45 Comments

1. karmic inquisitor:

The ideology was “stability in the Middle East” framed as RealPolitik. That is why a Middle East expert had to be so smart – to keep the rationalizations and lies straight.

Apr 15, 2005 - 9:40 pm 2. Ann:

What? You mean it’s “Strictly Ballroom” on the diplomatic scene?

Apr 15, 2005 - 10:01 pm 3. Kevin P:

Roger:

Has anyone asked Albright about her hidden OBL election suprise theory? I would love to see her face as she tries to not look like a paranoid conspiracy theory fanatic. Maybe she can get hired as the foreign policy expert for the National Enquierer. “OBL and Elvis Spotted at Area 41!!!”

Apr 15, 2005 - 10:13 pm 4. Buddy Larsen:

Kevin P, don’t forget that when the former Secretary of State of the United States of America made that statement, she was merely trying to get her party’s candidate elected to the White House. Nothing personal, and really none of our business, you understand.

Apr 15, 2005 - 10:19 pm 5. Ron:

After some of these Foreign Service people retire, they go right to work in Washington for law firms and public relations outfits on the payroll of the Arab oil producers. Thats why they all sing on the same key, they are being paid very well to do so. I have often thought that it should be a condition of employment that they not be able to do this because it subverts their very service to the United States when they are in these foreign countries. They know the monied job will not be waiting for them when they retire if they don’t serve their Arab host country. Just look at the Visa Express set up in Saudi Arabia for the benefit of the Arabs and not our country. Several of the Wahhabis Killers of 9/11 came into the States that way. You really think that they would take your side against their Arab masters when they are looking at the gold mine at the end of the trail. They should be forced to register as foreign agents at least.

Apr 15, 2005 - 11:22 pm 6. Terrye:

Ron has a point here. Altogther too many of these guys end up on some consulting team somewhere…

I also think they are largely responsible for the old policy and so they take it personally when someone comes along and claims they were full of it.

That is why to this day we are still hearing people talk about how much better off the people of Iraq were under Saddam. From the UN to Amnesty to our own socalled former policy leaders the complaints still outweigh the hope.

In fact acccording to some group from the UN [I forget which one] there are more hungry children in Iraq today than there were when we were starving them via our evil sanctions program.

After awhile I just stop listening. They are far more interested in justifying their own policies than they are in the future of the Iraqi people, or the truth for that matter.

Iraq is not the moon. Sooner or later the truth will become so apparent that bogus surveys and reports etc will not be what really speaks to people, it will be the evidence of their own eyes.

Apr 16, 2005 - 4:18 am 7. Snippet:

Hanson has a way putting things that is a great pleasure.

As a side note, would it be soooooo hard for Mizz Albright – an accomplished dimplomat, suave, sophisticated, subtle, nuanced, all that good stuff. And OF COURSE genuinely respectful of the country that gave her the opportunity to serve in such an important post….

to say something along the lines of

“While I disagree with the policies of the president, I remain humbled by my own experience watching Muslims get slaughtered inside UN “safe havens” by a man who was finally stopped only by a bombing campaign opposed by the UN, so I do have a certain degree humility regarding my own judgment about such things, not to mention skepticism about the effectiveness of the U.N(laughter).

Furthermore, I sincereely hope events prove me wrong and that the Iraqis soon enjoy at least some of the freedoms we in the West take for granted (applause). While I consider that unlikely, at least at a cost that I as an American consider affordable, should it happen, I will be pleased, and will give credit where it is due.”

?

I mean, would that be so hard?

A guy could respect that sort of thing from a former diplomat. I sure don’t respect the old, “It’s hard to criticize my country from Paris, BUT I’ll just make this one eensy weensy exception…” routine. Somehow, it comes across as less than perfectly sincere.

Apr 16, 2005 - 6:06 am 8. Mr. Davis:

I suspect a lot of this is generational. The policy these dinos espoused was conventional wisdom during the Cold War. It didn’t really work then as Reagan demonstrated, and it sure doesn’t work any more. But it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks. These folks are all over the hill. Listening to them makes as much sense as listening to pre Great War diplomats in developing containment strategies for the cold war. We should be respectful to our elders, listen quietly and ignore the same way.

