
There’s a special place in Hell for pundits like David Brooks, or so Glenn Greenwald implies this morning. He masterfully reprises Brooks’ savage mongering for war in Iraq and compares it to his mongering for war in Afghanistan, The Afghanistan Imperative. [An essay taken from his compilation, Armchair Armourer.] Glenn also helpfully links to Gary Sick‘s dissection of similar arguments made for war in Iran.
One could be excused for confusing which war Brooks is selling – Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran – not because of faulty geography, but because Brooks’ arguments that the Empire continually make war, not peace, rarely distinguish the location. The threat is always existential, if imaginary or overstated. It is also profitable, for a few, thanks in large part to the outsourcing that has been Dick Cheney’s obsession since he was George H.W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense during Gulf War I, an obsession he continued during and after his chairmanship of KBR’s former parent, Halliburton.
Among Bobo’s distorted facts and faulty forecasts at the start of Gulf War II:
1. "If [Congresscritters]are going to vote against a resolution saying Saddam has not disarmed then they are liars."
2. "I do admire [Paul Wolfowitz] enormously, not only because he is both a genuine scholar and an effective policy practitioner, not only because he has been right on most of the major issues during his career, but because he is now the focus of world anti-Semitism.
3. "Events will soon reveal who was right, Bush or [French President Jacques] Chirac….If we succeed, we will be a nation infused with confidence. We will have done a great thing for the world, and other great things will await."
As Glenn notes, Mr. Brooks omitted to say what a great thing it would be for the world if we were wrong. Mr. Brooks has not chosen to correct that error and it’s obvious why. For his false forecasts, he was plucked from the chapel of the conservative Weekly Standard and given a pulpit at the episcopate known as the New York Times.
That’s like hiring a convicted spouse abuser to manage a halfway home for abused spouses. The opportunities multiply, and negligence becomes reckless disregard for readers and, more importantly, for the men and women at the sharp end of the warmaking stick. It is they who are sent to war by those who regard Mr. Brooks as their second most important source for opinion, one step behind Tom "Another Six Months" Friedman and one step ahead of psychiatrist-turned-patient Charles Krauthammer.
Bobo’s contribution today is that we can’t "hide" in hermetically-sealed bases in Afghanistan. We need to employ Gen. McChrystal’s counter-insurgency strategy to the hilt and send small groups of men and women,
outside the wire in dangerous places in remote valleys, providing security, gathering intelligence, helping to establish courts and building schools and roads.
Never mind the armchair ease with which he talks about sending men and women into harm’s way, or that they might be constantly on edge, not knowing if they’ll be electrocuted in the shower owing to faulty base construction. Never mind the contradictory goals of killing the innocent along with the accused, often via drone attacks, and the building of schools, roads and trust. Never mind the succession of empires that have brutally failed to subdue Afghanistan, from Alexander to Victoria to Russia and America.
It doesn’t seem to be "victory" that Mr. Brooks realistically expects, just war. In that, he claims agreement with Barack Obama, whom he declared was,
"right a few months ago when he declared, ‘This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. … This is fundamental to the defense of our people.’"
There may be standing room only by the time Mr. Brooks arrives in Hell. But his welcome may not be as gentle as that accorded pillagers, looters, lawyers and fornicators by Rowan Atkinson as the Devil in, Welcome to Hell. His welcome may be more like that of the lost souls imagined by Hieronymus Bosch.



11 Comments







This compendium of blogger-coined phrases is essential reading, especially when reading David Brooks. (See, Brooks, David; Bobo, shorthand for the French-English nonsense hybrid, bourgeois Bohemian, in lieu of the apparently less dignified, but English term, “yuppie”; and Burkean Bells.) Thanks also to Balloon Juice for linking to this splendid Philadelphia Magazine article by Sasha Issenberg on the origins and thinking [sic] of David Brooks.
(h/t Glenn Greenwald)
Bobo’s too-desperate plea to “stay the course” in Afghanistan may have something to do with the movement in the White House and MSM to do the opposite, explored by Dan Froomkin here. Here’s the nut (links omitted):
I think it’s valid to characterize the newly self-styled “independent public intellectual” David Brooks as a member in good standing of the neocons. Which would explain his claim that ramping up our effort in Afghanistan is imperative. Putz.
Send his ass to Afghanistan with a metal detector and have him sweep the roads.
Hilarious! Somehow I can see him doing it. LOL
Kaboom.
I don’t think being right was ever very important to David Brooks. His job has always been to make whatever the week’s Republican talking point was sound plausible. As long as he could sell it at the time, that was all that counted.
