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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.