Derek,

I think we're disagreeing with different things. Yes, Bush's diehard opponents would have objected to almost anything he did. Yes, a full-scale assault on Afghanistan would have brought out the usual anti-imperialist, pacifist and anti-US statements (doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong). Part of my argument is that a full-scale assault would probably not have been the appropriate response to the intelligence available; it's unlikely that he would have risked the political fallout of an actual war without a real, rather than potential, causus belli (ok, maybe *he* would, but he's still using 9/11 as part of the justification for Iraq, so I think it still counts); more probably he would have used cruise missiles and special forces to target a few al Qaeda camps, put a crimp in the stateside and international banking operations, and put off the "final confrontation" for a few more years. But Easterbrook's fantasy posits "unanimous" impeachment, Dick Cheney turning Condaleeza Rice over to the Hague, and Israel condemning the US for overkill. Maybe it's satire, but it's hard to tell exactly what he's satirizing.

Yes. I hadn't meant to suggest that counterfactual history was necessarily a handmaid of rightest propaganda.

I think the article fails to distinguish sufficiently the political agenda of the particular book from the potentialities of counterfactual history in general. What else would you call it but counterfactual history (wishful thinking?) when Stephen Cohen posits that the totalitarian impulse was not there for all to see in Lenin, but came into being with the power grab of Stalin -- if only Bukharin had triumphed!! The same page of GT has a link to Sontag's piece on Victor Serge, who certainly saw the continuity between Lenin and Stalin. In fact, he wrote a history of the czarist secret police for the Spviet authorities, little realizing that he was handing them a blueprint. Wishful thinking and politics by way of counterfactuals seems more human than merely party-centered.

Derek makes a very good point here. Whatever you think of the cogency of his argument in this case, and I agree that it is flawed, Gregg Easterbrook simply cannot be dismissed as a winger loon. He may be wrong. Frankly, at this point, it's hard to imagine any talking head who pontificates on the situation from Egypt to Pakistan not being wrong. Being correct on some particular is the more to be prized.

You're right: I know nothing about Easterbrook or his work, but I never said he was fringe or loony, because I could plainly see the New Republic host for his blog. I am willing to concede that Easterbrook is probably not part of the Heritage "talking points circle" which dominates our news cycles, but I stand by my reaction: the counterfactual argument he is making is implausible and legitimizes inaction and incompetence. If the Heritage fund hasn't picked up on it, it should.

Part of the problem with his counterfactual is that what we did after 9/11 is not necessarily what we would have done if we had prevented 9/11: broad investigative interviews, sure, but not mass arrests and deportations; attacking al Qaeda, sure, but not directly attacking the Taliban. Increasing airport security, absolutely, but not subpoenaing library records and putting people on "terror watch lists" they can't get off of. Let's face it: most of the PATRIOT act was stuff that the law enforcement agencies couldn't convince Congress was necessary, and which hasn't borne any noteworthy fruit to date.

Sure, if Clinton had attempted any sort of action against terrorists, conservatives would have trumpeted "too little, too late" (in fact wasn't that the response to his cruise missile actions in Sudan, etc.?) all the way to the election. Unless it was a truly massive operation, then they would have pointed out his lack of service and accused him of wasting American lives in a political gesture.

What I'm trying to figure out is why it matters that it's Bush doing it instead of Clinton. (I know, it matters politically, but I'm trying to be a little non-political here: is there a sound basis for reacting differently to similar policies from different presidents?) I know, 9/11.

I heard a snippet on the news yesterday in which Bush expressed his hope that the 9/11 commission would be able to figure out where things had gone wrong, if they indeed had. And I had to stop and think: he's president, all these people report to him, and he's got clearance; why didn't he ask the question himself, instead of putting it off onto this partisan (carefully balanced partisans, to be sure, but nonetheless) exercise in snipehunting?

Right, Jonathan. I take it that Derek was speaking more to Anne Zook's comment (and I know that I was) than he was to what you had said.

