Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Dan Quayle years ago said it best as it applies to Andrew Sullivan today.

"A mind is a terrible thing to loose."

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 19, 2005 05:11 PM

Cousin Andrew has surely lost his mind, hasn't read his history, become a part of the me, I want instant gratification generation, or has just completely adopted the Dem's talking points. How long did it take to pacify Germany after WWII? Japan?

Posted by MaDr at June 19, 2005 06:17 PM

It's worse than that. He's just become boring. He's no longer a thought provoking blogger/author but has just become a parrot of the extreme left. Just yank his string and watch him spout left wing rhetoric.

He used to be unique. Now he's just another sheep in a mindless herd.

Posted by Faith+1 at June 19, 2005 06:24 PM

Andrew is an authority on gay sex and nothing else.

Excepting gay sex, paying attention to Andrew makes as much sense as paying attention to Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks.

Let Andrew know you respect his right to declaim, but otherwise please don't encourage him.

John

Posted by John at June 19, 2005 06:25 PM

I stopped reading Sullivan six month before the presidential election. I just wasn't worth the agravation.

Posted by Ted at June 19, 2005 06:34 PM

A simple question: Why do you even bother to read Sullivan? I've never been impressed with him and always felt he was overrated. Simply ignore him.

Posted by Confederae Yankee at June 19, 2005 06:42 PM

Aren't you like two years behind when you should have stopped reading that shrill weirdo?

Posted by BJ at June 19, 2005 06:45 PM

It's probably simpler than all that. People with one foot in the left have an interesting characteristic: they have to pay homage to the king, as it were. I remember in 2003 when Richard Cohen wrote a column soberly assessing the pro and con arguments for invading iraq. He came down in favor of regime change.

Now, the interesting part is that the next day he came out with another column full of leftist boilerplate, neither insightful nor really even topical (wish I had links, but they archive that stuff and charge a couple bucks for it). Even Bill Maher will say this on his show. Leftists all have to genuflect before their faction's party line, and the moreso if they ever go off the reservation in print or on tv.

Andrew spent a long time going very far off the reservation. He's probably said all that he really wanted to say and is now protecting his social calendar. Which still means that you can take a break from reading him until he gets serious again, but at least he still knows up from down and right from left.

Posted by Stacy at June 19, 2005 06:51 PM

I'm politically and socially a very close match for Andrew. Demographically there's little difference - I'm gay, the only difference is he's HIV positive and I'm not. I agree with him almost all the time.

But I also stopped reading him, about 4 months before the election. He is NOT the same writer he was 3 years ago.

A few months ago I noted that in another comment section, and speculated that he might be showing the first signs of HIV dementia. I should have known I'd be excoriated as a homophobe for that, and I was. So I'll just say this. There's something seriously wrong with Andrew, it's affected his writing. I hope it can be reversed, whatever it is.

Posted by Svolich at June 19, 2005 06:56 PM

Posted by Stacy at June 19, 2005 06:58 PM

I used to read Sullivan; his writing always made me think through my own social positions a little more clearly. But he is really out of his league when he writes about military matters (I'm what you'd call a careerist, having just started my 21st year in the Army). He mistakes tactical setbacks as a sign of poor strategic planning. In fact, I'd say he doesn't even understand the difference between tactical, operational, and strategic. Thus, as we continue to have occasional tactical setbacks, like letting the insurgents back into Fallujah, he sees this as a strategic mistake. Or worse, a strategy to fail, it seems. He would have been aghast at the losses on Omaha Beach, and surely would have chalked it up to poor planning, or a desire to fail. Or his favorite, not enough troops. He is in a bit over his head with the military analysis. Gay marriage is more his area of expertise. Read him for that.

Posted by Diggs at June 19, 2005 07:23 PM

Sullivan initially impressed me enough so that I contributed $ to his blog. His increasing self absorption was finally too much; everything seen through the prism of his sexual preoccupations. His post 9-11 support of Bush and the war effort melted away as gay marriage became the measure of all things. After his cowardly abandonment of Bush in favor of Kerry I stopped reading him.

Posted by Stephen at June 19, 2005 07:23 PM

AIDS dementia may be conceivable in Sullivan's case, but what about all the other increasing nuttiness we've seen? At least in the US, HIV isn't that widespread. Or is it just the hidden leaders of the putative vast left-wing conspiracy who all have AIDS dementia, and they're leading everybody, including Hillary, down that road?

I'm not paranoid enough to swallow that. Yet.

Posted by Jim C. at June 19, 2005 07:29 PM

Sullivan has gone back home to the left, which is where you'd expect to find someone with his pedigree. But give him this, his romance with conservatism showed ardor for a time. As Dr. Johnson observed of the dancing dog, it's not that he did it well, but that he did it at all.

Posted by Banjo at June 19, 2005 07:45 PM

You're late to realizing it, but it was a year and a half ago that Sullivan allowed his love of sodomy to take precedence over his love of country.

Posted by Gay Marriage? at June 19, 2005 08:04 PM

Is there any reason to take anything he writes seriously now?

