While they don't address each other explicitly, you might say that Jeff Jacoby's and Frank Rich's dueling columns on Iraq this morning reflect a civil war among American pundits. On the one hand, Rich of the New York Times, who in Has He Started Talking to the Walls?:
- Claims Pres. Bush is "completely untethered from reality."
- Accuses him of "flouting democracy at home."
- Suggests that "a timely slug" administered to the commander-in-Chief by Jim Webb might have been a good thing; and
- Casts as an "illusion" the notion "that America can control events on the ground."
And in this corner, Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe. In Fighting To Win in Iraq, Jacoby catalogues Jim Baker's history of foreign policy flops, including:
- His "stubborn refusal to support independence for the long-subjugated republics of the Soviet Union,"
- "The appeasement of Syrian dictator Hafez Assad during the run up to the 1991 Gulf War;" and
- Counseling Bush 41 to shrug off the Tianamen Square massacre.
- "Betraying the Iraqi Shi'ites and Kurds who heeded Bush's call to 'take matters into their own hands' and overthrow Saddam Hussein -- only to be slaughtered by Saddam's helicopter gunships and napalm while the Bush administration stood by. Baker blithely announced that the administration was 'not in the process now of assisting . . . these groups that are in uprising against the current government.'"
Jacoby urges President Bush to reject Baker's call for slo-mo surrender:
"Far from drawing down the number of troops in Iraq, Bush should increase them. . . . Sending in significant reinforcements would not only make it possible to kill more of the terrorists, thugs, and assassins who are responsible for Iraq's chaos. It would help reassure Iraqis that the Washington is not planning to leave them in the lurch, as it did so ignominiously in 1991. The violence in Iraq is surging precisely because Iraqis fear that the Americans are getting ready to throw in the towel. . . I would wager that countless Americans are upset with Bush, not because he isn't skedaddling from Iraq quickly enough, but because he seems to have no serious strategy for winning."
So who will win this civil war? The MSM militias of the New York Times, or the brave Beantown Jacobytes? Stay tuned.
Aside: Over at National Review online, Jonah Goldberg yesterday sounded a theme similar to Jacoby's. See We're Not Losers: It's not the war we hate.
Finkelstein recently returned from Iraq. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I would wager that countles
December 3, 2006 - 06:31 ET by Jack BauerI would wager that countless Americans are upset with Bush, not because he isn't skedaddling from Iraq quickly enough, but because he seems to have no serious strategy for winning."
Congratulations, I suppose better late to the right idea than never.
Though actual conservatives who want America to win a war the time-tested, un-PC way...
(that is: maximum damage to the enemy as the best way of minimizing our casualties)
...have only been saying this since BEFORE the war began.
I guess this is why guys like Jacobs are paid the big bucks, for their unerring ability to be three years behind real people.
(Memo to Jacobs, lose the beard man. Makes you look like an extra from Miami Vice -- The 80s TV series.)
Why a washed-up pansy "theater" critic like Rich gets paid anything for his mindless drivel is one of life's eternal mysteries.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Right On Right On Right ON
December 3, 2006 - 07:49 ET by CTJack Bauer you have stated the truth with eloquence.
Thank you CT.Though I do wi
December 3, 2006 - 08:02 ET by Jack BauerThank you CT.
Though I do wish I'd picked up my typo earlier, like when I wrote it. Ho hum.
Should be Jacoby not Jacobs.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
A Boston Globe columnist not
December 3, 2006 - 08:28 ET by Indiana JoeA Boston Globe columnist not only arguing to "stay the course," but to "up the ante?"
What is this world coming to?
"Wow, dude, it's raining frogs!" - Eric Cartman
Jeff is the lone Conservative
December 3, 2006 - 11:10 ET by hs29fanJeff is the lone Conservative at the Bland Broadsheet. You can read some of his columns on TownHall.
"Poor Liberal, he's educated beyond his intelligence"
Frank Rich is going to do wha
December 3, 2006 - 08:30 ET by josephsamuelsonFrank Rich is going to do what every Howard Dean liberal does ... a__-pound their lies and accusations until their d_cks fall off.
Thank God there wasn't a liberal media in 1776.
"I'm here to educate you
December 3, 2006 - 09:08 ET by josephsamuelson"I'm here to educate you about the single biggest threat to our planet. You see, there is something which threatens our very existence ... and may be the end to the human race as we know it. I'm talking, of course, about Manbearpig." - Al Gore
http://www.southparkx.net/episodes/1006-manbearpig
Jacoby is right about James B
December 3, 2006 - 09:30 ET by GalvanicJacoby is right about James Baker. The so-called Baker Commission is a collection of old Beltway barnacles who couldn't deal with the dynamics of an emerging post-Cold War as it was beginning, so they certainly can't be expected to comprehend it 15 years later.
The irony is that the Democrats -- having promised a New Direction on Iraq while having no single plan of their own --- are as anxious to see what the Baker Commission recommends as the President is, and I think their expectations are too high and unfounded. Pelosi and company are expecting it to provide cover for an exit strategy, while Bush and friends are hoping for a new approach that will lead toward a victory. They will get neither.
Post World War II American War fighting
December 3, 2006 - 13:40 ET by Jonah JohansenWorld War II was total war. In both Europe and the Pacific the United States used whatever means necessary to obtain unconditional surrender, those means included the deliberate targeting and mass killings of civiliians roughly 3/4 of a million Germans and Japanese civilians were incninerated in the last year of the war.
Since WW II we have had a doctrine of limited war, which is really nothing more than defeat on the installment plan.
In both Korea and Viet Nam, the Chinese and the Russians were allowed to assist in the killing of Americans with no consequence. In Iraq, Iran, Syria and to lesser extent Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have direct involvement in killing American and Iraqi soldiers and civilians without consequence.
American's will (even some Democrats) support total war, they will ultimately turn against any 'limited' war. As long as Iran can wage a proxy war against us with no consequence, they will. It made no sence in Korea to not pursue Chinese fighter planes across the Yalu, it makes even less sense to allow Iran to ship arms, munitions and ideology across the border to our enemies in Iraq.