Letters to the Editor
-
Isn't it comforting to know...
Our Fearless Leader, despite the blood being spilled daily in his name and at his command, has the personal inner resources to remain courteous, cheerful and charming, and that his love of a good joke hasn't been dampened by the fact that most people think he's doing a lousy job.
-
And yet the nationalist movement of the Jews is evil by definition and by simple assertion
Why is that, Gary? How is it anyone who can afford an RPG and a flag gets a pass from you as long as they assert some magical adherence to 'nationalistic separateness' except the Jews. For them, and unlike everyone else according to the blogging classes, nationalism, that is, the consent of many to form a union of shared interests and intent is inherently evil. If only they were Eskimos or Basques or Palestinians or Mau Maus or the Irish or Uzbeks or Kosovars....well you get it.
By the by, here's another semi important tome, one I highly recommend:
Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him
By Humberto Fontava
(speaking of getting rid of the priests....something Che and Fidel were brutally good at.)
-
Letting Indians Police Iraq
is probably a bad idea. Many of the Indians I've met (mostly in San Francisco, in the computer business) are quite anti Pakistan, and thereby anti Moslem. Iraqis would never view Indians as neutral.
-
Horne is another Tom Friedman
Its hard to understand why an astute and intrepid columnist such as Gary Kamiya would give this British Neocon any legitimacy by interviewing him.
Basically Mr.Horne got caught up in all the sexy trumped up music and action for war with Iraq, got an erection and supported the invasion. This guy knows his credibility as a historian is the gutter and so now he is just another rat abandoning a sinking ship and trying to salvage what's left of his putrid reputation.
How can it be that Pelosi, Obama, Edward Kennery, Byrd, Gen Odom, Lt Gen Hoar, Brezinski, Hersh, to name a few know that going into this war of choice would be a disaster for US but someone with the knowledge and gravitas such Horne get it wrong?!! The answer is plain and simple...his career has been built on war...he writes about war and supported this war to feed himself..look how happily he announces "Sharon loved my book and I am the reason he won a war!!!..Wow me!!! (oh and he has the gall to blame the Jews for the Iraq disaster!!!...now that things arent goin well)
This guy isn't sorry about anything...he is just issuing a mea culpa to salvage his reputation..I bet some in the deep crevices of his fetif mind he is craving war with Iran but is too scared to utter it.... but he cloaks his desire for Arab annihilation by saying "oh Islam is a backward religion..oh look Gary look!..Indians make more money than Muslims...so Muslims suck!
-
Undeclared Police Actions and Occupations
A very interesting interview; and I think I should like to read Mr. Horne's book about Verdun. What intrigued me most, even more than the reference to the now-obscure Anarchist terror (which was defeated by working class prosperity rather than world war), is the notion that Mr. Blair's motives for going along with this "war" remain a mystery.
President Eisenhower ignored TIME when that conservative newsmagazine more or less called him a coward for refusing to buy into the war they were trying to drum up in Laos in the 50's. The supreme commander of D-Day could afford to laugh at his chickenhawks; but few other leaders, male or female, have the political courage to resist such taunts.
Old generals who have seen enough war in their lifetimes might be a good guarantee of peace; but the best solution is to remove the temptation of war from the insecurities of any one man and place them firmly in a council of elders. America's worst misfortunes have been the result of Congress abdicating its war powers; is that also true in Britain?
-
Great Article
This was a great article. The main reason is that Gary Kamiya let somebody else, who actually knows what he is talking about, do most of the talking.
-
Bush Following 80 Year Old British War Philosophy....
I much appreciate Horne, don't get me wrong. But Horne is old and is an echo of the past. He tells a story of old war, before the internet and Khan-style proliferation. What concerns me is, Bush, in 2007, relying on getting his backbone up by spending time with Horne. Horne speaks of a day gone past, when you didn't have to consider a current tough tactic as affecting a future nuclear proliferation strategy. Today, the power of one person can be exponentiated by technology. Today, small groups with capital can cause more harm than nation-states. Horne's paradigm is so different. They didn't worry about attacks 1,000 miles away on one particular group causing instability and pressure (and assasination attempts) on a secular nuclear government in Pakistan. Horne's paradigm and Horne's wars is something that today may be considered "quaint". I like Horne as an historian. What worries me is Bush listening to Horne an applying it today.
-
Horne on presidents who blunder into bad wars
First, let me say that I have a lot of admiration for Alistair Horne's writing. I have most recently read "La Belle France" and learned a huge amount about the country that has had so much influence on the histories of the U.K., the U.S and the world.
It was interesting though, to read Sir Alistair recant his earlier support for the invasion, "because he was misled by the bogus intelligence". But so many people knew the intelligence was bogus as it was being spread by the President (and his minions) as well as by the Prime Minister. The PM even had some of his own ministers resign over the paucity of the casus belli. Why did Sir Alistair not look skeptically at the "evidence" and compare it to the arguments being made by the skeptics. Isn't that what a historian does? Look to both sides' assertions? And with his stated skepticism of British intelligence - and the known lack of capabilities of the U.S. intelligence services - perhaps he really wanted the invasion.
And with Bush now stubbornly repeating the mistakes of countries and leaders before him in persisting in an unwinnable cause - as frequently chronicled by Sir Alistair - Horne still seems to revel in the attention being paid him by Mr. Bush. Is there some fascination with being courted by the most powerful man in the world? Despite that man's imminent fate of becoming one of the biggest losers (and fools) ever in the world?
So Horne, one of Britain's two most eminent war historians, was fooled then and now can only regret his mistake? (The other British war historian John Keegan still will not admit that the Western invader made a political and strategic blunder, even if it was a brilliantly executed tactic.) I guess it's too much to think that as world authorities on politics and war they might have been able to see the historical long view, and to see behind the veil and speak out against the war before the "mistakes were made".
Despite my regret for Horne's mistake in judgement, I commend Mr. Kamiya for a good interview and a good read. I'm glad he got it, and glad that he brought it to us.