Thursday, March 16, 2006

just a little further back, dave

lurking behind the times select firewall this morning is david brooks' latest, entitled "rumsfeld's blinkers".

in the column, brooks steps into his wayback machine and goes to the latter days of march 2003, the first week of the american invasion of iraq. he then looks at what "the smartest of the pundits and armchair generals" said about how the war was going. brooks notes that by march 24, 2003, some commentators were already discussing the effectiveness of the fedayeen and how they seemed to be developing into a dangerous insurgency. brooks then contrasts those cautionary assessments with the actions of people within the administration, particularly donald rumsfeld. if only rummy had made some troop adjustments on march 24th, brooks laments, "much of the subsequent horror could have been averted."

as i read the column i started lamenting myself. if only brooks had done a better job setting the dial on his wayback machine! if he'd just gone back a few weeks earlier and looked at what experts in middle eastern politics and the smartest pundits were saying before the war started--the one's who knew arabic, or at least had a passing familiarity with the history of the region, the diplomats who resigned from the foreign service over the administration's rush to war. you know, those people.

brooks unfortunately dropped the ball on this one. in his hunt for cassandras he stopped just short of a motherload of prescient pronouncements. but he was so close! and he is surprisingly accurate when he writes this:
But it is also a reminder of the reality one sees again and again: Debate inside any administration is less sophisticated and realistic than the debate among experts outside. The people inside have access to a bit more information. But they are more likely to self-censor for fear of endangering their careers. Debate inside is much more likely to be warped by the egotism, insecurity, power lust and distracting busyness of people at the top.
if only brooks can remove his own blinders and look at the "again" before that second "again." maybe then we'd have an even clearer view of how the subsequent horror could have really been averted.