William Kristol debated Lawrence Korb on Saturday afternoon at National Review's conservative summit. The topic was "Resolved: Bush’s planned 'surge' of troops into Iraq is a mistake." Korb deserves credit for debating before a conservative audience, and his position that the surge is a mistake may well be correct. But none of this excuses the lack of good faith with which Korb debated.

That lack of good faith was no surprise, though. When I debated Korb about Hurricane Katrina on a Voice of America program, he asserted that 10,000 people had died due to Katrina. He backed away when I called him on this. Nonetheless, Korb's desire to attack the administration had caused him deliberately to present our government in a false and extremely negative light to a world audience -- one with even less access to fair reporting than Americans had.

Subsequently, I debated Korb about Iraq on the same program. In his opening remarks he falsely represented President Bush's pre-war comments. When I called him on this he eventually backed down and said the comments had been made by Vice President Cheney, which probably wasn't true either. But because we had talked over each other so much, I believe VOA had to edit out that portion of the debate, leaving Korb's falsehood aout the president to stand. Later in the debate, Korb was less than candid about his own past positions on the war.

Korb was on slightly better behavior yesterday, at least at first. His arguments against the surge were mostly plausible ones. Even so, his first point -- that the surge had been tried unsuccessful twice before -- willfully ignored the fact that this surge in Baghdad is more substantial and involves a significant change in the rules of engagement. Korb also argued that the surge is against the wishes of both the Iraqi and American peoples, that it will result in more Iraqi dependence on the U.S., and that it will put too much strain on our already over-stretched military.

Korb started downhill when he proposed his plan -- redeployment to friendly Middle Eastern countries, coupled by a diplomatic surge in which we would enlist the help of Iran. As to the redeployment, Korb argued that we could conduct effective operations in Iraq from Kuwait. He went so far to say that we could have killed Zarqawi with a targeted attack even if we were no longer in country. But with our forces gone, we would be much less likely to get the kind of intelligence needed to kill a Zarqawi. As to the diplomatic surge, Korb claimed that Iran is helping us in Afghanistan. But Korb knows, or should know based on reports in the Afghan press, that Iran is now working with insurgent groups in Afghanistan to undermine the U.S.

Kristol's argument was that we should try to win a war against a brutal enemy, especially when that war has broader implications. Citing the adverse consequences of a defeat, he contended that we should give the new strategy advocated by General Petraeus a chance. If it doesn't work, that will become clear soon enough and the matter can be revisited.

Korb responded by taking a cheap shot at General Petraeus. He read a statement the general had written in an op-ed in the fall of 2004 to the effect that a great many Iraqi troops had been trained and that they were getting involved in the fight against insurgents. Korb implied that Petraeus had made this statement in the run-up to the election in order to help President Bush.

This is an ad hominem attack, and an absurd one at that. First, if there was anything incorrect in the general's statement, Korb didn't point it out. Secondly, while Korb and his fellow cheerleaders for the Democrats would prefer to monopolize the discussion, there is no reason why such an op-ed shouldn't appear during a month or two before an election. While Petraeus' views about the surge should not be accepted uncritically, neither should they be dismissed (or attacked) based on this sort of hatchet job.

Having hit the bottom, Korb remained there. In response to Kristol's argument that our exit might well lead to a bloodbath, he said, in essence, that this was Iraq's problem. When Kristol objected to this irresponsible position, Korb changed the subject to Darfur. When Kristol pointed to the likelihood that a pull-out might well hand Anbar province to al Qaeda, Korb asserted confidently but without support that, with us gone, the Iraqis would expel al Qaeda because its fighters would become unpopular. But, as Kristol countered, al Qaeda was never popular in Afghanistan yet was able, through its brutality, to exert control.

During the Q and A session, Korb spoke fondly of our withdrawal from Lebanon, saying that it was his proudest Ronald Reagan moment (Korb served in the Reagan administration). How could they have forgotten to mention this signature accomplishment during the Reagan memorial services? In response to another question, Korb denied having said that our policy should be influenced by polls, even though (as noted above) his opening statement had cited as reasons not to surge both Iraqi and American public opinion. Finally, Korb used his closing comment to read a quote from Francis Fukuyama to the effect that Americans would never have supported the war if they had known what the costs and benefits would turn out to be. This, of course, has nothing to do with whether, at the present time, we should surge. But for Korb, it's not about whether we should surge. It's about finding ways to attack President Bush. For that purpose, anything will do -- phony Katrina death estimates, invented Bush statements, or Francis Fukuyama quotes.

Posted by at 7:44 PM  |    |