President Chirac assures us that France is not anti-Semitic.
Who said it was, Jacques? It’s just the government that is. You know, like the French ambassador to Britain who called Israel a [expletive deleted] little country, and as far as I can tell, still has his job?
President Chirac assures us that France is not anti-Semitic.
Who said it was, Jacques? It’s just the government that is. You know, like the French ambassador to Britain who called Israel a [expletive deleted] little country, and as far as I can tell, still has his job?
In a commentary on my post yesterday about the world war in which we find ourselves (if, unlike the dominant media, we’re sufficiently perspicacious), fellow blogger Rich Hailey points out that the technological asymmetry between the West (and particularly the U.S.) and the Arab powers may not be as advantageous to us as we hope, by comparing the situation to the War Between The States, in which the North, a burgeoning industrial power, had fits defeating the South, a confederacy of rural, agrarian states.
I find the analogy extremely strained.
He points out having Lincoln as the difference, but there are many differences. The South had technology available to them, and knew how to use it–they even ramped up their own industrial production. Their problem was that they didn’t have a navy with which to defeat the northern blockade, and after the Emancipation Proclamation, they could no longer hope for Britain as an ally.
But the main reason they put up such a good fight for so long was not because of fanatical bravery and devotion to their cause (though they had that in abundance)–it was vastly superior generalship, until Grant was put in charge. And while the South had some brilliant generals, this is more of a commentary on the poor quality of those of the Union, most notably McClellan, who threw away opportunity after opportunity to follow up a battlefield victory with the destruction of Lee’s army, instead always failing to follow through and pursue.
Somehow, at least based on what we’ve seen from Iraq in the Gulf War, and more recently in Afghanistan, I suspect that we’ll also have an asymmetry in military leadership, as well as in technological and industrial resources. Except, this time, unlike the Union, it will vastly favor the U.S. government.
The Arabs have shown themselves to occasionally be very good at tactics (e.g., hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings), and blunderingly idiotic at strategy. It’s possible they’ll learn, but based on the rhetoric coming out of the region, it seems unlikely.
In a commentary on my post yesterday about the world war in which we find ourselves (if, unlike the dominant media, we’re sufficiently perspicacious), fellow blogger Rich Hailey points out that the technological asymmetry between the West (and particularly the U.S.) and the Arab powers may not be as advantageous to us as we hope, by comparing the situation to the War Between The States, in which the North, a burgeoning industrial power, had fits defeating the South, a confederacy of rural, agrarian states.
I find the analogy extremely strained.
He points out having Lincoln as the difference, but there are many differences. The South had technology available to them, and knew how to use it–they even ramped up their own industrial production. Their problem was that they didn’t have a navy with which to defeat the northern blockade, and after the Emancipation Proclamation, they could no longer hope for Britain as an ally.
But the main reason they put up such a good fight for so long was not because of fanatical bravery and devotion to their cause (though they had that in abundance)–it was vastly superior generalship, until Grant was put in charge. And while the South had some brilliant generals, this is more of a commentary on the poor quality of those of the Union, most notably McClellan, who threw away opportunity after opportunity to follow up a battlefield victory with the destruction of Lee’s army, instead always failing to follow through and pursue.
Somehow, at least based on what we’ve seen from Iraq in the Gulf War, and more recently in Afghanistan, I suspect that we’ll also have an asymmetry in military leadership, as well as in technological and industrial resources. Except, this time, unlike the Union, it will vastly favor the U.S. government.
The Arabs have shown themselves to occasionally be very good at tactics (e.g., hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings), and blunderingly idiotic at strategy. It’s possible they’ll learn, but based on the rhetoric coming out of the region, it seems unlikely.
In a commentary on my post yesterday about the world war in which we find ourselves (if, unlike the dominant media, we’re sufficiently perspicacious), fellow blogger Rich Hailey points out that the technological asymmetry between the West (and particularly the U.S.) and the Arab powers may not be as advantageous to us as we hope, by comparing the situation to the War Between The States, in which the North, a burgeoning industrial power, had fits defeating the South, a confederacy of rural, agrarian states.
I find the analogy extremely strained.
He points out having Lincoln as the difference, but there are many differences. The South had technology available to them, and knew how to use it–they even ramped up their own industrial production. Their problem was that they didn’t have a navy with which to defeat the northern blockade, and after the Emancipation Proclamation, they could no longer hope for Britain as an ally.
