Thread: Krauthammer's introspective (warning: explicit content)

"Why Iraq Is Crumbling"
(By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 17, 2006; Page A25)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111601359.html

We have given the Iraqis a republic, and they do not appear able to keep it.

Americans flatter themselves that they are the root of all planetary evil. Nukes in North Korea? Poverty in Bolivia? Sectarian violence in Iraq? Breasts are beaten and fingers pointed as we try to somehow locate the root cause in America.

Our discourse on Iraq has followed the same pattern. Where did we go wrong? Too few troops? Too arrogant an occupation? Or too soft? Take your pick.

I have my own theories. In retrospect, I think we made several serious mistakes -- not shooting looters, not installing an Iraqi exile government right away, and not taking out Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army in its infancy in 2004 -- that greatly compromised the occupation. Nonetheless, the root problem lies with Iraqis and their political culture.
(...)

I rarely manage to read anything Krauthammer writes all the way through, and I haven't since about december 2002, when he presented his "New Type of Realism". Where it was explained how any ambitious social construction- project would inevitably succeed, if spearheaded by a strong unilateral initiative. "Unilateralism is the high road to multilateralism", he proclaimed, and with that constructed a categorical defense for any unilateral initiative that would promise to bring about favourable change in the future.

The concept is simple, and rests on the popular presumption shared by left and right in the US: that the US, as the last superpower, has great influence and might, and can therefore bring about change through that influence. Furthermore, the "reality" is then considered to be the ease with which this change will happen, and that it cannot be countered because noone else is strong enough. And that by sheer necessity any criticism will be silenced, since ultimately no ally or enemy truly would want to be left outside when the door closes into the new exclusive club. And why would they, when everyone would benefit from such an alliance of nations and groups, which would bring about this favourable change, spearheaded by the US. Including, I'm sure, ending wars and everyone becoming happy, prosperous, joyful and friendly towards each other.

However reluctantly, the Neo- conservatives and architects of the Bush- vision for the middle east and the Iraq war are now forced to admit certain.. problems. Not with their theory, naturally. The fault lies everywhere else.

Disregard for a moment the internal inconsistency in Krauthammers analysis, and let it sink in just what he thinks is the problem: it's not the idea to make use of American influence in a general unspecific manner and scope. It's not the vision of bringing about change in the world and leading by example. It's not the conditions at the time, or the history, or the ill- concieved notions of how western- style democracy would sprout up from nowhere. It's not the categorical assumptions about the world, or anything that was done to attempt to bring about change. No, it's the Iraqis' fault. They were given the opportunity by the United States to embrace democracy, and they failed to make use of it. Do not mind lack of planning, the methods applied or the lack of political grounding in Iraq. Or absence of institutions or infrastructure. Or the disconnect between US style democracy and Iraqi reliance on alternative organisation. Indeed, none of this is necessary, as Krauthammer dreams up a "Republic", and promptly establishes how Iraqi culture is inferior, as it cannot keep this gracious gift bestowed upon them.

Krauthammer then proclaims how in retrospect most answers to why success has not materialised - i.e, they did not kill enough political opposition at the outset. Or in more elliptic terms - the US did not excert enough unilateral force to achieve their goals, remove their enemies, and thus project US influence.

---

As despicable as it is, it is nevertheless necessary to evaluate the merits of Krauthammer's views at this point. But just as it is not exactly an intelligently sounding version of the Bush- doctrine as a whole, or perhaps a theory that would in 1920 be labeled "expansive fascism", or completily on the conservative right as such - Krauthammer's point of view is simply difficult to place politically. In fact, it defies analysis in that sense.

However, it is certainly possible to reduce it to a fundamentally reactionary one. In fact, in every instance the dominant part of the thinking is how previous ideas are either flawed or failed. While the new approach is in stark opposition to this kind of contemptible mediocrity.

But Krauthammer - as his contemporaries in this general camp - have two bigger problems. On the one hand, the immediately previous attempts at global initiatives were not exactly failed, viewed from a more global perspective (which the new theories after all were designed to work in). Our biggest problem during the 1990's were for instance not immediate nuclear war, revolutionary or nationalistic Islamists, expansive imperialistic or ideological powers, or genocidal maniacs with huge war- machines. Neither was it a rise of authoritarian and anti- democratic movements in large parts of the world.

But at the same time, one can only mention Clinton's presidency, and it is the overture to a series of humiliating events, both on the homefront as well as on the international arena for many, many americans. Clinton, for good reason I suppose, spent an awful lot of time travelling outside the US, and made a big effort in to talk to anyone. Everything from Sinn Féin to Kim Jung Il, as well as either party in the Middle- east peace process, regardless of political views and baggage anyone would bring with them.