I agree with Froomkin. I wrote a diary on McChyrstal’s report a few days ago the point of which was to say that we have almost no interests in Afghanistan and have found ways of dealing with al Qaeda bases in other parts of the world short of a full scale invasion and occupation. We can certainly offer aid to the Afghans but our presence there should be small to nonexistent.
I should mention that evil counselors occupy the eighth bolgia in Dante’s Inferno where they are wrapped in flames:
ch’el vedesse altro che la fiamma sola,
sì come nuvoletta, in sù salire:
tal si move ciascuna per la gola
del fosso, ché nessuna mostra ‘l furto,
e ogne fiamma un peccatore invola.
that one might only see the flame
like a cloud rising up
just so each one moved about the mouth
of the pit so that none showed its crime
and each flame enfolded a sinner
(I was actually finishing an illustrated personal e-edition today combining the drawings of Gustave Doré with the original poem so I happened to be reading this.)
We’d all like the Devil to be as humorous as Rowan Atkinson. But if she exists, she’s unlikely to have a gender, only a voracious will to inflict on her detainees whatever they each consider most horrific. I wonder if he has a sneer and bald pate and a studied, sociopathic disdain for his detainees’ reactions to his doing that for eternity. I hope I never find out, but I won’t move to McLean, just in case.
David Brooks’ own peculiar hell might be to live in the average middle America he claims to speak for – where everyone knows what he used to say and do – without wingnut welfare, without an audience or a voice, armed only with a mailbox, a well-known address, an overdue credit card bill and an unemployment check. Burkean bells, indeed.
Our people are dying for poppies and rocks, and their are still people who want more of it. Our Military failed us and let Osama get away, and we have been paying to cover their mistakes ever since. We pinned a medal on Tommy Franks for the wonderful job He did, in missing Osama and driving the taliban out. He let the Northern Alliance send the Taliban home with their guns, guns that are killing our soldiers today. We are a foolish Country, run by fools, influenced by fools, and full of fools. We keep backing all this foolishness, by voting back in the same fools who got us in these messes, and revereing the people who failed us.
…
well written, earl. appreciate the droll expression of anger! Brooks has this ultra-reasonable tone to everything he says. It seems to anesthetize the spirit of Mark Shiels when they are to debate. I remember Mark as having more will and spirit with previous counterpoint people. Anyway, Brooks certainly sterilizes the humanity out of every discussion for sure. Always with that gentle whiff of faux self-deprecation.
we need outrage for sure. people’s lives. i commented on Eli’s doll blog about how Sec. Gates was OUTRAGED, I TELL YOU, at the publication of a picture of one 21 year old soldier who was dying in and from combat. The young woman journalist who took the picture made a sober and moral decision to publish it, and she was also travelling with the troop in harm’s way. Gates was so enraged and vocal about her profound insensitivity in bringing pain to the young man’s parents and exploiting somehow the war, it seems.
you just can’t make this stuff up.
love ra and his hosting of hell.
Mr. Atkinson’s dryness and his penchant for mocking the foibles of clerics, others in positions of authority, and the bluntness he puts into the mouths of the drunk seemed perfect foils for the seemingly comfy tones of the radical Mr. Brooks. The former gives us honesty and comic relief; the latter gives us more war, more radical, unaccountable government.
I agree that Mark Shields folds like a towel amidst the double-onslaught of the oh-so-gentlemanly and censoring Jim Lehrer and the oh-so-low-key David Brooks. He can’t or won’t keep up; like Obama, he concedes his ground before he stands on it – which is to say, he’s wholly incapable or agrees with his opponents more than himself.
But, yea, I just like RA, too, except for Mr. Bean.
earl … absolutely re Mark Shields AND Brooks, well put (though gotta tell you, Mr. Bean makes me giggle).
It was like with the entrance of Brooks, Shields backed down SO noticeably. I chalked it up to people chemistry and blamed both Shields for losing his temporary, I hoped, stride but it has NEVER come back.
And the “super-modulated faux obsequious but deadly” Mr. Brooks is now the voice of a reasonable Repub, and worrisomely a great fan of BO. Who moved in ideology? I sure don’t think it was Brooks!
Brooks is like those sentimental medicine commercials that have meadows and happy people looking serene and the whispered subtext is all about projectile vomiting, liver damage or suicide as side effects. That is how I feel about Brooks. I once saw him on a show where MOST of the talking heads were from the far right, and he was willing to fly high a surprisingly strong fundamentalist religious-speak freak flag there … so does he rein in even more religiosity on NewsHour and in NYT, or was he pandering to the fundies on that show?