Heretics' almanac: Rubin is way smarter than Brzezinski

The New Republic's latest issue features a series of essays by prominent thinkers across the ideological spectrum, all on "How to Save Iraq." Some of the essayists offer more or less predictable advice, e.g., Victor Davis Hanson's view that military action now will save a lot of political trouble (and lives) later.

But two essays have attracted my attention: Zbigniew Brzezinski and Michael Rubin's. Brzezinski's is stunningly simplistic; Rubin's is stunningly hopeful.

Brzezinski's essay is essentially an invective against American unilateralism and calls for steps that would create "legitimacy" for the future post-Saddam but nevertheless Iraqi government. He correctly points out the dangers ahead, but naively believes that "international legitimacy" will make all the difference. Nothing but the UN, he argues, can sponsor an Iraqi government that will earn the legitimacy needed to sustain a stable, democratically-minded government in Iraq's diverse society.

To which I must ask: since when do insurgents, terrorists, and other trouble-makers give a shit about the United Nations? Hasn't Brzezinski noticed that these people - almost by definition - reject any form of government but what they're killing people for?

What will give a new Iraqi government legitimacy in Iraq - the only place that really matters, if you think about it - is that it a) can survive any attempts to subvert it with force; and b) makes life better for Iraqis, through improved security, more freedom, and equitable, sustained economic progress.

Which leads me to Michael Rubin's essay, in which he argues that the US must give Iraqi leaders the means and discretion to lead their country's reconstruction, that the paternalistic tendencies are in fact breeding resentment, distrust, and perhaps lack of confidence.

Michael Rubin, by the way, was a political advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq until recently, so he (unlike Brzezinski and many others) has some recent, first-hand experience. And he is now - hold on, everyone - at the American Enterprise Institute, that hotbed of neocons who are plotting to build a Pax Americana.

Although I'd probably vote the way Brzezinski does in most elections, I can't help but be struck by the constrast between these two essayists:

Brzezinski seems to think that Iraqis are largely irrelevant in determining their own future - what matters most is restoring multilateralism, seemingly for its own sake. He believes that a government's legitimacy is determined by external parties and especially the UN.

Rubin, by contrast, believes that the future of Iraq must be determined by Iraqis, and especially those with the will and conscience to build a better country.

I hope Rubin is right, and I know Brzezinski is wrong. And I'm getting increasingly convinced that this naive belief that multilateralism is in itself a good thing, is damaging. I'm all for multilateralism and international cooperation in the service of specific goals - everything from establishing international law to improving the environment. But it shouldn't be a goal in itself, simply because unscrupulous regimes would invariably hold consensus hostage for their own political ends.

Nordic perspectives

General rolls