Kleinfeld on Podhoretz -- Ouch! Posted by Michael Signer

For a vigorous and invigorating response to an op-ed by John Podhoretz's recent op-ed,  where he asks, and answers, this really, really dumb neocon rhetorical question:

WHAT if liberal democracies have now evolved to a point where they can no longer wage war effectively because they have achieved a level of humanitarian concern for others that dwarfs any really cold-eyed pursuit of their own national interests?

just click on this link to read Rachel Kleinfeld tee off, as she continues her brilliant stint for Anne-Marie Slaughter over at TPM Cafe.

Snap!

Comments

[David Billington]

The problem is that John Podhoretz and Rachel Kleinfeld both agree that the struggle is so open-ended as to its end that no real distinction is possible between ends and means. Their disagreement concerns only the means and they each believe that their preferred means will somehow end the struggle at some unspecified time in the indefinite future.

The war on terror has been a struggle to change the minds of civilian populations. Our side does not have the will to inflict casualties on innocent civilians on such a scale as to intimidate the survivors into changing their minds. But our side cannot win a war in which each side is able to replace its losses without end. The side with less invested will quit first.

To end a struggle like this, the side with less invested in the war must invest the other side, or the larger world, in peace. This requires proposing a regional or world future that would quickly change the way people in the region or the world think. If our side wants a future other than what will result by our simply going home, it will need to be more imaginative in the time that remains before public opinion forces our side to end the war unilaterally. Open-ended or vague ends usually end badly.

[J]

It would be really nice if you and Ms. Kleinfeld could stop wasting our time with your mutual admiration society crap ... both of you strike me more as posers than anything else.

[Shadi Hamid]

David, as for a more clear goal, how about this - a Middle East where the majority of countries are sufficiently democratic?

[David Billington]

Shadi,

That would be the answer if we were willing to accord Middle Eastern countries in transition to democracy the same status that we have given to European ones emerging from fascist or communist dictatorship, in terms of treaty commitments by us to them.

Since we have not been willing to make such commitments to any state in the Arab Middle East, our pledge to support democracy there rings a bit hollow I'm afraid and suggests a more limited interest that a determined enemy can break.

For a more fully explained proposal to bring the Islamic world into our core system, I would invite you to read the second of a two-page essay on strategy that I have posted to my website here:

http://members.aol.com/davidpb4/strategy2.html