out, preposterous. That may be why you are apparently having difficulty accepting the plain meaning of Ricks’ own words. But readers can judge for themselves.
Comment by Lee — February 18, 2009 @ 1:10 am
Indeed, readers can judge for themselves. And I would like to influence the readers’ judgment, which is why I, unlike you, have more to add to this thread. (If you’re so confident that the readers can “judge for themselves,” why didn’t you let them judge Ricks’ column for themselves? You felt compelled to interpret Ricks, and now I feel compelled to interpret you.)
Ricks is NOT making the argument that we should make a particular policy choice because that’s what Rome and Britain did. To make that argument would be preposterous, but Ricks just isn’t making that argument. To say those are “the plain meaning of Ricks’ own words” is laughable. But readers can judge for themselves.
Comment by Ian — February 18, 2009 @ 1:28 am
Also, I don’t defend Ricks because I care about him personally. Chances are slim that he would be personally hurt by your post. I defend Ricks because I believe Americans should be paying MORE attention to people like Ricks, not less. You are so casual in saying that Ricks’ claims are “preposterous,” but that says more about your arrogance than it does about Ricks.
Comment by Ian — February 18, 2009 @ 1:40 am
That last half dozen posts have basically outlined my argument and interpretation of Ricks. We seem to agree that the imperial mentality as I describe it — the reference to fate, destiny, obligation to save the natives from their own violent propensities — is absurd; we disagree whether Ricks’ editorial is an example of it.
If some incredibly smart/insightful Chinese political scientists/journalist explained, years after a Chinese invasion of Iraq, that China may need to stay in Iraq because it was China’s “turn to take the lead” — i.e., continue its occupation — in the Mideast to protect the Iraqis from their own propensity toward violence, you would understand that argument’s imperial character instantly. Because you like Ricks, you seem unwilling to accept what seems to me to be the obvious interpretation of his words.
Comment by Lee — February 18, 2009 @ 1:43 am
I would say that people should pay plenty attention to Ricks, learn from his analysis, accept those parts that are substantive and persuasive, and reject the preposterous aspects of his arguments. It’s not arrogant to have strong opinions. Arrogance is defined as “having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities.” I don’t think I am particularly important nor do I think I have any special “abilities.” I just think I’m right about my argument. If you think I’m wrong, that’s fine. We disagree.
Comment by Lee — February 18, 2009 @ 1:49 am
Again, Ricks isn’t arguing that we should stay “because it is our turn to take the lead.” Those are your words, not Ricks.
Ricks writes “Since the Suez Crisis of 1956, when British and French influence suffered a major reduction, it has been the United States’ turn to take the lead there.”
Ricks is not saying we should take our turn. Ricks is saying we have taken our turn because we could not escape becoming embroiled in the same fate that snared the empires that came before us.
He writes, “The structures brought home a sad realization: It’s simply unrealistic to believe that the U.S. military will be able to pull out of the Middle East.”
The realization was sad. Not happy or heroic or magnificent — sad. It is “sad” to comtemplate our similarity to the Roman and British empires because it is “sad” to think that our story will play itself out as theirs did. The idea of history repeating itself is not particularly inspiring, and Ricks doesn’t use this idea to inspire us. He says it’s sad.
You say it is “obvious” that Ricks is making an argument you call “preposterous.” And yet somehow, you will probably be the only one on the planet to point out the obvious preposterousness of what Ricks has to say. If Ricks’ arguments are so obviously preposterous, then how is it that you are the only one who finds them so? Perhaps everyone everywhere is similarly biased because they “like” Ricks.
Comment by Ian — February 18, 2009 @ 1:54 am
You appear to have an exaggerated sense of your own ability to call out people for being “preposterous.” You also have an exaggerated sense of your ability to determine the “obvious intepretation” of words. Ricks’ arguments aren’t preposterous, and the “obvious interpretation” you see is actually completely wrong.