Apr 16, 2005 - 6:36 am 9. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Someone on a blog (can’t find the link) usefully distinguished between “people who think” and “people who know”…he was mainly talking about professors, but the concept is relevant here. “People who think” are those who genuinely want to understand what is going on. “People who know” are people who want to have a predefined answer to a wide range of questions and, equally importantly, want to be *perceived* as “knowing.”

The “experts” cited by Roger seeem to fall in the category of “people who know.”

Apr 16, 2005 - 6:47 am 10. Charlie (Colorado):

Ron has a point here. Altogther too many of these guys end up on some consulting team somewhere…

It’s worth remembering in these contexts that the only reason consulting isn’t formally considered part of the oldest profession is that the other hookers actually have something appealing to sell.

Apr 16, 2005 - 7:14 am 11. Captain Hate:

They are presented to us as “experts” by the MSM, which is why we rely on blogs and other sources.

Apr 16, 2005 - 7:59 am 12. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Speaking of the oldest profession…in the ’50s Arthur Koestler published a book called “The Call Girls”…which was about various experts, academics, & consultants meeting to solve the problems of the world. I gotta find a copy somewhere.

Apr 16, 2005 - 8:08 am 13. Buddy Larsen:

Photoncourier, you’re out of luck, Robert McNamara bought ‘em all up and burned ‘em.

Apr 16, 2005 - 9:33 am 14. richard mcenroe:

About the “experts” ó The thing to remember about blimps, balloons and other bags of hot air is, they always turn with the prevailing wind…

Apr 16, 2005 - 9:34 am 15. Charlie (Colorado):

Photoncourier: Here.

I’ve gotta get an Amazon Associates account.

Apr 16, 2005 - 10:01 am 16. neo-neocon:

One thing I don’t understand: is being an expert like being “President for life?” That is, once you are anointed, appointed, elected, whatever, to “expert” status, is there nothing that can impeach you? Like, maybe, being wrong; like maybe, over and over and over again?

If anyone happens to be interested in reading any more of my rant on the subject, here it is.

Apr 16, 2005 - 10:10 am 17. Charlie (Colorado):

NNC, you know, what really strikes me is not just that you can be an expert no matter how often you’re proven wrong, but how often you see members of the punditocracy express opinions that are taken as authoritative on topics they obviously don’t actually know anything about. Most glaring, usually, is the total innumeracy, but I regularly catch obvious complete ignorance on other topics I know something about; we also see things like the CBS “memogate” thing, whre it’s clear that no one who looked at the memos had the vaguest clue what typewritten documents looked like.

Is it a crime to say “I don’t know about that”?

Apr 16, 2005 - 11:02 am 18. J_Crater:

I one major lesson of the “Iraqi Adventure” is that behind every “foreign policy” is a shitload of commercial contracts. Just ask the French about how many contracts they had with Sadaam that they are still trying to enforce. But don’t ask them how many were illegal under the economic sanctions undertaken by the UN, which they didn’t veto.

Apr 16, 2005 - 11:08 am 19. Kyda Sylvester:

And the president will be rewarded long after he leaves office by the verdict of history for nobly sticking to it when few others, friend or foe, would.

Amen.

During the run-up to the war, the Irish Times had a piece by its in-house ME “expert” which laid out 10 reasons why the invasion of Iraq would be an unmitigated disaster. I sent a letter refuting his argument point by point. I asked the editors to please keep a copy and later when I was proven right and he wrong, they could fire his ass and hire mine. I kept copies. As events played out, I was right on 8 of the points and neither of us was right on 2.

It annoys and frightens me that the Albright’s, Brzezinski’s, Scowcroft’s and their like (who are beyond tedious) have so much sway in the public policy arena. Regard the majority of people here. Most of us don’t have any particular expertise in these matters. We observe. We read. We digest. We think. We debate. We are, perhaps, blessed with better than average common sense and insight into human nature. I’d put Roger and any one of you up against most of what passes for “talent” in Washington and the media these days.

