Kristol Unclear
William Kristol's penchant for certainty fails him this morning. Here are a few sentences from his NYT column, helpfully annotated by me:
"Israel could well succeed in Gaza....the Israeli leadership seems aware of the mistakes -- political, strategic and military -- it made in Lebanon. That doesn't mean it won't make them all over again." "So far as one can tell, the Gaza operation seems to have been well-planned and is being methodically executed, in sharp contrast to the Lebanon incursion. Barak has also warned that the operation could be long and difficult, lowering expectations by contrast with the Israeli rhetoric of July 2006."
The expectations are being lowered by Kristol now. The generous view is that he is belatedly mindful of some of his earlier enthusiasms. For example, on the subject of Iraq (h/t: David Corn):
"No one believes the inspections can work" (September 15, 2002).A war in Iraq "could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East" (September 18, 2002).
"We should not fool ourselves by believing that inspections could make any difference at all" (September 19, 2002).
On the risk of sectarian war after a US invasion of Iraq: "We talk here about Shiites and Sunnis as if they've never lived together. Most Arab countries have Shiites and Sunnis, and a lot of them live perfectly well together" (March 1, 2003).
"Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president" (also March 1, 2003, not one of his better days)
Such tactical tentativeness in the neocon corner of the NYT is, to say the least, an interesting move at a moment when Israel's carte blanche kneejerkers seem to find nothing problematic whatsoever in the Gaza overkill operation. In journalism's land of cheap prophecy, even a neocon finds it necessary to cover his aspirations. Perhaps this is a tactic to win Kristol a second term as the Times' most skippable columnist-of-the-week?
If so, it would be a far more interesting move for publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., to substitute a right-wing columnist who is not blind to the amply demonstrated cracks in the neocon picture window.
Of course, it's always possible that, instead, he'll double down and replace Kristol with a different neocon hack, perhaps in nostalgia for the days when William Safire channeled Ariel Sharon directly, leading a top Times editor (Jewish, by the way, and not known for his strong political opinions one way or the other) to tell me at one point in the mid-'90s that Safire was "the Likud's columnist."
You should read the Max Boot column in the Wall Street Journal. After the perfunctory arguments that Israel is justified in doing whatever it wants, (and dismissing civilians as statistics), he doesn't veer towards triumphalism, but rather argues that the terrible status quo is likely for decades, "if not centuries."
January 5, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you don't want to solve a problem you declare it insoluable.
It will not take the Zionists centuries to complete the colonization of the West Bank. They will then wall off each Palestinian town or city and "Gaza-ize" them.
The real victory Israel will achieve--indeed, is achieving--in this operation is the total elimination of a secular and credible alternative to Islamism in Palestine.
If the problem was Hamas, then Abbas would have tangible achievements. I mean the poor man has genuflected to Zion enough. He has continued to meet Olmert despite two bloody assaults on Gaza. Yet the roadblocks multiply and the Settlements metasticize. Abbas has only one tangible achievement: He is the first Palestinian leader to side with Israel over his own people.
January 5, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
""Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president"
As Jackie Gleason would say, "Har, Har, Hardy, Har, Har."
January 5, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this timely exposé, Professor Gitlin.
Shame on the New York Times for hiring, let alone retaining, this shameless propagandist for the fanatical Israeli settlers on the West Bank.
January 5, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the idea of the "Friedman Unit" has gone into the lexicon. Perhaps we need a term for this: Kristol hedging?
And you could have "Kristol Hedge Watch" - to see where he hedges next!
January 5, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Golly! And to think Kristol was so certain about the Iraq War - and everything else that's blown up in our faces this past decade or so. Maybe he's trying to cut himself an escape hatch back to credibility should this one prove yet another contradiction to his foreign-policy prescience. Maybe he's just scared the tattered New York Times will dump his column if he lashes himself to one more f*ck-up. The last thing the Grey Lady needs in this downswing is a credibility drag.
January 5, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kristol can get away with his horsecrap because not enough people like David Corn are attacking him publicly for his wrongheadedness.
January 5, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everything Kristol writes turns out in the opposite. He hasn't been correct yet on ANYTHING!... If I was Israel I would read his articles and do the opposite to be successful.
January 5, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should everybody want to pile on Kristol Minor as soon as the little laddie starts cleanin’ up his shtyk a little?
Would they all really rather read a pluperfect certainty-penchanter like Neocomrade Rear-Colonel M. Boot in the Times?
Is it not a tad uncharitable to prefer that the bad guys be always represented by their most foolish and knavish specimens? As literature and culture that plan makes sense, I suppose, but as politics?
Happy days.
January 5, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just before the Iraq war started Kristol was interviewed on C-span and was asked if there were any things that would make him conclude the war was a mistake. He said:
a)We don't find WMD
b)The Iraqis don't welcome us as liberators
Of course, Kristol has never honored this, but perhaps he still thinks we'll find WMD and the Iraqis are still making preparations for their massive welcome.
Why does anyone take this man seriously? I can't even believe he does. He's the Madoff of pundits.
He simply piles bullshit on top of bullshit and hopes nobody ever calls him on it.
January 5, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I note that even our resident Israel supporters don't show up to defend Kristol....
January 5, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Basically, except for Paul Krugman, who is absolutely first rate, I think the New York Times is largely an irrelevance. The book section is basically abominable. There is Thomas Friedman who is a fourth right about everything. There was Judith Miller who played a huge role in getting the US into the war in Iraq. There are thousand of unnamed sources. There is suggestions of this and suggestions of that. I bet Kristol never leaves. The Times apparently has some 'higher mission' than delivering news and Kristol fits in with the 'higher mission'.
January 5, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could never stand Nixon's speechwriter, William Safire, but he was a conservative statesman in comparison to the seriously befuddled and bumbling Kristol the Klown.
January 5, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink