Pipes “worries” about Romney’s support for Syrian intervention
Daniel Pipes criticizes Romney for “channeling Bush’s Middle East policy.” But he does it in the usual cautious, personalistic, “I worry,” “I hope,” “I fear,” “My personal view is…” manner in which for many years he softly and ineffectually dissented from the very Bush Democracy Project that he now “worries” Romney is adopting. Pipes doesn’t have it in him to take a stand and argue for it and show that the people with the opposing view are wrong. He takes all sides, so as never to be accountable for any position and to remain on good terms with everyone. Consider how all over the place he was on the Libya intervention in 2011, first saying that we should support the rebels, even though, as he worried, they might be worse than Kaddafi, and then, after Kaddafi’s fall, saying “I am not partying,” because “I fear that dead-end despotism will be replaced by the agents of a worldwide ideological movement. I fear that Western forces will have brought civilization’s worst enemies to power.” Yet he himself supported bringing those enemies of civilization to power.
Pipes personifies the complete intellectual decadence of a culture in which writers, if they are “established,” are never held accountable for their statements and positions, and as a result feel free to indulge themselves in the most spectacular and irresponsible contradictions. Debate is dead. Discourse is dead. And only a society in which discourse is dead would have allowed the madness of the Libyan intervention.So now Pipes is “worried” that Romney will initiate a military intervention in Syria. But does he take a definite stand on this? Does he actively challenge the people who support such intervention so that they in turn would have to defend their policy from his criticisms? No. In fact, while saying that Romney’s “readiness to jump into the Syrian morass worries me,” Pipes also says: “I hope that Romney will shake the GWB-era illusions, not repeat them.” In other words, just as he did with Libya, Pipes occupies the mushy middle. He is not going to marshal his arguments and make a case against Romney’s democratism in a way that might put the neocon/Romney camp on the defensive and perhaps even lead them or their supporters to think through their heretofore mindless position and change their mind. He’s just going to “hope” that the neocon/Romney camp change their mind, even as he “worries” that they won’t.
Romney Channels George W. Bush’s Middle East Policy
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 09, 2012 10:58 AM | Send