January 24, 2005

Dowdification Watch

MoDo, writing in today's NYT:

The vice president told Don Imus that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of trouble spots, and that Israel "might well decide to act first" with a military strike.

Maybe Maureen's been reading too much David Sanger of late. Or, alas, she simply hasn't bothered to read the full transcript of Cheney's interview on Imus, or alternately, she did read it, but decided to "Dowdify" (ever so conveniently truncate quotes to fit the preordained meme) so as to purposefully misrepresent Cheney's Imus interview. After all, the column has less juice if you can't make it look like crazy Dick is about to send our boys into Teheran, doesn't it? Or that varied Likudniks, perhaps with Larry Franklin and assorted AIPAC-ers along for the ride, are about to launch an assault on the Mullahs--all with Dick's blessing bien sur (and so hapless Georgie's too). Except, of course, that it's all mostly hyperbolic B.S. if you bother to read what Cheney really said.

Cheney on Imus:

IMUS: Back to not Iraq, but Seymour Hersh, in the current issue of The New Yorker, suggesting that you all are up to something in Iran, and I guess my question is—I don’t understand that much about it, but my question is, are we trying to determine what they have? And if we find out that they have a nuclear program, then what?

R. CHENEY: Well, we are, I’d say, very concerned about Iran, because for two reasons, again, one, they do have a program. We believe they have a fairly robust new nuclear program. That’s been developed by, or being pursued I guess would be the best way to put it, by members of the E.U.—the Brits, the Germans and the French—have been negotiating with the Iranians to get them to allow greater transparency in their program so the outside world can be confident they’re not building weapons, that it’s for peaceful purposes.

The other problem we have, of course, is that Iran is a noted sponsor of terror. They’ve been the prime backers of the Hezbollah over the years, and they have, in fact, been—used terror in various incendiary ways to kill Americans and a lot of other folks around the globe, too, and that combination is of great concern.

We’ll continue to try to address those issues diplomatically, continue to work with the Europeans. At some point, if the Iranians don’t live up to their commitments, the next step will be to take it to the U.N. Security Council, and seek the imposition of international sanctions to force them to live up to the commitments and obligations they’ve signed up to under the non-proliferation treaty, and it’s—but it is a—you know, you look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list.

IMUS: Would that mean us again?

R. CHENEY: I think it means a serious effort to use the...

IMUS: Why don’t we make Israel do it?

R. CHENEY: Well, one of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked, that if, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.

We don’t want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it. And certainly in the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited by or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically. [emphasis added]

Here's the deal folks. Cheney is saying a) he wants to handle Iran diplomatically at this juncture, likely through continued employ of the Euro-troika (the UK/German/French foreign ministers) and b) if that doesn't work, the next step would be to seek sanctions at the UNSC (how militaristic and unilateralist!). Then, goaded by Imus ("why don't we make Israel do it?"), Cheney makes it clear that he wouldn't be particularly thrilled by such an Israeli action (ie, the "worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards" part). Finally, for avoidance of doubt, Cheney puts it pretty plainly: "everybody would be best suited by or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically." "Everybody." I guess that means the Israelis too...

Got it? It's not bombs away over Teheran in Cheney-land. But, without the benefit of the full Cheney-Imus exchange, if you're just casually breezing through MoDo's latest in the Sunday Times--already worried that the hyper-militaristic, freedom-exportation obsessed, in-bed-with-Arik-crew is marching off to yet another land war in the 'region'--your worst fears appear to be confirmed. Yet again, as is her dreary wont, MoDo clips the quotes to fit her tiresome story line. Pray tell, when are the grown-ups going to put an end to all this bricolage fun over at W.43rd? Doesn't their reading public deserve a bit better than this so transparent distortion of a Vice President's statements on an issue of such major geopolitical import? I've said it before, but I don't think Jim Hoagland or Dave Ignatius would get away with these consistent misrepresentations. So why does Shipley give Maureen this carte blanche? Maybe he thinks her ribald, breezy-with-the-facts style moves paper. Call it the Fox-ification of the NYT. But isn't the Gray Lady supposed to be above the crude machinations of a Roger Ailes?

