Precisely.
Posted on 03/07/2005 9:39:26 PM PST by neverdem
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Let us now praise Paul Wolfowitz. Let us now take another look at the man who has pursued - longer and more forcefully than almost anyone else - the supposedly utopian notion that people across the Muslim world might actually hunger for freedom.
Let us look again at the man who's been vilified by Michael Moore and the rest of the infantile left, who's been condescended to by the people who consider themselves foreign policy grown-ups, and who has become the focus of much anti-Semitism in the world today - the center of a zillion Zionist conspiracy theories, and a hundred zillion clever-Jew-behind-the-scenes calumnies.
It's not necessary to absolve Wolfowitz of all sin or to neglect the postwar screw-ups in Iraq. Historians will figure out who was responsible for what, and Wolfowitz will probably come in for his share of the blame. But with political earthquakes now shaking the Arab world, it's time to step back and observe that over the course of his long career - in the Philippines, in Indonesia, in Central and Eastern Europe, and now in the Middle East - Wolfowitz has always been an ardent champion of freedom. And he has usually played a useful supporting role in making sure that pragmatic, democracy-promoting policies were put in place.
If the trends of the last few months continue, Wolfowitz will be the subject of fascinating biographies decades from now, while many of his smuggest critics will be forgotten. Those biographies will mention not only his intellectual commitment but also his personal commitment, his years spent learning the languages of the places that concerned him, and the thousands of hours spent listening deferentially to the local heroes who led the causes he supported.
To praise Wolfowitz is not triumphalism. The difficulties ahead are obvious. It's simple justice. It's a recognition that amid all the legitimate criticism, this guy has been the subject of a vicious piling-on campaign by people who know less than nothing about what is actually going on in the government, while he, in the core belief that has energized his work, may turn out to be right.
I've had only two long conversations with Wolfowitz. The second was the day after the Iraqi vote. I figured that would be an interesting day to get a sense of his mood.
He wasn't nearly as exuberant as I expected him to be, in part because, like everybody in government, he's busy with the constant flow of decisions. He said he spent 75 percent of his time on the Pentagon's budget and administration.
He deflected all my Oprahesque attempts to get him to open up and describe what it's felt like to be him for the past few years. Our tissues remained dry.
But he was eager to think ahead. "It's fascinating how many echoes this is going to have," he said. "The Iraqi election is an inspiration. It's going to be a real challenge to all absolute rulers."
He went on to suggest that American democracy-promotion could now get back onto its preferred course. Iraq, he said, was the outlier. "Iraq is exceptional because of the use of the U.S. military," he observed.
Normally, the U.S. plays the supporting role. For example, Americans can usefully raise the profile of dissidents so dictators feel less inclined to kill them. Wolfowitz was the first U.S. official to meet with Corazón Aquino. The U.S. can use its access to dictators to pressure and annoy them. Wolfowitz worked with George Shultz in the testy exchanges with Ronald Reagan, who was less inclined to ease Ferdinand Marcos out the door.
The U.S. can spark debates, but it cannot conduct them. When he was ambassador to Indonesia, Wolfowitz gave a speech calling for political "openness." He was careful not to use the words "freedom" or "democracy" because under Suharto, Indonesians might have felt inhibited about talking in such bold terms. But they were comfortable with openness, and it became the subject of magazine cover stories and a great national discussion.
Wolfowitz doesn't talk like those foreign policy blowhards who think the world is run by chessmasters sitting around at summits. He talks about national poets, national cultures and the power of people to bring sweeping change. His faith in people probably led to some of the mistakes in Iraq. But with change burbling in Beirut, with many young people proudly hoisting the Lebanese flag (in a country that was once a symbol of tribal factionalism), it's time to take a look at this guy again.
E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com
Wolfowitz was/is right, and all of his psychocritics can go pound sand.
Rice-Wolfowitz 2008
THIS was from the Slimes?
Of course Wolfowitz was right. The MSM kept insisting he's wrong and clueless. Has the MSM ever been right about anything, I mean ANYTHING?
I watch Mr. Brooks all the time on Jim Lehrer. I don't always agree with him, but he knows what he is talking about. He isn't your typical partisan hack either, which is refreshing.
And who, by the way, was never given a shred of credit for it by a pathologically anti-American Filipino Senate and the rabid and stupefying Manila newspapers. There are a lot of Filipinos alive today who curse these men who kept blood from flowing in the streets there by telling Marcos that the jig was up.
Gimme a couple days to think about it. LOL
David Brooks is one of only two conservstive columnists at the NY Times. the other is William Safire who is about to retire. Brooks is excellent.
Precisely.
They usually get the date right, but then its all downhill from there.
They usually get the date right, but then its all downhill from there.
Whose date?
Pray for W and Our Troops
I was thinking the same thing ... would give liberals a shiite-fest. But I don't think Wolfowitz ever wants to run for office.
He does everything but type the name "Maureen Dowd" in this description.
What was that song General Cornwallis's troops played at their surrender to General Washington at Yorktown? "The World Turned Upside Down." Next, the NYT will be critisizing Ted, Hillary and Howie, calling for Social Security privatization, and blasting the minimum wage as "unconstitutional"(which it is).
It's my impression that the author, David Brooks, was the prototypical neocon at his previous employer, the Weekly Standard. I think he's been writing OpEd columns for a little more than a year at the Times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.