Thursday, May 01, 2014

Regarding David Brooks's Saving the System

In Saving the System, New York Times columnist David Brooks laments the retreat of the aspirational, American-led pluralistic liberal world order. Brooks sees the current geopolitical situation much as I do: opportunistic power grabs across the board by rogue actors in competitive reaction to the weak leadership (Brooks doesn't pinpoint the source, but I will: President Obama) of the shrinking American hegemon.

What frustrates me about top-tier pundits like Brooks is they talk about America's faltering will to lead the free world as though the state of the national character is something separate from themselves when, in fact, pundits like Brooks are instrumental in shaping the national character, no more critically than when the popular narrative of the American-led Iraq enforcement and peace-building mission was in the balance.

The false narrative against the Iraq mission is patient zero for the problem described by Brooks. When pundits surrendered to the false narrative against the Iraq mission, the will of the American people to lead the free world followed suit and collapsed.

The necessary baseline step for "saving the system" is top-tier pundits like Brooks correcting the popular narrative of the Iraq mission.

The 1990-2011 UNSCR 660-series compliance enforcement and peace operations with Iraq were the defining American intervention of the post-Cold War and 9/11 era. The Iraq mission activated all the elements of American leadership essential for the pluralistic liberal world order to compete in the geopolitical arena. Therefore, stigmatizing the Iraq mission with the false narrative has undermined the fundamental premises of the American-led pluralistic liberal world order. Correcting the popular narrative of the Iraq mission is necessary to reestablish sure American leadership of the free world.

I started reading the comments to Brooks's column, but I had to stop after two because of course the NY Times' readers blame President Bush despite that Bush reacted to 9/11 and acted to resolve the Saddam problem properly, and moved to reinvigorate the Western coalition.

The blame for the weakened West is not with Bush. Rather, the blame properly lies with the betrayers who subverted American foreign affairs under Bush for partisan gain by adopting our competitors' propaganda with compounding harmful effects. Yet with their typical sociopathic gall, the betrayers responsible for sabotaging the national character instead blame the consequences of their malfeasance on President Bush, the same American leader who tried his best after 9/11 to rally the West for the contest. The Faustian reward for their treason was winning political control of America. The damaging consequences, described by Brooks, of having the betrayers in charge of America have been predictable.

I saw this danger coming on 9/11 and tried to head it off, but my self-sacrificial college activism was for naught. I don't see how I can fix the problem now. I'm angered by President Obama's foreign affairs and I feel impotent to do anything about it, which makes for a bitter realization that the betrayers succeeded and I failed.

Eric

Labels: , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

<< Home

<< Newer
Older >>
HOME

Powered by Blogger