Commonsense from David Brooks

++Yesterday, Andrew Bacevich wrote a withering piece about President Obama's foreign policy. He also slammed the advice of Leslie Gelb that President Obama needed to bring in seasoned strategists. Bacevich noted that everyone Gelb suggested was between 80 and 91 years old.

++David Brooks, catching the wind that the US still wants to be a chess master in the Middle East,wrote a column today in the New York Times that dispels this urge. 

++At risk of violating copyright laws, I quote the salient points.

"….We can't know how this drama will play out.We can only promote pluralism --steadily,consistently,simply.
     Sticking to our values means maintaining a simple posture of support for people who share them and a simple posture of opposition to those who oppose them. It means offering at least some reliable financial support for moderate fighters and activists even when their prospects look dim. It means avoiding cynical alliances ,at least as much as possible. It means using bombing campaigns to prevent mass slaughter.
    If we do that then we will fortify people we don't know in ways we can't imagine. Over the long term, we'll make the Middle East slightly more fertile for moderation, which is the only influence we realistically have. Ideas drive history.
    Right now there is a bipartisan inconsistency over the effectiveness of government. Republicans think government is a bumbling tool at home but a magnificent instrument abroad. Democrats think government is a magnificent instrument at home but a bumbling tool abroad. In reality, government is best when it chooses the steady simple thing over the complex clever thing. When you don't know the future and can't control events, bet on people. Support the good, oppose the bad.
    Realist half-commitments that undermine our allies and too-clever games that buttress our foes will only backfire--and lead to betrayals that make us feel ashamed."

++David Brooks' key admission in his full article is that the United States really has no ability to control events in the Middle East. Andrew Bacevich's key point was that we should be spared the so-called visionaries who believe they know how to shape things. Or in my previous posts,American strategy has too many moving parts, which sounds coherent but falls apart when you looks at the total picture.

++Brooks' view of keeping it basic and standing up for your principles because we don't know where events are moving is nice, simple advice.