Comment by Ian — February 18, 2009 @ 1:59 am
I’ll only add that the White Man’s Burden is called a burden for a reason — it is, by definition, the terrible cost imperial powers take upon themselves in order to do what they must, what they’re — sadly, reluctantly, with great sadness and despondency — forced to do by history, circumstances, God, whatever.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit,
And work another’s gain.
Your gloss on Ricks in Comment 16 is exactly correct and basically a reiteration of my argument in the original post — the position I called the imperial mentality, which you then described as preposterous. You were the first one to use the word preposterous.
Comment by Lee — February 18, 2009 @ 2:15 am
I’m glad you’ve finished posting comments, as this will allow me the last word.
Ricks’ argument is that we may need to stay in Iraq in order to prevent genocide or civil war that would impact not only Iraq, but the United States as well.
This is not a preposterous argument. Reasonable people can disagree about whether leaving Iraq would lead to humanitarian catastrophe, or about whether we can afford to leave and “let the genocidal chips fall where they may,” as Ricks puts it.
The argument we both find “preposterous” is never made by Ricks — it is an argument you foist upon him in your “obvious interpretation” of his words — the argument that we should stay in Iraq because that’s what Rome and Britain did. In other words, I think it’s preposterous for anyone to argue that we should seek to emulate the Roman and British empires. Ricks does NOT argue that we should seek to emulate them in the spirit of a “White Man’s Burden.”
Ricks argues that we may share the fate of earlier empires — not that we should do so intentionally.
You wrote this in your post: “We apparently don’t choose policy in this country — and Ricks is apparently unwilling to argue for his preference that we stay in Iraq as a matter of policy, to in other words take responsibility for his preference — but hide behind vague references to fate and inevitability and the tragic role that great powers by necessity must adopt in the wider world.”
Ricks IS willing to argue for his preference that we stay in Iraq. (He does so quite clearly in his column, but you leave those portions out.) Ricks takes full responsibility for his arguments — he publishes them in the newspaper! Ricks is aware that we choose policy in this country, which is why he is making his arguments in an editorial in the Washington Post. (Attacking legitimate journalists for being anti-democratic almost never makes sense.) He isn’t “hiding” behind “vague references,” — he’s coming right out and saying we may need to stay to avoid catastrophe.
If I thought you were open to further posts, I would ask you to explain again how I am unwittingly reiterating the argument of your original post. In my view, I am thoroughly disagreeing with it.
What really irritated me about your post — and inspired my initial, snarky response — is your claim that Ricks is “apparently unwilling to argue for his preference that we stay in Iraq as a matter of policy, to in other words take responsibility for his preference.”
The “obvious intrepretation” of your words is that you either didn’t read or didn’t understand the portions of Ricks’ column where he argued about the humanitarian crisis we may face if we leave Iraq prematurely.
Comment by Ian — February 18, 2009 @ 2:41 am
As long as you’ve decided to withdraw from this conversation, I’ll add another comment:
You wrote in your comment, “As I say in this post, “what bothers me most about Ricks’ editorial isn’t his preferred policy — staying in Iraq for years, if not decades, to come.””
If you don’t have a problem with the policy Ricks is advocating, then why on earth are you writing about him? Either you’re being disingenuous — because you really do care about whether or not we withdraw from Iraq, but are pretending you’re ambivalent so we’ll take your other points more seriously — or else you honestly don’t care about whether we leave Iraq, and your primary goal in this post isn’t to debate Iraq policy, but merely to eviscerate Thomas E. Ricks for his imperialist, anti-Democratic attitude.
The purpose of this post, as far as I’m concerned, isn’t to trash individual reporters and columnists. “History is Happening Now” refers to the history of our country and our planet — not the history of the Washington Post’s editorial page. If you honestly don’t have a problem with the course of action Ricks is advocating, then your effort to discredit him seems like pointless personal vindictiveness. If, on the other hand, you’re trying to make an argument about why we should withdraw from Iraq — you should be honest about it.
Comment by Ian — February 18, 2009 @ 2:52 am