No matter how much we learn about a situation and no matter how much research we do, the fact is that we always have to act on insufficient information. As such, the least that we should expect of people who offer their opinion is some evidence that they understand the bare basics of the situation they are commenting upon. Sadly, we are continually bathed in the warm glow of the ignorance of those who are presented to us as "opinion makers." This would be bad enough if it only related to Hollywood celebrities opining about the world out of the deep ignorance that only the well educated fool can exhibit. However, when our elected officials opine about issues upon which they have a powerful impact, and they have no real idea what they are talking about, it is somewhat more troubling.
I appreciate that the cynics out there will simply reply that ignorant, foolish, vapid politicians whose behavior are more characterized by their narcissistic over-estimation of their own intellectual abilities are the norm rather than the exception. Nonetheless, in time of war and national contention, we should demand more from our Politicians and the Media (who consider themselves even smarter than the politicians they cover) than we are currently receiving.
A month ago we learned that the Democratic Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes, hand picked by the first female speaker of the House (she of broken marble ceiling fame), did not know some basic facts about our enemies. Here is an excerpt is from Democrats’ New Intelligence Chairman Needs a Crash Course on al Qaeda, by Jeff Stein, CQ National Security Editor:
It begs the question, of course: How can the Intelligence Committee do effective oversight of U.S. spy agencies when its leaders don’t know basics about the battlefield?
To his credit, Reyes, a kindly, thoughtful man who also sits on the Armed Service Committee, does see the undertows drawing the region into chaos.
For example, he knows that the 1,400- year-old split in Islam between Sunnis and Shiites not only fuels the militias and death squads in Iraq, it drives the competition for supremacy across the Middle East between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.
That’s more than two key Republicans on the Intelligence Committee knew when I interviewed them last summer. Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., and Terry Everett, R-Ala., both back for another term, were flummoxed by such basic questions, as were several top counterterrorism officials at the FBI.
I thought it only right now to pose the same questions to a Democrat, especially one who will take charge of the Intelligence panel come January. The former border patrol agent also sits on the Armed Services Committee.
Reyes stumbled when I asked him a simple question about al Qaeda at the end of a 40-minute interview in his office last week. Members of the Intelligence Committee, mind you, are paid $165,200 a year to know more than basic facts about our foes in the Middle East.
We warmed up with a long discussion about intelligence issues and Iraq. And then we veered into terrorism’s major players.
To me, it’s like asking about Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: Who’s on what side?
The dialogue went like this:
Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?
“Al Qaeda, they have both,” Reyes said. “You’re talking about predominately?”
“Sure,” I said, not knowing what else to say.
“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” he ventured.
He couldn’t have been more wrong.
Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club house, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.
That’s because the extremist Sunnis who make up a l Qaeda consider all Shiites to be heretics.
Al Qaeda’s Sunni roots account for its very existence. Osama bin Laden and his followers believe the Saudi Royal family besmirched the true faith through their corruption and alliance with the United States, particularly allowing U.S. troops on Saudi soil.
It’s been five years since these Muslim extremists flew hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center.
Is it too much to ask that our intelligence overseers know who they are?
Civil War.
Reyes was equally clueless about Hezbollah, who until 9/11 were considered the "A Team" of international terrorism.
In the last month the inverse relationship between speech and intelligent analysis has been displayed prominently by a number of other politicians. It has marked the "debate" about the President's plan to change tactics and strategy in Iraq, the key points of which seem to elude many of the critics. Hugh Hewitt, one of our smartest radio interviewers, whether you agree with his positions or not, has done the service of interviewing a prominent critic of the war, Congressman* Dennis Kucinich:
Congresman Kucinich was unfamiliar with the Quds Force, and couldn't name the Supreme Leader of Iran.
While Kucinich did not know what the Quds Force was, this did not stop him form making a recommendation for our Iraq approach:
HH: Well, they're operating in Iraq. Does that concern you?
DK: I think that we need to get the region involved in stopping the insurgency. And the way you do that, the first step you take, is to take away the energy that the insurgency is gaining from the occupation. Look, Iran...you know, we should be concerned about any nation feeling that they can advance their interests through the chaos and civil war of Iraq. And the way that you do it, you have to have a political settlement. We cannot solve this militarily. Most...and many generals who believe that.
HH: Pop quiz, Congressman. Do you know who the supreme leader of Iran is?
DK: (pause) You're talking about the religious leader?
HH: Yes.
DK: I can't tell you the name off-hand.
I don't mean to puck on the Democrats; there are plenty of stupid Republicans out there. For example, Hugh also includes these quotes from the esteemed Senator Brownback who would like to be President:
"I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer," Brownback said while traveling in Iraq. "Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution."
Brownback had previously supported a short-term surge of troops if it could help achieve long-term political stability, which the Bush Administration has said it hopes a troop surge will help achieve.
As Hugh summarizes succinctly, "This is, at best, confusing."
I might point out to both Brownback and Kucinich that General Petraeus, who literally wrote the book on counter-insurgency, thinks we can win so I would give him the benefit of the doubt versus these other deep thinkers.
There is a body of data which shows that people who are unaware of their own ignorance often over-estimate how much they know and how competent they are; it is often the most ignorant among us who have the best self-esteem; such are the fruits of an educational system that puts rather less emphasis on actually educating than on making children feel good about themselves, deserved or not.
For those interested in a quick recap of the issues involved in the "surge" (which actually has a lot more to do with changes in strategy and rules of engagement as well as a redeployment of troops into Baghdad) take a look at Dean Barnett's helpful FAQ - The Surge!! In a particularly moving moment of bipartisanship, Dean offers plaudits to the Democrats:
Democrats can at least defend their antics as garden-variety partisan idiocy. Republicans saying the same sort of things can’t hide behind the curtain of serving their party. They’re just being idiots.
Sadly, as long as no one calls them on it, these pompous fools will continue to have a say in the conduct of our foreign policy (not to mention the damage they can do to our domestic policy); unfortunately, stupidity sometimes seems to be a growth industry in Washington, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. After all, one must be either stupid or stupidly narcissistic to enter politics in these days when any sign of intellectual honesty or originality is treated as if it is apostasy by the arbiters of conventional wisdom.
*As pointed out by ddh, Dennis Kucinich is in the House, not the Senate, for which many of us are thankful.
Recent Comments