UPDATE: Hey, look who is playing the story the same way! [ed. note: why the exclamation point? It's not really surprising, is it?]

STILL MORE: A reader writes in:

"Be advised...that the site you linked to is not the real Al Jazeera, but an annoying imposter site. Actual AJ is [here]. No, we don't agree with it, but if you really want to see what they're saying..."

Thanks to Tim Usher for the clarification. And apologies for any confusion. But, as it turns out, the real Al Jazeera is playing the story, in the main, the same way too (truncated Imus quote and, for good measure, the requisite Sy Hersh regurgitations). It's a bona fide party, it seems!

Posted by Gregory at January 24, 2005 03:29 AM | TrackBack (121)
Comments

I have to hypothesize that there simply are no grownups at the Times, so it is useless to wait for them to intervene. Your comment on "Foxification" is dead on. I have linked this comment to a post on the "New Yokels' Times".

Posted by: Sammler at January 24, 2005 11:31 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Not defending Maureen Dowd, but maybe she (and others of us) get that uneasy feeling that we've heard Cheney say this before. You know, that war should be avoided and we should try diplomacy, but if that fails, well, then, action will have to be taken. You remember, around June 2002? In reference to Iraq?

Posted by: J. at January 24, 2005 01:49 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I'm certainly no fan of Maureen Dowd, but I think it would be naive to assume that there isn't more going on behind the scenes ...

Posted by: praktike at January 24, 2005 02:31 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Misrepresenting somebody is misrepresenting somebody. Clipping quotations to fit a pre-determined agenda is the act of a propogandist, pure and simple.

Posted by: Andrew Paterson at January 24, 2005 03:48 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Greg,

You're mistaking the Times' OpEd page for a serious intellectual salon. In reality it's primarily a lounge serving comfort food for the Times' core audience of urban liberal Bush-haters. The objective isn't to persuade anyone or to contribute to the debate; it's what the techies call a "sticky" feature that keeps subscriptions and loyalty high. Look at any day's list of "Most E-Mailed Articles" and at least three of the top 5 will be OpEd pieces.

Remember the market strategy, as enunciated by Keller a while back. He siad that most publications try to broaden their audience by diluting their content, whereas the Times did the opposite. They surveyed their most loyal readers and then gave them more of what attracted them to the paper, not less.

In other words, MoDo is not a peripheral Valley Girl voice at the Times; she's its heart and soul. Or should I say cash cow.

Posted by: thibaud at January 24, 2005 04:38 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

of course this isnt the first time that modo has cut and clipped a quote to suit her agenda. why expect her or the NYT to change. They know they are smarter than their readers and can manipulate words for the crusade.

Posted by: TedM at January 24, 2005 06:31 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

MoDo is not smarter than the readers of Instapundit or Powerline or Belmontclub or RogerLSimon. Neither is Friedman.

Both are hacks who are easily outgunned and outshone by intelligent bloggers on any given day. And Friedman's prose is laughably bad.

The NYT is nothing more than a lifestyle guide. Its OpEd staff writers are not to be taken seriously.

Posted by: thibaud at January 24, 2005 08:00 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Cheney is simply laying the groundwork for either the Israelis or the US to do something colossally stupid. Remember his "my sources tell me we'll be greeted with flowers" in Iraq sound bites two years ago? And what the blank does he mean, "We don’t want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it." He and his pals STARTED an avoidable war two years ago and have now apparently conveniently forgotten about the troops, the dead civilians and the terrorist training ground they've created in Iraq. What does he want, the whole Middle East in chaos? Dowd is simply providing a synopsis of the idiocy for those who don't watch the subtle moves of these madmen.

Posted by: Larry Kegon at January 25, 2005 03:57 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

The point is that Dowd's pointifications are repeated and amplified all over the place in Europe as being "what's currently going on at US newspapers." Dowd sets the agenda, albeit on op-ed pages, and Le Monde, SPIEGEL and Der Standard repeat it in the context of "media insiders revealed yesterday that."

Not only is Dowd aware of those ripples, but I'd say it's the desired outcome.

Posted by: nickpicker at January 25, 2005 05:08 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

See, the problem with Dowd is that there are people she influences with her propaganda. Those blue-staters are dumb as rocks. And if the facts don't turn out as Dowd predicts, the paper will lie to back her up anyway.

