I have a love/hate relationship with David Brooks of the NYT. Sometimes, he’s the only conservative voice I can stomach on particular issues. Others, like yesterday’s column, dude goes off the rails into insanity.
Get a load of this statement regarding the current “sociological” state of Iraq (bolds mine):
“Shiite militias are gradually consolidating control. They are expelling the Sunnis. They have created a system of street justice, complete with underground Islamic courts. They’ve battled rival militias. They fund their activities through extortion and bribery. But amid the mafia behavior and ethnic cleansing, they’ve created relative calm. Two thousand Shiite families have moved in.
“This is now a success story: an ethnically cleansed safe place. Instead of a sort of managed soft partition that at least has a shot of transferring power to the best local people, we’re now getting machine-gun partition that transfers power to the most violent people. For Iraqis, the thug who rules your local gas station rules your life.”
Back up a second: “thugs” who are “dispensing street justice” via “extortion and bribery” and various methods of “ethnic cleansing” are considered “success stories”?
Ethnic cleansing is success? I had to re-read the column twice to make sure I didn’t miss some pithy Brooks aside, but I didn’t. He’s actually making an argument for mass blood-letting in Iraq (“the hunger for a final crushing victory overshadows any spirit of sectarian compromise”). Let the “bodies be dragged through the streets” and we’ll eventually see peace in our time.
Way to go, Dave. Of all the various strategeries I’ve read for ending the War in Iraq, that’s got to be the dumbest yet.
Cross posted from AoF