Why does the New York Times employ David Brooks?  Surely they can find someone who--irrespective of his political leanings to the right or left--is at least competent? 

Brooks' Saturday column is the ultimate example of missing the point.  His argument is that things aren't so bad in Iraq because Sadr isn't really the desired leader for most Iraqis, so they're not heading toward theocracy.  No worries!

Sadr is only part of the problem, and most analysts agree he isn't even close to the most serious problem.  The most serious problem is widespread dissatisfaction--to put it mildly--with the U.S.  What about the Shiite/Sunni cooperation, David?  What about Fallujah?  Why are you willfully ignoring the rest of the reporting in your own newspaper?

I mention this not just to shoot the Brooks fish in the barrel.  Brooks optimism is a precise microcosm of the neocon and Administration problem in Iraq.  He's bypassing the situation on the ground and the realities of the now in order to focus on the end.  Not that the end isn't important, mind you, but the Administration has had it's head in the sand about all of the problems on the road to Iraqi democracy, bizarrely not understanding that those things in the road can stop the truck altogether.  Brooks' follows the same idiocy, by essentially saying "Hey, this guy Sadr isn't popular enough to be the leader of Iraq, so don't sweat it, folks."  He willfully ignores the issues, including the reaction to the US decision to overwhelmingly put the uprising down with major force.

The devil is in the details, and the details in this case are evidently too complex for David Brooks to grasp.  At least he's not alone.

8:30:42 AM    comment []