The Frustrating Thing About Iraq Debates
Posted by
tgirsch
There are absolutely intelligent pro-war and pro-surge voices out there who make cogent, compelling arguments. The problem, however, is that a much larger – and more politically influential – percentage of pro-war supporters have consistently shown astonishing levels of ignorance and downright stupidity about the facts on the ground, the region’s history, and the relative players. Over the years, it’s been difficult to argue about the real Iraq when one side’s premise is that Iraq is actually Ponyland, a dreamworld where wish projections take material form and walk the earth. I’m not saying war skeptics are all Middle East scholars, but their ranks (relatively speaking) have far fewer outright ignorant members, particularly among those with actual political power and influence.
For instance, Wolfowitz famously claimed there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, and Kristol added that it was “pop sociology” to claim that the Shia and Sunnis don’t get along. Well, I’ll sheepishly admit that I only got to the 1940s in Charles Tripp’s A History of Iraq. But it was pretty much all ethnic strife up until then. I’m sure most of that subsided though when Saddam al-Tikrit took power.
Remember too that these were not marginal players, so Ward Churchill quotes can’t make things even. Wolfowitz was the second most powerful man in the Defense Department. The National Review is the magazine of record of American conservatism. Say what you will about them, but these aren’t exactly the fringes of pro-war opinion.
Well said. Although I think it overstates the case to say that there are voices on the pro-war side that make compelling arguments.
