Michael Ignatieff's "self-reflection" in Sunday's NYT Magazine

  Michael Ignatieff is the latest to "come clean" about his conflicted emotions regarding the fiasco he supported in Iraq.  Writing in this Sunday's NYT Magazine, http://www.nytimes.com/... Ignatieff presents yet another of what have become tiresome, soul-searching masturbatory rites of passage for the war's enablers.

  "Getting Iraq Wrong" begins paragraphs with such tripe as "As a former denizen of Harvard..." and describes what Ignatieff envisions as the difference between judgment as exercised by politicians and as exercised by academics. The article meanders around aimlessly for nearly one-third its length, then somehow manages to include the obligatory potshot against the left:

"...Many of those who correctly anticipated catastrophe did not do so by exercising judgment but by indulging in ideology. They opposed the President because they believed the president was only after the oil or because they believed America is always and in every situation wrong."

(more over the fold)

Frankly, this is scurrilous horseshit. It doesn't take an ideological position to recognize you're being lied to. All it takes it a little common sense, common knowledge and applied reasoning.

  Yet, for Ignatieff, apparently,  opposition to the war based on the logical deduction that its rationale ultimately lay in the desire to control Iraq's oil is a matter of "ideology."   Nor does he provide any proof or evidence (they never do, do they?) that the millions of people who initially opposed the fiasco believed America to be "always and in every situation wrong."  Those people are a useful invention in your mind, Mr. Ignatieff. They do not exist.

 No, Mr. Ignatieff, it's not a matter of ideology. It's a matter of common sense, a.k.a, good judgment. It's a matter of integrity.  It's a matter of acutely observing that the other possible rationales for the war are  deliberate, and utterly implausible, fictions.

"Good judgment in politics, depends on being a critical judge of yourself."

 You sure got that right, Michael. Because in your case it wasn't poor judgment. It wasn't that you "labored...with the same faulty intelligece and lack of knowledge of Iraq's fissured sectarian history."  As "a former denizen of Harvard," you knew the history. You knew you were being lied to by the Administration. You knew that the war was unnecessary. The real question is why you went along with it. And that's what makes me just a little bit sick. That's what makes me queasy when I read these apologia by the so-called misled. I don't think you were misled at all. I think deep down you just kind of liked the idea of bloodshed when you found the ends appropriate, and you didn't care whether the means was based on lies. I think you kind of got off on all the recklessness and malice of it all, and you thought that no one would be here to collect the bill from you. And now that you blew it for all to see, it galls you to admit it. Rather, it becomes an intellectual exercise of "trying to understand":

 "I keep revisiting the Iraq debacle, trying to understand exactly how the judgments I now have to make in the political arena need to improve on the ones I used to offer from the sidelines. I've learned that acquiring good judgment in politics starts with knowing when to admit your mistakes."

 It took you a botched war to come to the realization that good judgment is "knowing when to admit your mistakes?" Somehow you missed this concept growing up as a child? They didn't cover this at Harvard?

 I think that what you really can't bear is not that someone can question your judgment, but that someone can honestly conclude that you just didn't care whether the means justified the ends.  Because ultimately, Michael, you're too smart for your own argument to apply.

•  Tips? First Diary.

  After two years my son finally took a nap.

  by Dartagnan on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:19:35 AM PDT

  •  Well, let's hope it turns into a ritual.

    by uzeromay on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:23:23 AM PDT

    •  It continues to trouble me that they did not know

      I knew that there were a host of good reasons not to invade Iraq.  Those reasons were strategic, moral, ethical and those of national self-interest.  Yes, we had a bit of advance notice because the current President had been and continues to be an unreliable witness, but were critics of the proposed war the only ones who knew that?  The only ones whose "BS Detectors" kept flashing and beeping non-stop during his speeches on the subject?

      I also knew that the UN Inspections teams were coming back and saying, "Nope, none here, no, none there, no those reports are not credible, sorry".  What did the war is good apologists think was going on?  That the UN was complicit in helping Saddam Hussein hide all evidence of an active weapons program?  Stop right there.  Was THAT what they really believed?  If so, did they learn to be that completely stupid at Harvard, or if not, where then?  Were they home schooled by Garner Ted Armstrong?

      It seems to me there is something of a herd mentality that spreads in Washington, that infects even the intelligent.  Even Hillary.  Now Obama, who was right on the war then, thinks...   well, who knows what?

      by arthura on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:34:07 AM PDT

      •  It's also fear of being wrong

        imagine the consequences to Ignatieff and (you fill in the blank) if they oppose the war, even with irrefutable reasons, and yet the war is a success.  There goes their access. There goes there job.

        It's much easier to get along, go along.

        by Dartagnan on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:50:43 AM PDT

  •  Excellent work!

    I thought to comment on this article, but you have done the job wonderfully well!

    I am so tired of hearing "I was wrong for the right reasons and you were right for the wrong reasons" - what horse manure! And then to follow it with the acknowledgement of lazy research and uncritical thinking in a matter of life and death to millions.

    "I'll do better next time ..." - nope, I hope next time you will be the victim of the ignorance of some intellectual soul-mate of yours, and then let's see how forgiving you will be, Mr. Ignatieff!

    by Clem Yeobright on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:43:58 AM PDT

  •  I think you're take on this is 180° wrong

    You have cherry-picked the most damning portions of the whole article. See below for some of the other portions which make this article a pleasant surprise and a help to those who oppose the war, and oppose Bush.

    by thingamabob on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:54:50 AM PDT

  •  Michael Ignatieff scares me.

    When he ran for leadership of a political party in Canada, I was alarmed.
    Fortunately, he did not win.

    by Tigana on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 10:58:14 AM PDT

  •  His bpody should be riddled with

    the bullets and schrapnel and air fuel bombs he helped rain down on the head of Iraqis. Motherfucker.

    by Salo on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 12:07:46 PM PDT

•  too bad...

  he'll never be prime minister...poor Michael...

  by michael1104 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:26:17 AM PDT

•  So how come HRC is leading the dem field

  if she is just as wrong on the Iraq war, and if

  I've learned that acquiring good judgment in politics starts with knowing when to admit your mistakes."

  how come the apparent lesson from the HRC candidacy is that the "when" is "never"?

  by Inland on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:35:08 AM PDT

•  Project for the New American Century thinking

  "    "...Many of those who correctly anticipated catastrophe did not do so by exercising judgment but by indulging in ideology. They opposed the President because they believed the president was only after the oil or because they believed America is always and in every situation wrong."
  "

  Sounds like something someone from PNAC would say.  It's  really unfortunate how voluminous the sentiment is in the MSM.

  The sad thing is, most of them write from the theoretical POV.  eg., read Richard Perle's essay on Israel's need to destroy Syria, Palestinians, US to destory N. Korea etc, from 96 I think.  It's totally pot calling the kettle black.
  See here for some commentary on that: http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/...

  by junta0201 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:36:25 AM PDT

•  What a putz!

  "...Many of those who correctly anticipated catastrophe did not do so by exercising judgment but by indulging in ideology. They opposed the President because they believed the president was only after the oil or because they believed America is always and in every situation wrong."

        Substitute bush for "America", because I'm exercising judgment experience and logic and this sob would be right on the mark.

  by irate on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:50:48 AM PDT

•  Actually, I applaud Ignatieff

  First things first, the biggest problem with Ignatieff cheering on Bush in Iraq is that, at the time, he was a justifiably respected voice from liberal academia, who had championed the cause of global human rights for some time. His position was not simply wrong, it vitiated so much of the good he had done, and impugned so many he worked with--his responses to their relevant and appropriate criticisms were petty and puerile, the ravings of a spoiled ego.

  Second, he is not a "neo-con" or even close. His support was all the more remarkable because he didn't drink the neo-con Kool-aid, but had simply been locked in his Harvard ivory tower for too long to notice he could no longer see events on the ground clearly.

  Third, everyone who writes an apologia for their previous commentaries in a vehicle like the NYT Review deserves plaudits just for doing so. That it is not absolutely prostrated and humble, that it contains little digs at his interlocutors does not diminish the apology, just the man. Yes, he still has an ego, and it clouds his ability to say "I was wrong" without caveats.

  Lastly, his apology goes farther than merely apologizing--it suggests a rationale which is not too far from the truth, and includes a clear critique of Mr. Bush:

  In public life, a politician’s mistakes are first paid by others. Good judgment means understanding how to be responsible to those who pay the price of your decisions.

