I would say the failure of the Democrats, or the wider opposition on MENA issues, to present any viable, differing strategies (their failure to oppose, God damn it!) is a far more serious problem for America, long term, than is the Neo Con clique.

As the saying goes, all it takes for evil men (or in this case, ignoramuses with limitless self-confidence) to win, is the silence of the good (or in this case, of other ignoramuses with limitless self-confidence). The Right Wing Bolshevik theses -- if I may borrow that wonderful phrase -- have already been badly burned by their poor performance. The only thing that allows them to keep holding sway in the US debate seems to be that no-one has as of yet suggested anything better. Pointing out last year's mistakes by the Bush administration may help the Dems to win an election, but then what? It's not as if the Iraq, Israel and other crises will retrat to Bush's Texas ranch with him, when he goes.

(...and on J. L. Burke, I found a battered softback copy of Neon Rain in the pool area of a Greek hotel some years back. It turned out to be a great vacation read -- highly recommended. I've been meaning to read the rest of the Robicheaux series ever since.)

The Dems aren't offering any alternatives because there are no alternatives they can offer that won't be laughed out of the room. Syria and Iran want war in Lebanon and Gaza and actively promote that end, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop that short of violence. Since everyone has apparently ruled out bombing them as a means of discouraging them from bombing Israel by proxy (and the Dems are certainly not going to take the hawkish side on THAT equation), Dems are left with the litany of complaints we see here and on Sunday talk shows, and little else.

Europeans leftists apparently either lack even the minimal level of perspicacity to realize diplomacy isn't an option when one side always negotiates in bad faith, or (more likely) they understand the situation perfectly well but cynically want to do business with Mideast dictatorships and could care less about the morality of the situation.

Ah wonderous strange, more American domestic politics dressed up badly as foreign policy:

Syria and Iran want war in Lebanon and Gaza and actively promote that end, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop that short of violence.

The Invisible Evil Empire at work again, eh mate?

In the world of non-party political reality, it is fairly self-evident that Syria and Iran have fuck all to do with Gaza, and are tangential to the explosion in Leb Land.

Hezbullah is a proxy, but it is not a puppet.

Not any more than Israel is a puppet of the US.

Much easier to whank on about "foreign agitators" than think about troubling on-the-ground issues.

Since everyone has apparently ruled out bombing them as a means of discouraging them from bombing Israel by proxy (and the Dems are certainly not going to take the hawkish side on THAT equation), Dems are left with the litany of complaints we see here and on Sunday talk shows, and little else.

Everyone meaning anyone who's not some deluded idiot of an ideoligical whanker, yes.

Above all those persons aware that there are consequences to bombing willy-nilly, and that "bombing to dissuade" is not a real answer when one party in particular, Iran, has the bomber by the short and curlies.

Europeans leftists apparently either lack even the minimal level of perspicacity to realize diplomacy isn't an option when one side always negotiates in bad faith,

Ah, the European Leftists canard.

When one lacks a proper argument, go for the ideological scarecrow/red herring.

Minimal level of persipacicity goes for the magical belief that whanking on about whacking around with a stick, blindly, is a solution, ipso facto.

or (more likely) they understand the situation perfectly well but cynically want to do business with Mideast dictatorships and could care less about the morality of the situation.

Oh this is rich. Very rich.

Waving around morality and MENA dictatorships to do business with as an argument. Well, look in the bloody fucking mirror mate, it's the US that pays the big dough to the dictatorships, as in Egypt.

Bloody idiot ideologues, stupidest bloody whanking morons I have had the misforture to encounter. You're worse than the idiot Trotskyite leftist morons.

Looking at his site, I think he's leftwing. Which speaks to the state of Democrats.

Apart from themselves, what would have stopped Israel from seeking diplomatic action through UN against Lebanon, or other forums that are friendlier to Israel? Why not try to get a boycott of Lebanon going, until the soldiers are returned? If anything, it would have cast Israel as the civilized nation, and Hizbollah as irresponsible warmongerers. World opinion manipulation, you know.

Well, there is something about Churchill-worshipping--since I always thought Churchill was among the most overrated politicians in history of 20th century, and in many ways, a hyperactive buffoon like many of them, notwithstanding the startling ability to see clearly every now and then....

It was the intellectuals of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, Robert McNamara, the Bundys etc, who gave America the Vietnam War.

I do think authentic intellectuals have an important advisory role to play in government but, as a general rule, should not be allowed within a country mile of actual policymaking, especially in matters of war and peace.

