PDA

View Full Version : Our Old Friend Diana West Is At It Again



SteveMetz
07-20-2007, 11:36 AM
Of all the billions of words devoted to American involvement in Iraq over the past four years, I am convinced this is beyond a doubt the stupidiest. So much so, that it is actually funny, so I wanted to share:

Total war, total victory (http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070713/EDITORIAL04/107130007/1013/EDITORIAL)

Diana West

This is a how-to column: How to win in Iraq by changing course, dissing Democrats, ignoring the Iraq Study Group and altogether eradicating al Qaeda in Iraq, Iran in Iraq, not to mention Iran in Iran...

If we want to quell global jihad and we must it is Iran that should become the target for our military minds, not Iraq. Far from handing jihadists a win, this new course, which would likely rely more on Air Force and Navy than ground troops, would put them on the defensive.

At this point, my conservative friends will remind me that we must destroy al Qaeda in Iraq. And I couldn't agree more. So let's destroy al Qaeda in Iraq a neat name for an amorphous network and any other threats including Iranian-supported Iraqi Shi'ite forces...

Presumably, our military could destroy Iraqi terror-towns and strongholds with a well-guided aerial bombing campaign, and thus go a long way toward bringing this whole war to an end; instead, we opt to send our young men to fight precisely as the terrorist wants them to fight in booby-trapped towns, among duplicitous peoples. Lately, we even argue that these same soldiers should stay in those towns among those peoples to prevent the "bloodletting" to follow an American exit. But for how long? One year? Ten years? Until Iraqis learn to sing "Kumbaya?"

Maybe until we, as a society, learn how to prize total victory over limited war.

I just can't understand why Ms. West has not been appointed to a senior policymaking position where she can implement her strategic vision. No, wait a minute--now I remember why: it's absolute nonsense designed solely to sell newspapers to dupes.

I am just amazed that even a paper with the Washington Times' leaning publishes this stuff.

Tom Odom
07-20-2007, 12:18 PM
Should be called Total War, Total Victory, Total Stupidity

But hey, if it gets someone to get the paper and read it, that is what editors and publishers want

Tom

SteveMetz
07-20-2007, 12:22 PM
Should be called Total War, Total Victory, Total Stupidity

But hey, if it gets someone to get the paper and read it, that is what editors and publishers want

Tom

I used to just laugh at people like her and Limbaugh until I started hanging around in discussion boards (not this one since here, like in Lake Woebegone, all the children are above average) and found out just how influential they are in influencing the political perspectives of people who, unfortunately, vote.

Abu Buckwheat
07-20-2007, 01:46 PM
I used to just laugh at people like her and Limbaugh until I started hanging around in discussion boards (not this one since here, like in Lake Woebegone, all the children are above average) and found out just how influential they are in influencing the political perspectives of people who, unfortunately, vote.

Jeez, Steve ... didn't you hear SWJ is a buzzing hive of raging liberal drones who infiltrated the military and are taking orders from Michael Moore and spouting the teachings of General Giap, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Jonas Savimbi and David Kilcullen (wait, that part is true!)? I know I heard about it from the Weekly Standard last week! :D

Steve Blair
07-20-2007, 01:50 PM
Jeez, Steve ... didn't you hear SWJ is a buzzing hive of raging liberal drones who infiltrated the military and are taking orders from Michael Moore and spouting the teachings of General Giap, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Jonas Savimbi and David Kilcullen (wait, that part is true!)? I know I heard about it from the Weekly Standard last week! :D

Actually it's Hugo Chavez pulling the strings....didn't you get the memo?

Cavguy
07-20-2007, 02:29 PM
Presumably, our military could destroy Iraqi terror-towns and strongholds with a well-guided aerial bombing campaign, and thus go a long way toward bringing this whole war to an end;

Her and Ann Coulter should hang out. You know Bill O'Rielly has jumped on board now about the "gay insurgency".

Mark O'Neill
07-20-2007, 02:30 PM
Diana West

This is a how-to column: How to win in Iraq by changing course, dissing Democrats, ignoring the Iraq Study Group and altogether eradicating al Qaeda in Iraq, Iran in Iraq, not to mention Iran in Iran...

