Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
The Worst Column of the Year
Now that Tom Friedman is expressing a few doubts about the Afghan War, David Brooks is ready to take over as cheerleader-in-chief for endless war in Central Asia. In his column today, he claims to have spoken with various "military experts" (without naming any of them, of course), and-surprise, surprise -- all of them channel Brooks' unsupported belief that the only thing that matters in Central Asia is Obama's "determination." There's no analysis, no facts, no weighing of pros and cons, no attempt at cost-benefit analysis, and of course, no sources. Has Brooks bothered to read any of the recent studies of this problem -- including Gen. McChrystal's own assessment -- which make it clear that we face a daunting task? Even those that favor continuing the war understand that victory is far from certain even if we do commit more resources and stay a long time.
This is the kind of "journalism" that gave the Times a black eye over Iraq, and you'd think Brooks (and his editors) would have been chastened by that experience. But I forgot: being a neoconservative pundit means never having to admit error, or apologize for the lives you've helped squander.
The best thing one can say about this piece is that it provides yet another illustration of the behavior that is gradually discrediting mainstream journalism. I read it and immediately thought: "more grist for Glenn Greenwald's mill." Glenn doesn't disappoint.
Alex Wong/Getty Images for Meet the Press
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
Don't forget the WaPo
You don't get to be the worst editorial page in the country without some exceptionally terrible columns. David Ignatius doesn't disappoint today. Money quote is the last graf:
A little editing to add a touch of reality:
The word "vapid" comes to mind...
This is a fundamental flaw of American Journalism. We see these 'gurus' commenting on everything under the sun, when in fact they have no knowledge about the complexities and nuances of 90% of the items being commented on.
On what planet can David Brooks be expected to have 'expert' insight about American electoral politics, healthcare, fiscal stimulus, civil/military relations, military strategy, the Middle East, AND South and Central Asia?
When you insist on talking about things that you have no knowledge about, articles like the one Prof. Walt linked to are what naturally result. Just empty blah blah blah that make you feel dumber for having wasted time reading them.
He takes an entire column to convey one simple, 7 word assertion: Obama is not as stubborn as Bush.
------------
As for Mr. Friedman. I respect his insights about globalization and sometimes am in agreement with him on points about the Middle East. But it's highly unnerving when someone as well-travelled as he places Afghanistan, which by most standards is in 'Central Asia;' and Pakistan, which is by consensus in 'South Asia,' into the 'Middle East.' Then he proceeds to apply his essentializations about the Middle East in ways that support his pre-determined conclusions.
I also snickered upon reading his quote from the "JHU Foreign Policy Expert." It was a thinly veiled attempt at gaining legitimacy for his argument from a supposed authority in foreign relations, when in fact all the man said was a reiteration of an ancient axiom. Friedman could just as easily have quoted the same truism from Lincoln, Tolstoy or William Jennings Bryan.
What happened to truly enlightening journalism?
Brooks is not worth the
Brooks is not worth the time.
Neither is Friedman.
And while we're at it, neither is just about anyone who writes for the NYT.
The only reason Tom Friedman
The only reason Tom Friedman is not cheer leading the war is because he wants us out... and into Iran.
Let DB get out of his ARMOR-PLATED PANZER:::
My grandkids have been reporting how the "meanest" classmates who speak up for cheating and give the high-five to those who "win" with steroids....enjoy the best reputations as school pundits and winners.
The Zees (Zionists-in-Cold-Blood) in the USA and in Israel cheerfully danced the horah after the their latest butchering in Gaza and were so pleased with the ethnic body count that they voted in the first official racist government with Bibi (the Bozo) wrapped in the flag of Zion.
You will note that the IDF guys came back safe from Gaza to their condos, but 410 Palestinian kids left 410 families in agony.
Is it not a fascinating question to ask how the Brooks and Bibis lost commitment to the Jewish Enlightenment or better to their FATHERS' JEWISH HUMANISM--not to mention the willingness to take risks for civic and military courage.
Just one or two generations ago, one could be proud to be a Jew standing for conscience. Such a fall from grace and so quickly!
Why doesn't Brooks get out of his armor-layed panzer and debate Walt on PBS?
Brooks' column
Why don't you just say it, Brooksie? What you're really asking Obama to do is show that he has balls.
So that's what this is really about? Guts? Determination? Not letting that oh-so-slippery intellect get in the way of real manliness?
I've never been a huge fan of David Brooks, but I'd always hoped that he felt this kind of stuff to be beneath him. Disappointing.
charles krauthammer can do
charles krauthammer can do better(worse)!!!!