The Iraqis did indeed welcome us with open arms. But it's been a little tough to stay happy when a minority of the population is making such loud booming noises. But, WTF, just pretend that the entire country hates our guts and Cheney was a fool. It's okay, since the blue-staters will swallow it.

Posted by: Syl at January 25, 2005 05:15 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Cheney said "various and sundry," not "various incendiary," though the latter works pretty well.

Posted by: TomC at January 25, 2005 05:19 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Larry, you didn't actually bother to read this post before commenting did you? Spoils the fun, to actually like understand what you are talking about, doesn't it?

Posted by: Robin Roberts at January 25, 2005 05:24 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink
the terrorist training ground they've created in Iraq.

Dying ain't great training. Idiot.

Posted by: ajf at January 25, 2005 05:28 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Training ground created? Created? Salman Pak was around for years before OIF. As afj said, they were freely able to train then without dying. Unless, of course, you lost the soccer game.

Posted by: mishu at January 25, 2005 05:57 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Doesn't the NYT have an ombudsman? Shouldn't we get him to press this?

Posted by: Joe at January 25, 2005 06:05 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I actually think the quotes are accurate. The only "context" the rest of the transcript adds are Cheney leaving himself some wiggle room -- something every politician does in every stmt and unnecessary to replicate in a 700 word column.

Show me evidence of Cheney "working with the Europeans" before insisting that I believe him -- even when I agree with his actions I don't believe his words.

Some of us aren't comfortable with the idea that gov't always knows best and doesn't need to burden us with the facts or the hard work necessary to make a rather ambiguous case.

btw, these posts are a fascinating study on the success of the conservative movement in creating a constant siege mentality -- Cheney was re-elected VP, let's start worrying about governing and quit nit-picking about a liberal op-ed piece.

P.S. al-Jazeera post-script just stupid and useless to discourse, unless you want to have every Islamic fundamentalist stmt compared to some Christian fundamentalist stmt.

Posted by: bob at January 25, 2005 06:58 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

MoDo seems to be set on professional suicide -- if she were a blogger she'd be toast by now. But it's looking more and more as if she intends to take the rest of the Times with her.

Posted by: Kevin Murphy at January 25, 2005 07:03 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Dowd is occasionally funny, but mostly hideous. She once wrote a column about the triumph of the trivial, but man, she's just describing her column. The things that seemed to excite her most during the '04 campaign were 1) psychoanalyzing W 2) obsessing about Theresa Kerry's gaffes.
Please. This is not Op-Ed, it's, er, um, comedy (?) On a good day.

And Syl:
"The Iraqis did indeed welcome us with open arms. But it's been a little tough to stay happy when a minority of the population is making such loud booming noises."
please be serious. Sure, a minority is violent, but we are extremely unpopular.
What would you have said in March 2003 if someone here had posted that in 18 months we would be embroiled in a growing insurgency, with record high troop levels? Would you have called him a dumb as rocks 'blue-stater"?
Cheney et al. got it wrong. Dead wrong.

Posted by: recron at January 25, 2005 07:06 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

It seems that recron is privy to the results of some regular Census of the Insurgents, since he asserts as fact that it's 'growing'.

Posted by: Don at January 25, 2005 08:38 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

1. Anyone who didn't expect an uptick in violence in the run-up to the Iraqi elections does probably qualify as a "dumb-as-rocks blue-stater".

2. Also, please note that the anti-war blatherers have been trying to move the goalposts. Before the invasion, we were warned there would be thousands of casualties, hundreds of thousands of refugees, et-endless-cetera. Now here we are, almost two years on, with fewer casualties than I expect us to take in the first month. (Insert mandatory handwringing about every death being a tragedy -- but honestly, people, if we can't stand to take a thousand casualties, we can never fight another war.)

Posted by: Brandon at January 25, 2005 09:09 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Dowd is simply sticking with the theme of the NYT editorial & oped pages now that Safire is gone. She tries to write cleverly but she doesnt amount to a pimple on Jimmy Breslin's irish backside. She sits in an office trying to say things that the Bush haters will buy, while Breslin is on the street telling the stories of the people that the Dowd crowd say they want to help. A phoney is a phoney no matter that she comes in an NYT wrapper.