If we want to quell global jihad and we must it is Iran that should become the target for our military minds, not Iraq. Far from handing jihadists a win, this new course, which would likely rely more on Air Force and Navy than ground troops, would put them on the defensive.

At this point, my conservative friends will remind me that we must destroy al Qaeda in Iraq. And I couldn't agree more. So let's destroy al Qaeda in Iraq a neat name for an amorphous network and any other threats including Iranian-supported Iraqi Shi'ite forces...

Presumably, our military could destroy Iraqi terror-towns and strongholds with a well-guided aerial bombing campaign, and thus go a long way toward bringing this whole war to an end; instead, we opt to send our young men to fight precisely as the terrorist wants them to fight in booby-trapped towns, among duplicitous peoples. Lately, we even argue that these same soldiers should stay in those towns among those peoples to prevent the "bloodletting" to follow an American exit. But for how long? One year? Ten years? Until Iraqis learn to sing "Kumbaya?"

Maybe until we, as a society, learn how to prize total victory over limited war.[/I]

.


She seems to be a certifiable ocean - going idiot. Thank god she does not publish in Australia so we do not have to routinely read her imbecilic drivel down under.

Tom Odom
07-20-2007, 02:46 PM
Maybe we should invite her to this forum as a "fan club"? :D

Granite_State
07-20-2007, 04:59 PM
I used to just laugh at people like her and Limbaugh until I started hanging around in discussion boards (not this one since here, like in Lake Woebegone, all the children are above average) and found out just how influential they are in influencing the political perspectives of people who, unfortunately, vote.

Was gonna say the same thing, based on the one other board I frequent regularly. The amount of ignorance about both the situation in Iraq and about how to defeat insurgencies, given the historical record anyway, is enormous.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Moore, Coulter, etc. reach millions. Somehow I don't think quite as many Americans have given Mao, Lawrence or even Bing West a look.

SteveMetz
07-20-2007, 05:12 PM
Was gonna say the same thing, based on the one other board I frequent regularly. The amount of ignorance about both the situation in Iraq and about how to defeat insurgencies, given the historical record anyway, is enormous.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Moore, Coulter, etc. reach millions. Somehow I don't think quite as many Americans have given Mao, Lawrence or even Bing West a look.


I didn't realize how cloistered I was until I started frequenting the politics discussion sub-board of a discussion board focused on college sports. I've spent most of the last few decades hanging around with people with advanced degrees, where logic and evidence tended to rule the day. In general, my family didn't discuss politics with me.

My participation in that board was a real education for me. And while it may not be typical of the entire nation, I was amazed at how many people clearly formed their entire body of political opinions based on what Limbaugh told them. Every single issue was filtered through this prism of "lib versus conservative."

The funny thing was, though, that when they were challenged, they had absolutely no response (other than to call me a "lib" which my colleagues at Heritage and AEI might find amusing). I mean, that was all the intellectual ammunition they had.

Then it occurred to me: with Limbaugh as their only source of political information and thinking, they were simply not used to hearing the Great Man's orthodoxy challenged in a rigorous way, so they didn't know how to counter it. Intellectually, there was no there there.

Ken White
07-20-2007, 05:14 PM
She seems to be a certifiable ocean - going idiot. Thank god she does not publish in Australia so we do not have to routinely read her imbecilic drivel down under.

She said "Not happy, John - the git doesn't speak Stryne..."

And lo, West was barred. :D

skiguy
07-20-2007, 07:57 PM
Postmodern man prefers a kind of limited warfare, fighting with one hand tied behind his back as a matter of choice

I'm so sick of hearing this. Speaking of discussion boards, this is all I hear about Iraq. (after all we did it to the Germans :rolleyes:)
or "Let's just nuke 'em all".....whatever!

Oh yeah, that and complete racsism towards Muslims. (you can thank right-wing radio for this one)

I can't believe I use to listen to and like this crap.

It's amazing how education (from people who know what they're talking about) can open one's mind, isn't it?

Tacitus
07-20-2007, 08:19 PM
I'm so sick of hearing this. Speaking of discussion boards, this is all I hear about Iraq. (after all we did it to the Germans :rolleyes:)
or "Let's just nuke 'em all".....whatever!