Oddly enough, I never did hear back from the Times.

Apr 16, 2005 - 12:23 pm 20. yama-arashi:

Kyda,

Write the Irish Times again. My moneys on ya. You’re red hot and coming off a big NYT win.

Apr 16, 2005 - 1:17 pm 21. Kyda Sylvester:

Well, Yama, like my husband told me “When someone starts to pay you to write letters, give me a shout”.

Apr 16, 2005 - 1:46 pm 22. Terrye:

Charlie:

Ain’t that the truth.

We all have opinions and I don’t really expect people not to, but it would be helpful if people did keep in mind they don’t know everything. None of us do.

I think what makes these experts so wrong is pointed out by Hanson himself: they had a chance to get it right and they screwed up.

I also think that the overabundance of experts of all kinds confuses the issue enough that people know longer feel they can even know the facts.

I can not tell you how often I have seen some idiot use the Lancet report to back up claims that the US has indiscriminately slaughtered 100,000 Iraqis. Never mind it was a survey with some dicredited methodology, they like the results so they use it.

It has become fact to them whether it is ridiculous on its face or not.

And so people feel they can say anything.

Apr 16, 2005 - 1:57 pm 23. Terrye:

Kyda:

I wrote a letter to the Washington Post and when they published it I was so pleased that it gave me courage to write others.

Writing a good letter is really a lot harder than people think and you are very good at it.

What writer said be bold, be clear, be brief…

Apr 16, 2005 - 2:00 pm 24. Buddy Larsen:

Had to be Churchill, Terrye; what isn’t?

Apr 16, 2005 - 2:10 pm 25. Michael B:

Like driving by looking in the rear view mirror, cum vanity mirror.

Pejmanesque has a post in a very similar vein.

Apr 16, 2005 - 2:32 pm 26. neo-neocon:

Excellent points, Kyda. I think that’s why “common sense” is called “common.” It doesn’t seem it would be too hard to use a little of it now and then. But I guess most experts are different–they can’t use anything so common as common sense; then they wouldn’t be experts.

Reminds me of that famous Orwell quote about intellectuals (I can’t find the exact quote right now) that went something like “there are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual can hold them.”

Another great Orwellism: “To see what is in front of one’s nose requires a constant struggle.”

Apr 16, 2005 - 3:55 pm 27. lignaeus:

Mr. Davis.

Regarding respecting our elders, being an ‘elder’ is no excuse, Rummy is 73,74? his mind is not set in concrete.

Apr 16, 2005 - 4:22 pm 28. Rick Ballard:

NNC,

“There are some things only intellectuals are crazy enough to believe.”

Some people substitute stupid for crazy. I have never found the actual Orwell source.

I don’t think there are any “intellectuals” involved in this exercise. Just “experts”, made so by the positions they have held in governance. Their lack of critical ability becomes obvious as the number of staff supporting them diminishes.

Apr 16, 2005 - 4:35 pm 29. Silicon valley Jim:

What writer said be bold, be clear, be brief…

Lessee, now . . . James Joyce? Nah. Marcel Proust? Nope. Thomas Mann? Undoubtedly not (OK, now we’ve disposed of the literature professors three favorite twentieth-century novelists).

Was it Roger?

Apr 16, 2005 - 4:41 pm 30. Rick Ballard:

SVJ,

My money’s on Trollope.

Or Strunk.

Apr 16, 2005 - 5:00 pm 31. erp:

I don’t remember the exact details, but didn’t the first President Bush put something in place requiring a period of some years before public servants could work in the private sector with firms doing business with their former agencies to avoid just such a conflict as is discussed above?

Clinton put the kibosh on that idea PDQ.

Apr 16, 2005 - 5:01 pm 32. chuck:

Rick,

I believe the actual Orwell quote is the following,

One has to belong to the intelligensia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.

from Notes on Nationalism, well worth reading for its relevance to the present discussion.

Apr 16, 2005 - 5:18 pm 33. Patrick Tyson:

Be sincere; be brief; be seated.

—Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Apr 16, 2005 - 5:34 pm 34. chuck:

To put the quote in context:

…The average intellectual of the Left believed, for instance, that the war was lost in 1940, that the Germans were bound to overrun Egypt in 1942, that the Japanese would never be driven out of the lands that they had conquered, and that the Anglo-American bombing was making no impression on Germany. He could believe these things because his hatred of the British ruling class forbade him to admit that British plans could succeed. There is no limit to the follies that can be swallowed if one is under the influence of feelings of this kind. I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligensia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.

Apr 16, 2005 - 5:35 pm 35. Terrye:

Buddy:

I think it was E. B. White.

lost in the fog of my memory.

Apr 16, 2005 - 6:03 pm 36. neo-neocon:

chuck, that’s an amazing Orwell quote. Just change a few details here and there, and you have–the present.

Apr 16, 2005 - 6:09 pm 37. Rick Ballard:

Thanks, Chuck. Someone should grab that as a blog header. It’s amazing how far the Left has progressed since 1940.

Apr 16, 2005 - 6:12 pm 38. Robert in San Diego:

For a good historical perspective on ‘Experts’, I recommend “The Experts Speak” (available at amazon) for a nice sample of ‘expertise’. Experts who get things dead wrong have always been readily available.

Apr 16, 2005 - 6:33 pm 39. Charlie (Colorado):

You win, Terrye: page ix, Strunk and White:

“Strive for the clear, the brief, the bold.”

Apr 16, 2005 - 7:37 pm 40. Buddy Larsen:

Drat, I couldn’t find it on page IX in my dry-rotted old edition. Tonight is the first time I’ve opened it in probably twenty years, although it’s always been nearby wherever I’ve set up paperwork. Always for the same reason: To nail down that apostrophe business when I have a moment. Well, that won’t be tonight, for sure, I’ve got this post to write!

Anyway, just handling the book induces language care. Not excellence, but a care about it. Anyway, after pg IX I tried pg 9 for the quote. No luck again, pg 9 ends a chapter and is mostly blank, having only these three sentences:

Sentences violating Rule 7 are often ludicrous:

“Being in a dilapidated condition, I was able to buy the house very cheap.”

“Wondering irresolutely what to do next, the clock struck twelve.”

Ah, I believe I’ll dress for dinner tomorrow evening. The air is bracing; the tweeds should do nicely. And the briar pipe, would it be about, perchance?

Apr 16, 2005 - 9:29 pm 41. Buddy Larsen:

Boy, THAT was some brevity! Stupid button.

Apr 16, 2005 - 9:31 pm 42. triticale:

Once again I get to brag that the Milwaukee library has a book being discussed here.

By the way, I just finished reading The Big Fix, in what appeared to be a library bound early paperback edition. Other than a couple of technical nitpicks, like a Harley vertical twin and filling a pipe bowl with hash without a little of the Michoacan to help it burn, I was quite impressed.

Apr 17, 2005 - 7:30 am 43. Patrick Tyson:

From page xvi of the Third Edition (1979) of The Elements of Style Introduction:

Will Strunk loved the clear, the brief, the bold, and his book is clear, brief, bold.

Page ix concludes the Contents and begins:

17. Do not inject opinion

I turned to page 80 and was reminded that:

…to air one’s views at an improper time may be in bad taste.

Egotism is also mentioned, but then, as yet another great opinionated journalist, Amrose Bierce, put it in The Devil’s Dictionary:

Egotist, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.

Apr 17, 2005 - 8:12 am 44. Buddy Larsen:

Thinking that was attributed to someone else, too, besides Bierce, i looked through an old junk store called “A Treasury of Laughter” (Untermeyer) and noticed this Hilaire Belloc epigram (it’s not germane, just fun):

The Lion, the Lion, he dwells in the waste,

He has a big head and a very small waist;

But his shoulders are stark, and his jaws they are grim,

And a good little child will not play with him.

Apr 17, 2005 - 12:18 pm 45. Mr. Davis:

Lignaeus,

I’m not sure Rummy’s thinking has changed in the last 30 years. The difference is he’s still corect.

Apr 17, 2005 - 1:16 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: