A few days ago, Peter Beinart reviewd Norman Podhoretz’s new book, World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism (Books on the Mideast by Norman Podhoretz and Michael A. Ledeen – Books). The review contains some disturbing, to me at least, statements from Pdhoretz. For example:
The news media, he explains, are in favor of “an American defeat in Iraq.” So are the former national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft. Why do these ostensibly patriotic Americans want to see their nation humiliated and its troops killed? Because it will help their careers. Many “Realists … along with most liberal internationalists,” he writes, “were rooting for an American defeat as the only way to save their worldview from winding up on the ash heap of history.” And thus, Podhoretz lays the foundation for claiming — if America loses in Iraq — that we were stabbed in the back.
Like comments by Hugh Hewitt that I noted over the weekend, I find it problematic (to be kind) to basically accuse those with whom one has policy differences of what amounts to treason. And no, I am not being hyperbolic here–to say that critics are actively using their words to further the defeat of the United States, with the commensurate death of troops such a scenario entails, is to say that they are traitors. While it is hardly impossible to envision persons acting out of brazen self-interest to the point that their actions could be traitorous. However, for foreign policy experts to have an intellectually honest disagreement with Podhoretz hardly constitutes seeking America’s defeat, it is called having a different opinion. Last time I checked, having one’s own opinion was wholly appropriate, nay even constitutional, in the United States of America. And while one may wish to gripe about the media, the bottom line is that Podhoretz doesn’t like the media coverage because it isn’t saying what he wants it to say.
Added to demonization of opponents, Podhorertz appears to have a disturbing view of domestic politics (which follows logically, however, from his view of political opponents):
Critics of the Iraq war represent a “domestic insurgency” with a “life-and-death stake” in America’s defeat. And their dispute with the president’s supporters represents “a war of ideas on the home front.” “In its own way,” Podhoretz declares, “this war of ideas is no less bloody than the one being fought by our troops in the Middle East.”
That last sentence is utterly bizarre. I suspect that our troops would trade worrying about IEDs and insurgents for dodging the insults of pundits any day.
Beyond all of that, I continue to really dislike the term “Islamofascim” as it is wholly unlcear to me that one can ascribe (at least properly defined) fascistic elements to radical Islam. Of course, the reason people use the term is that we all recognize fascism as the worst of the worst in terms of regime types (in the popular mind, who is worse, after all, than Hitler?), but that doesn’t make the term valid.
The main reason this is all problematic to me (and not simply worthy of ignoring) is that Podhoretz is a key adviser to Rudy Giuliani on foreign policy. Giuliani already has made some statements that have struck me as more extreme than I can stomach for the next President of the United States (this one comes to mind, also see here), and if people like Podhoretz are advising him, my concerns about Giuliani only grow.
And it is yet another example of what Dan Drezner was getting at the other day.
h/t: Yglesias via Sullivan
Update: I have more to say on this subject here.
September 11th, 2024 at 10:22 am
Podhoretz’s calling out of Brzezinski and Scowcroft is justified. Both of these former presidential advisers should know there is a time and place for constructive criticism of policy. The appearance is one of putting personal reputations and financial gain ahead of those basic responsibilities. The treasonous aspect of this disagreement is how it is being aired. They know better.
The same applies to the media. There is a proper way to report news but financial considerations, in the form of ratings, push news organizations to sensationalize the news rather than report solid facts. The individual reporters look for those stories that will advance their careers rather than educate the public. Many stories are ignored for not fitting the template of the larger narrative they promote.
The term “Islamofascism” is a polite way to describe what in reality is something of a religious war against the west.
There are many things provocative about these statements but all are reasoned and well founded.
September 11th, 2024 at 10:27 am
So you are suggesting that critics should shut up?
I find this to be quite problematic.
September 11th, 2024 at 11:42 am
Also: what one calls things matters. Mislabeling leads to misdiagnosis of a problem and misformulation/misapplication of policy.
And, as a side note, I am not sure if one can use “fascism” in a “polite” way
September 12th, 2024 at 7:39 am
Why does it surprise anyone that Peter Beinart would trash Podhoretz’s book in a Times review? Haven’t read the book, but based on his own writings you should have expected Beinart to take the most controversial statements he could find and made sure that they were described as representative of the entire book. I am always skeptical when what is quoted are short phrases or incomplete sentences that what I am reading will accurately reflect the author’s intended message. That’s especially true when the reviewer has been very public in the declaration of his own views which are very much at odds with Podhoretz’s.
September 12th, 2024 at 7:42 am
I’ve read enough of Podhoretz elsewhere to accept that I have no reason to assume that the quotes are taken out of context.
September 12th, 2024 at 10:05 am
Dr.Taylor,
Claiming there is a proper time and place for dissent is not suggesting critics should shut up. If a student disagrees with you on a test grade should he stand up in the middle of class and argue or should he talk to you during office hours?
