Unnoticed and mostly unremarked in the reviews of Joe Klein's newest "journalistic" effort was a "debate" (discussion? dialogue? diasgreement? diatribe? [thanks to King Crimson for this list]) between Klein and another "Swampland" blogger on the whole Iraq-surge question. I found it all absolutely fascinating, because it was so far removed from the reality of the anti-war bloggers Klein attempts to caricature and belittle, and so shallow while attempting to appear "serious" and deep. Klein is an interesting character. He wants to be taken seriously, but his lack of seriousness, his lack of analytical ability, and his desire to be an insider all force anyone with a modicum of intelligence and thought to find him nothing but a small, grasping man.
In the course of this little blog-debate, Klein dismissed polls showing Americans wanting a quick exit from Iraq because of the fabled "complexity" of the issue, and yet explains none of these complexities and nuances himself. Of course, just to pronounce "complexity" is enough; as a pundit, Klein does not need to defend, merely expound as we all nod our heads and say, "Right, yeah, it is complex". Except, of course, it isn't really - it has become increasingly less complex as time has moved on. Pointless death and lack of leadership have rendered what might have been at one time a difficult and complex issue into something stunningly simple and easy to understand. Except, of course, for Joe Klein who wants to complicate it.
He doesn't, however.
Towards the end of this post, Klein writes:
Just because they're right about Iraq, and about this escalation, it doesn't mean they won't be blamed by the public if the result of an American withdrawal is lethal chaos in the region and $200 per barrel oil.
First, the "they" here are Democrats. Second, one can hardly imagine a less responsible, less serious comment on the whole Iraq mess than this. After saying the situation is complicated, he reduces it to a question of greedy Americans whining about high oil prices. This is the counsel of cowardice, really. Just because they're right, and want to enact policies favored by a majority of Americans doesn't mean they should do it, because, my goodness, somebody might complain about the results! Another thing to note is Klein's utter obliviousness to the fact that the American presence is responsible for the current chaos. Leaving may actually reduce said chaos.
After typing this irresponsible, un-serious comment, Klein goes on to say this:
All I'm saying is that those who oppose the war now have a responsibility to (a) oppose it judiciously, without hateful or extreme rhetoric and (b) start thinking very hard - and in a very detailed way - about how we begin to recover from this mess.
First of all, the responsibility for clarifying how we get out of this mess we're in is the responsibility of those whose policy it is. They have to admit (a) it's a failure, has been a failure, and will continue to be a failure until the last helicopter and plane carrying American troops leaves Mesopotamia; (b) once they admit that, they have to repair the damage they have done, to the military, to the Constitution, to our public trust in government, and to the Republican Party which, moreso than the Democratic Party, has been destroyed by Bush's war. Responsibility for repairs rests with those who broke it. Period.
As a side note, why in the world should we wait until we have all the details worked out before we actually do something? Good Lord, that's nothing but a recipe for a never-ending commitment! Withdrawal from Iraq is the easiest way to begin to undo some of the damage done to our civic, constitutional life; to our military infrastructure; to the consistent lack of candor (i.e., a consistent lying) on the part of the Bush Administration. To warn that the region might fall into chaos is just nonsense - chaos is the current situation there! That is why we must leave, because there is nothing constructive we can achieve, and sending more troops will only increase an already "target-rich" environment for insurgents. Whining about gas prices as American men and women die, then claiming it is somehow up to those of us who have stood against this madness from the beginning to solve the problems created by others is utter nonsense.
Finally, who among the various anti-war liberals has not been utterly serious and injudicious in their criticism? Who among those who are opposed to this war have used "extreme rhetoric"? Granted this is true - which I do not by any means - shouldn't they be given some credit at least for being right, and consistently right, when all the other professional pundits have been consistently, almost alarmingly, wrong? Klein can't grant that, however, because if he does, it only proves that punditry is all but dead, lacking any credibility whatsoever. That means he would lack credibility.
Which he does.
