“Sheer Twaddle”
Bacevich: Those who in the absence of serious strategic analysis reflexively posture about the need for more troops deserve only contempt.
Crittenden, contemptibly: Those who in the absence of more troops reflexively posture about the need for serious strategic analysis are nuts.
Prof. Andrew Bacevich wants his ideas to be taken seriously without reference to his personal history. OK. Here, he is opposed to building the military, touting peaceful co-existence with Islam. Would that be co-existence with Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or the Taliban? Al-Qaeda or Jemaat Islamiya?
Over time, of course, Islam will become something other than what it is today.
Yeah, I think that’s pretty much their goal. Something other …
Bacevich suggests pols who would be president need to develop political and diplomatic strategies. He’s absolutely right about that, though it would appear his preference is for a sort of United States of Euro-Canada. To suggest any political and diplomatic will work in the Middle East without the credible threat of American arms is ludicrous, when we are facing serious threats that have proven over decades to be resistant to diplomacy or uninterested in it. Deserving of contempt, to borrow Bacevich’s phrase. He also neglects to address what happens when the tapped-out U.S. military withdraws from Iraq.
Bacevich has returned to past policy of not mentioning his personal involvement in Iraq. It is deceptive on the part of the LA Times to allow this. He’s already made it clear he cannot discuss these issues rationally anymore.
Past posts:
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:28 am on Monday, June 18, 2007
14 Responses to ““Sheer Twaddle””
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:36 am
More Troops, More Troubles?
Andrew Bacevitz calls the bipartisan consensus that we need a large Army, which includes presidential candidates ranging from John McCain to John Edwards to Barack Obama, “pure twaddle.”
In fact, the great lesson of Iraq (further affirmed i…
June 18th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
That whole article is nothing but the crudest rationalism. He makes assertion after assertion, while ignoring the facts of reality. The actual words and actions of the enemy are not considered. Like most of those on the left, he begins with his preconceived ideas and deduces a world that bears no relation to what has been going on for decades.
June 18th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
“Reality,” of course, being an idealized version of the world circa 1945, salty?
Frozen in time forever.
June 18th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
He makes assertion after assertion, while ignoring the facts of reality.
This applies to you as well, al-Fie. You make statement after statement, while ignoring the gist of the conversation. Do you just absolutely have to spew something, even though it has no relevance or meaning whatsoever?
June 18th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Well, Reb.
Every year, America’s share of the world’s population and economy shrinks.
That is what has been “going on for decades.”
How long do we want to continue being the world’s unpaid security guards?
Particularly when our massive military spending means we fall even further behind economically each year.
June 18th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
RebeccaH
Do you just absolutely have to spew something, even though it has no relevance or meaning whatsoever?
YEP! See above ^^^^^^^^.
June 18th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I have learned to equate trolls here to AIDS. Once you have it, it’s yours.
June 18th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
I’d I’ve learned to equate trolls here to Alzheimer’s, el cid.
Lost in their own little world of jumbled up memories.
June 18th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I’d I’ve learned to equate trolls here to Alzheimer’s
Then Dopey ,(where are the other 6 of your dwarfies) you just indicted yourself.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste…BUT you have managed to right the book…Trolling for Dummies. Congratulations, Dopey.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Kinda dredging the bottom of political debate here, ain’t we, el cid?
Which only benefits my side.
You guys are the ones who need to win support for your perpetual war plans.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Which only benefits my side.
No, it defines your side, Dopey.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
DAMN IT…W-R-I-T-E. Don’t look, Mrs Barns.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:35 am
Cid, leave the ant to play with himself. Please don’t address him directly. You know it only encourages him and makes him think he’s actually engaging in an adult conversation. Children should be seen and not heard.
June 19th, 2007 at 10:38 am
“You guys are the ones who need to win support for your perpetual war plans.”
Apparently not, ‘jihad boy’ Even suborning enough congressional votes through bribery to put it on the table wasn’t enough to win enough support for the surrender crowd.
And if you think your sides chosen method of perpetually dredging the bottom of the cesspool in the great debate of our time benefits them, dredge away.