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
HA! HA!
Naw, I don't think so. Brooks is their token conservative.
He's a moderate to most FReepers, but he's the wild-eyed, right wing fanatic at the NYT.
I think you are confusing David Brooks with Mark Shields. Brooks is a decent conservative, I dont think he was ever quite liberal. He is a well tempered man, a real conservative.
Brooks strikes me as something of a libertarian, but he fails on the issue of gun control. He has a penchant for social analysis, but he doesn't seem to be a statist type. I don't remember him writing about immigration.
AMEN to that!
"Wolfowitz" -
is this... the man whose name starts with a "dangerous animal" and ends jewishly...
(Mark Stein)
Well, there are some conservatives like me who are not particularly religious, and frankly dont care about any social issues. My clinching issues are foreign and economic policy matters, especially handling the threat of Islamic terrorism. I've been a staunch supporter of Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, since the mid-90s. I dont want to waste my time arguing with liberals about foetus or gay rights, would prefer to spend that time to educate people on the threat of Islamic terror, especially the threat to the west due to emergence of Wahabbi schools in Saudi funded Madarsas in South Asia.
best regards,
DX
I am pro-life, but other than that, you and I are on the same page in our priorities. I also am concerned about Saudi-funded schools in the US.
PS - I think Wolfowitz is the greatest---he's the inspiration, IMO.
David would cut his throat before contradicting Mark Shields on Lehrer.. Brooks is Shields b!itch... and Shields would never contradict DNC talking points.. Brooks is the straight man for Shields comedy.. Course Lehrer would never have a real conservative on his show anyway.
best
DX
Well, he is a bit gentlemanly, doesnt mean he is meek. To most objective viewers, Brooks appears very cogent and reasonable while Shields is the mumbling jerk with an infantile logic. I think he can easily win over more moderates and libertarians, than Mark Shields.
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.