  Fixed principle matters. There are some goods that cannot be traded, some lines that cannot be crossed, some people who must never be betrayed. But fixed ideas of a dogmatic kind are usually the enemy of good judgment. It is an obstacle to clear thinking to believe that America’s foreign policy serves God’s plan to expand human freedom.

  he people who truly showed good judgment on Iraq predicted the consequences that actually ensued but also rightly evaluated the motives that led to the action. They did not necessarily possess more knowledge than the rest of us. They labored, as everyone did, with the same faulty intelligence and lack of knowledge of Iraq’s fissured sectarian history. What they didn’t do was take wishes for reality. They didn’t suppose, as President Bush did, that because they believed in the integrity of their own motives everyone else in the region would believe in it, too. They didn’t suppose that a free state could arise on the foundations of 35 years of police terror. They didn’t suppose that America had the power to shape political outcomes in a faraway country of which most Americans knew little. They didn’t believe that because America defended human rights and freedom in Bosnia and Kosovo it had to be doing so in Iraq. They avoided all these mistakes.

  I made some of these mistakes and then a few of my own.

  And this is the clearest reason of all to appalaud:

  Good judgment in politics, it turns out, depends on being a critical judge of yourself. It was not merely that the president did not take the care to understand Iraq. He also did not take the care to understand himself. The sense of reality that might have saved him from catastrophe would have taken the form of some warning bell sounding inside, alerting him that he did not know what he was doing. But then, it is doubtful that warning bells had ever sounded in him before. He had led a charmed life, and in charmed lives warning bells do not sound.

  He has rehabilitated himself in my eyes at least--and that is saying much. Especially as I now feel comfortable voting for him.

  by thingamabob on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:50:59 AM PDT

  •  Sorry - he supported preemptive war

    on the flimsiest of evidence. And he still seems to see opposition to that beforehand as some kind of weakness. No applauding for that.

    by Little on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 10:29:07 AM PDT

    •  I'm not applauding his previous "errors"

      Of which there were many, many egregious ones.

      But refusing to listen to this because of his prior stance is not only pointless, it's dogmatic and petulant. Show me how this article can be in any way construed as anything other than a scathing critique of Bush?

      by thingamabob on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 11:55:15 AM PDT

      •  wtf?

        "...Many of those who correctly anticipated catastrophe did not do so by exercising judgment but by indulging in ideology. They opposed the President because they believed the president was only after the oil or because they believed America is always and in every situation wrong."

        A true apology never - never - contains such underhanded offense. If you choose to look past that - I  really don't mind. I don't see that as pointless, and certainly not petulant or dogmatic.

        Yes, it critiques Bush. Whoop tedoo. It seems a bit desparate to give him credit for something so obvious.

        by Little on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 12:09:17 PM PDT

        •  If only it were so "obvious"

          I give him credit because precious few have been willing to say as much, no matter how obvious it is.

          And I don't forgive him his ego, but I also don't believe that cherry-picking is any better when it's done by partisans on our side. The impression given by the diary is decidedly skewed, though I understand the sentiment.

          by thingamabob on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 02:10:22 PM PDT

          •  When the cherry outweighs tree... nt

            by Little on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 02:14:46 PM PDT

  •  The AIPAC Two-Step

    Bullshit!

    He was a de facto if not a de jure neocon.

    This had nothing to do with faulty intelligence or anything other than fulfilling the wishes of the Likud Party and its agents in this country.

    AIPAC said jump - he said "How high?"

    AIPAC said shit - he sais "What color?"

    by George Gould on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 10:49:47 AM PDT

    •  I'd love to see your evidence

      That's not snark--if you have the links I'd appreciate your providing them, because I knew of many of Ignatieff's failings, but not his lockstep jumping to AIPAC's commands.

      by thingamabob on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 11:56:22 AM PDT

      •  Why should he be different?

        The 80% of the people who supported the unlawful invasion of Iraq became de facto neocons by their support. Why should Ignatieff be any different?  I was singularizing from the general.

        There were no good reasons to support the invasion of Iraq.  It was mandated in Jerusalem by the Likudists, supported in Washington by AIPAC, PNAC, and the neocons, enabled by the hysteria generated by 9/11, and carried out by the Bush regime.  The evidence that it was built on a foundation of lies was there for all to see in October 2002 and in March 2003.

        Now those who have seen the light almost 4,000 American and over 100,000 Iraqi dead later want us to believe that they were lied to.  No shit, Sherlock.

        They want to blame it all on Bush.  No way should any of them get off that easy.  They are just as guilty as Bush.  They were accomplices before, during, after the fact.

        by George Gould on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 12:41:51 PM PDT

        •  So, does this make you an arrogant SOB?

          Not that I think it does, but, "singularizing from the general" could leave one with that inescapable conclusion. It goes to show why (in addition to purely logical reasons) one ought NOT to "singularize from the general". Here at DailyKos you should expect to be called on it.

