-->
I'm talking about public intellectual leadership,
like that of Le Monde in Paris. I thought the editors of The Economist were providing that for
us. When they decided to back the
invasion of Iraq their spokesman, in the leading "leader"
(editorial), stuck to what mattered in international relations. Only once did he (or she) refer to
Saddam Hussein's personal qualities ("violent and
murderous") and not once did he refer to his behavior inside his country,
like gassing his people.
Contrast that
with the leading leader in the current Economist,
urging more forceful action in the Ukraine. It's all about Vladimir Putin — trying to get an
"unwilling" world to see him "as he really is." That is, basically, as a liar, a point
reinforced by the picture of a sinister-looking, grey-faced Putin looking out
from the middle of a spider web on the magazine's cover.
Yet theirs is
not just a case against a person.
It ends with a recommendation for action. America has been "talking tough but has done
nothing new." Then the
rock-em, sock-em conclusion: "Bridge-building and resets will not
persuade [Putin] to behave as a normal leader. The West should impose tough sanctions now, pursue his
corrupt friends and throw him out of every international talking shop that
relies on telling the truth."
Which
international, truth-reliant talking shops, we wonder, does The Economist have in mind? The UN Security Council, with Colin
Powell laying out the evidence for WMD?
The General Assembly, where Andrei Gromyko denied the shipment of
offensive weapons to Cuba? Or
maybe just the world television theater, where Lyndon Johnson explained the
aggression against us in the Tonkin Gulf? "
Suppose the Economist editors win on this
issue. Suppose they get the West
to impose really severe sanctions.
And then, when they don't work, more severe sanctions, and more. Isn't there a point where Putin will
ask, "How much more have I got to lose if I just invade and take over the
place?" After he bites the
bullet on lost trade he can do that so easily. For this job he's got overwhelming military weight, his
countrymen are behind him, and the battlefield is on his doorstep, not ours.
I see the Economist editors gathering in the
office the next day. They see that
those responsible in our government face the choice of a backdown or World War
III. In any case, another gigantic
mess — with the promise of worse in a renewal of the Cold War. My guess is that somebody in that room
will be conceiving the kind of blog post recently produced about the decision
to support the Iraq invasion. It's
titled "Anniversary
of a mass delusion," and the author, M. S., was apparently privy to the
discussions at the New York Times
when its editors decided to back the
war. His post,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/03/iraq-war, is said by The Economist to come
from "one of our blogs."
It is so full of regret. What they had taken as justification
for war is now seen to be "all a fever dream" in the minds of
"otherwise intelligent men."
The author is left with a very sad conclusion:
that all of
us, including those of us considered the most responsible, well-trained and
serious, are entirely capable of talking ourselves into lurid fantasies; that the
actions we believe constitute difficult but necessary choices may in fact be
the gestures of sleepwalkers battling phantoms.
He has in mind discussions in which the
thinking looks very much like the thinking of the present Economist editors.
Just as much concentration on irrelevancies (Putin's and his country's
vices), just as many ideas presented in inflammatory way (Putin in a spider web
on the cover). It's not too much
of a stretch to see the editors as Cold War sleepwalkers.
I think our
last thoughts, though, should be on this blogger's regret. What he's regretting is hawkishness
that's different from the hawkishness in The Economist's present leader.
In its leader on Iraq The Economist
reasoned its way into a position we had to call "hawkish." In its leader on the Ukraine the Economist argued in a way we can hardly
distinguish from that of the emotional hawks writing for the newspapers we once
cast aside in favor of The Economist —
because it was more balanced and thoughtful, more focused on the relevant.
No comments:
Post a Comment