Direct that question to everyone at National Review, who daily rehabilitate him by taking his nonsense seriously. Better yet, find a substitute for him, since pundits apparently need someone to debate, be it Sullivan.

Posted by Cover Me, Porkins at June 19, 2005 08:05 PM

I wrote these thoughts on Sully back in January. I haven't read him since.

Posted by SWLiP at June 19, 2005 08:09 PM

Historical note:
It was SIX YEARS from the signing of the surrender on the Missouri until we signed a peace treaty with a recognized government in Japan. We are still in Germany.

Posted by shawn at June 19, 2005 08:11 PM

I didn't even know he was HIV positive. :(

I actually have to admit that the HIV dementia makes the most sense, because he used to be more sensible (or lucid) as a voice of reason for a lot of people including myself, and has deteriorated. Of course the rest of the loony left doesn't have HIV so their dementia is less excusable.

I would imagine that suffering from AIDS would seriously effect someone's ability to write coherently. It would be a lot easier to copy and paste from leftwards talking points than to go against the grain on everything they say except gay rights. Even if he wasn't losing his mind or whatever he would still feel very strongly about Bush's opposition to gay marriage. No one wins because the anti-war crowd just sees Andrew as "coming to his senses."

As for military matters:

"We are still in Germany."

We were able to allow the Germans to govern themselves, because of our policy of total war and denazification. We fought and killed several million nazis so that Germany would realize their defeat. In Iraq, we want to keep as many Iraqis alive so they can reconstruct their country, but precision bombs do not demoralize terrorists the same way carpet bombing and full scale war do. It's possible that Iraq will have to deal with constant terror attacks for many decades, ESPECIALLY if we succeed. All we can do it keep a close eye on events and hope that people who want to be free get their way.

Andrew Sullivan used to understand these concepts. The day to day grind of fighting a war can be confusing and disheartening, but he correctly supported the action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and trusted the people in charge to do their job. I figured the reason he changed his mind was some kind of gay anti-Bush Maddoxy zealotry, but he didn't sell me on why I should vote for Kerry.

Posted by Josh at June 19, 2005 09:16 PM

It's been a long time since I went to his blog. I recall that he had a fund raising drive right before he went on a vacation (I think it was in early 2004).
When he came back there was a distinct difference in his views. It took him one month to become basically what he is today.
The whole thing had the appearance of being very premeditated. He knew he was going to come back from vacation and begin genuflecting to the Democrats and most of the people who read his blog and supported it monetarily were going to bail.

Posted by MArk at June 19, 2005 09:20 PM

What Andrew fails to take into account is that the disorder might have been the result of unexpected success.

Plans can fail if things go too well. Just as they can fail if things go too badly.

Posted by M. Simon at June 19, 2005 11:04 PM

A question for the Army people on this thread: Sullivan and his supporters claim that not enough troops were sent to Iraq, and that our failure (or "strategy to fail", if you want to be conspiracy-minded) started there. Something about this argument never sat right with me, and I think I've tracked down what it is: did we have any more troops we could have sent?

Seriously: if you assume that we can't significantly reduce our troop levels in Korea, and realize that you can't send *every* unit immediately to Iraq (have to have someone to be the next wave when the current group rotates out), would it have been possible to significantly increase the number of troops we could have committed to the occupation?

My impression is no, but I am in no way a military man. Does anyone who's better informed have an idea?

Posted by Jeff Dougherty at June 19, 2005 11:11 PM

Sullivan used to write thoughtfuly before the war. He was a Bush supporter. All of a sudden he ran into a ditch and has never recovered. I took him off the blogroll about a year ago.

If it were WWII and we had just lost 12,000 guys as we did at Okinawa, he would be screeching to end the war and get out. That the military planning was non-existent and that the leadership was a failure. As it was, WWII would be over in four more months.

Posted by Ed Poinsett at June 19, 2005 11:50 PM

I too donated $ to Sullivan early last year .. I stopped reading him shortly thereafter ... I also think he is in the early stages of dementia ... very sad! He's a flake .....

Posted by Lon at June 20, 2005 02:55 AM

How, then, did the British crush the insurgency of 1920? It seems obvious to me. The conventional British military strategy in colonial Asia, Africa and the Far East was the implementation of the most brutal, ferocious, inhumane tactics in cases like Iraq in 1920, the Geneva Conventions wouldn't be implemented for another hundred years, tactics the US military could, would never apply today. Colonial England's military never had to contend with embeddedness or the sort of the overwhelmingly intrusive, cynical, enemy-mindset so pervasive within the MSM. This makes Sullivan's ratio comparison a fallicious (fellacious) argument, 'fellaciousness' no doubt being one of his favorite indulgences.

Posted by Michael Savoy at June 20, 2005 04:23 AM

If only Dan Quayle had been so articulate. What he actually said, trying to paraphrase the UNCF's tag line at one of its events:

"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."

Posted by yclipse at June 20, 2005 05:19 AM

The moment George Herbert Walker Bush introduced Dan Quayle as his VP candidate at a riverfront rally it was clear his candidacy was doomed. Dan acted like a fraternity brother with a couple brewskis under his belt; not entirely incoherent yet, but on the way. It was clear anyone capable of making an error of that magnitude was not fit to hold office.