Posted by: DennyB at January 25, 2005 10:43 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Brandon: "we can never fight another war" - Bingo! That is the entire point to the left's anti-war cause, and why they are so desperate to paint the current one as an unmitigated disaster. It's all about gaining by other means what they could not at the ballot box.

Posted by: Eric E. Coe at January 25, 2005 11:16 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Not defending Maureen Dowd, but maybe she (and others of us) get that uneasy feeling that we've heard Cheney say this before. You know, that war should be avoided and we should try diplomacy, but if that fails, well, then, action will have to be taken.

Ok, I assume we all agree that war should be avoided and that we should try diplomacy.

Now, if diplomacy fails, j. and bob, what should we do? Nothing? Or should we "take action." Diplomacy having failed, I don't see any alternatives.

And once we let everyone know we will do nothing if diplomacy fails, you've pretty much doomed diplomacy for any serious confrontation.

Posted by: R C Dean at January 25, 2005 11:49 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink
Call it the Fox-ification of the NYT

Please site an example of Fox News has made this type of crude mischaracertation?

Posted by: jrdroll at January 25, 2005 11:51 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

It depends. Does anyone really believe Cheney when he says that the administration views war as a last resort in dealing with Iran--which is what the intervening material implies?

One could write the quote as: [Dishonest boilerplate used leading up to Iraq war and thus discredited] and it’s—but it is a—you know, you look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list.

IMUS: Would that mean us again?

R. CHENEY: I think it means a serious effort to use the...

IMUS: Why don’t we make Israel do it?

R. CHENEY: Well, one of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked, that if, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.

[Same b.s. we saw leading up to Iraq. Discredited and disregarded.]

You can almost see Old Man Potter grin when he talks about a "diplomatic mess" caused by an Israeli bombing. Diplomatic messes are what this administration does best--and they play well with the base.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at January 25, 2005 12:02 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

1. Of course the situation in Iraq is entirely the result of our attack. Didn't you see "Fahrenheit 9/11?" It was a happy place where children flew kites, we barged in, and thank goodness there is the insurgency..Moore likens them to the minutemen and hopes for their victory.

2. I've posted this elsewhere in greater detail, but listen you guys: there is no "Maureen Dowd." The NY Times wouldn't actually give valuable op-ed space to this caricature of the ditzy, trying to be with it woman writer who is unable to deal with any issue without personalizing it.

"MoDo" is a practical joke the Times's editorial staff has been playing on its readership. There's no other logical conclusion.

Posted by: Alex Bensky at January 25, 2005 12:26 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

'IMUS: Why don’t we make Israel do it?'

Imus is down with the Great Satan, Little Satan theory.

Posted by: Jack Tanner at January 25, 2005 12:32 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Reading these comments drives home the increasingly obvious point that people will take any event as grist for their mill.

I'm of the opinion that the NYT is well into the process of self-destructing and it's delicious to watch.

Posted by: Dr. Fager at January 25, 2005 12:43 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Many here are in denial. We've all heard Cheney deliver similar denials of intent, only to go back on them. To accuse Dowd of malfesance because she extrapolates a message consistent with Cheney's actions of the recent past is disingenuous. Sure, Cheney speaks with the measured diction and grave cadence of a statesman. That's why some people listen to him. Diplomacy has failed in the past because Bush's government has been so overt in giving diplomacy a secondary, even stunted role in our foreign policy.

And the reports of the NYT's death are greatly exaggerated. That pisses the hell out of the Bushists.

Posted by: jim at January 25, 2005 01:37 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Some people here seem to be under the common misconception that drooling morons such as Maureen Dowd are capable of adding relevant points to a discussion, but for some reason choose not to.

Posted by: Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit at January 25, 2005 01:38 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

jrdroll: just take a look at any O'Reilly segment and often anything that Ann Coulter says or Hannity says on his show. Most of their episodes are filled with this type mischaracterization.

Posted by: me at January 25, 2005 02:07 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

For information, it's a misconception that Israel can attack Iran to destroy its widespread nuclear facilities. If you look at a map you realise that Israeli Air Force formations would have to pass over a multitude of less than frindly nations to reach Iran in the first place and would also not have sufficient fuel to return or reach an alternate friendly airbase.

