Looking at alternative outcomes of the Reagan-Thatcher-John Paul II world, it is hard to see how any other leaders in any of the three seats of power could have done better, and very easy to see how they could have done worse — all the way to outbreak of nuclear war. Therefore, while leaving any actual theodicy to more venturesome commentators, it is easy to see why some considered the advent of these three leaders (and their not-statistically-likely serial survival of assassination attempts) to be providential. Since I find theodicy to be too problematic to consider (if God does move human events directly, there’s far too much moral dark matter assumed in the problem for we poor three-dimensional observers to be able to draw any conclusions from it), I think O’Sullivan spent either too much time or too little discussing that possibility. If we assume we cannot intuit divine knowledge or intention in specific human events, then that is all one can really say about the matter; if we assume one can understand such things, then the events O’Sullivan discusses would be one of the principal theological events of our century, and could easily merit not just the bulk of O’Sullivan’s book, but a library full of books.
We need to come up with more leaders like them. Sadly, I don’t see any in office currently, or in the current race.
How did a serious country, one that endured Antietam, sent a million doughboys to Europe in a mere year, survived Pearl Harbor, Monte Cassino, Anzio, the Bulge, Tarawa, Iwo and Okinawa, the Yalu, Choisun, Hue and Tet, come to the conclusion
Glenn Reynolds has some thoughts. There’s nothing with which I’d disagree. I, too, thought that this was part of a larger strategy. Sadly, there’s been little evidence of it on the ground.
Big government is incompetent. This seems to have played out in the war, as in all else.
If I believed in a god, I’d pray. All I can do, as it is, is hope for better leaders. And think about history, in which when all was darkest, they seemed to appear.
Here’s a point that I didn’t make in my earlier post.
Just as Mookie agrees with many(/most?) Dems on “the surge,” many of the denizens of Huffpo and Metafilter agree with the Taliban that Dick Cheney should die. Can someone remind me again, whose side they’re on?
[Update on the evening of February 27th]
Apparently the powers that be decided to put all the anti-Cheney comments down the memory hole.
Here’s a point that I didn’t make in my earlier post.
Just as Mookie agrees with many(/most?) Dems on “the surge,” many of the denizens of Huffpo and Metafilter agree with the Taliban that Dick Cheney should die. Can someone remind me again, whose side they’re on?
[Update on the evening of February 27th]
Apparently the powers that be decided to put all the anti-Cheney comments down the memory hole.
Here’s a point that I didn’t make in my earlier post.
Just as Mookie agrees with many(/most?) Dems on “the surge,” many of the denizens of Huffpo and Metafilter agree with the Taliban that Dick Cheney should die. Can someone remind me again, whose side they’re on?
[Update on the evening of February 27th]
Apparently the powers that be decided to put all the anti-Cheney comments down the memory hole.
VDH offers some on the “revolt of the generals.” And he didn’t even mention MacArthur.
[Update a couple minutes later]
I was tempted to write a “Routers” piece about the Truman-MacArthur embroglio (I’ve never done one about Korea), but I was afraid that I’d just be actually channeling the media of the time. I don’t have quick access to a library to see how it was reported.
Does anyone know how the media did handle it? Was it pro-MacArthur or pro-Truman? Or a healthy mix?
The bill would devote $1 billion to upgrade security along Amtrak and freight rail systems, require screening of all cargo carried aboard passenger airliners and allow airport screeners to form a union.
Because everyone knows that 911 never would have happened if screeners had been unionized. Whenever I think that the administration is incompetent, all I have to do is look at the new majority in Congress to realize that it could be much worse.
And of course, if Bush resists, and threatens a veto, the media will accuse him of being indifferent to security.
[Update at 6 PM Eastern]
A little good news. The administration is actually threatening a veto, and the Senate will sustain it. But I stand by my prediction of the media response.
You want to see some legitimate criticism of the administration over managing the war? Here it is:
…the decision by the Bush administration to prioritize the drug war ahead of the war against the Taliban is of course, madness. It’s time for the Brits to take a stand, and announce that either Bush’s drug warriors leave Afghanistan or Britain’s troops do. Ninety days would seem to be adequate warning.
Washington and Brussels cut what is estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars in direct aid to the Palestinian government after Hamas’ parliamentary victory.
Both have said they will not resume monetary support of the Palestinian government until Hamas recognizes Israel, renounces violence and fulfills past promises.
Mashaal demanded in tougher terms that Washington resume its aid funding: “The American administration’s insistence on the continuation of the blockade will give birth to more hatred toward America not only … on a Palestinian level but on an Arab, Islamic level.”
Right. “Give us money, or we’ll hate you.”
I don’t mind it so much that, in their permanent adolescent angst, they’re suicidal. I just wish that they wouldn’t take innocents with them when they do it.
