A Level Gaze

A Level Gaze

"What effect must it have on a nation if it learns no foreign languages? Probably much the same as that which a total withdrawal from society has upon an individual."
--G.C. Lichtenberg

Monday, April 14, 2003

Michael Kelly Mystery Solved

Roger Ailes may have discovered the key to the Big Mystery of Michael Kelly: the reason this brilliant journalist, skilled and diplomatic editor, loving husband and father, and all-around nice guy, was such a screamingly oblivious partisan wad whenever he put his Kolumnist Kap on. Why was it? To get in with the Kool Kidz, of course!

While writing for The Times' magazine in the early '90s, he concluded that the new Democratic president and his wife, still in the glow of their triumph, were morally bankrupt, and he excoriated each of them in blistering profiles. To see those audacious pieces in The Times -- The Times! -- back then was to be gobstruck. Who is this Michael Kelly? It was the question people asked over and over as he moved from place to place. He never stayed long, and sometimes departed under less-than-pleasant circumstances, having alienated those who signed his checks. He loved his friends, but he treasured his enemies.

He drove people crazy. In his Washington Post columns, he settled into a style one might call the scorched-earth polemic, in which he made it clear that anyone who disagreed with him on the subject at hand was not just wrong, not just misguided, but deeply, irredeemably corrupt. Yet he had a mild, tolerant personality, and his own political views were more complicated and interesting than he ever let on in those columns. I know, from countless liquid conversations in the Madison Hotel bar, that his political pantheon included such names as Roosevelt and Moynihan and that some of his views had a decidedly old-liberal cast. But he mostly kept those ideas to himself, didn't take on those issues or use them to modulate his fierce public persona. Why? Because he didn't want to be just another media smoothie, one of those who clip and trim their arguments in order to remain in the club.

So, basically, he wrote things he didn't believe were true to make himself look like an iconoclast. He succeeded brilliantly. It's kind of a pity, though, that everyone thought he was serious. It's regrettable that people read his barking palaver and, given the source, concluded that pursuit of the Clinton witch-hunt was a reasonable thing to do with the time and resources of the federal government. It's just too darn bad that the 2000 election took place under the cloud of Kelly's venomous "hatred" of Al Gore and his "worship" of GW Bush (in his featured column in the United States capital city's paper of record, no less). It's a goddamn shame that there were important things at stake, things like war, constitutional rights, medical care for the sick, the health of the environment, and, uh, the economic viability of the middle and lower classes in this country.

Anyone who believed a word of his columns was being sold down the river so that Saint Frickin' Michael Kelly could look good. If that isn't journalism, I don't know what is. Thanks a lot, Mike. Rest in peace, person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

posted by David at 4/14/2003 05:01:00 PM ::

Thursday, April 10, 2003

Policy of Preemption Starting to Bear Fruit

You know you're on the wrong track when the North Koreans are on the rational side of the argument:

The United States has demanded that North Korea scrap its nuclear programmes before dialogue on resolving the crisis can begin.

North Korea came close Thursday to admitting that it possessed nuclear weapons when it said allowing nuclear inspections would entail disarmament.

"The US demand for the DPRK's (North Korea's) scrapping of its 'nuclear weapons programme before dialogue' would lead to inspection and the resultant disarmament spark a war," Pyongyang's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said.

KCNA said North Korea had learned from the war in Iraq that it was a fatal mistake to bow to inspections as Baghdad had learned to its cost.

"The only way of averting a war is to increase one's own just self-defensive means," KCNA said.

"The Iraqi war launched by the US preemptive attack clearly proves that a war can be prevented and the security of the country and the nation can be ensured only when one has physical deterrent force, a military deterrent force strong enough to decisively repel any attack of the enemy with any types of sophisticated weapons."

We sure taught them a thing or two.
link via The Agonist

posted by David at 4/10/2003 01:40:00 PM ::

Wednesday, April 09, 2003

U.S. Promises to Move Main Military Base From Seoul as Soon as Possible

For decades, the Yongsan Garrison in the heart of Seoul has been a symbol of the U.S.-South Korean military alliance forged during the 1950-1953 Korean War.

But the headquarters also has become a source of friction in recent years. Some South Koreans complain that U.S. forces occupy valuable real estate and sometimes cause trouble in nearby neighborhoods.

"Both the Republic of Korea side and the United States have decided that this is an issue that can't wait any longer for resolution," U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Lawless said after two days of talks with South Korean officials.

The Agonist brings to our attention this change of heart on the part of U.S. leadership. Although the military is currently engaged in a program to return a number of military facilities to South Korean control, relocation of the Yongsan Garrison was not on the table until a few months ago, because of the likely expense of moving and the difficulty of finding a replacement site. But there's a new urgency to the issue now.

One might be tempted to conclude that this is a gesture intended to improve U.S.-South Korean relations, which have lately been strained by differences on the issue of North Korea. I'm guessing it's something else entirely.