There's no denying the current Iranian leadership is a threat, primarily to Israel and it's a matter of time before events reach a climax. The 'diplomacy' that Jim above accuses Bush of putting in a 'secondary, even stunted role in our foreign policy' is the kind being pursued by the E3 right now over Iran. It creates the impression that matters are being dealt with, long-winded discussions over a board room table that get no where and are a staple of organisations such as the UN for example. It is this polite facade that Bush has removed and America is better for it. No Yasser Arafat in the White House speaking peace in English and venom in Arabic. This is being the true 'realist'.

Posted by: Andrew Paterson at January 25, 2005 02:11 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Dowd, Ailes, Moore...somehow it has become ok to ignore, shade, stack data to get to a pre-determined outcome.

Posted by: Richard Donovan at January 25, 2005 03:05 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

If Iran becomes nuke capable and the Israelis develop intelligence that confirms the fact TO THEIR SATISFACTION they won't be sending their air force.

We can consider multiple attack profiles and discuss political ramifications at almost an academic level. We have the reach and assets to strike when and where we please in Iran at any time of our choosing. We could well be attacked in return either in theater or by shipping container ICBM and lose a city. Or two. Or three.

Pretty horrible to contemplate for us. Israel lacks any room at all for intellectual debate. One or two cities destroyed would leave them incapable of defending what was left. They know that the entire Arab/Islamic world wants them all dead and have only failed in their goal through an inability to achieve the lethality of nukes.

Until now.

I see nothing disengenous about Cheney talking diplomacy. He's also very candid about what happens when diplomacy fails, as it did with the U.N. and EU choosing to maintain their financial relationships with Hussein over their own treaty obligations, historical alliances, and resolutions.

The duty of our elected officials is to defend us. Not to subsume our defense to a bunch of thugs and parasites.

Posted by: TmjUtah at January 25, 2005 03:09 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

When the leftists finally complete their slow, determined march to self destruction, led by wheezing socialist twits like Dowd, what will fill the vacuum?

Posted by: James Warren at January 25, 2005 03:11 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Thibaud, hold on to your hate. I happen to be a suburban liberal and regular reader of the NYT. I deplore most of what the bush administration has forced on this nation and planet. Are you aware of the basic psychodynamic called projection? It's yourself, filled with hatred (you can figure out why) that you conveniently thrust onto those with differing world views. I understand in their heart of hearts there are those that hate the Clinton's. May be you're one of those.

Posted by: Paul Sexton at January 25, 2005 03:34 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Is Dowd "okay", mentally? Really? I just recently saw her on C-span. She was either seriously high on something or affecting some sort of Buckley-esque langour in her speech mode. Very bizarre.

Posted by: Dave P at January 25, 2005 03:35 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

The marble rattling around your head?

Posted by: Ken Stower at January 25, 2005 03:42 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

A misquote is a misquote and Dowd distorted Cheney's words and meaning. We read the NYT (Michigan residents) and find that we cannot trust the reporting because the philosophy spins everything on its pages, not just the opinions!
I despised Clinton (different than hate)!
And I despise the liberal world view that HATES the United States. Flaws and all, we are as a nation as good as it gets!

Posted by: lralston at January 25, 2005 03:56 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

When Cheney says that Israel might do it without being asked, does that suggest that Israel would do it if the U.S. asks? Would this be pre-emption by proxy? Assuming there are some rational Iranians, isn't there a threat against Iran located in this pile and not a pony?

Posted by: Shag from Brookline at January 25, 2005 04:06 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

From jim:

To accuse Dowd of malfesance because she extrapolates a message consistent with Cheney's actions of the recent past is disingenuous.

Ah, NOW I get it! Dowd's characterization of Cheney's statement is "fake but accurate", is that it?

Posted by: TomK at January 25, 2005 04:12 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Heh, good call TomK. I love how facts mean nothing to the left. If it's incompatible with your mindset just ignore it! After all 'truth is relative'! Just like morals.

