Article

2004-06-04 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-06-04 11:25:22 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Standing, cheering, clapping!

Man, I wish I could write like VDH.

Posted by Steve White 2004-06-04 12:22:13 PM|| 2004-06-04 12:22:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 generally i like the above. But:

They would instead have called off the advance to hold hearings on Pearl Harbor

While of course no advance was called off, there WERE hearings about Pearl Harbor during WW2, IIUC. Was Kimmel scapegoated for FDRs failure, that sort of thing.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-04 1:58:12 PM|| 2004-06-04 1:58:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I usually enjoy reading VDH's pieces. This one left me cold. I felt this piece was too much of a pre-election pro-Bush propaganda piece. The fact that VDH criticizes only the media and the Democrats of causing "meltdown" and only they can ruin our success in Iraq is disingenuous.

Also, I take exception to VDH's transparent attempt to muzzle criticism of neocons' political philosophy by suggesting that critics are being anti-semitic by doing so. That's absolute hogwash and VDH should know better.

The fact that Paul Wolfowitz is Jewish is not why he is being criticized. The fact that Paul Wolfowitz has convinced this Admin. that it is America's role and obligation to spread ideology throughout the world is the reason why Wolfowitz is being criticized. That Wolfowitz convinced our President that Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq would flourish["knowledge" based on his 3 short years as a well guarded Ambassador in a Muslim country]and this freedom of Iraqi Muslims would spread throughout the ME and would ensure our security from jihad is why Wolfowitz is being criticized. The fact that Wolfowitz relied on Iraqi exiles like Chalabi for much of his optimism re: how the Iraqis would behave towards our GI's is why Wolfowitz is being criticized. The fact that Wolfowitz is bringing his pie in the sky academic philosophy to the Defense Dept.[second in command no less]without possessing even one nanosecond of personal experience on the front lines of war is why Wolfowitz is being criticised. Shall I go on???

The fact that many neocons are Jewish is a fact of life. But the reason that people criticize neocon philosophy is because the philosophy is imperfect with faulty assumptions not because of the religious background of many of its proponents.

Support for Israel in mainstream America has never been stronger than it is today. Oddly enough, the major standard bearer of anti-Israel sentiment I see in America is in the pages of the NYT, which is owned by a Jewish family. Anti-Israel pro-Palestinian posturing is not coming from the editorial pages of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,it's coming from the NYT. Why this is happening is a mystery to me.

IMO, in this piece, VDH has done exactly what he accuses others of doing:
We are becoming a crazed culture of cheap criticism and pious moralizing, and in our self-absorption may well lose what we inherited from a better generation. Our groaning and hissing elite indulges itself, while better but forgotten folks risk their lives on our behalf in pretty horrible places.

VDH has piously moralized about the reasons for "meltdown" in our attitude to the war in Iraq. As well VDH has taken for granted the sacrifices and risks that our military are facing in Iraq. It's not just the jihadists that put our men in danger, it's the politically correct and yes, I'll say it outright, "muddled" philosophy in DC that hampers their efforts to win a war and creates for them unfair rules of engagement and unrealistic goals for "success."

Posted by rex 2004-06-04 3:02:10 PM|| 2004-06-04 3:02:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 That Wolfowitz convinced our President that Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq would flourish

First he didnt say Jeffersonian democracy, any democracy will do. And the basis is not jsut his experience in Indonesia, but the experience with the spread of democracy elsewhere, the experiences of Turkey and Kurdistan, and the views of experts on islam and mid east culture like Bernard Lewis.

BTW have you actually read the history of the early US, the articles of confederation period, the bitter hatreds among the founding fathers? Not only does Iraq not have wise and enlightened leaders, at the time OUR leaders didnt look too wise or enlightened either. Jefferson even spread attacks on George Washington.

And of course VDH is not saying you cant attack neocons - he IS asking why in many such attacks, only Wolfie, feith, Kristol, et al are called neocons, while Rummy and Cheney are not? Is there an ideological gap here we dont know about? Or is neocon being used to mean "jew"?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-04 3:39:16 PM|| 2004-06-04 3:39:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Re the NYT, its hardly surprising that a highly assimilated family, deeply concerned about its political and social power here, finds Zionism threatening. And of course its connections to the "fellow travelers" on the upper west side is also a factor. And BTW theres much worse antiIsrael posturing than that, coming from Harpers, the Nation, Slate, and elsewhere, not to mention the UK press. No old Jewish families there. Why are you singling out the NYT?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-06-04 3:43:43 PM|| 2004-06-04 3:43:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Answering questions in #4 post:
Key points of Jeffersonian democracy are that all men are born with "natural" rights to freedom and liberty [even jihadists who want to convert or kill infidels?]that democracy is the best form of government[Sir Alex Fraser Tytler would disagree] and representative government[ one jihadist, one vote?] is the best form of democracy and furthermore, that there needs to be a wall of separation between church and state[ the trouble with Islam is that it is not a Judeo-Christian religion and is not so accepting of a wall between church and state]

I would suggest to you that the neocons are insistent that only the idealistic Jeffersonoian version of democracy is acceptable in Iraq. That's why I keep saying neocons are too rigid and too elitist/arrogant in they way they view what's a good government for Iraqis. What's successful in Iraq may need to be something other than a democracy, especially an idealistic Jeffersonian democracy. Kurds in Iraq are nominally Muslim. They are not Arabs. For VDH and other leading neocons to claim with confidence that what happened with the Kurds can happen with Sunni and Shiite Iraqis is naive and dangerous. This "one size fits all" elitist view of what's good for all Iraqis for all of the ME will be America's undoing.