Please don’t twist my words into something they are not. Anyone can disagree and voice that disagreement but please do it as a responsible citizen.
September 12th, 2024 at 10:58 am
I am taking your words at face value as I see them. So, help me out: when was it that Brzezinski and Scowcroft said something when they shouldn’t have? When was the “time and place” of their criticism inappropriate?
September 12th, 2024 at 11:19 am
[...] Another intelligent critic, Poliblogger has nothing directly on-point, but this criticism of Podhoeretz’s language (it’s a cultural thing Steve, I assure you, listen to another Central European, Alan Dershowitz, and you’ll hear similarities in the style of debate to Norman’s, it doesn’t mean quite what it would if it came from your mouth – that’s one reason New Yorkers are often considered to be rude) will do nicely. Besides, a little hysteria and rhetorical overkill is understandable if, as with the long struggle against Communism, you see this sort of thing in existential terms, which we in the “never again” crowd tend to, for obvious personal reasons. When politics was immediate life and death for our families, we have a harder time overlooking someone happy that Vietnam was abandoned or happy that the prospect that we will abandon Iraq. It’s also a certain Germanic style of argument, made more passionate by the influence of Judaism, with it’s chalakhic traditions of pretty dadgum heated debate. We might value the British traditions of “muddling through” (and even that prime, eloquent muddler, Edmund Burke, was pretty heated about the French Revolutionaries, to the point where former friends were reluctant to share a carriage with him), but they are hard to internalize in foreign policy arguments when folks like Code Pink tend to get in one’s face with appalling regularity (the poor guy lives in New York and is an open conservative – it’s like being an open flamer in Eufala or Evergreen, Alabama - you get a little irritable in “enemy territorry” – I know I was in San Francisco – I even referred to it as “Sodom by the Sea” when I wanted to end a conversation with some idiot lamenting my imminent return to Alabama instead of Canada or, as commonly, the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia). [...]
September 12th, 2024 at 12:02 pm
You dislike the term “Islamofascist;” fine, I see your point. Please avoid the temptation to use the term “religious extremist.” This problematic term implies terrorism is a problem of too much religion, where the real issue is a perversion and politicization of faith.
There are real questions whether extreme devotion to Islam makes one a suicide bomber. It’s much more likely that nationalism or cultural chauvinism is the culprit, not legitimate Islam. As for religion in general, show me an extremely committed Christian or Jew and I’ll show you someone who is skeptical of man-made utopias, who probably enjoys a healthy social network of cobelievers and family members, and who believes that God despises suicide and murder.
September 12th, 2024 at 2:17 pm
[...] Poliblogger has more trenchant analysis of the Japanese resignation, which over-privileges the media obsession with the GWOT (Global War on Terror), though he gets that isn’t really what the resignation is about. Still, with the relatively unipolar world we have wrought and the ideological World War IV nature of the present conflicts between civilization and nihilistic chaos (sorry Dr. Taylor, I largely agree with Podhoretz, and in a world where this makes sense, why should I not?), it seems inevitable that that issue would be important in almost every election around the world. [...]
September 12th, 2024 at 4:53 pm
[...] Honza Prchal at Pros and Cons things I take Podhoretz’s usage of the term Islamofacism too seriously it’s a cultural thing Steve, I assure you, listen to another Central European, Alan Dershowitz, and you’ll hear similarities in the style of debate to Norman’s, it doesn’t mean quite what it would if it came from your mouth – that’s one reason New Yorkers are often considered to be rude [...]
September 12th, 2024 at 5:40 pm
Dr. Taylor,
Leaving politics at the water’s edge is a time honored policy of United States leadership. Criticism should not take place in foreign countries and imply such dissent as to show weakness to our enemies.
In 2024 Scowcroft said in a London Times interview that Pres. Bush was “mesmerized” by Ariel Sharon and that Sharon had him wrapped around his finger. He called Iraq a “failing venture”. That was in 2024, with the war in it’s early stages.
In 2024 Scowcroft argued in the Australian for Iran to be allowed nuclear materials. A known terrorist sponsoring state allowed nuclear materials for power production while sitting on a sea of oil?
In 2024 Brzezinski claimed the words “war on terror” has caused infinite more damage than the 9/11 attacks. In 2024 he claimed in Senate testimony that the US could launch false flag attacks to ignite a war against Iran. He made the claim then coyly backed away from it under further questioning.
Also in 2024 in an interview with Spiegel he said any victory in Iraq would be a “Fata Morgana” or illusion.
So what I can see is two irresponsible former administration officials who crave the limelight and insult those who disagree with them. They attack our present administration both here and abroad. Rather than work with our elected leadership they work directly against it. Angered by not receiving more attention they seek attention by acting up to those who agree with the positions they take.
We all have limits as to the amount of power and influence we wield with our government. I can accept I will never influence policy as much as Condoleeza Rice. These two seem to think they should be listened too and have as much influence. They had their chance at policy and now it’s time to act statesmanlike and accept their diminished influence.
