Hiatus

The Hollow Horn is on temporary hiatus while I finish settling into my new place. I’ll be back before long.

General Musharraf: Yea or Nay?

RCP’s Friday edition linked to two pretty good opposing views of the political situation in Pakistan. The New York Post makes the realist (in the IR sense) argument that it’s better to have a moderate strongman than another Afghanesque hell. He then does a partial backtrack and throws out the obligatory overtures to a political opening.

Tariq Ali, writing in The Guardian, doesn’t see it that way. Ali’s thesis, perhaps unsurprising to those familiar with his work, is that Musharraf represents just another “our son of a bitch” client that cannot survive much longer. I am more inclined to agree with the Post piece.

Food for Thought

“I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of fighting—its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers … it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated … that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation.” – William Tecumseh Sherman on war, via Crooked Timber

Krauthammer on Drunken Astronauts

Charles Krauthammer, who I occasionally agree with about a thing or two, wrote a pretty entertaining column Friday about the drinking astronauts scandal. I’d recommend reading it; it’s fun and I more or less agree.

Hmm

I wonder if I don’t need to invest in some software to allow me to auto-publish a set of new entries at some point in the future. It’s not that I haven’t had time the last few days, it’s that I haven’t had time at the right times. Oh well, I’ll catch up this weekend.

Whoops

I had some more posts planned for tonight, but I am too tired to write them. They will happen at some point over the weekend.

Two More Theories

In light of yesterday’s post regarding the way out of Iraq, here are two more views.  First, William S. Lind presents a more  “traditional” conservative view on how to withdraw (Link via Andrew Sullivan). Here’s a taste:

The Bush administration, consistent with its record of military incompetence, continues to pursue the folly of maximalist objectives. It still defines victory as it did at the war’s outset: an Iraq that is an American satellite, friendly to Israel, happy to provide the U.S. with a limitless supply of oil and vast military bases from which American forces can dominate the region. None of these objectives are now attainable. None were ever attainable, no matter what our troops did. And as long as those objectives define victory, we are doomed to defeat.

Fortunately, another objective, the one that actually matters most, may, with luck and skill, still be achieved. That objective—restoring a state in what is now the stateless region of Mesopotamia—must become our new definition of victory.

Lind goes on to suggest that we must re-engage Iran to accomplish this goal. It’s an interesting theory. I am not quite sure what to make of it.

Gregory Djerejian makes a similar case here.

Bill Kristol: Yikes

What the hell is wrong with Bill Kristol? Read this article closely and tell me if the logical conclusion you are forced to draw isn’t that the only way to support the troops is to remain at war forever. What the holy hell?

I am reminded of a certain South Park about 9/11 conspiracy theories that drew the conclusion to explain conspiracy theories that”25 percent of people are retarded.” I know, totally not PC, but totally accurate. And guess who else we can count among that 25 percent? Wow.

The Rundown

• More from the department of historical comparisons by Jonathan Zasloff at RBC: Is George Bush Kaiser Wilhelm?
• A doctor discusses political polarization in the US vis-a-vis Sicko and the health care debate at the New Yorker Online.
• Marc Ambinder opines about sexual attitudes of presidential candidates in light of the Obama sex ed non-issue issue.
• More discussion of my favorite candidate, Bill Richardson over at Salon.
• Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
• A preview of the Democrats’ 2008 talking points by Reid Wilson at RCP.

Robert Kagan on Geopolitics

The best thing I read today was this article by Robert Kagan over on RCP. It is way, way too long to comment on without writing an essay-length treatise. To give a vague summary, it lays out the author’s views on the present and future of international relations. You should read it. I don’t necessarily agree with all of his conclusions, but Kagan is a smart guy and the piece is very informative, regardless of any normative disagreements you might have.

Update: Ross Douthat weighs in here and here.