Michael Kinsley Hits One Out of the Park

Kevin Drum observes:

The Washington Monthly: THE WRONG MAN FOR THE JOB.... Michael Kinsley's rumination yesterday about the history of Western intervention in Iran was an oddly rambling affair, but the man does have a way with words:

When the United States should use its military strength to achieve worthy goals abroad is an important question. But based on [our record in Iraq and Afghanistan], it seems a bit theoretical. It's like asking whether Donald Trump should use his superpowers to cure AIDS. Or what George W. Bush should say when he wins the Nobel Prize in physics. A more pressing question is: Can't anyone here play this game?...

Comments

[AJS]

Yes Bush is the wrong man for the job, heck any job, but what caught my eye and Ire in the Kinsley column was this:

"in Afghanistan—site of the Iraq war prequel that actually followed the script (invade, topple brutal regime, wipe out terrorists, establish democracy, accept grateful thanks, get out)—"

Troop levels have increased in Afghanistan. Who has gotten out? According to the Washington Post, Dana Milbank Aug 19,2003; " In fact, the 10,000 troops in Afghanistan represent the highest number of U.S. soldiers in the country since the war there began. By the time the Taliban government had been vanquished in December 2001, U.S. troops numbered fewer than 3,000 in Afghanistan. And three months later, in March 2002, when the last major battle against remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda took place in eastern Afghanistan, about 5,000 U.S. troops were in the country."

According to the American Forces Press Service as of Dec. 20, 2005, " The number of American troops serving in Afghanistan, currently about 19,000, is slated to decline by about 2,500 next year, a senior U.S. military officer said here Dec. 19."

So what script is he following? Who has gotten out? What is the state of democracy, terrorism and the Taliban in Afghanistan? Did the scarcity of troops and rebuilding in Afghanistan allow the Taliban to regroup?

Even while belittling the President he throws in a pro Bush frame.

[Arun Khanna]

Re: It's like asking whether Donald Trump should use his superpowers to cure AIDS.
Don't knock Donald. Donald with his hairdo has made a lot of people, who not only belong to hair club for men but are also the club President, feel better about themselves.

[Brian Boru]

Ah, yes, those vanquished remnants of Taliban:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12324551/

[ilsm]

Grossly negligent. Any one in DC working for the "wars".

[ilsm]

Napoleon knew Bush as does bin Laden:

'Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.' Napoleon Bonaparte

ANd Napoleon knew Bush:

[tom f]

Kinsley's piece begins:

"So, after more than half a century of active meddling—protecting our interests, promoting our values, encouraging democracy, fighting terrorism, seeking stability, defending human rights, pushing peace—it's come to this."

Kinsley (and no other analyst that I've seen) can not, of course, make a case that this list of objectives even nearly approximates US foreign policy goals. "Protecting our interests" comes the nearest because it is most vague, but even this must be disaggregated -was it "our" interest that Iran not nationalize its oil, or the interest of a miniscule segement of the US population?

Then Kinsley's historical overview of really-existing policy in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan undermines his own claims about US policy objectives, but this has no discernable affect on his premis.

The best that can be said for Kinsley's brief analysis is that it is vaguely ironic. If he intended to argue that the benign objectives of US policy are a mirage, he could have said as much. Perhpas this is too radical for him. Or, if he intended to show his puzzlement at US policy, then he is a quite dull. Or perhaps he wants to express a postmodernist skepticism towards an analyst's ability to evaluate facts and hypotheses. That is what I suspect.

[dilbert dogbert]

tomf,
I read sometime ago a letter that Eisenhower's brother had written to somebody, and as I remember, he was very concerned about the Iranian oil that was going outside the hands of direct American/British interests. Funny how things change but stay the same.

[modus potus]

Kinsley is just restating the myth, the better to juxtapose the reality.

[tom f]

modus potus,

It's an odd method for a pundit to adopt: speak cryptically so as to avoid saying anything too relevant or opinionated.

dilbert dogbert:

"Funny how things change but stay the same."

Funny would be if things really had changed and then stayed the same. Peasants under the Czar, peasants under the Bolsheviks, that sorta plus ca change scenario. If Nader or a Kucinich ended up murdering thousands of brown-skinned foreigners somewhere, that would be an instance of plus c'est la meme chose.

The only thing that's changed, as far as I can tell, is that this time the elite consensus about Bush is that "this time he really wants to undo the past failures of the US's democracy project" or "Bush isn't a hard-nosed US national interest guy like the Cold Warriors of the fiftees but an optomistic revolutionary zealot."

It's tragedy turned to farce, not "the more things change".