It's hard to believe that, not so long ago, neoconservative foreign
policy thinking overflowed with ideas and idealism. The descent has
been steep, and nowhere is it more apparent than in the pages of
The Weekly Standard-- particularly in William Kristol's editorials,
which have come to consist of stubborn denials of any bad news,
diatribes about internal enemies, and harangues against the
cowardice of Republican dissenters.Kristol's sensibility is perfectly summed up in one representative
passage from a recent issue. The topic was The New Republic's
decision to publish an essay by Scott Beauchamp, an American
soldier serving in Iraq, detailing some repugnant acts he said he
and his comrades committed. Legitimate questions have been raised
about this essay's veracity. (We've been publishing updates on our
continuing efforts to get answers to them at But Kristol
rushed past these questions, immediately declaring the piece a
"fiction." Offering up his interpretation of why tnr would publish
such slanders, he concluded, in an editorial titled, "They Don't
Really Support the Troops":

Having turned against a war that some of them supported, the left is
now turning against the troops they claim still to support. They
sense that history is progressing away from them--that these
soldiers, fighting courageously in a just cause, could still win
the war, that they are proud of their service, and that they will
be future leaders of this country.

In just two sentences, this passage provides a full summary of the
decrepit intellectual state of neoconservatism. First, there is
Kristol's curious premise that tnr only published this essay
because we have "turned against" the war. If Beauchamp's writings
were tnr's attempt to discredit the war, why would his first
contribution describe a pro-American Iraqi boy savagely mutilated
by insurgents? For that matter, why would we work to undermine the
war by publishing a first-person account on the magazine's back
page rather than taking the more straightforward step of, say,
editorializing for withdrawal?

The notion that tnr published a Diarist merely for the edification
of readers, rather than to advance a political agenda, did not
occur to Kristol, because he could not imagine doing any such thing
himself. He once explained his belief in the philosopher Leo
Strauss to journalist Nina Easton thusly: "One of the main
teachings is that all politics are limited and none of them is
really based on the truth." Whether or to what degree Beauchamp's
Diarist is true could not matter less to him.

Two years ago, my colleague Lawrence Kaplan--who once co-authored,
with Kristol, a book arguing for the war--wrote a poignant cover
story describing how the dream of creating a liberal Arab state had
died. Kristol, naturally, denounced his inconvenient observation.
"The fact remains that it is today more possible than ever before
to envision a future in which the Middle East and the Muslim world
truly are transformed," he insisted. "For this, no one will deserve
more credit than George W. Bush." Of course, this was an opinion,
not a "fact." But the failure to distinguish between fact and
opinion is typical of his mentality.

Next, there is Kristol's assumption that to concede that troops do
terrible things in a war is to denounce the war as a whole. Of
course, George Orwell, among many others, has written about the
ways that the experience of war--and, especially, foreign
occupation-- can blunt moral sensibilities. It should be possible
to believe this and still believe in the overall justness of a war.
(Certainly Orwell himself was no pacifist.) There is an old leftist
belief that, if soldiers have done horrifying things, then the war
is evil. This turns out to be the Standard's view as well.

Then there is Kristol's accusation that critics of the war don't
"support the troops." I wonder if, back in his youthful days
teaching political philosophy, Kristol ever imagined he would one
day find himself mouthing knucklehead slogans like this. I
shouldn't need to say this, but apparently I do: I strongly support
and respect the troops and would desperately like them to succeed.
My respect, unlike Kristol's, extends to soldiers who don't share
my politics, and isn't contingent on the fantasy that all of them
are saints.

Obviously, the way you support the troops is contingent upon your
analysis of the war. If you think the war is succeeding, then
supporting the war is a way of supporting the troops. If you think
the war is doomed to failure, though, proposing that more troops
die in vain is not a way of supporting them.

The most incredible part of Kristol's diatribe is his accusation
that critics of the war really believe that the war is going well:
"They sense that history is progressing away from them--that these
soldiers, fighting courageously in a just cause, could still win
the war." Now, perhaps Kristol truly believes that there is good
news in Iraq hidden beneath the surface, but can he possibly
believe that this good news is so obvious that even liberals
believe it? And that liberals, including liberals who initially
supported the war, are now trying to undermine it even though--nay,
because--we believe the United States is winning?

The theme of traitorous liberals is becoming a Standard trope. Last
week's cover depicted an American soldier seen from behind and
inside a circular lens-- as if caught in the sights of a hostile
sniper--beneath the headline, "does washington have his back?" The
Weimar-era German right adopted the metaphor of liberals stabbing
soldiers in the back. Kristol is embracing the metaphor of liberals
shooting soldiers in the back. I suppose this is progress, of

There was a time when neoconservatives sought to hold the moral and
intellectual high ground. There was some- thing inspiring in their
vision of America as a different kind of superpower--a liberal
hegemon deploying its might on behalf of subjugated peoples, rather
than mere self-interest. As the Iraq war has curdled, the idealism
and liberalism have drained out of the neoconservative vision. What
remains is a noxious residue of bullying militarism. Kristol's
arguments are merely the same pro-war arguments that have been used
historically by right-wing parties throughout the world: Complexity
is weakness, dissent is treason, willpower determines all.

Kristol's good standing in the Washington establishment depends on
the wink- and-nod awareness that he's too smart to believe his own
agitprop. Perhaps so. But, in the end, a fake thug is not much
better than the real thing.

For more stories, like the New Republic on Facebook:

Loading Related Articles...
Article Tools