A Surge of Wackiness

I'm watching Ike Skelton's opening statement at the "surge" hearings, and it's not very interesting. Conversely, Dave Weigel has a report that starts with the promising observation that elsewhere in Washington, "Newt Gingrich just wrapped a speech on 'an alternative history of the war since 9/11,' the product of 'immersion' (his word) in the history of Lincoln's and FDR's war-time decision-making."

Apparently, this really happened.

Newt's main take seems to be that Bush erred in the post-9/11 environment by failing to start enough wars ("Iraq, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia would have been dealt with as a regional conflict") and seize enough authority to issue extra-legal regulations.

Comments

This has nothing to do with the substance of Weigel's post, but the title ("Alternate History? That's where I'm a viking!") reminded me of a debate that popped up all over the internet a few months ago about the correct interpretation of that Simpsons joke.

Specifically, when Ralph says "Sleep, that's where I'm a viking" does he mean:

A) That he is excited to go to sleep because he dreams of being an actual viking

or

B) That he is excited to go to sleep because he excels at it (using "viking" as a metaphor for excelling at something)

Weigel's title seems to imply that his interpretation would be the latter.

Therefore, he is obviously not to be taken seriously about anything.

Posted by lucas | September 10, 2007 1:04 PM

"Regional conflict"?? Pretty freaking large region to occupy, seeing as we can't get a handle on this Iraq stuff.

Oh waitasec, I missed something. We'd have our extraordinary will propelling us to victory! As Newt says, they surely "could not survive against the fury of an American people mobilized to action."

Posted by holyhell | September 10, 2007 1:06 PM

How did we get to a point in America where war is now floated as the answer to all of our problems?

Posted by Cosmic Philosopher | September 10, 2007 1:27 PM

Lots of great comedy today, MY.

What I want to know is: are Newtie's credentials from the American Historian Association paid up and in good standing? Lest we ever forget for a nanosecond, Newt is 'really' an Historian.

Posted by jonnybutter | September 10, 2007 2:03 PM

The real question: How ugly is Newt's tie in that photo? Yeeesh.

Posted by Mike | September 10, 2007 2:32 PM

Perhaps it's a 'Futurist' tie. Newtie's also a 'Futurist'. Not credentialed.

Posted by jonnybutter | September 10, 2007 3:23 PM

If war is the hygiene of the world, shouldn't it also be able to erase ugly ties?

Posted by Reality Man | September 10, 2007 3:31 PM

In "A Man in Full," Tom Wolfe called that sort of thing a pizza grenade tie. And when Tom Wolfe insults your clothing, man you got problems.

In "No End in Sight," you can tell Bremer's wearing a Ferragamo when he lands in Baghdad, so even a nice tie won't help a bad policy.

Posted by David B. | September 10, 2007 4:39 PM

Saudi Arabia???? We should go to war with our allies? yeesh.

Posted by right | September 10, 2007 4:46 PM

Newt is not a historian, he's an idealogue. He does grave insult to the dignity of the profession with his claim.

Posted by Ben Cronin | September 10, 2007 7:13 PM

Gawd, is it National Stupidity Day or something? Lincoln had to squelch a Secretary of War who was trying to provoke a war with Britain in 1861. And Germany declared war on us- there is no evidence that FDR would have requested a declaration of war on Germany in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, and quite a bit of evidence that FDR was determined not to be more forward than the Congress on that issue.

Posted by serial catowner | September 10, 2007 7:29 PM

Newt is wrong in any event.

Bush didn't "fail" to start a regional war.

He's just taken his time to get around to starting it because Iraq proved to be such a "downer".

But he's on course now. Israel just did an air raid on Syria to try to get them to retaliate (Syria did not fall for it) and Iran is being set up as we type by Petraeus who is clearly arguing for an attack on Iran.

Within a few weeks or months at the latest, the US and Israel will be at war with Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon. I'd say that qualifies as a regional war.

It's just taken longer than the neocons would have liked.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 11, 2007 10:22 PM