"Serious" is an adjective that actually means "advocates the use of military force" when uttered by Beltway pundits. See everyone from Jacob Weisberg from Slate to David Broder of the Post.

The dirty hippies who opposed the war from the outset, like Howard Dean, were routinely derided as not serious. People, like Russ Feingold and Howard Dean, who were extraordinarily prescient are still not regarded as "serious" because they never supported the use of military force as a means of attaining regime change in Iraq, precisely because they feared the results of the ensuing occupation.

The use of the word "serious" is meant to exclude any number of diplomatic initiative or anyone who regards military force as one option, an option that should be a last and not a first resort.

It's particularly bizarre for Brooks to point to Democratic disarray just as they have come together in opposition to escalation, while Republicans are breaking apart. The class of 08 ranges from Hagel's "Alice in Wonderland" characterization to Graham's unstinting support for the president. I'm keeping track of the 21 republican senators in the class of 08 at this blog.

Posted by: jayackroyd at January 11, 2007 03:57 PM | Permalink to this comment

How about Peter Galbraith's plan or even Joe Biden's...you can disagree but they are serious. Without a bit of trouble you can find half a dozen serious plans. A hack is a hack.

Posted by: Mark Close at January 11, 2007 09:13 PM | Permalink to this comment

Block that metaphor! The "like pulling a tooth slowly" figure seems especially maladroit. ISG wanted to extract, put an end to, what the administration wants to leave in place, prolong, even at higher levels, in the hope that the rotten tooth will somehow regenerate itself if left in place.

Posted by: KH at January 11, 2007 10:04 PM | Permalink to this comment

Isn't it incredible? I mean, Brooks still has a JOB! People want him on TV!

I would think a media concerned about its reputation for incisive analysis and accuracy would have canned him and the other Beltway-mavens long ago.

The politico-corporate nature of our broadcasting system is showing up in stark relief now. Especially ABC's remake into FOX. About three years behind the curve. When the chickens come home to roost, it won't be pleasant.

And people wonder why news readership is down.

Take a look in the mirror, media. We're not dumb: we know what you're up to and we ain't buying.

Posted by: Barry E. at January 11, 2007 11:22 PM | Permalink to this comment

jayackroyd has it. As Glenn Greenwald put it this morning,

Among the political and punditry establishment, there has emerged a consensus that there is only one way to show that one is a truly respectable, mainstream, Serious Thinker about the war. It is to do this:

(1) acknowledge (reluctantly) that the war is going very poorly and wrinkle one's foreheads to show grave concern over the problem;

(2) oppose escalation (but respectfully, acknowledging what a serious, thoughtful -- even resolute -- option it is);

(3) oppose withdrawal (categorically, dismissively, snidely, as though any person with a grain of responsibility would never think of such a thing, given how patently reckless it is).

Posted by: EE at January 12, 2007 06:36 PM | Permalink to this comment

There is a serious alternative by Col. Lang on the National Interest site at:

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=13252

This hosted by the Nixon Center.

Posted by: pen Name at January 13, 2007 03:48 AM | Permalink to this comment

http://radaronline.com/features/2007/01/betting_on_iraq_1.php

Posted by: blah at January 13, 2007 05:53 AM | Permalink to this comment

Brooks spun the same line with Dionne on NPR. Irrelevant and wrong to boot.

But spare a thought for the guy. These days, being properly sober and serious doesn't leave you much wriggle room.

Posted by: AlanDownunder at January 13, 2007 11:10 AM | Permalink to this comment