          As far as it goes, I suspect that you would agree that understanding the root cause of terrorism (or the root cause of wanting to attack America/Israel/shiites, etc.) is crucial to figuring out how to combat it. This makes you part of the reality-based community who realizes that actual solutions demand actual thinking, not jingoistic partisan political slogans.

          By the same token, it behooves us to distinguish the Ignatieffs from the Kagans, because while your comment is accurate in describing Kagan, Kristol, et al, it sheds no light at all on Ignatieff's folly. Only by understanding how the millions (yes, MILLIONS) of otherwise thinking Americans and others who bought into this mess, despite what should have been substantial qualms, can we begin to avoid further such problems in the future.

          Now who's the one who has neither common sense nor facts on his side? Do you really want to be there?

          by thingamabob on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 02:07:43 PM PDT

          •  I am pure grade A 100% all-American arrogant SOB

            The problem with your argument is that you believe that we can avoid the problem of the people buying into the lies of the neocons.  You appear to base your argument on the assumption that these "millions (yes, MILLIONS)" of Americans and others who bought into this mess are otherwise thinking.  I see no evidence of this.

            The actual contest is not between the United States and al Qaeda – that is merely for public consumption.  The real contest is between those who favor and benefit from turmoil in the Middle East (we’ll call them the Pro-wars) and those who neither favor it nor benefit from it (the Anti-Wars).

            The Pro-wars consist of four groups, each with its own motivation and benefits derived:

            • Al Qaeda
            • The Israeli Likud Party and the neocons
            • The military-industrial complex
            • The multi-national oil companies

            Opposing them are the Anti-wars (a minority of Americans but a majority throughout the world).

            Both sides transcend national boundaries.

            The x-factor, or the unknown variable, in this contest is the majority of the American people.  Now these folks are not naturally bellicose and they derive absolutely no benefit from war in the Middle East.  Logically one should be able to assume that these people would favor the Anti-wars and one would be wrong to do so. In 2002 and 2003, they broke heavily in favor of attacking Iraq.  Why?  Because they weren’t thinking logically; they were afraid as a result of post-9/11 hysteria and a highly effective media campaign to frighten them. Fear is the operative factor here and fear precludes thinking.

            Slowly over the last four years many of them have been abandoning the Pro-wars for the Anti-war side.  You’ll notice that they have been doing so, not because the war was wrong in the first place, but because it is going badly now and shows no sign of getting better.  This shows that they learned nothing.  It simply means that we are sufficiently distanced from 9/11 for the fear factor to have subsided.  Another al Qaeda attack (or an attack that can be laid at al Qaeda’s doorstep, rightly or wrongly) and these people will be redonning the war paint and beating the war drums again.

            The Pro-wars understand this.  They have taken Hermann Goering’s words to heart:

            "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

            We on the Anti-war side fight to win the minds of the American people with logic and appeals to their self-interest.  After all, they bear the burden of the war (in addition to the people in the countries we attack) by sending their sons and daughters to fight and die, by paying higher taxes (even if those taxes have been deferred onto the backs of their children), and by diminished ability to pay for domestic programs and infrastructure repair.

            The Pro-wars use fear; we counter with logic.  Guess who wins?

            What I want to know is when did we become such a nation of pussies?  We descended from people who gave up everything, crossed an ocean in wooden boats, and stole a continent from its rightful owners.

            So who’s to blame for this mess?

            To the extent that the neocons and their al Qaeda, military-industrial complex and multi-national oil company allies pull the strings and Ignatieff and "the millions (yes, Millions) of otherwise thinking Americans" merely go along, I guess you are right. There is a difference.

            Operationally, however, there is no difference. Without the people, the Pro-wars are powerless.  There is nothing they can do.
            A little history lesson:  The Gestapo (contraction of Geheime Staats Polizei, or secret state police) was never the omnipotent force we imagine them to have been.  At their peak, there were no more than 2,500 Gestapo agents throughout Europe.  They relied on Germans turning each other in – you know, "Report any suspicious activity."  Where have we heard that lately?

            Now an interesting German language lesson: The root of Geheime (secret) is heim or home.  Heim is also the root of heimat or homeland.  Tell me, when before 9/11and the rise to power of the neocons, did you ever hear of the territory of the United States referred to as the homeland as in Department of Homeland Security?

            Isn’t interesting that the neocons use Nazi strategy (a la Goering), Nazi fear tactics (a la Gestapo), and Nazi terminology (a la Homeland)?  And then the neocon mouthpieces, like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Neal Boortz, bloviate that you can tell a liberal has run out of arguments against his (neo)conservative opponent when he refers to him as a Nazi.