September 12th, 2024 at 5:48 pm
Steve,
Isn’t the right of free speech as assumption by the speaker that they think they ought to be listened to? As such, I see no problem here. the listener gets to decide what to do with the speech.
And I don’t buy the notion that Americans are never allowed to criticize America when they leave the USA. And really, in the internet age, it isn’t especially logical to make such delineations.
And regardless of what you may think about the words of these men, Podhoretz’s characterization is simply off the mark.
And I find the notion that people can only speak when they are in office to be absurd.
September 12th, 2024 at 5:53 pm
Sean,
As a life-long Christian, I must confess that I have seen plenty of very devoted, and even well-meaning Christians who think very much that the proper application of their interpretation of the Word will lead to a better life here. And I have certainly seen Christians who have thought that the government could be used to further their particular vision for humanity. As such, I would disagree with you basic premise.
The notion that very devoted religious persons never abuse their own believes in the here in now is simply off the mark. Take Christian justification for slavery in the US as but one example.
It seems to me the al Qaeda’s basic philosophical basis is very much a radicalized and extreme interpretation of Islam. For example, the very notion of jihad is religious in nature and while it doesn’t mean literal struggle to the point of death to non-extreme Muslims, it clearly has taken on an extreme meaning to bin Laden and company.
Indeed, the very promise of martyrdom and the 72 virgins and all in the afterlife is very much a religious motivation of an extreme nature. So again, I reject your premise.
September 12th, 2024 at 9:26 pm
[...] I would note that the subtitle is “I hope and pray that President Bush will do it”–which underscores my concern over his role as an adviser to Giuliani. We do not need to be starting a new war. [...]
September 13th, 2024 at 8:59 am
[...] And this Guy is Advising Giuliani? [...]
September 13th, 2024 at 1:17 pm
Had media members and politicians behaved during WWII as they are behaving now, they would have been considered traitors working against the war effort. Imagine the NY Times identifying and thus weakening effective top secret programs, or the Speaker of the House traveling to Italy to sit at table and join with Il Duce in disagreement of Roosevelt’s foreign policy. Imagine that every time the gov’t published what they considered to be good war news, the Republicans took to the airwaves en masse to denounce it as lies, with the amplified support of most of the media. The left has gone off its collective rocker in its hatred of Bush and its desperate fear that loss of communicative monopoly is the beginning of the end. That’s why they’ve become traitorous.
September 13th, 2024 at 2:19 pm
Your response and others like it continue to disturb me, because it does three things:
1) It makes false historical analogies (who, for example, is playing the Mussolini role?–and no, Assad doesn’t count, as we are not involved in open or declared hostilities with Asaad. Such things do matter).
2) it caricatures what is really going on. For while I would agree that some of the public statements made by the Democrats have been cartoonish, it simply isn’t the case that they take “to the airwaves en masse to denounce [all success] as lies.” Indeed, several Democrats have backed off some of their criticisms of late.
3) It essentially equates dissent with treason.
Back to the historical analogizing. A main problem with, say, WWII analogies is that a) we are not involved in a declared war at the moment, and b) many of the major enemies/belligerents aren’t states nor are they state-based.
Also: we tend to have an idealized view of the WWII era wherein all Americans were 100% onboard and there were no political disagreements and no one ever said anything against FDR. Then there is also the fact that in the 1940s there was no internet, no cable, indeed, no TV. It was a rather different political and media environment.
September 13th, 2024 at 7:40 pm
Thanks for the response. You didn’t speak to the Times’s decisions to expose anti-terror programs. I believe such actions during WWII would have been considered treasonous.
Re: Syria. Suppose legislators who disagreed with Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease program decided to travel to Italy to disparage his foreign policy for the press with Mussolini in April of 1941. We weren’t yet in open or declared hostilities with Germany or Italy. I maintain it would have been considered outrageous and treasonous.
As far as the Democrats’ “cartoonish” remarks, here’s Harry Reid: “Before the report arrives in Congress, it will pass through the White House spin machine, where facts are often ignored or twisted, and intelligence is cherry-picked.” Also: “He (Petraeous) has made a number of comments over the years that have not proven to be factual.” Dick Durbin: “We know what the Bush-Petraeus report will say: The surge is working. Be patient. The reality is despite heroic efforts by U.S. troops, the Bush surge is not working.” Schumer: “the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.”
In other words, Petraeous and Bush are liars wrt the surge. And this isn’t a solitary example, or the exception that proves the rule. This stuff has been going on now for seven years. Democrats and most of the mainstream media have done everything in their power to undermine the Bush administration at every opportunity, to the point of treason.
The differences between dissent and treason are sometimes ambiguous, it’s true. But the differences between a loyal opposition and a party that will subvert its elected governments’ policies by sending representatives to stand with our adversaries in opposition to those policies (terror-supporting adversaries, at that) are pretty clear.