I think it's a little convenient not to mention the most powerful "intellectual" Secretary of State in the last half century or so, someone who many think was very successful in pursuing US national interest. No doubt mentioning Kissinger would ruin this guy's general point. I wonder on what grounds he views McNamara as an intellectual, and avoids applying the label to Kissinger. Isn't an intellectual someone whose ideas are heavily influenced by academia? The latter of the two seems more deserving of the label, given that he seems to have developed his political views in academia (one that involved a 400 page Master's thesis). Unless Martin deems an intellectual to be someone who by definition does not let reality interfere with his thinking or defines it as being synonymous with "Bloody idiot ideologues, stupidest bloody whanking morons," this point of his appears weak.

Also, the "authentic intellectuals" were only in advisory roles. Since when are Cheney and Rumsefeld authentic intellectuals? If Martin thinks the intellectuals are running the asylum now, he shouldn't even want them in advisory roles.

Well, I think you're a humourless git prone to nitpicking foolishness, but no matter:
I think it's a little convenient not to mention the most powerful "intellectual" Secretary of State in the last half century or so, someone who many think was very successful in pursuing US national interest.

Not really, his commentary was aimed at academics, theoreticians to use a franglish phrasing.

Kissinger was a practitioner above all - first and foremost in fact - and calling him an "intellectual," well, perhaps.

Arguable, but missing the usage the author was going for.

No doubt mentioning Kissinger would ruin this guy's general point.

Not in the least.

Isn't an intellectual someone whose ideas are heavily influenced by academia?

No, typically an intellectual is primarily a theoretician and not involved in practical policy. That is, an academic first and foremost. Typically.

However, you seem to have missed my introductory comment, which I will helpfully repeat for you:
A note of warning for the humourless and those prone to the same, Jurek oft writes tongue in cheek, so no, not everything stands to close scrutiny. However, it is an amusing and close comment on the matter:

Emphasis added.

Unsurprisingly, you missed that.

"what would have stopped Israel from seeking diplomatic action through UN against Lebanon, or other forums that are friendlier to Israel? Why not try to get a boycott of Lebanon going, until the soldiers are returned?"

Never mind all that. It is not as if this is a new thing. It has happened before and it has been dealt with. There is of course the issue of 'having enough' but as L has been saying all the while, it is magical thinking to think that this is the way to do it.

Arguable, but missing the usage the author was going for.

Well, I did say: "Unless Martin deems an intellectual to be someone who by definition does not let reality interfere with his thinking or defines it as being synonymous with "Bloody idiot ideologues, stupidest bloody whanking morons,"

an intellectual is primarily a theoretician and not involved in practical policy. That is, an academic first and foremost.

...which would make McNamara not an intellectual. I have a feeling if Kissinger's policies failed Martin would have no problem with slapping him with the label as well. Bolton and Abrams aren't academics either. Wolfowitz was involved in practical policy before Bush II (one example, his group's criticism caused changes in the military plans for Gulf War I) . Just exactly how many 'academic first and foremost' types in that crowd whose "grip on policy is entrenched" are there? Since the article is attacking intellectuals who are currently involved in actual policy, defining intellectuals as those 'not involved in practical policy' makes little sense.

Had he gone with the original neocon label throughout and in the title, it would be just another article talking about the idiocy of that bunch.

However, you seem to have missed my introductory comment, which I will helpfully repeat for you:

I was responding to something you specifically deemed "very fair" without any caveats. Since stupidity (and also the neocon label) cuts across intellectual and non-intellectual lines, Martin's statement reduces to: "those who are bad at practical policy shouldn't be involved in practical policy."

Great.

I don't see any practical reason to distinguish between pratictioners who have god awful practical policies and theoreticians who are god awful practioners.

You do tend to the boring.

I don't see any practical reason to distinguish between pratictioners who have god awful practical policies and theoreticians who are god awful practioners.

See the opening warning. The phrases "entertaiment value" and "capturing spirit of a problem" may explain, although I suspect this will escape your typically tedious nerdishness.

However, as to the practicality, if one ceases to be entirely too literal minded, there is some utility in differentiating between theoriticans and pragmatic practitioners. Nitpicking over certain names doesn't change the larger differentiation between those taken with a certain theory or ideology, and the practical.

You can whinge on about the imperfection of generalisations and saterical commentary as you like, of course. It will serve as an emphasis to your rather academic tediousness.

I was cleaning out an attic around 1980, and I came across a copy of Esquire from around 1960. It was during the post-Sputnik period of national self-criticism, and they had a photoessay of thoughtful people with thoughtful comments on what worried them most about the country and how we should proceed Onward and Upward. All very high-minded and earnest.

And there was Henry K, the promising young Harvard instructor, looking more instrospective and neurotic than Woody Allen. His worry was the superficiality of the culture, and especially the high schools. HIs prescription was chairs and distinguished scholars in residence or some such, so as to imbue the young with the finer humanistic virtues of Western Civ.

I noticed a certain disjunction between the Woody Allen persona and his later career.