July 17, 2006
I try not to feed the right-wing loonies that exist in the world wide internet webby thing. There are sufficient blogs to play that game. However, Hugh Hewitt took a dive off the very, very deep end into solid concrete today:
I would also like nominees for the new blogroll category of "American Appeasement Blogs." BelgraviaDispatch is the honorary chair, but other nominees are welcome.
This category is reserved for smart, often eloquent proponents of what sounds like, looks like, and walks like British-style appeasment of the '30s.
Uh, Belgravia was pro-invasion, and then pro-increasing troops until about six to nine months ago. Even now, Belgravia wants to win against the insurgents, but recognizes the difficulties of being involved in what looks to be a growing civil war. However, I suspect Belgravia would jump quickly onto any bandwagon that promise any sort of reasonable chance of "winning" (whatever that means) our involvement in Iraq. In any event, Belgravia Dispatch remains required reading for good discussion of foreign policy and defense issues.
Belgravia Dispatch is a far, far cry from an "appeasement blog". Mr. Hewitt's remarks reminded me of an old Monty Python episode:
Well, he's having a lot of mental difficulties with his breakfasts, but this is temperament, caused by a small particle of brain in his skull, and once we've removed that he'll be perfectly all right.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you
Ken Clean-Air Systems Hugh Hewitt.
(PS: Belgravia responds here.)
Posted by baltar at July 17, 2006 11:52 AM
| Posted to Crunchy Nutbars
| International Affairs
| Pure Unadulterated Snark
It's been quite illuminating (and entertaining) to watch the right-blogosphere react to the big names who have wandered off the reservation over the last several months -- Belgravia and Sullivan in particular. The difference between the thinkers and the mouthpieces is ever more apparent.
True on the left as well: the Kossacks shouting "leave now" may be right in July of 2006 (I don't think we have much choice, now), but they weren't necessarily correct 18 months ago (when a much larger, and more active, US military presence might have really put a dent in the insurgency and prevented the civil war-like atmosphere). They don't add much to the debate, either.
Ah, but we were never likely to get a larger, more active military presence - the civilians running the DOD (and the White House) were always dead-set against that.
Which of course points to why there's long been a certain logic in calls for withdrawal - if those who will be deciding the tactics are inept and uncommitted to the cause, can they really be trusted to pursue the types of aggressive/engagement strategies that might actually work?
Oh, sure, I recognize that. I know that adding more troops would have been politically impossible (if, perhaps, militarily useful). But it was never seriously debated by anyone (left or right, in the admin or out), which I alwasys found very interesting. Not sure what it means, but interesting nonetheless.
That's quite a good post. Greg's been doing some very nice work the last couple of weeks (well, before that too, but his thoughts on this crisis have been interesting).
One more thing I'm not going to link to at the moment, but if you are interested - over at Crooked Timber Chirs Bertam is responding to Michael Walzer on all this and brings up the following point - if the Israelis continually say that the lack of a Lebanese state capacity justifies their repeated incursions into Lebanon, well, isn't that just setting up an endless cycle? I mean can we really expect the Lebanese government to effectively solve that issue if Israel continues this cycle?
Again, not saying they shouldn't defend themselves - but that's a key problem there.
That's a good point. I hate to say that blue helmets might be the most reasonable solution here, but I'm not seeing any better ideas emerge.