But the main reason they put up such a good fight for so long was not because of fanatical bravery and devotion to their cause (though they had that in abundance)–it was vastly superior generalship, until Grant was put in charge. And while the South had some brilliant generals, this is more of a commentary on the poor quality of those of the Union, most notably McClellan, who threw away opportunity after opportunity to follow up a battlefield victory with the destruction of Lee’s army, instead always failing to follow through and pursue.
Somehow, at least based on what we’ve seen from Iraq in the Gulf War, and more recently in Afghanistan, I suspect that we’ll also have an asymmetry in military leadership, as well as in technological and industrial resources. Except, this time, unlike the Union, it will vastly favor the U.S. government.
The Arabs have shown themselves to occasionally be very good at tactics (e.g., hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings), and blunderingly idiotic at strategy. It’s possible they’ll learn, but based on the rhetoric coming out of the region, it seems unlikely.
From today’s Fox News Sunday:
Powell: And so all we’re doing is killing lots of innocent people by this kind of activity. We’re killing lots of innocent, young Palestinians who commit this act of murder called suicide bombing, and we’re killing lots of innocents on the other side, and other Palestinian innocents are killed in the response that comes back the other way. So we’ve got to bring this to an end.
“…innocent, young Palestinians who commit this act of murder…?
Hokay. I wonder if he’s going to attempt to clarify that statement over the next day or two. Or if anyone will even ask him about it.
There’s a nice little column by Paul Greenberg today on how Bush is keeping the press off balance.
…The punditry is confused, which is nothing new, but these days it knows it is, which is unusual. And all those elevated kibitzers are mighty unhappy about this country’s not having a clear, unmistakable foreign policy they can attack.
Not to steal any of Will Vehr’s thunder, but I watched McLaughlin, and then Tim Russert, and a little of the Capitol Gang tonight, and thought I’d relate a few of my resultant musings.
On McLaughlin, I think that when Eleanor Clift and Pat Buchanan agree on something, it’s not only probably wrong, but it’s most likely wrong squared. They both say that Sharon is the problem in Israel. No surprise–Eleanor attacking Israel from the left, because it’s too dynamic and politically incorrect, and Pat attacking it from whatever direction he comes from, because it’s full of Jews.
I was disappointed that Mr. McLaughlin didn’t get it, however. The only people on the panel who seemed to have their heads screwed on without stripping any threads were Mort Zuckerman (unfortunately, probably only because he actually is Jewish, otherwise he’d probably be in the Eleanor camp, as he usually is), and Tony Blankley, who both recognized that Israel is in a fight for its very survival against an implacable foe.
The most interesting thing (at least to me) about the discussion was that Eleanor freely admitted that Arafat had no interest in peace. But she also said that any replacement of him other than dying peacefully in bed would simply make of him a martyr, and his replacement would be even worse. I waited in vain for someone to ask her the two questions:
On Tim Russert’s weekend interview hour, he had Doris Kearns Goodwin, one of his favorite perennial guests.
She spent the beginning of the interview discussing the plagiarism charges, and how she regretted what she’d done, but how it had all been overblown, and what a victim she was.
Then the discussion turned to Presidential history. Most of it was unexceptionable (LBJ, FDR, Lincoln, what events result in greatness, etc.), until she got to Mr. Clinton, who it’s obvious she still doesn’t get. She repeated the standard spin that “nothing was found in Whitewater,” and then said the following amazing thing (from memory, so the quote may not be exact):
“He’s such a resilient guy. That’s one of his great strengths. Many people would be morose and depressed about how things turned out, and how their legacy might be, but he’s partying and raising money to make his family secure, and still seems to be enjoying life, blah, blah, blah…”
Doris, here’s a hint. Go to your dictionary, and look up the word “sociopath.” Then tell me whether or not it’s a “great strength.”
She also talked about listening to ball games and keeping score for her dad, when she was a kid, which she thought trained her to do historical narrative. That was nice.
On The Capitol Gang, I was first struck by the imbalance. Mark Shields, Al Hunt, Margaret Carlson, and Bob Novak. Does anyone think that the first three of those people have ever even considered voting for a Republican? Me neither. So, only three to one. Not bad, perhaps, for CNN.
What really shocked me, though, was that Novak seemed to be suffering from the same brain inflammation as McLaughlin.
I’m not going to comment more, except to say that the media (even much of the media that the public considers “conservative” or “right-wing”), doesn’t get it. My next post will be a disquisition on what the conventional “wisdom” is on the subject of the war on terrorism, and my own (different) take on it.
Hillary endorsed Gray Davis.
What a surprise. You mean she supports Democratic governors?