Posted by Banjo at June 20, 2005 05:58 AM

The moment George Herbert Walker Bush introduced Dan Quayle as his VP candidate at a riverfront rally it was clear his candidacy was doomed.

Funny, then, how he won, isn't it?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 20, 2005 06:15 AM

Sullivan's decline really is sad, although I find it deeply troubling and demeaning to see people here attributing this to "dementia". The point is simply that neither his writing nor his analysis have been much worth grappling with since he broke with Bush over the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Posted by Crank at June 20, 2005 07:11 AM

Jeff,
It would have been possible to put more troops in initially, but then there would have been much less flexibility for rotating fresh troops in.

Posted by exhelodrvr at June 20, 2005 08:30 AM

Jeff Dougherty,

I suggest reading General Tommy Franks book, "An American Soldier". It was his Op Plan and his preference to use less troops. IMHO, he made the right call. I doubt more troops would make a difference. The Russians sent 500,000 troops to fight such a war in Afghanistan in the 1980's and lost.

Posted by Leland at June 20, 2005 08:39 AM

Jeff,

The main problem was the war they thought they were fighting. I believe the administration was thinking in terms of army v army combat. In that the Rumsfeld plan might of worked, but in any case the troops sent were ample. Army combat was over in about a month. Where they failed was in anticpating the strength and staying power of the Fedayeen, Islamists, and foreign jihadi's.

Posted by RPD at June 20, 2005 09:11 AM

I think a little remedial reading comprehension is in order here.

I am no fan of Sullivan these days, but it is pretty clear what he is saying.

Sullivan is claiming that it is the duty of an invading army to maintain order. He is also claiming that when the U.S. Army initially invaded Iraq, there was no plan to maintain order and a period of anarchy and looting were expected. In other words, we planned to fail to maintain order.

He further argues that this single failure has aided and abetted the insurgents since.

What he does not say, and I don't believe has ever even implied, is that the U.S. has purposefully planned to fail in Iraq overall.

One can argue if it was our responsiblilty to keep chaos from happening after the fall of Baghdad or not. One can argue whether or not the chaos and looting led to greater trouble in combating the present insurgency. I do not think though, that anyone who has a good understanding of the events in 2003 can argue that we did indeed expect a period of civil disorder after the fall of Baghdad (certainly one can argue that it was not expected to be as severe as it was) and in that sense we did indeed 'plan to fail' as Sullivan asserts.

Claiming that Sullivan said we planned to fail in Iraq overall though, is as unserious and crazy as anything Sullivan has ever written.

Posted by Dave Justus at June 20, 2005 09:16 AM

It's not dmentia of any sort. The answer is much simpler. He's in love.

It's his new boyfriend who obviously has a leftish bent who has had the greatest influence on Andrew. Love will do that to you. Too bad Andrew doesn't see it.

Posted by Syl at June 20, 2005 09:53 AM

It's not dementia of any sort. The answer is much simpler. He's in love.

Well, some would call that a form of dementia.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 20, 2005 10:15 AM

He's a smart and intelligent person....

....it's just that now he's become an intellectual moron. Because of this, he no longer has the ability to think for himself (and if he still has that ability, it's severely impaired).

How sad.

Posted by Chaz706 at June 20, 2005 01:54 PM

Sullivan update

Enjoy!

Posted by Bill White at June 20, 2005 02:24 PM

I have to question how familiar Andrew is with our penitentiary system. The stuff he finds so shocking isn't that different from what you'd find in places like SuperMax in Colorado, or in solitary confinement at any maximum-security prison, AFAIK.

I think he'd find a more valid avenue of argument if he were to pursue whether the enemy combatants at Guantanamo were given due process or not, or arguing whether coercive means is the most effective way to get information. Trying to defend Durbin's Nazi comparison as being "perfectly reasonable" is just digging his hole deeper.

Posted by tagryn at June 20, 2005 04:13 PM

Take home assignment:

Read John Cole's piece at RedState - - and that's John not Juan. Compare and contrast with Sully.

Quote:

Senator Durbin made a long speech (and for Durbin, an uncharacteristically cautious one considering his current position on our detention facilities, and a portion of it contained remarks that some are choosing to believe are deeply offensive. However, he most assuredly did not call American troops Nazis.

Posted by at June 20, 2005 06:44 PM

Mea culpa, that last post was mine. ;-)

Hmmm...

John Cole may be someone I could read and find at least some common ground. google here we come. . .

Posted by Bill White at June 20, 2005 06:46 PM

In other words, we planned to fail to maintain order.

No. Failure to plan is not planning to fail.

http://www.polytropos.org/archives/2003/10/hydrargyrum.html

‘Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?’ said the March Hare.
‘Exactly so,’ said Alice.

‘Then you should say what you mean,’ the March Hare went on.

‘I do,’ Alice hastily replied; ‘at least—at least I mean what I say—that’s the same thing, you know.’

‘Not the same thing a bit!’ said the Hatter. ‘You might just as well say that “I see what I eat” is the same thing as “I eat what I see”!’

Posted by Rick C at June 21, 2005 08:33 AM

Post a comment