And establishing dialogue and using US influence for that purpose was as much a central part of Clinton's policies, as bringing about change by applying power is a central tenet of the current administration. And obviously this is not where Krauthammer and his ilk break with Clinton. In fact, the concept of the US as a world leader is perfectly identical in both instances. The same goes for the percieved ability of the US to affect any and all possible development in the world, by strategically applying the US influence, be it militarily or otherwise.

The difference simply is not on that level. In fact the differences appear only in terms of the percieved humiliation Clinton caused for the US - By appeasing dictators, selling out US authority to global organisations such as the UN, being weak - the greatest sin possible for any neo- conservative, apparently. And of course: being morally flawed. Because these things would weaken US influence. In other words, an approach which the neo- conservatives reject utterly.

These elements, or more correctly the disgust with them, saturates so fundamentally everything Krauthammer and his similarly politically afflicted collegues say, that it returns in rejection of it all to the level that diplomacy is considered failed, as long as the outcome is not already secured. The approach is still dynamic and all- encompassing, and based on conceptual assertion of being in the right, just like Clinton. It's the same foundation of how US influence can be used for good. But the flaw, as they see it, in Clinton's approach is rejected, by asserting the preconcieved view that the outset - the US outset - cannot fundamentally be changed. So US interests are kept by using influence, and more influence keeps the interests intact.

In other words, the neocons solve the first problem by blaming all wrongs on previous attitudes and practices. But all the while resting on the existing organisations and efforts that led to the situation at this point. These, however, do not enter into the analysis, as they are simply a by- product of US excercion of influence. And surely will not seize to function as long as cooperation with US is favourable, which it would be, and so on.

---

The second problem is how to align these rather expansive foreign- policy endavours with conservative ideals about limited government, isolationism, etc.

Which is also easy to solve, as long as the foreign- policy project is conceived as a response to a threat. As well as that a response early would cost less than waiting and doing nothing.

---

And so we end up where this rather curious point becomes apparent - the dependence of the neo- conservative movement on internal US politics. In both the reliance on US power, as well as US political culture.

In other words, it's not a coincidence that Krauthammer's curious introspective includes both a rebuke to the left's (alleged?) belief in the US being able to cause problems by simply being involved, as well as criticism of the lack of will to project as much US influence as needed to get the job done - in spite of ungrateful Iraqis and their inferior culture. Culture which would, of course, not be a match to US influence, if that influence was only applied more properly, according to Krauthammer.

Well I don't read anything you write all the way through anymore, and haven't for about a week since we ended our discussion in which you portrayed yourself as something you are not, and you only offered a circular argument. Accordingly I do not think I will answer you poll.

If you could call it a "poll"

Actually if you think about it a neoconservative has most in common with Muspell. It isn't a matter of politics or world view as much as it is a matter of believing you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Originally Posted by Gort

Actually if you think about it a neoconservative has most in common with Muspell. It isn't a matter of politics or world view as much as it is a matter of believing you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Oh, yes. You see, the trick is to never introduce any quantifiable terms, but only interdependent platitudes, that will make up a perfect circular arguments. And - and this is so clever - it forces by magic everyone to only be able to either categorically agree or disagree, since there's no room for actual analysis. And therefore forcing everyone to challenge your analysis. Something that I will always interpret as a personal attack, which is an automatic admittance of defeat. Hah! I'm just soo clever.

The Krauthammers, on the other hand, are always specific and analytical in their approach, always struggling to relate any terms to actual concepts. While always making sure the arguments made are relevant, and not complete red herrings that never actually impact on the forgone conclusions.

No.. wait. I think that came out a bit wrong..

Originally Posted by muspell

Oh, yes. You see, the trick is to never introduce any quantifiable terms, but only interdependent platitudes, that will make up a perfect circular arguments. And - and this is so clever - it forces by magic everyone to only be able to either categorically agree or disagree, since there's no room for actual analysis. And therefore forcing everyone to challenge your analysis. Something that I will always interpret as a personal attack, which is an automatic admittance of defeat. Hah! I'm just soo clever.

The Krauthammers, on the other hand, are always specific and analytical in their approach, always struggling to relate any terms to actual concepts. While always making sure the arguments made are relevant, and not complete red herrings that never actually impact on the forgone conclusions.

No.. wait. I think that came out a bit wrong..

Yep pretty much what I said.

Originally Posted by Gort

Yep pretty much what I said.

Well, did I make a circular argument? Or did I simply describe my reasoning in consecutive steps, while making the presumptions I make as apparent as possible?

A very long post. I will try to respond to some of the points I can find.

The concept is simple, and rests on the popular presumption shared by left and right in the US: that the US, as the last superpower, has great influence and might, and can therefore bring about change through that influence.

Do you disagree with that?

However, it is certainly possible to reduce it to a fundamentally reactionary one.

Reducing, good idea.

In fact, in every instance the dominant part of the thinking is how previous ideas are either flawed or failed. While the new approach is in stark opposition to this kind of contemptible mediocrity.

In the context of Iraq and the War on Terror, I think this is a reasonable place to start. Are you saying previous solutions worked?

But Krauthammer - as his contemporaries in this general camp - have two bigger problems. On the one hand, the immediately previous attempts at global initiatives were not exactly failed, viewed from a more global perspective (which the new theories after all were designed to work in). Our biggest problem during the 1990's were for instance not immediate nuclear war,

Did he ever say the policies of containment or Reagan's rollback didn"t work? What do you mean here?

revolutionary or nationalistic Islamists

I would disagree, I think the Islamistic terrorists were a problem in the 90s.


,

expansive imperialistic

You don't consider the invasion of Kuwait as imperalism?

These elements, or more correctly the disgust with them, saturates so fundamentally everything Krauthammer and his similarly politically afflicted collegues say, that it returns in rejection of it all to the level that diplomacy is considered failed, as long as the outcome is not already secured.

This is BS, the US did not, and has not rejected diplomacy.

In other words, the neocons solve the first problem by blaming all wrongs on previous attitudes and practices. But all the while resting on the existing organisations and efforts that led to the situation at this point. These, however, do not enter into the analysis, as they are simply a by- product of US excercion of influence. And surely will not seize to function as long as cooperation with US is favourable, which it would be, and so on.

Not clear.
---

The second problem is how to align these rather expansive foreign- policy endavours with conservative ideals about limited government, isolationism, etc.

Which is also easy to solve, as long as the foreign- policy project is conceived as a response to a threat. As well as that a response early would cost less than waiting and doing nothing.

Reasonable. Where is the problem?
---

And so we end up where this rather curious point becomes apparent - the dependence of the neo- conservative movement on internal US politics. In both the reliance on US power, as well as US political culture.

So the ablility of a political faction to use US power is dependant on US politics. Why is this curious?

In other words, it's not a coincidence that Krauthammer's curious introspective includes both a rebuke to the left's (alleged?) belief in the US being able to cause problems by simply being involved,

Alleged?! Are you denying this?

as well as criticism of the lack of will to project as much US influence as needed to get the job done

A very valid complaint. Why start a job unless you are perpared to finish it.

- in spite of ungrateful Iraqis and their inferior culture.

Asking if the culture we are trying to encourage democracy in has flaws that prevent the success of this seems like a debate we need to have.

Culture which would, of course, not be a match to US influence, if that influence was only applied more properly, according to Krauthammer.

Are you saying that it is impossible for one nation to influence another?

Originally Posted by Calvin X

A very long post. I will try to respond to some of the points I can find.

Do you disagree with that?

No. I'm just establishing it as a general term, so I can use the term "influence" without using it as a constant later. The entire post is like that.

Reducing, good idea.

It's a huge leap, but I just liked how it seems to fit so extremely well. And my point is to what kind of degree neo- conservative thinking is reactionary to Clinton. It doesn't explain everything, but it sure does fit well.

I could've asked the question in a different way, I guess. Something like whether neo- conservatism just happens to come from the US, or whether it's totally dependent on US politics.

In the context of Iraq and the War on Terror, I think this is a reasonable place to start. Are you saying previous solutions worked?

Of course not. But what does that mean? That international law is necessary to violate in order for the world to become better, or that fighting preemptive wars for peace will work, etc? That's the idea, it seems, but these things are not included in the theory. It's simply "it's a failure", and therefore "our way must be tried". While the wars are instead stated in terms of "defense", and so on.

Did he ever say the policies of containment or Reagan's rollback didn"t work? What do you mean here?

I don't even know why you bring up Reagan.

I would disagree, I think the Islamistic terrorists were a problem in the 90s.

Why?

You don't consider the invasion of Kuwait as imperalism?