North Korea has an enough artillery pieces and missiles aimed directly at Seoul to completely destroy the city in a matter of hours. In the event of a U.S. attack, they would almost certainly be used. I'd bet we don't want to be in town when they are, and seeming to acquiesce to the desire of South Koreans to move the base provides us cover to get our people out of harm's way in preparation for a move against the North. What such a move would mean for the other residents of Seoul I leave as an excercise for the reader.

posted by David at 4/09/2003 12:35:00 PM ::

Wednesday, April 02, 2003

I've read Mark Kleiman for quite some time. His site is a long-overdue addition to the blogroll. But if I didn't know him from Adam, this excellent history lesson would have earned him a place on the spot.

posted by David at 4/02/2003 10:51:00 PM ::

I saw this post over at N.Z. Bear, and felt obliged to comment. It turned into quite a rant, so I'm doing my four dozen readers the service of reprinting it here. Bear asks:

I've been noodling a piece about the current state of peace protesters, and the shift in meaning that occured between protesting to prevent a war, and protesting a war that is already in progress.

But frankly, others have done it already, so I'd be retreading old ground. So instead of doing that, and putting words in the mouths of those opposing this war, let me just ask a simple question:

What do you want?

I'd really like to know. And I'll leave it at that, as I don't want to prejudice the question any more. But please, if you oppose (or opposed) attacking Hussein's forces in Iraq, I'd like to hear your "What I would do if I was President" speech. What actions would you take, and how would those actions be better (in whatever way you choose to define 'better') than the course we are pursuing today? And if you feel really intellectually honest, in what ways would your approach be worse?

No offense, Bear, but I think the question is unfair. Bush got us into a fight we opposed. But the damage has been done. We're in too far to stop now. Doing so would seriously blunt the threat of our using force, should we really need it someday.

I think a lot of the continued protests are expressions of anger, of pure protest. People are angry because of the war, so that's what shows up on their signs. Many people would like it made clear that they would not have chosen this course of action, and do not wish to be tarred with it. (Paradoxically, their actions could actually be good for the country, as they indicate to the international community that not all Americans are (by their lights) bloodthirsty imperialists, and will give us some benefit of the doubt instead of opposing us reflexively.)

What do I want? At this point, the only rational course is to get it over with as little bloodshed as possible (which may be quite a lot). Maybe the proper course is to wait a bit, and bring in truly overwhelming ground forces and supplant 'shock and awe' with 'grim inevitability.'

We need to get out there and talk to the countries we've pissed off. They're not going anywhere and everything we want to accomplish wil be a lot easier if there is cooperation among nations. Make concessions where necessary. Actually listen to their points of view, while explaining that our one inflexible point is that we finish the job in Iraq.

If Iraq is not materially better off after our intervention, we will have failed. Meaningfully commit to a thorough rebuilding of Iraq--$10 billion/year for five years, minimum. Not business investment, just straight-up directed resource transfer. Make restitution to the families of dead and injured civilians. Invest the time and money to find competent, clean local leadership and maintain just enough presence to keep rival groups from killing one another. Find and punish the truly odious, then establish (and fund) amnesty courts a la South Africa. Sow the seeds of civil society. Do what is really required to make Iraq a "bastion of democracy."

That's what I'd do.

posted by David at 4/02/2003 10:22:00 PM ::

Tuesday, April 01, 2003

David Neiwert brings to our attention an email that's making the rounds among the knuckledraggers.

With all of this talk of impending war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror. These activists may be alone or in a gathering... most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost.

I can't speak for all of us, but anybody who tried that on me wouldn't get the chance to hit me a second time.

1. Aside from the fact that the people who attacked us are not the same people we're attacking in Iraq...

2. I'm just a stupid lefty blogger, but I'm still willing to bet the author of the email and most of those who respond positively to it call themselves Christians. Would Jesus do this? Or would he more likely find himself on the other side of the fisticuffs?

3. I'm so glad we have democracy and the rule of law to distinguish us from the savages. Nope, force isn't used here for political purposes. We've trancended that.

Update: Digby gives the subject a more thorough treatment.

posted by David at 4/01/2003 09:20:00 PM ::

Homeland Invasion

With all the talk of Iraq's breaking the Geneva Convention, I'm wondering if it's reasonable to expect Iraqis to follow any rules at all. Why? In addition to the they-have-absolutely-nothing-to-lose rationale put forward in a previous post, there's another reason:

We invaded them. Saddam & Co. didn't challenge us to a fight; they didn't want a war, and certainly not one with the "world's only remaining superpower." On our own initiative, opposed by nearly every other country on the globe, we unilaterally decided to rain death and destruction and disruption on Iraq. "We're coming to your country to kill as many of you as it takes to get you to say 'uncle.' Oh, and you'd better fight fair."

It's like a big jock picking a fight with a skinny kid, then complaining when the skinny kid lands one below the belt.

It's reminiscent of the conservative lament: "If a guy breaks into my house, it oughta be legal for me to blow his brains out, no matter what. Whaddya mean it's illegal? He has to threaten me with deadly force first? I gotta give him a chance to hurt me or my family before I can take him out?" Essentially, that's what we're doing in Iraq, but in addition we've told the world we intend to kill or abduct the head of the household. Saddam is going to feel justified in defending his regime by any and every means available, and we should assume as much.

Yes, Saddam's a monster. Yes, Iraq and the world will be better off without him. But U.S. bitching about Iraq's breaking the rules of war is pathetic and stupid.

posted by David at 4/01/2003 11:22:00 AM ::

HOME

Links