What makes someone arguably as bright as Michael Isikoff fall for Pillar’s false story line? The secret is Isikoff and his colleagues are looking for the always elusive nuance - and in this case simplicity works best.
Journalist seeking to embellish their resumes or appear smarter than ordinary people must find the hidden meaning in whatever they are writing about. But, when it comes to Middle Eastern politics and the various sub cultures involved there really isn’t much mystery. The very idea that Saddam could ignore a force as potentially disruptive and threatening to his régime as Al Qaeda demonstrates an utter lack of street smarts.
Every dictator and potentiate in that region either openly or covertly did what they needed to keep the jackals at bay. Some used money, others supplied arms but everyone who held power paid some kind of price to keep Osama and his lieutenants appeased. Saddam may not have been the sharpest crayon in the box but he understood survival – and that is the simplest touchstone of all.
Isikoff, Pillar and others want desperately to find the elements missed by the other players to satisfy their egos and play gotcha – reality is much simpler. The Newsweek/Isikoff/Pillar line of reasoning is not just flawed – it demonstrates how we got into this mess to begin with. Eager pseudo-intellectuals looking for answers to questions no one is asking - then convincing themselves they have found them.
Which is impossible since they missed the actual question to begin with.