As for your pointing to Turkey and to the experience of democracy elsewhere????what in heavens are you talking about? I see no evidence of successful democracies in Muslim dominated countries. Ask the Kurds in Turkey about how great democracy is working in that country. Ask Prince Abdullah about the numbers of synagogues and Catholic churches there are in Jordan.

That you use "expert" Bernard Lewis to support Wolfowitz's sheltered experience with one Muslim country is laughable. Lewis is yet another academic. Why don't you ask a Kurdish soldier or an Israeli soldier about their views on the likelihood of Jeffersonian democracy transforming Sunni and Shiite Iraqis into wonderfully tolerant citizens of the world?

As for the "bitter hatreds" of the Founding Fathers...last I heard, the Founding Fathers did not need an occupying military force from a foreign nation to prevent them from slashing each others throats nor did the Founding Fathers get force fed articles of the constitution from another "suits" in another nation.

As for why Wolfowitz is being criticised more than Cheney or Rumsfeld for the neocon foreign policy...it's obvious...it's because Wolfowitz is the chief architect of the "winning hearts and minds" philosophy. If Rumsfeld had his way, I have no doubt he'd have been in and out of Iraq by January 01, 2003. Rumsfeld is a soldiers' soldier. He uses soldiers to break things, demolish the enemy, not to use them like social workers building trust and self-esteem in Sunnis or to act as carpenters to re-build shelled mosques, the sanctuary of the enemy's philosophy if not the enemy itself. I don't know what Cheney's philosophy is about democracy flourishing in Iraq, but I suspect he's a lot more pragmatic and closer to Rumsfeld than Wolfowitz.

Wolfowitz is the Chief Chef of democracy in ME = security for America, and if he can't stand the heat of criticism, he should not have gone into the kitchen. For VDH to shelter Wolfowitz from criticism using the club of anti-semitism is shameless.

Feith Who is hardly a high profile player in the public eye. Feith has done his best the past 3 years to hide in his office. His name came up recently with regards to the Abu Prison policy but other than that why would a shadow be a target of criticism? As for Kristol -thank you for bringing up his name - he is a neocon who has recently criticized the WH's chaotic policy in Iraq, but it's okay for him to criticize neocons but it's not okay for me? As for criticism of Kristol personally, I've not read much, maybe you have. I must say when I've seen him interviewed on FOX News, his condescending manner is reason enough for critics to love to slam him any chance they get. Kristol has an abrasive manner about him that makes him a great target, not his being Jewish, and I've got news for you, Kristol's know-it-all personality would alienate as many people whether he was Catholic or Hindu or Jewish. It's the person, not the religion.

#5 I chose the NYT as an example of anti-Israel posturing because, at least in my mind, the NYT used to be considered an icon in newspaper journalistim circles. I contrasted this elitist icon to the Pittsburgh Tribune, which to my mind, represents the views of ordinary Joes/Josephines in mainstream America. This buttressed my point that VDH was wrong about attempting to relate the general public's concerns about the occupation of Iraq to anti-Israel sentiments. It is just not so.

I did not look at journals outside America because I was focusing on how mainstream America views Israel, which is in a very supportive positive way.

That you suggest that "it's hardly surprising" [ie. understandable and justified] that the owners of the NYT damn Israel because they are worried about their personal social and political connections is very odd, I must say. How is it that you believe that criticizing Wolfowitz's bad judgment in shaping foreign policy is anti-semitic but when the NYT slams PM Sharon and Israel's fence building effort every chance it gets and features pictures of wailing Palestinian suicide bomber mothers on the front page is understandable?

No old Jewish families there. Why are you singling out the NYT?
Your thin skin about imagined anti-semitism makes it very difficult to debate anything with you.

Posted by rex 2004-06-04 5:43:19 PM|| 2004-06-04 5:43:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I too stand clapping. I wondered as I read if it was VDH. Damn he's good! No one else can both see and express the truth so clearly.

VDH...love you!! You're the man. XXXOX

Posted by B 2004-06-04 7:33:00 PM|| 2004-06-04 7:33:00 PM|| Front Page Top

14:38 JERKFACE101
08:04 Anonymous5089
01:40 Phil_B
01:23 Damn_Proud_American
01:18 Igster
01:04 ed
00:48 Phil Fraering
00:25 rex
23:49 Edward Yee
23:29 Phil B
23:25 Phil B
23:17 smn
23:08 Super Hose
23:08 .com
23:04 smn
23:02 Atomic Conspiracy
23:02 Super Hose
22:59 smn
22:59 Lucky
22:56 Super Hose
22:54 Frank G
22:48 Super Hose
22:44 Super Hose
22:42 Frank G