Letters to the Editor
-
Drezner's 'Past Vs. Future'
I think Drezner's insistence that the press is more concerned with 'matters of the future than matters of the past' was telling.
Just yesterday, Michael Scherer's take on the predicted candidate responses to the Petraeus testimony was about 'future vs. past', with McCain representing the future (we leave, and Iraq goes to hell!) while the Democrats represent the past (why are we listening to the people who made the awful strategies that brought us to where we are now?). And Drezner's dismissal of looking back in retrospect is the problem.
One can not accurately judge the future without looking back at the past. While the past won't necessarily dictate what happens or what will work in the future, what it DOES dictate is what WON'T work. And that's why it's important to look back. Look at what didn't work, and don't do it again. You know the old cliche: "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"? It's just like that, except it's an odious, more willful ignorance we face.
This is one of the many reasons why we get hacks like the Kagans, Michael O'Hanlon, Ken Pollack, et. al. who continue to remain 'serious' people despite their consistent wrongness: the media continues to refuse to look back in any sort of genuine way and wonder 'what did they do wrong? What did WE do wrong?'