            As Charles Barkley said in the title of his book, "I May Be Wrong, But I Doubt It."

            by George Gould on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 05:39:04 PM PDT

            •  Bitchin' analysis.

              Thanks for commenting to this diary.

              by Dartagnan on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:33:16 PM PDT

            •  We don't disagree

              As you say, it is (in a nutshell) about the pro-wars vs. the anti-wars, neo-con vs. progressive, neo-feudal vs. liberal democrat.

              The problem is that the pro-wars have got hold of the levers of mass media, and also polluted the culture, as you quite astutely described. Why did so many Dems cave in to the non-existent "pressure" put on them by the White House over FISA? Why did they even imagine that this so-called "pressure" actually existed? Why did they not do the obvious--stand up for what they claimed to want, against the barbarism of Bush and co?

              The answer might not be important since a mentally unstable person with an axe in hand is just as dangerous as a rational but evil person with an axe in hand--as you say, operationally there's no difference. At least not for avoiding the axe. On that note we totally agree, and I would say that cogent analysis might suggest that armed resistance probably isn't that far around the corner.

              At the same time, I think it's important to separate the Ignatieffs from the Kristols, Kagans and so on because if we ever free ourselves from these bastards, we must still answer the question: how do we prevent this from happening again? And figuring out how to keep Ignatieffs of the future from signing on to the PNAC adventure is critical.

              One other thing is that each of these articles, while arrogant, self-serving and far-from-complete, nevertheless adds to the decaying support for Bush amongst those who may never support progressive politics, but who we must hope learn not to hate and fear progressive politics. This is also a good thing.

              And last, welcome to the Arrogant SOB Club! There seem to be a lot of us who frequent DailyKos.

              by thingamabob on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:02:17 PM PDT

              •  You're right; we don't disagree

                Thanks for the welcome to the Arrogant SOB Club although I have to say that I wonder about any club that would let me in.

                I never thought we were that far apart but it was fun arguing the points.

                I'm still not as confident as you in our ability to convince those who choose to live in fear that their fears are groundless.  I've yet to discover a fear vaccine.

                Most days I'm willing to put in the effort, but there are others when I just feel like reverting to my days in the infantry and say "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."  How's that for a new branch of advocating for peace?  "Mass Murder Mediation."

                I think I'm getting punchy and had better cut this short before I get into real trouble.  Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

                by George Gould on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:36:16 PM PDT

•  Please read the article!

  While the diarist makes some useful observations, I think there's much more in it worth applauding rather than criticizing.

  by thingamabob on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:51:58 AM PDT

•  Great first diary!

  You've given me back the 20 minutes I would have spent reading his screed tomorrow.  For that, and your dead-on analysis, I thank you.

  As a fairly average citizen, I've found myself repeating the same amazed query after just about every fiasco during the last 35 years: "Why didn't they call me?"  Because if I knew, they had to know.

  by jakbeau on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:54:40 AM PDT

  •  Unfortunately, no

    Read the article. I got a distinctly opposite impression from that portrayed by the diarist.

    It is worth the 10 minutes.

    by thingamabob on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:56:35 AM PDT

    •  Did he ever talk to any of the people

      who opposed the war? Or is he just repeating that idiotic "They opposed it because of ideology and thus were wrong and shrill" meme that Rush Limbaugh pulled out of his ass and started pasing around?

      by Tony Seybert on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 10:45:19 AM PDT

      •  Well, if you read the article

        He goes on to say that many people opposed the war for very rational, even correct, reasons. To me this is an acknowledgment that supporting the war was NOT the default rational position at all.

        His "ideological" BS printed above is nothing more than ego.

        by thingamabob on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 11:58:11 AM PDT

•  Jesus Christ, he calls it "indulging in ideology"

  How about "indulging in humanity," you idiot. It wasn't a wrong turn on a bicycle, it was a wrong war.

  Christ, that's just sickening.

  by Little on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 10:25:25 AM PDT

•  Ignatieff is not my Canadian Candidate for PM...

  "They must see Iraq - or anywhere else - as it is"  ThisCanadian's thoughts on Ignatieff...

  just say'n...

  BTW:  the Iraqi Kurds just signed the PSAs... ummmmm HydroCarbon Laws...

  yummmy.

  Spread Love...
      ... but wear the Glove!

  BlueBerry Pick'n
  can be found @
  ThisCanadian
  "We, two, form a multitude" ~ Ovid
  ==
  "Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

  by ThisCanadian on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:33:47 PM PDT