Oh yeah, that and complete racsism towards Muslims. (you can thank right-wing radio for this one)

I can't believe I use to listen to and like this crap.

It's amazing how education (from people who know what they're talking about) can open one's mind, isn't it?

There's a "local Limbaugh" that gets on the radio about the time I drive home in the evenings. I sometimes listen to him and his callers, particularly if the subject is talking about the Middle East, Islam, etc. Practically in the same breath he and his callers will voice the following opinions:

1. "We don't fight wars like we used to. We ought to just nuke 'em all." Here you get a total disregard for all human life.
2. "We can't withdraw from Iraq, because all of these innocent people will die in an inevitable civil war." Here you get a humanitarian basis for our presence.
3. "We worry too much about winning hearts and minds. You just have to grab them hard enough by the throat, and they'll understand." Here you get a recommendation for an authoritarian occupation.
4. "Democracy is working in Iraq, slowly but surely. People aren't giving it a chance." Here you have a faith in democratic government.

How somebody can simultaneously hold these opinons is beyond me. It is like this particular audience has a split personality when it comes to the Iraq war. One minute, they sound like Eichmann and Himmler plotting how to wipe out some group of subhumans, the next breath they are selfless humanitarians upholding the honor of humanity.

SteveMetz
07-20-2007, 08:31 PM
There's a "local Limbaugh" that gets on the radio about the time I drive home in the evenings. I sometimes listen to him and his callers, particularly if the subject is talking about the Middle East, Islam, etc. Practically in the same breath he and his callers will voice the following opinions:

1. "We don't fight wars like we used to. We ought to just nuke 'em all." Here you get a total disregard for all human life.
2. "We can't withdraw from Iraq, because all of these innocent people will die in an inevitable civil war." Here you get a humanitarian basis for our presence.
3. "We worry too much about winning hearts and minds. You just have to grab them hard enough by the throat, and they'll understand." Here you get a recommendation for an authoritarian occupation.
4. "Democracy is working in Iraq, slowly but surely. People aren't giving it a chance." Here you have a faith in democratic government.

How somebody can simultaneously hold these opinons is beyond me. It is like this particular audience has a split personality when it comes to the Iraq war. One minute, they sound like Eichmann and Himmler plotting how to wipe out some group of subhumans, the next breath they are selfless humanitarians upholding the honor of humanity.

I was listening to NPR just now and they were doing a series of sort of "man i the street" interviews with Republicans to see what they thought about President Bush. They were talking to some woman in Council Bluffs, IA who said, and I quote (more or less), "I support the war in Iraq because that's how President Bush keeps the Muslims out of the United States."

Stevely
07-20-2007, 09:17 PM
How somebody can simultaneously hold these opinons is beyond me. It is like this particular audience has a split personality when it comes to the Iraq war. One minute, they sound like Eichmann and Himmler plotting how to wipe out some group of subhumans, the next breath they are selfless humanitarians upholding the honor of humanity.

With democracy apparently working out so well here, this certainly inspires confidence in its application in the more dangerous parts of the world. ;)

It'd all be hilarious if it weren't real.

SWJED
07-20-2007, 09:30 PM
Jeez, Steve ... didn't you hear SWJ is a buzzing hive of raging liberal drones who infiltrated the military and are taking orders from Michael Moore and spouting the teachings of General Giap, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Jonas Savimbi and David Kilcullen (wait, that part is true!)? I know I heard about it from the Weekly Standard last week! :D

Return your decoder ring, the hat, badge and the whistle. This was supposed to stay DOUBLE DOG DARE TOP SECRET. You just blew our cover Abu :eek:.

Mark O'Neill
07-21-2007, 04:26 AM
Return your decoder ring, the hat, badge and the whistle. This was supposed to stay DOUBLE DOG DARE TOP SECRET. You just blew our cover Abu :eek:.

Whistles? No one mentioned whistles ... or is that only for people on the right hand side of the Pacific who don't speak Australian?

Since Ken and Tom obviously speak some Australian, I hope they haven't got one, or some of us might start to feel discriminated against....

Ken White
07-21-2007, 03:25 PM
Whistles? No one mentioned whistles ... or is that only for people on the right hand side of the Pacific who don't speak Australian?

