The latest in the continuing “If Gwynne Dyer Looks Into The Face Of Victor Davis Hanson He Will Burst Into Flame” series, this quote from his new book Future:Tense;
The United States needs to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Even more urgently, the whole world needs the United States to lose the war in Iraq. What is at stake now is the way we run the world for the next generation or more, and really bad things will happen if we get it wrong.
Ah. Very thoughtful of him.
Amazon shows a November 2004 publication date. That’s the problem with books dedicated to current events – they have to be in to the publisher before anyone really knows the final chapters. In Dyers case, it hardly matters – he soldiers on, gifted with a knack for historical subjectivity and emboldened by a nearly perfect record of failed prognostications of military disaster.
Indeed, there is a case to be made for following Dyer’s analysis very carefully, and then, assuming the opposite will occur. He’s that good.
Speaking of Mr. Hanson, he does a tidy job wrapping up the “Dyer-isms” of the failed, frustrated left in this post of a few days ago. No one is spared.
(Via a reader, who pointed the way to the story and Damian’s take on it.)
“Indeed, there is a case to be made for following Dyer’s analysis very carefully, and then, assuming the opposite will occur. He’s that good.”
Ah yes.
If he’d only write about the stock market, we all could be rich.
And he’s an award winner too.
“The World’s Laziest Columnist”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95000961
“What is at stake now is the way we run the world for the next generation or more, and really bad things will happen if we get it wrong.”
I can�t disagree with that. But if the Yanks (Brits and Australians etc) were to have lost that means Dyer de facto wanted the Islamofascists to have won does it not? So Dyer is either for Iraqi freedom or he�s for the fascists . Moreover Kate as you suggest the book is no longer a current event � if it were current it would be Dyer wanting the Iraqi voters to loose � how perverse is that?
Dyer is a tribune of the left/liberal agenda. Those views originated at the Yalta Conference where FDR handed over to Stalin the whole of Eastern Europe. The founding of the UN came from this time. Alger Hiss, an American of the ilk of John Kerry, was the first Secretary-General of the UN. Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy.
Dyer is set in amber; a relic of the past; a dinosaur; a quintessential loser. Good-bye, Dyer.
Dyer is finished.
maz2
if he’s finished , does that mean the CBC won’t
be calling him in as an “expert” on geopolitical events anymore?
Dyer makes Juan Cole look intelligent. That takes some doing.
Ummm, have you folks actually read Dyer’s books? In “Ignorant Armies” he outlined the best and worst case scenarios for Iraq, and concluded that the actual outcome would be neither extreme; the war phase, he said, would last weeks, not months (he was right) but the reconstruction phase would be far more violent and unpredictable than the administration was planning for. Again, he was right.
And the case he makes in “Future Tense” is not one for a victory of radical Islamism, but for the return of the system of international law, consultation and diplomacy. He argues that American unilateralism is a destabilizing force which could lead to a return of pre WWI style Great Power alliances and global conflict. Whe he says America needs to lose quickly in Iraq he means they need to get out soon instead of being mired in vietnam style insurgency for the next ten years. And an American “victory” isn’t what’s needed, but a victory for Iraqi democrats, if they can achieve it.
Given the rise of middle powers like India and China, and the coming decline of American economic power this is a very real concern. Imagine nuclear power India deciding that it, like the US, has the right to act unilaterally against its biggest rival; nuclear armed Pakistan…there are legitimate concerns here.
Don’t dismiss Dyer’s work out of hand, especially not on the basis of caricatures of his work written by people like Damian who admit they haven’t read the book…
�Whe he says America needs to lose quickly in Iraq he means they need to get out soon instead of being mired in vietnam style insurgency for the next ten years.�
If that�s what he�s saying he can�t even predict the present let alone the future. And why would I buy a book that wants the US to lose and the Islamofascists to win?
Could you define unilateral. Uni means one doesn�t it? What about the Brits, the Aussies, Denmark etc? or does it mean that if France and Koffi don�t agree it�s unilateral? It’s pretty clear now that they were more interested in perpetuating the “oil for food” program then helping Iraq democratize.
Sample of Dyer: Deborahcampbell.ca
“… I was in the old Soviet Union… I didn’t see a lot of Americans bringing Russia down.”
Wisdumb from the expert.
Dear A Hermit,
“Ummm, have you folks actually read Dyer’s books?”
No. I watched his CBC television series, War and his credibility as a visionary fell with the Berlin Wall.
“the rise of middle powers like India and China, and the coming decline of American economic power”
These are total speculations. Dreams of fearful and/or self loathing Westerners.
“America needs to lose quickly in Iraq he means they need to get out soon instead of being mired in Vietnam style insurgency.”
This is just spoon fed nostalgic pablum, served up by the MSM, throughout the run up to the election.
“the reconstruction phase would be far more violent and unpredictable than the administration was planning for.”
If you’re basing your assumptions from watching the nightly news, where they only show things that “blowed up real good”, your deluding yourself.
