Asymmetrical Information

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Art vs. Science; Schlesinger's Counter-Tribalism

Many of you, no doubt, saw Glenn Reynold's "Dropped Ball Awards" last night, quoting many defeatist columnists on the war in Afghanistan. I'd like to take a minute to examine one of the most influential, one who believes that his version of history predicts the future and has earned the uncritical (and, I believe undeserved) admiration of much of the Northeast establishment. In fact, Few names in the defeatist pantheon discredit Weisberg's "inventing an enemy" nonsense better than Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

Glenn cites Schlesinger Jr.'s famous November "quagmire" column in the Independent, but misses the opportunity to quote his even more ridiculous September column:

Bombing is not likely to eliminate Bin Laden and his crowd, who have well-prepared hideouts. It would only demonstrate once again the impotence of the American superpower.....

.....Afghanistan is famous for its unconquerability. The British Empire and the Soviet Union failed in their efforts to dominate the country, and they at least knew the rocky terrain and had people who spoke the languages. American troops in Afghanistan would be even more baffled and beset than they were a third of a century ago in Vietnam.....

...Moreover, by November freezing weather will arrive, and the Pentagon has no hope of dispatching troops and winning the war in the six weeks remaining before winter comes to Afghanistan. Nor could an invading American army count on serious assistance from the internal anti-Taliban resistance, their most effective leader, Ahmed Shah Masoud, having been assassinated shortly before the assault on America.

So Schlesinger famously begins his vietnam analogy here, totally misses the fact that the occupying army was Al-Qaeda, RULES OUT the possibility of victory before winter and writes off local assistance. It is difficult to imagine being more wrong.

My business is full of predictions gone bad, so I can take a charitable view. Then why trot out Schlesinger again? Because Schlesinger is influential in certain circles.

For those of you who didn't grow up among the reactionary (yes) Northeastern elite like me, you should understand that Schlesinger is my former movement's high priest. For decades before he became the "sheep in sheep's clothing" of these recent editorials, Schlesinger has been using his obvious talent for making elegant but strained historical comparisons to celebrate and excuse Kennedy and Johnson (and Wilson and Roosevelt) while demonizing Reagan and all who followed in his wake. High-minded intentions and idealistic international institutions are the ultimate justification for any action in the misty world of Schlesinger's history. Schlesinger's denomination of the defeatist family could also be called "counter-tribalism", a subject on which I posted in the earliest days of MTZ. If you are a Manhattan investment banker yearning for his 1960s idealism, or a marginalized academic angry at the mad rush of progress around you (and your desire for a six-disc CD changer), senselessly agreeing with Schlesinger is like going to confession. Say a few "Hail Kennedy's", re-assert your good intentions and receive absolution.

What Schlesinger must acknowledge is how clouded his worldview is, or just how Roosevelt-colored his glasses have become. Like many other defeatists, he refuses to examine the enemy carefully even as every potential U.S. misstep is under a microscope. I did too. In October, I just didn't perceive the extent to which Afghanistan had been highjacked by Osama et. al.. Schlesinger and I are guilty of the myopic U.S. navel-gazing we both criticize (from opposite ends of the spectrum and vastly different pulpits) But here's a nugget that betrays part of Schlesinger's even larger inferiority complex:

We need collective action for several reasons-to confer legitimacy on our response, to divert blame from the United States and to gain counsel from countries that have had far more experience than we have had in dealing with the tortuous politics of the Middle East.

We were attacked by a well-organized force of marauders who have opportunistically taken over a murderous, illegitimate and unrecognized foreign regime. There is no need for further "legitimacy". That we need to "Divert blame" is an even more disturbing thought. Either what we are doing is right, or it is not. Where is there a need to "divert blame"? He actually suggests Spain as an experienced country with which to consult.

It is clear that, even though he claims he is willing to justify "moral" military action on the basis of "human rights, atrocities and genocide" in his 1986 book The Cycles of American History, no military action can be justified in Schlesinger's world.

