Neo-Cons Reconsider their Assumptions about Iraq

19 03 2008

Danielle Pletka, a foreign and defense policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute, an institution responsible for incubating many of the neo-conservatism ideas that we come to know and love, wrote in Sunday’s New York Times:

We point to all the United Nations Security Council resolutions, the International Atomic Energy Agency statements, the C.I.A. analyses, the Silberman-Robb report, the Senate Intelligence Committee findings — if we were wrong, we were in good and honest company.

But what about the mistaken assumptions that remain unexamined? Looking back, I felt secure in the knowledge that all who yearn for freedom, once free, would use it well. I was wrong. There is no freedom gene, no inner guide that understands the virtues of civil society, of secret ballots, of political parties. And it turns out that living under Saddam Hussein’s tyranny for decades conditioned Iraqis to accept unearned leadership, to embrace sect and tribe over ideas, and to tolerate unbridled corruption.

Pletka’s piece is entitled “There’s No Freedom Gene.”

Now compare that statement with President Bush’s former presidential envoy to Iraq L. Paul Bremer recently said in the New York Times that same day:

Our soldiers were magnificent in liberating Iraq. But after arriving in the country, I saw that the American government was not adequately prepared to deal with the growing security threats. Looting raged unchecked in major cities. By late 2003, as the insurgency and terrorism grew, it became clear that the coalition also lacked an effective counterinsurgency strategy.

Our troops on the ground were valiant and selfless, but prewar planning provided for fewer than half the number of troops that independent studies suggested would be needed in Iraq. And we did not have a plan to provide the most basic function of any government — security for the population. Terrorists, insurgents, criminals and the Iraqi people got the impression that the coalition would not, or could not, protect civilians.

Bremer’s piece is entitled “Where Was the Plan?”

Advertisements

Actions

Information

One response

20 03 2008
Wayne

Its called ‘revisionist history’ and ‘reframing the argument.’

They know obama’s gonna be the candidate, and if they reframe the context of the argument, it’ll be harder to use obama’s stance against the invasion against McCain.

Sad. And pundits and anchors don’t attack such spin head on. Sigh.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: