BROOKS V. BROOKS. I'm genuinely baffled by this David Brooks column. It's an elegiac meditation on the strength, resilience, and wisdom that together make-up John McCain's character. It's clearly the product of time spent with the candidate, time that left Brooks profoundly impressed, respectful, and above all sad that McCain's fortunes seem so dim. Brooks clearly arrived at his computer in a quiet mood, determined to write a column that would possess same somber grace he believes McCain lives. And it's a fine, even beautiful, encomium. But towards the end, Brooks says, more in sadness than in anger, that "[McCain] gave a speech at the Virginia Military Institute yesterday that was an extended argument for giving the surge a chance. The problem with his approach is he doesn�t grapple with the psychology and culture of the Iraqis, upon which all else depends." Brooks clearly wants to soften the blow, but it's a damning verdict. To suggest that McCain's outlook on the Middle East remains fundamentally uninterested or uninformed by the "psychology and culture" of the Iraqi people accuses McCain of a dangerous myopia. But then Brooks goes onto write, "In 10 months, this election won�t be about the surge, it will be about the hydra-headed crisis roiling the Middle East. The candidate who is the most substantive, most mature and most consistent will begin to look more attractive and more necessary." I agree, incidentally, with Brooks' assessment of McCain's current failings. I just don't think Brooks has totally thought through the implications. Does Brooks really believe that a candidate currently evaluating the war in Iraq without sufficiently considering the needs or desires of the Iraqi people is either mature or substantive on the Middle East? Moreover, can Brooks really believe that an individual capable of such serious myopia wouldn't absolutely wreck the region? An inattention to Iraqi opinions and decisions, at this point in the war, should be disqualifying for participants in the debate. --Ezra Klein
