The war on Iraq is making progress, despite perceived setbacks for coalition forces in recent days, according to David Brooks, senior editor of ‘The Weekly Standard’ and a contributing writer to ‘Newsweek.’
Brooks called war unpredictable, saying that although the situation has not unfolded quite as military planners had hoped, the war should not be considered a failure, in an address at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government yesterday.
‘We can’t go to war and say it’s going badly if they shoot back,’ Brooks said. ‘If there are delays in ousting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and his regime, that’s unfortunate, but not unexpected. This is a confrontation with chaos.’
He was also hesitant to place blame for misperceptions about the Bush administration or the Pentagon.
‘Analysts promised a quick war; the president and the Pentagon only hoped for quick,’ he said. ‘They’re fighting back, but it’s not that we’re losing battles.’
Brooks also commended coalition forces for using extreme caution to eliminate unnecessary casualties and destruction.
‘There’s never been an army in history that has been so careful to limit civilian casualties, avoid targeting military staging areas, and avoid hitting important symbolic sites,’ he said.
Brooks called the war on Iraq a necessity, designed to remove an ‘evil’ regime from a volatile political region. He justified his view by citing Hussein’s admission for killing more than 250,000 Kurds and blaming the regime for an estimated 60,000 deaths annually.
‘It’s irresponsible and wrong for any nation to sit back while someone commits genocide, and we will not sit back while a man of questionable stability tries to build nuclear weapons,’ he said. ‘The rules of national sovereignty seem less important than those people who are repressed and dying every day.’
Comparing the world’s perception of the Hussein regime to that of former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, Brooks said that B’aath-controlled Iraq is a far greater peril than even the Bush administration would openly admit.
‘Everyone has underestimated how evil the B’aath regime really is,’ said Brooks, who has spent more than half of his career reporting in the Middle East, including several years in post-Desert Storm Iraq.
Brooks accused the media of misrepresenting the evil nature of the B’aath party, citing violations on the battlefield of the Geneva Convention, as well as brutal acts against Iraqi citizens.
‘What we have seen in two weeks of war is the granular reality of violation of the norm,’ he said.
One audience member, an agent for the CIA who was formerly assigned to Iraq, supported Brooks’ claims, and said that he had never been in any country as repressive as Iraq.
Brooks also said the outcome of the Iraq situation would likely not influence the 2004 presidential election.
‘The specifics of Iraq will not be the issue in 2004,’ he said. ‘Foreign policy and in particular, how we handle Israel will be a significant player in the post-Sept. 11th election mindset. Those attacks did change everything. People are much more aware of conflict, and for them, it’s not foreign policy, it’s homeland security.’
Republicans consistently submit to Democrats on matters of domestic policy, Brooks said, but have a solid lead in terms of foreign policy.
‘The Republicans have a doctrine; it’s as simple as that,’ he said. ‘They have an established place they can turn in moments of hesitation and confusion. The Democrats don’t have that.’
According to Brooks, three words from the Declaration of Independence have shaped America’s foreign policy in modern times.
‘Unalienable human rights three words that have defined for us what it means to be free,’ said Brooks. ‘That’s what we’re fighting for and that’s what Americans care about. That makes us a troublesome people in the world.’
The speech seemed well received by the audience of mostly Democrats. One man, who identified himself as an Egyptian national did, however, express concerns that Americans over-simplify the situation in the Middle-East.