Brent Bozell and Tim Graham Are Dolts

One of the great schadenfreude aspects of blogging is that every so often, someone on the other side of the table demonstrates abject ignorance of a subject and you get to snicker.  (This happens in political columns, too, like when Pejman Yousefzadeh was under the mistaken impression that he understood IR theory.)

Come now Brent Bozell and Tim Graham.  Bozell, in the course of trying to score partisan points against Paul Begala, noted that Begala cited Martin Van Creveld.  Graham got a good snicker out of Bozell's shot at Begala.  Except here was Bozell's gripe:

Paul Begala...spouted his new enthusiasm for an obscure professor named Martin Van Creveld, whom he called “one of the most esteemed military historians in the world.” Quoting this learned professor, Begala proclaimed, "This is the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C. sent his legions into Germany and lost them." (Unsurprisingly, James Carville used the very same professor, the very same quote the following morning on NBC’s “Today.”)

Begala claimed his good doctor had said it recently, but that wasn’t true: it was published in the Jewish newspaper The Forward in November. That’s not all. Begala didn’t finish the sentence he’s quoting in that article, which is understandable since it would have given the audience the true flavor of this man’s thinking. It ends, “Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men.”

And there’s more still. If you want a good look at what Begala and Carville’s new most esteemed historian in the world would have us do in Iraq, that comes earlier in the piece. He suggests our model is the fall of Saigon, a complete, abject withdrawal: “Clearly this is not a pleasant model to follow, but no other alternative appears in sight.”

Hmm, is Van Creveld somebody that a partisan hatchet man like Bozell should sneer at?  Martin Van Creveld, the author of several widely acclaimed military histories?  You mean Martin Van Creveld, the guy who's on the U.S. Army Chief of Staff's required reading list for field-grade officers?  Martin Van Creveld, the guy who "has lectured or taught at virtually every strategic institute, military or civilian, in the Western world--including the U.S. Naval War College, most recently in December 1999 and January 2000"?

That Martin Van Creveld?  Does Bozell think it's noteworthy that a man of his stature says about the Iraq War what he did?

Can Republicans buy a clue?

Comments

[Bob Weber]

Obviously, Bozell thought Begala was referring to Martin Van Shlabotnik

[abb1]

Hey, apparently they do understand the concept of sovereignty - but only when one of their cronies is in charge:

KABUL, Afghanistan - Senior Muslim clerics demanded Thursday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces."
[...]
Rice spokesman Sean McCormack said she told Karzai it is important for the Afghan people to know that freedom of religion is observed in their country. But in deference to the country's sovereignty, Rice evidently did not demand specifically that the trial be halted and the defendant released.

"This is clearly an Afghan decision," McCormack said. "They are a sovereign country."

[john stamos]

It is odd that you (and begala) sight the Van Creveld book as an example of military thought on the matter.

First... van creveld is an obscure author. He was a Clinton military buffoon. And is used as an example of "counter thought" on military subject matter.

I know.. I was in the military (army specifically) and had to do all the reading you are commenting on. I know the manner in which the material was presented, and unfortunately this contradicts your POV. Basically we have to read Van Creveld (according to our instructors) se we can know common misconceptions of military power.

What is really humorous about your Van Crevel praise is --why not also sight the other books on the Army required reading list.. such as "the art of war" by sun tzu, or "masters of war" by Handel. Both of these literary masterpieces completely contradict your point.

Sun Tzu and Handel are both authors that are NOT obscure, and make valid military sense. To use a 9th century conflict among bronze age imperial powers to compare to Iraq is a fallacy at best, and a fraud at worst.

Sh