The question is whether it could be dealt with or not. And no, I don't think invading Kuwait was expansive imperialism. The border was drawn up on the map with a ruler to punish Qassim for grabbing all the oil to Iraq. And while it's already considered the truth that Saddam viewed himself as emperor, it was nevertheless not expansive. Neither the Baathists in Syria or Iraq truly were. The nationalism has turned really badly after a while, though. But that's a different discussion.

This is BS, the US did not, and has not rejected diplomacy.

I did not say the US had rejected diplomacy, I said the US had rejected diplomacy where the outcome wasn't secured. But I think the US have such limited diplomatic ties it can be called non- existent. I'll take a few examples.

North Korea has only seen two ambassadors from the US since Bush. Neither of these missions have had an official mandate to do anything, and were not given authority to change the official specific line on how the process should go forward. I.e, that North- Korea should be rewarded with talks if they gave up their nuclear weapons, ambition, etc, etc.

Iran - there has been no talks in 25 years. And this isn't just a front. There really are no talks.

Also, neither of these issues are tackled in the scope of nuclear proliferation, whether it would be something the US would come up with, or it would be something else.

The same goes in Palestine (I know, because I keep in touch with some who would be involved if such a thing did happen - but it's not difficult to establish outside any of that how the US simply is not involved in the peace- process at all. And that if they were, the official line would scuttle any attempt to bring things forward). There simply is no talking, neither officially or in back- channels.

Instead, specific interests are kept more - the Kurds have the ears of some in Washington. The Albanians, as well as certain other states in the area around Turkey and Afghanistan. India, in terms of China, and so on, and so on. The same could probably be said about Israel in terms of palestine and Lebanon.

So the kind of interests the US is seeking to keep, and in what way it seeks to solve these problems isn't really that difficult to pin down.

Not clear.

To reject international law it must exist. And the question is in what terms did it exist in US politics?

Reasonable. Where is the problem?

The discussion didn't happen. It became an excercise in finding how an invasion could happen without occupation, and to explain how this was not nation- building. Instead Iraq would build itself, etc. This is all familiar points from when Clinton went into Serbia and Somalia, no? Now, Perle says he was always for installing an exile- government right away, for instance, in order to distance himself from the idea that democracy would fix everything, etc. While then blaming the Whitehouse for being blind and extreme.

That's not very suprising, but it's still interesting to look at how this is a battle of narratives more than it's a battle about theories and implementation, on all those involved. This too, says something about what kind of context these theories operate in.

So the ablility of a political faction to use US power is dependant on US politics. Why is this curious?

No, it's completily obvious. Some just don't seem to grasp the idea. They even get angry.

Alleged?! Are you denying this?

That "the left" claims the US is causing problems by simply being involved? I don't know, but Krauthammer makes the point in order to make the opposite at least sound more likely. So why is that a valid entry to an argument about Iraq? Is Krauthammer so dependent on "the left" that he can't say anything without bringing them up?

A very valid complaint. Why start a job unless you are perpared to finish it.

I agree. But - what does that mean? Staying the course in Iraq? Letting all work at the state- department as well as the INR be delegated to the VPs office and the Whitehouse's "work- groups"? We don't know.

Again this says something about in what context these theories operate in.

Asking if the culture we are trying to encourage democracy in has flaws that prevent the success of this seems like a debate we need to have.

Sure, why not. I'm extremely tolerant about that kind of thing, and it would be refreshing if an american actually said it straight up.

Are you saying that it is impossible for one nation to influence another?

No. I'm simply highlighting how Krauthammer suggests, for once in a straight fashion, that what the neo- conservatives mean by that phrase is killing political opponents, and bombing the crap out of any that dare oppose their great plans.

We've also seen a number of others suggesting the hands of the military has been "tied". What does that mean? Is it the same thing here?

Originally Posted by muspell

It's a huge leap, but I just liked how it seems to fit so extremely well. And my point is to what kind of degree neo- conservative thinking is reactionary to Clinton. It doesn't explain everything, but it sure does fit well.

Hmm, perhaps not to Clinton but to the underlying liberal concept that America is the cause of everything.

I could've asked the question in a different way, I guess. Something like whether neo- conservatism just happens to come from the US, or whether it's totally dependent on US politics.

I see that underlying concept from a lot of non-americans.

Of course not. But what does that mean? That international law is necessary to violate in order for the world to become better, or that fighting preemptive wars for peace will work, etc? That's the idea, it seems, but these things are not included in the theory. It's simply "it's a failure", and therefore "our way must be tried". While the wars are instead stated in terms of "defense", and so on.

I remember seeing Krauthammer and Gringrich at a press confrence before the invasion. THey seemed pretty open to debate to me.

I would disagree, I think the Islamistic terrorists were a problem in the 90s.
Why?

They were killing us. I have a problem with that.

The question is whether it could be dealt with or not. And no, I don't think invading Kuwait was expansive imperialism. The border was drawn up on the map with a ruler to punish Qassim for grabbing all the oil to Iraq. And while it's already considered the truth that Saddam viewed himself as emperor, it was nevertheless not expansive. Neither the Baathists in Syria or Iraq truly were. The nationalism has turned really badly after a while, though. But that's a different discussion.

THis seems pretty generous to me. Qassim? How long ago was that? I don't like when people want to talk about old borders, to many possible wars. I have accepted Micronesian independance and the loss of the Canal Zone. THat was only 20 years ago!

I did not say the US had rejected diplomacy, I said the US had rejected diplomacy where the outcome wasn't secured. But I think the US have such limited diplomatic ties it can be called non- existent. I'll take a few examples.

North Korea has only seen two ambassadors from the US since Bush. Neither of these missions have had an official mandate to do anything, and were not given authority to change the official specific line on how the process should go forward. I.e, that North- Korea should be rewarded with talks if they gave up their nuclear weapons, ambition, etc, etc.

Iran - there has been no talks in 25 years. And this isn't just a front. There really are no talks.

Also, neither of these issues are tackled in the scope of nuclear proliferation, whether it would be something the US would come up with, or it would be something else.

The same goes in Palestine (I know, because I keep in touch with some who would be involved if such a thing did happen - but it's not difficult to establish outside any of that how the US simply is not involved in the peace- process at all. And that if they were, the official line would scuttle any attempt to bring things forward). There simply is no talking, neither officially or in back- channels.

In all of these cases the end is secured. These people know what they want and not going to be stopped by words.

Instead, specific interests are kept more - the Kurds have the ears of some in Washington. The Albanians, as well as certain other states in the area around Turkey and Afghanistan. India, in terms of China, and so on, and so on. The same could probably be said about Israel in terms of palestine and Lebanon.

So the kind of interests the US is seeking to keep, and in what way it seeks to solve these problems isn't really that difficult to pin down.

I am not sure what you mean here. Seeking to keep? Do you not think that the US would love for the Palistinians to negotiate a reasonable solution. It would be very good for the US for that problem to be solved. We don't talk more to the Isreal because we want to "keep them", but because the Palestinians are not trying to solve problems.

To reject international law it must exist. And the question is in what terms did it exist in US politics?

Have we rejected international law? I know I have very little respect for the UN., and consider the ICC to be unacceptable.

The discussion didn't happen. It became an excercise in finding how an invasion could happen without occupation, and to explain how this was not nation- building. Instead Iraq would build itself, etc. This is all familiar points from when Clinton went into Serbia and Somalia, no? Now, Perle says he was always for installing an exile- government right away, for instance, in order to distance himself from the idea that democracy would fix everything, etc. While then blaming the Whitehouse for being blind and extreme.

I remember some of the discussion. It was limited by the lack of democratic arab experiance for examination. Now we have something to talk about.

That "the left" claims the US is causing problems by simply being involved? I don't know, but Krauthammer makes the point in order to make the opposite at least sound more likely. So why is that a valid entry to an argument about Iraq? Is Krauthammer so dependent on "the left" that he can't say anything without bringing them up?

I think he is trying to make the point that America is not operating in a vacumn and that other actors may have the deciding influence.

I agree. But - what does that mean? Staying the course in Iraq? Letting all work at the state- department as well as the INR be delegated to the VPs office and the Whitehouse's "work- groups"? We don't know.

IN context? NOt allowing the control of events to be lost due to inaction or self-doubt.

Sure, why not. I'm extremely tolerant about that kind of thing, and it would be refreshing if an american actually said it straight up.

THose on the right have been conditioned to be afraid of being called racist. THose on the left have a vested interest in the idea that the only reason there are dictators is because we are somehow supporting the dictators. Ironically this idea is somewhat implicitly bought into by the neo-cons by their demand to impose democracy. Even more ironically it is somewhat disproved by the difficulty we are seeing in imposing democracy.

No. I'm simply highlighting how Krauthammer suggests, for once in a straight fashion, that what the neo- conservatives mean by that phrase is killing political opponents, and bombing the crap out of any that dare oppose their great plans.

When you are bombing people they are military opponents. Or when they are bombing or shooting at you.

We've also seen a number of others suggesting the hands of the military has been "tied". What does that mean? Is it the same thing here?

In this context, it means we wonder if things would be going better if we had tried harder.