'He that stands it now …' A writer responds to his critics

National Review, March 22, 2004 by David Frum

Now of course nuance is a very fine thing. The world is complex, and our descriptions of the world have to be complex too. And certainly it is better to express yourself with restraint. On the other hand, it is possible to pile up so many cautions and exceptions that you end up saying nothing at all. As the poet Roy Campbell once wrote to someone who offered him the same advice that Fareed offers Richard and me: "You praise the firm restraint with which they write-- / I'm with you there, of course: / They use the snaffle and the curb all right, / But where's the bloody horse?" Right now, the great problem afflicting American foreign policy is not lack of nuance, but lack of direction. Our bipartisan foreign-policy elite--the Scowcrofts, the Brzezinskis--has gone into open rebellion against the Bush administration. The leaders of the Democratic party are now denying that the War on Terror is a war at all. And the administration itself is wracked by doubt and conflict over future policy toward Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. In other words, the topic for debate at the moment is not, "How can we improve the effectiveness of our foreign policy?" It is: "What should that policy be?"

Fareed belongs to that centrist consensus that complains that the Bush administration is not doing its work as effectively as it could. And who would disagree? Do any of us do our work as effectively as we theoretically could? But all too often these complaints about how things are done operate as substitutes for the hard work of thinking about what should be done. The cult of technique can become an excuse for endless talk; complaints about the lack of it can sometimes conceal a lack of backbone.

The War on Terror is a new thing, and it has disturbed many comfortable and profitable old relationships. Many of our foreign-policy elite have important stakes in those relationships. They cling to them despite accumulating evidence that those relationships have become obsolete, or even dangerous. In the face of this kind of entrenched opposition, how can those who recognize the need for new ideas force change? In American policy, there is one sure way to transform any debate: Invite the larger public to join it. And if you want to invite the public in, you have to send them an invitation in a language they can read.

ERRORS OF THE HEART

Since 1940, American democracy has faced three great ideological enemies: first Nazism, then Communism, and now militant Islam. And in each of these struggles, a certain number of Americans have found themselves out of sympathy with the nation's cause. During the Cold War, many Americans succumbed to the ideology of the enemy. Nazism was and militant Islam is much less attractive to Americans. But in both cases, many Americans wished to opt out of the fight--not because they loved the enemy, but because they so intensely hated one of the enemy's targets: Britain back in 1939-41; Israel today.

It was no surprise to Richard and me that An End to Evil earned generally negative reviews from Middle Eastern officials and their state-controlled media. Former Saudi intelligence chief (now ambassador to Britain) Prince Turki al-Faisal responded to the book by denouncing Richard as a "Zionist extremist." The former boss of Gamal Abdul Nasser's propaganda network denounced Richard as "the other face of Osama bin Laden" in a column in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram on January 27. And a columnist for the Beirut newspaper Al-Hayat charged on January 24 that Richard and I belonged to the real "axis of evil; Israel, neo-conservatives and all those supporting or protecting them. This axis of evil is the reason behind the global hatred of the U.S., and the crazy terrorism that everyone suffers from."