It’s wise to weigh a person’s predictions by checking their past performance.
In this case I can honestly say that Gwynne Dyer was ahead of his time regarding popularity of men’s black leather jackets.
“there are legitimate concerns here.”
There certainly are. This Gwynne Dyer guy should be ignored. Debate will only encourage him.
“And why would I buy a book that wants the US to lose and the Islamofascists to win?”
I wouldn’t buy that book either; but Dyer’s book isn’t saying that. You could go to the library if you don’t want to buy it…;-)
Dyer makes and excellent point about the symbiotic relationship between the Islamists and the American hard right/neoconservatives. They need each other to generate the fear and hatred required to move their agendas forward.
And “unilateral” is exactly what American policy is these days. Tony “Bush’s poodle” Blair notwithstanding its been all they could do to bribe, bully and coerce a few others into signing on to Iraq (and most of those are now cutting their losses and leaving). The abandonment of international treaties, like the ABM, and the attitude that the Geneva Conventions are too “quaint” and outdated to matter anymore are other examples.
Oil for food? Saddam earned more money from American subsidiaries smuggling his oil than he did from the UN program (which also saved a lot of Iraqi lives.) And even more money has gone missing from the Haliburton slush…er… reconstruction fund…
Now I’ll happily admit, as Dyer does, that it might all work out in the end; Iraq might become a vibrant, pluralistic, free market democracy ten or fifteen years from now. But if it does, it will largely be in spite of, not because of, the inept American occupation. And in the meantime America’s position as sole superpower will have eroded even further. Anyone who thinks the neocon dream of “Pax Americana”, with the USA standing alone as teh pre-eminent power on the planet is living in a fantasy world. Abandoning multilateralism and international law will be a huge disaster for America as much as for the rest of us.
Three democratic countries ( the US , Denmark and Australia) just had a de facto referendum on Iraq and the leaders were all re-elected. Same will happen for Tony. More importantly the Iraqi people have decided they want to go down the path of democracy. That�s enough approval for me. I agree it�s not perfect but until countries like Canada reinvigorate their sovereignty and participate in the world�s mess, that�s what we have.
Your definition of multilateral must mean 100% agreement or there can be no action . Assuming 100% had become the Western definition , after Vietnam , Blackhawk down etc , was the genius of Bin Laden and he was right until the neocons came along. More jaw jaw until total agreement is reached is like Marxism, it might look good on paper however it�s impractical in the real world. It causes gridlock, the terrorists were counting on that to continue.
If Dyer wants something to worry about �abandoning� it’s that the US abandon its leadership role to try and bring democracy to these failed states , that it simply build a defense system around itself and let France and Koffi fend for themselves against the Islamofascists.
I don’t need to read the book, either. My characterization of Dyer comes from hearing his “expert analysis” on CBC, predicting disaster in Gulf War I, Afghanistan, Iraq…
By the way – he does not do this for free. When you hear him on CBC, he’s being paid.
His mangey beard and too tight leather blouson made it difficult to concentrate on his theories about mutual coexistence with the Soviets.His heavy breathing and well modulated sigh,though, did add to his gravitas.
A.Hermit,
If Iraq becomes a civilized society – and the progress in that direction in the past 21 months has been phenomenal- it will not be, as you stupidly assert, inspite of the United States but rather because of the United States without whom Iraq would still be a stalinist tyranny.
The liberation of Iraq was not unilateral. Not surpisingly not all nations were willing to give blood and treasure to liberate a nation from the chains of fascism. A lot of the nations that were unwilling to assist in what is the most altuistic and unselfish endeavour in the history of mankind were inspired by selfish,and in some cases, corrupt motives.
The liberation of Iraq could have been the international community’s finest hour, however the left was more interested in using the plight of the Iraqi people -and the desirability of freeing them -as an opportinity to generate hatred towards the U. S.
A victory in Iraq would embolden the islamofascists and would consign the Iraqis to a future as bleak as their past. Anyone who would want that- so that the hated United States can be held in check, and the world can see that the critics were right after all- is a narcissistic prick.
Anyone who wants Iraq to lose is mad or evil.Perhaps, having lost his mind, Dyer identifies with people who cause others to lose their heads.
The term “Islamofascist” is amusing for its complete lack of meaning. Iraq was a secular state, and it was not fascist, but dictatorial. As the differences are obviously irrelevant to you, it makes the nature of your argument clear: confuse and avoid.
As for Kate’s analysis, it isn’t backed up by a shred of argument at all, just a tedious proclamation. Gwynne Dyer is a shining example of clarity and transparency, unlike the content and commentary on this blog.
“Anyone who wants Iraq to lose is mad or evil”
You’re making the error of assuming that America losing is the same as Iraq losing…
Look at the election results; the Shiite parties with th eclosest ties to Iran are the big winners; not the outcome the neo-cons had in mind I’m guessing…