.What an Iraq Book Cannot Say
Recently I published a book on my experiences in Iraq — a book supportive of our going into Iraq, yet critical of our conduct once there and pessimistic about the future. It was an analysis of why things turned out the way they have, without taking cheap shots at President Bush and without sugar coating our difficulties.
It quickly became clear that many readers weren't looking for an analysis, but wanted red meat. They wanted the president, or Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld to be depicted as, well, you name it — morons, evil criminals, self-serving liars. So many people were convinced that it was a war for oil, or for Israel, or to increase the president's power, or that it started as an excuse to punish domestic enemies. And any attempt to explain why rational people might support the operation did not make much headway.
On a left-wing radio talk show I said that I had originally supported the war because I had been persuaded by the New York Times and Tom Friedman's columns that something needed to be done to help Iraq get out from under Saddam Hussein, I was told by the talk show host, "Oh, that was when Friedman was under the control of the neo-cons." For many, any analysis that doesn't begin with the presumption that the war was a conspiracy against the public good by a conniving cabal of conservatives isn't worth the read. Publishers weren't much different. One publisher asked to see the book because his editors were looking for an attack on the war. I sent it off and it was quickly rejected. Others said that the public had "Iraq fatigue," and wouldn't buy another book on the subject. (If you go to amazon.com and type in Iraq War under "books," you'll get more than 21,500 references, though that seems a bit of a stretch.)
Most editors and publishers were honest though — they could sell a book attacking the war, they maybe could even sell a right-wing screed calling the opponents of the war traitors — but one that was an analysis of what we did right and where we fell short … well, not really.
Most readers read books that ratify their prejudices. How many readers underline the parts they like, put a star next to those sentences they really support, and X out the parts they can't stand? One might think that it's different in academia, where professors are supposedly on the look-out for new insights and new ideas.
Well, think again. Professors are more invested in their prejudices than almost anyone else. For example, I once commented at an open forum in 2004 in Washington, D.C., how often private interests trumped the public good in Iraq and that the country had a hard time knowing how to be a community. Ethnic, religious, tribal, political and personal differences run deep in this culture of honor and retribution. In part, that's why starting up a decent democracy there is so difficult. To me, this was obvious. To the "muticulturalists" who teach in our universities it was, as one professor wrote in response to my observation, nothing more than "ugly ethnocentrism."
But it's not just the left that has blinders when the talk turns to democracy. There was a time when conservatives used to worry about democracy. James Madison, the father of our constitution, always said that you had to be careful about democracies. "Turbulent, chaotic, and unjust" is how he described them — at least those democracies that didn't have the blessings of our constitution and the character of our people. It wasn't all that long ago when every schoolchild was taught about the French Revolution, which history books used to call "the Terror," and that ended with the guillotine. Democracies have a very checkered past. But some conservatives now think democracy is a silver bullet that will help bring stability and freedom to the peoples of the world. Some even seem to think that democracy and freedom are the same. But they're not, and there was a time when conservatives knew that.
This promotion of democracy wouldn't be so bad if it didn't portend danger for America. But in our world today we're witnessing the growth of Islamic fundamentalism as a mass, popular, democratic movement. Thus, the more we promote "democracy," the more we might well be promoting elected extreme Islamist governments worldwide. You would have thought we learned this in Gaza, or with the rise in power of Hezbollah in Lebanon, or with the election of President Ahmadinejad.
In the end, those perhaps most closed to the book were the hopeful ones. The hopeful on the right who think if we can just get democracy straight in the Middle East all will yet be well, and the hopeful on the left who put their money on "negotiation," greater communication, and mutual understanding.
Until we realize the depth of malevolence our enemies have for us, until we understand the hatred that religious fanaticism breeds, until we understand how difficult it is to make a decent democracy out of warring factions — until then, the politics of hope on both sides will continue to damage us.
NYSun
It quickly became clear that many readers weren't looking for an analysis, but wanted red meat. They wanted the president, or Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld to be depicted as, well, you name it — morons, evil criminals, self-serving liars. So many people were convinced that it was a war for oil, or for Israel, or to increase the president's power, or that it started as an excuse to punish domestic enemies. And any attempt to explain why rational people might support the operation did not make much headway.
On a left-wing radio talk show I said that I had originally supported the war because I had been persuaded by the New York Times and Tom Friedman's columns that something needed to be done to help Iraq get out from under Saddam Hussein, I was told by the talk show host, "Oh, that was when Friedman was under the control of the neo-cons." For many, any analysis that doesn't begin with the presumption that the war was a conspiracy against the public good by a conniving cabal of conservatives isn't worth the read. Publishers weren't much different. One publisher asked to see the book because his editors were looking for an attack on the war. I sent it off and it was quickly rejected. Others said that the public had "Iraq fatigue," and wouldn't buy another book on the subject. (If you go to amazon.com and type in Iraq War under "books," you'll get more than 21,500 references, though that seems a bit of a stretch.)
Most editors and publishers were honest though — they could sell a book attacking the war, they maybe could even sell a right-wing screed calling the opponents of the war traitors — but one that was an analysis of what we did right and where we fell short … well, not really.
Most readers read books that ratify their prejudices. How many readers underline the parts they like, put a star next to those sentences they really support, and X out the parts they can't stand? One might think that it's different in academia, where professors are supposedly on the look-out for new insights and new ideas.
Well, think again. Professors are more invested in their prejudices than almost anyone else. For example, I once commented at an open forum in 2004 in Washington, D.C., how often private interests trumped the public good in Iraq and that the country had a hard time knowing how to be a community. Ethnic, religious, tribal, political and personal differences run deep in this culture of honor and retribution. In part, that's why starting up a decent democracy there is so difficult. To me, this was obvious. To the "muticulturalists" who teach in our universities it was, as one professor wrote in response to my observation, nothing more than "ugly ethnocentrism."
But it's not just the left that has blinders when the talk turns to democracy. There was a time when conservatives used to worry about democracy. James Madison, the father of our constitution, always said that you had to be careful about democracies. "Turbulent, chaotic, and unjust" is how he described them — at least those democracies that didn't have the blessings of our constitution and the character of our people. It wasn't all that long ago when every schoolchild was taught about the French Revolution, which history books used to call "the Terror," and that ended with the guillotine. Democracies have a very checkered past. But some conservatives now think democracy is a silver bullet that will help bring stability and freedom to the peoples of the world. Some even seem to think that democracy and freedom are the same. But they're not, and there was a time when conservatives knew that.
This promotion of democracy wouldn't be so bad if it didn't portend danger for America. But in our world today we're witnessing the growth of Islamic fundamentalism as a mass, popular, democratic movement. Thus, the more we promote "democracy," the more we might well be promoting elected extreme Islamist governments worldwide. You would have thought we learned this in Gaza, or with the rise in power of Hezbollah in Lebanon, or with the election of President Ahmadinejad.
In the end, those perhaps most closed to the book were the hopeful ones. The hopeful on the right who think if we can just get democracy straight in the Middle East all will yet be well, and the hopeful on the left who put their money on "negotiation," greater communication, and mutual understanding.
Until we realize the depth of malevolence our enemies have for us, until we understand the hatred that religious fanaticism breeds, until we understand how difficult it is to make a decent democracy out of warring factions — until then, the politics of hope on both sides will continue to damage us.
Mr. Agresto, the author of "Mugged by Reality, The Liberation of Iraq and the Failure of Good Intentions" (Encounter, 2007), lives in Santa Fe, N.M., and Sulaimani, Iraq, where he is the Interim Provost of the New American University of Iraq in Sulaimani.
NYSun
posted by madtom at 12:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home