Posted by: Andrew Paterson at January 25, 2005 04:41 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Jim, et. al: Isn't it interesting that you believe that, since the US did end up invading Iraq, Cheney obviously couldn't have meant it when he said he preferred to try diplomacy first?

How much diplomacy must be tried before it's abandoned as worse than useless?

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, Hussein's Iraq was not interested in a real diplomatic solution (where "real" means "they really disarm and SHOW US that they have"... their refusal to show us, as was required by their own cease-fire treaty from Desert Storm, even if they were really disarmed for real (and not just hiding their weapons in Syria), is certainly a poser, isn't it?)?

Can we move on from the litany of "he was lying because we eventually went to war anyway"? (Even Neville Chamberlain wasn't lying when he proclaimed "Peace in our Time". He was simply wrong. And Cheney's claims were not to lasting peace, but to a preference for diplomacy. Diplomacy, however, with an opponent that views diplomacy purely as a delaying tactic and cover, can never work. Why is this so difficult to understand, especially given Iraq's rich decade-plus history of using diplomacy in exactly that way?)

Posted by: Sigivald at January 25, 2005 05:29 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

TomK and Sigivald: Exactly right -- end of debate. Thank you.

me: I think jdroll was looking for a specific example which, not surprisingly, you fail to provide.

Posted by: mountb at January 25, 2005 07:54 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Please note that aljazeera.com is not aljazeera.net. Do a whois fer jeebus sake

Posted by: scanner at January 25, 2005 09:37 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

OK, guys, here's the quote from your own government about Iraq becoming a training ground for terrorists. If you think they are all going to die, think Osama bin Laden. He trained for ten years with our support in Afghanistan and it all came back around in a big circle on 9/11, and he's still on the loose. The Russians were after him, we've been after him for three years and he's still going like the Energizer Bunny (apparently on dialysis). They all didn't die in Fallujah, our latest success, did they? They're learning a trade and they'll take it back home, maybe to Saudi Arabia? They've learned to blow up oil production facilities in the last year, and can do it back home. Iraqi oil shipments are at less than 50% of capacity, think $50/barrel oil is pricey now?

The CIA National Intelligence Center has published the following. "Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

OK, now rant about the CIA not knowing anything. Take the stance that if Tenet was wrong about the slam dunk, that nothing they say is correct. But remember Viet Nam...insurgencies are damn near impossible to put down. And look at what happened to the British Empire starting in 1776, a few thousand guys with muskets started the end of the Empire. The British took New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and had a chunk of the populace behind them and still lost when the insurgency spread across the continent. You can't kill them all unless you totally nuke the entire Middle East and Indonesia (killing a billion or so) and then where does the oil come from?

You guys cheer like this is some kind of football game where the home team is kicking butt and can't lose. Read some history and turn off Fox News.

Posted by: Larry Kegon at January 26, 2005 04:04 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

If I were reading history -- which popular wisdom has it that hawks don't -- I might consider the primary example of insurgency supression, the Malayan Emergency of 1947-59, in which the British (the SAS and the Gurkha brigade) successfully defeated a group of Communist insurgents -- the struggle from which the phrase "winning the hearts and minds of the people" is taken. Result: independent, non-Communist, somewhat democratic Malaysia.

Tough fight, but one worth winning.

Posted by: Ben at January 26, 2005 05:58 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Ask three canine trainers, "What's the best dog training method?" and it's quite possible you'll get three different answers. You might also hear a bevy of buzzwords such as "purely positive" or "clicker training" sprinkled with terms borrowed from psychologists and behaviorists such as "operant conditioning."
Taken from http://www.theithacajournal.com/news/stories/20050126/lifestyle/1914772.html
Find out more about dog training information from http://www.dogtraining.mypetdogs.com

Posted by: dog training information at January 28, 2005 05:39 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
"Must-read list"
--Washington Times
"Pompous Ass"
--an anonymous blogospheric commenter
Recent Entries
Search
English Language Media
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
U.S. Blogs
Columnists
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Security
Books
The City
Western Europe
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Central and Eastern Europe
CIS/FSU
Russia
Armenia
East Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
Middle East
Egypt
Israel
Lebanon
Syria
B.D. In the Press
Archives
Categories
Syndicate this site:
XML RSS RDF

G2E

Powered by