World Turned Up and Down

Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer, strong contenders for the title of America's Worst Journalist, go head-to-head on Special Report with Brit Hume and Krauthammer emerges as the voice of (relative) reason:

FRED BARNES: And I don't think, and we see it in the media, in particular, that the Sunnis should be treated as some abused minority. They have accepted no guilt, no responsibility for Saddam's crimes . . . They have mounted the insurgency, and those who weren't a part of it allowed it. They provided the ocean that allowed these insurgents to swim in. . . .

I'm not worried about harmony. What I'm worried about is crushing the Sunni insurgency, because nothing good can happen until then. There's no offer that can be made that somebody can accept. First you have to have security. You can't have this level of violence there caused mostly by the Sunni insurgency. They're the ones who are carrying out all the suicide bombings, and they can get mad about it because they think it wasn't a dignified execution, I say so what.

KRAUTHAMMER: But the way to defeat it is to win over the clan leaders in the Sunni leaders. . . . And they will not come over to a government which is acting on behalf of Shiites.

The trouble that Krauthammer can't see, is that we're beyond the point where we can act in a meaningful way to bring about national reconciliation in Iraq. Only Iraqi political leaders can do that. At this point, our real role in the country is to be manipulated by various actors there.

Comments

At this point, our real role in the country is to be manipulated by various actors there.

That's exactly right. And that's why we haven't been kicked out yet.

Posted by Swopa | January 2, 2007 3:52 PM

It's OVP (Barnes) v. Khalilzad/Casey (Krauthammer) here.

But the trouble is, what do you do if you don't believe that even Iraqi political leaders can bring about national reconciliation in Iraq? Do you believe that they can at this point?

Posted by Jeff | January 2, 2007 3:59 PM

They have accepted no guilt, no responsibility for Saddam's crimes . . . They have mounted the insurgency, and those who weren't a part of it allowed it. They provided the ocean that allowed these insurgents to swim in. . . .

Yes, blaming entire ethnic groups for the actions of individuals within them really does seem like a constructive approach to ethnic strife in Iraq. Boy, that Fred Barnes is a genius.

Posted by Tom Hilton | January 2, 2007 4:24 PM

Everybody talks and talks and meanwhile the deaths and maimings and destruction continue unabated. Grab yourself a fiddle, put your feet up on a stool and warm them by the fires.

Posted by steve duncan | January 2, 2007 4:36 PM

Fox News All-Stars indeed... glad that their friends are the ones running our foreign "policy" for two more years.

On the topic of pundits who have been spectacularly wrong about Iraq, it seems that Hitchens recent trip to Iraq combined by Moqtada al-Sadr's goon-squad execution of Saddam might have finally sent that pundit back into the reality-based community on Iraq.

Posted by dynamicinfo | January 2, 2007 4:39 PM

Tom Hilton beats me to the basic point i was going to make, so i'll simply add that fred barnes, as is usual (as matthew noted earlier today in another post) for the pro-war crowd, is a couple years behind reality.

there was a moment when we could talk in terms of a sunni insurgency as the primary security issue in iraq, but we're well past that point, which is why we now discuss civil war in iraq, not sunni insurgencies.

if we want to make sense, that is, which doesn't appear to be something that fred barnes much cares about.

dynamicinfo, i swore off hitchens a while ago, but are you serious? hitchens is dealing with reality in iraq? will the sun rise in the west tomorrow?

Posted by howard | January 2, 2007 5:42 PM

The violence is "caused mostly by the Sunni insurgency"? Hannah Allum, writing in the San Jose Mercury News on Dec 28, doesn't think so. "In a surprise reversal, Shiite militiamen have usurped Sunni insurgents as the most feared force on the streets." But then, she's only a reporter who's actually there, not a DC pundit.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/16337639.htm

Posted by JR | January 2, 2007 6:38 PM

JR, that's a very good point. Barnes is implicitly (almost explicitly) endorsing the 'pick a side' option (the side in question being, of course, the Shiites)--also known as 'exterminating the Sunnis'--and acknowledging violence by Shiite militias would undermine his rationale for choosing their side.

Posted by Tom Hilton | January 2, 2007 6:44 PM

I frequently have sworn off Hitch too, but find lately he's written more off-Iraq articles that are more interesting (excoriating Ford, for instance). In the end I doubt he'll end his self-righteous Iraq schtick, but his article on Saddam's execution at least hints that he might is not clueless about the mess in Iraq. He starts by mentioning the death penalty but ends with a nod to what was really troubling about the excution, how it mirrors the "sectarian strife" which is destroying Iraq.

"While Saddam Hussein was alive, they [the Shiite executioners] cringed. Now, they find their lost courage, and meanwhile take the drill and the razor blade and the blowtorch to their fellow Iraqis. To watch this abysmal spectacle as a neutral would be bad enough. To know that the U. S. government had even a silent, shamefaced part in it is to feel something well beyond embarrassment."
http://www.slate.com/id/2156776/

Posted by dynamicinfo | January 2, 2007 9:02 PM

"The trouble that Krauthammer can't see, is that we're beyond the point where we can act in a meaningful way to bring about national reconciliation in Iraq. Only Iraqi political leaders can do that. A"

That's the thing about sovereignty, see. It's sovereign. You're a ... you're a ... you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | January 3, 2007 5:00 AM

Something I've said before, but which bears repeating: the guys who lied us into this war will continue to lie to us, until something happens which makes them stop lying. In a (very) few cases, that might be a change of heart, upon observing reality. For most of these people, however, the only thing which will cease their lying is the cessation of breath. Thirty years from now, those of us still living will occasionally hear from those of them who are still living, talking about how they could have won, if not for the Evul Librul Islamofascistlovers.

Posted by Barry | January 3, 2007 9:45 AM

"The Sunni Insurgency"?

Perhaps I've missed it but I thought we were fighting "Al Qaeda Terrorists" in Iraq?

or is it "The Insurgents"?

or is it the "Saddam Fedayeen"?

or is it those "Fremen Devils"?

I long for the days when you always knew that "The Commies" were the enemy. I can't keep track of who I'm supposed to hate anymore!

Posted by Curt M | January 3, 2007 2:28 PM