David Brooks is constantly wrongTakes a lot to be the voice on the New York Times op-ed page most consistently wrong about war in the Middle East!BY ANDREW J. BACEVICH
SUNDAY, SEP 15, 2013 10:30 AM CDT...Back in early 2003, eager to have the United States invade Iraq, Brooks mocked those expressing reservations or reluctance. “They want [George W. Bush] to show a little anguish,” he wrote on the eve of war. “They want baggy eyes, evidence of sleepless nights, a few photo-ops, Kennedy-style, of the president staring gloomily through the Oval Office windows into the distance.” As for Brooks, he wanted only action, and the sooner the better. “Bush gave Saddam time to disarm. Saddam did not. Hence, the issue of whether to disarm him forcibly is settled.” The journalist took for granted the ability of the United States military to settle matters forthwith....On April 28, 2003, beating President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech by three days, Brooks declared that “the war in Iraq is over.” The political and cultural implications of victory promised to be profound. A collaboration between policy makers in Washington and troops on the battlefield had removed any last doubts as to American global dominion. Brooks sang the praises of “a ruling establishment that can conduct wars with incredible competence and skill.” The United States, he enthused, was an “incredibly effective colossus that can drop bombs onto pinpoints, [and] destroy enemies that aren’t even aware they are under attack.”...
It's a fine example of the genre.
I'm glad it is getting wide distribution.
As the writer of several hundred essays about David Brooks over the last eight years, I will decline to comment further.
I wish Mr. Bacevich the very best of luck with his book.