Since Ken and Tom obviously speak some Australian, I hope they haven't got one, or some of us might start to feel discriminated against....

The whistles cited are Bo'suns Pipes or Whistles, only Squids get those. They also get a funny hat; the compensation for us landlubbers is that while we get no whistle, we do not have to wear that particular hat...:D

redbullets
08-11-2007, 09:48 PM
Then it occurred to me: with Limbaugh as their only source of political information and thinking, they were simply not used to hearing the Great Man's orthodoxy challenged in a rigorous way, so they didn't know how to counter it. Intellectually, there was no there there.

Even now, after my Baghdad conversion, I think back to when I was a Reagan Republican and listened to Limbaugh and shouted at the left on Crossfire, and like to believe that I had some ability to assess critically what my political "betters" and the media were telling me. I stuck to my view that the Republicans/conservatives were more practical and better managers even during years in the rather, uh, left-leaning humanitarian community, until I saw firsthand what was shakin' on the Euphrates.

I cringe when I see the large numbers of Pentagonians reading the Washington Times on the bus during my commute. There's too much reliance on the pundits as an excuse for news outside the Beltway, and too much reliance on same for opinion inside, I reckon.

Cheers,

Tom Odom
08-13-2007, 01:18 PM
Even now, after my Baghdad conversion, I think back to when I was a Reagan Republican and listened to Limbaugh and shouted at the left on Crossfire, and like to believe that I had some ability to assess critically what my political "betters" and the media were telling me. I stuck to my view that the Republicans/conservatives were more practical and better managers even during years in the rather, uh, left-leaning humanitarian community, until I saw firsthand what was shakin' on the Euphrates.

I cringe when I see the large numbers of Pentagonians reading the Washington Times on the bus during my commute. There's too much reliance on the pundits as an excuse for news outside the Beltway, and too much reliance on same for opinion inside, I reckon.

Cheers,

we all go through transtitions based on which particular fish bowl we swim in; I used to run into the exact opposite when married to an AID officer/former Peace Corps volunteer. That proved good training for active embassy membership as it revealed favorite avenues of attack for those who presumed military equals neanderthal.

and now that I am still in (as a DAC) but out as an active duty Soldier it is interesting to watch the struggle with democracy as a series of windmills, forever targeted for attack.

Tom

Anthony Hoh
08-16-2007, 11:39 PM
and now that I am still in (as a DAC) but out as an active duty Soldier it is interesting to watch the struggle with democracy as a series of windmills, forever targeted for attack.

Tom

Boss ,
I would prefer to take the role as Sancho Panza, and leave you to be the giant killer.

Ken White
08-17-2007, 12:31 AM
Boss ,
I would prefer to take the role as Sancho Panza, and leave you to be the giant killer.

let him trick or bulldoze you into feeding or even getting close to that vicious killer of a donkey he rides...

Tom Odom
08-17-2007, 12:30 PM
Boss ,
I would prefer to take the role as Sancho Panza, and leave you to be the giant killer.


Ride Conquistadore, Ride!

section9
08-21-2007, 03:25 PM
There is a class of commentator on the right who is deeply pessimistic about the resevoir of Western ability and nerve to confront jihadism. Diana West is one of those people.

For example, she has been deeply, almost personally critical, of Condi Rice's approach to negotiating a regional solution with the Iranians. This is of a piece with the general conservative critique of the State Department's approach to a settlement with the Iranians. Almost without thinking, this column echoes the "surgical strike" sentiments of the crowd over at The American Spectator and The National Review, who from time to time give thought to their innermost fears about the Persian.

Iran, in their minds and certainly in the mind of Ms. West, is a ten-foot tall collossus bestriding the Persian Gulf, and needs to be taken down before it gets the Atomic Bomb. No thought is given to the consequences, both diplomatic and military, to an attack and Iran's probable counterstrokes. In reality, although I consider Iran's present leadership to be both theocratic and deeply fascist, it is foolish to ignore the other currents in Iran who wish for a settlement with the west based on mutual understanding of national interests.

This is just a hideously stupid approach to the war, but it's just a sample of what's out there on the right. Call this the flip side of the Daily Kos crowd, much more alike than either side is prepared to admit, and so much less willing to actually try and think themselves out of the box.