I went back and flipped through my somewhat worn copy of "Cycles", which is about the supposed 30-year swings in American sentiment from "innovative" public-mindedness to "conservative" individualism. In it he waxes hopeful that Reagan marked the extreme of the pendulum's path in American conservatism. In fact, the book seems to say "don't feel bad, these periods of self-interest are temporary purging, like hairballs. We're headed righteously backwards!". If you are looking for more poor predictions, look no further:

...the age of Reagan, like its earlier versions in the 1950s, 1920s and 1890s, will fade into historical memory.

Well, he covered his bets here, the Constitution kicked Reagan out in 1988, but in other respects Schlesinger was just hopeful. Interesting how Clinton's achievements 10 years later were welfare reform and free trade, isn't it? Predictions aside, Schlesinger himself outlines the appropriate pretext for U.S. action in Afghanistan in Chapter Four:

...national interest, realistically construed (as opposed to moral absolutes), will promote enlightened rather than aggressive policy...

It is certainly in our national interests to pursue those who would kill thousands of American citizens and have openly declared their intentions and a holy war on us. Nothing could be more directly in our national interest than eliminating those who threaten citizens directly. The "moral absolute" of not "bombing indiscriminately" or suffering civilian casualties did not, and should not, stop us.

Even though his own theories support it, Schlesinger would not come around to that view. Reading through his book you see a round condemnation of the invasion of Grenada, even suggesting Reagan to be an international criminal. Yet the Bay of Pigs is mentioned a handful of times only as an aside, and it is described as a misadventure of the CIA that might have turned out better if not for "leaks" and even, in a gross mischaracterization, as an example (p. 416) of Kennedy's restraint! Then he goes on to laud Kennedy because he "learned from" and "acknowledged" his mistakes and showed "courage and resilience." He winks at the use and abuse of power and force in these controversial presidencies (Oooh - scoundrel {smirk} scalliwag {grin} rogue! you can hear his congregation respond in unison). He credits Kennedy for the best economic management of the century, but attributes this, incredibly, to Kennedy's wage-price guideposts rather than his cornerstone tax cuts. Wow! look at all that 1990s inflation, Art (whole other post there, I'm afraid). He criticizes Reagan for achieving growth "at the cost of 11% unemployment." How about a 'dropped ball award for that one, Glenn. The Schlesinger worldview can be summed up in his own words:

The American leaders who had the greatest impact on the world in the Twentieth Century - Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy - exerted their influence because, in the world's view, their record at home had earned them the right to speak of justice and freedom abroad. Their professions before mankind, the abstractions to which they harnassed American policy, expressed visible realities of their domestic performance. Wilson's New Freedom validated his fourteen points, as FDR's New Deal validated his Four Freedoms. So ideals themselves, when verified by performance, become instruments of national power and therefore an essential component of national interest.

Think really hard how the author of these remarks can look at Reagan's attitude toward Soviet communist oppression and expansionism and the ensuing results, and now, Bush's renewed commitment to stamping out terrorism and the early success in liberating Afghanistan from the Al Qaeda-backed Taliban, and still condemn them so roundly. It is clear that the "ideals", as imputed entirely in Schlesinger's subjective discretion, matter more to him than the "verified performance." I'm sure there are civil libertarians out there thinking it was OK for Roosevelt to use military tribunals...because, after all, he had those four freedoms!. Oppressed or dead Cubans are, no doubt, comforted by Kennedy's idealism and "restraint".

This is the elitism of Northeastern Reactionaries - the "back to (my) Kennedy" crowd. Results don't matter, only intentions and grand intellectual designs with proper Ivy League pedigrees. Unfortunately, few of us have the Kennedy-esque ability to "acknowledge and learn from" our incredible errors in judgement. We sit in our pews crying feebly like Richard Harris at the end of his most famous role...."Camelot...."

Welcome to my home.

Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at December 12, 2001 05:48 AM | Technorati inbound links