I was speaking more to Zook's comment, yes, but also to a general fear I had that others would, by dismissing Easterbrook as a fringe righty, not take him seriously either here or elsewhere. And as I said, I too think the counterfactual argument has some flaws. But I do think that there is a grain of truth in what he says -- that had Bush acted on, say, the August 6 PDB, he'd have faced the wrath of those who instinctively associate anything he does with being wrong.
dc

Jonathan --
With all due respect, I see a lot more than a grain of truth to the fact that Bush would have been pilloried had he attacked Afghanistan. Look at the antiwar response to the war with Iraq that had the support of 48 other states; that had the potential to remove Saddam Hussein from power; that was aimed against a state that, whatever overstated claims of wmds, was in actionable disobedience to UN and international inspections demands. If you are saying there was merely a grain of truth to the idea that the anti-Bush crowd would have gone doublebarrels after Bush, you may not have been paying all that close attention to what Bush's sleptics have said and done after he waged a war with the full assent of Congress. I cannot believe you will not acknowledge that Bush's critics are so willfully opposed to him that Easterbrook's counterfactual does not at least to some degree resonate. And I do not even like the President. But this is almost exactly akin to someone on the right denying that they would have gone after Clinton if he had attacked Afghanistan in the summer of 2000. Both denials seem disingenuous at best.
dc

Fair enough. And sure, it may be a bit of reductio ad absurdum (rather than satire, I'd argue) but I think his larger point is that we can never know precisely what is going to happen with "prevention" -- in other words, the most interesting part of his little thought excercise was Easterbrook's having McCain as the GOP frontrunner for 2004 even as he stood at the foot of the WTC, because Americans had no idea what they had avoided. In that sense, Bush's impeachment would have been a tragedy.
I would have supported acts of war against the Taliban long ago -- indeed I did advocate use of force, albeit in limited fashion, when US missionaries were imprisond by that regime in 2000. The Talban was categorically evil and destructive and they harbored those who would kill us. Even then, a plan to do so would have involved allies and a bit more grace than Bush has thus far mustered -- mazing to me how the goodwill post 9-11 dissipated. However, the one problem is that in August 2001 the suicide bombers from 9-11 were already preparing their nefarious deeds, so in that sense I do think you have a very strong point -- attacking Afghanistan then, even if justifiale, may well not have prevented 9-11 unless you think that we also would have been more aware in terms of intelligence and prevention. Hard to know.
In any case -- once you go beyong a thimbleful of depth, you can reveal counterfactual history for what it is. Paradoxically it lacks contingency precisely because it is nothing but contingency.
dc

This is anything but "good" alternative history, though.

Had Easterbrook done an honest job, taken the world as it was pre-9/11, and shown a plausible response from the Bush Administration...well, come to think of it, we'd probably still be in Iraq today.

From what we've learned, Bush was determined to put us in Iraq, no matter what

Presidential courtesy? And I thought Bush was President. Separation of powers protects Bush from having to testify -- they're lucky they get anything. Clinton enjoys no such protection. And I doubt that Clinton testifying in private protects Bush, inasmuch as nobody actually believes anything Clinton says. But perhaps we disagree on that too.

Well, Bush is getting the same treatment, so I'd call it a Presidential courtesy.

But I guess that depends on what you think he'll say. If he's expected to defend his administration's record and put the responsibility on Bush, then it's protecting Bush. If you think he'll own up to some kind of error or fault, which would make Bush look bad by comparison, then it's protecting Bush. If you think it gives them cover to allow Bush to testify out of sight, then it's protecting Bush. I guess....

"deliberate attempt to sabotage"? "Attempt to insulate"?

Do these perhaps overstate the influence of bloggers, even those who are paid for this?

I agree that it's a silly binarism (though not at all an implausible one -- good alternative history is always plausible), but I think this post exaggerates Easterblogg's influence. Propaganda, yes. Sabotage, no.