Doughty

Mark Steyn on John Howard:

Of all the doughty warriors of the Anglosphere, Howard, his Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and their colleagues had the best rhetoric on the present war, and I often wished the Bush Administration had emulated their plain speaking.

A better one-sentence take on the Hawk Pundit view of the world could hardly be imagined. Howard and Downer aren't warriors, they're politicians. And they're not "steadfastly courageous" -- that's an attribute of actual warriors who do fighting. Indeed, Howard was also at pains to avoid Tony Blair's mistakes and not put much of anything actually on the line in Iraq. But like the doughty war pundits of yore, he offered solid rhetoric thus ensuring their spots in Valhalla.

Comments

Heh, I read it as "doughy" the first time through.

Posted by Misplaced Patriot | November 25, 2007 11:38 AM

If any readers are left unclear on the concept of Valhalla after reading Wikipedia, there's help for you here. Leitmotifs, anyone?

Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | November 25, 2007 11:42 AM

Yep.

Let's all envision a death match between Mark "Doughy" Steyn and Jim Webb, with his commando-knife...

Posted by RKU | November 25, 2007 11:52 AM

Of course while in Vahalla they won't actually do any fighting, but oh boy they'll be there for the feast and the stories! They'll tell of their bravery of reading off that teleprompter and facing down the three camera interview!

Posted by Rob | November 25, 2007 11:52 AM

Churchill didn't do any actual fighting in WW2, but I think it's OK to call him "steadfastly courageous."

Posted by Rich | November 25, 2007 11:59 AM

Seeing the title I hoped you had an advance copy of Mike Doughty's new album or something. Ah well.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | November 25, 2007 12:10 PM

If Churchill had lost his war as badly as Bush is losing this one, then he would would have ended up in front of a Nazi firing squad. That makes courageous a more relevant term for describing him. I don't think that that's an option for John Howard, George Bush or any of the rest of them.

Posted by JohnTh | November 25, 2007 12:31 PM

Of all the doughy pantloads in the Whitesupremosphere, Howard, his Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and their colleagues had the best rhetoric on the pretend war, and I often wished the Bush Administration had emulated their pud spanking.

Corrected.

Posted by Some Guy | November 25, 2007 12:48 PM

Maybe he meant "doughy".

Posted by moron | November 25, 2007 12:52 PM

Churchill was getting bombed by the Luftwaffe, Bush gets bombed with Goldschlagger so its really a quite apt comparison.

Posted by Rob | November 25, 2007 12:54 PM

Churchill was faced with the possibility that his country would be completely overrun by the German war machine. wingnut delusions aside, Bush faces nothing like that today; and Howard faces even less. there isn't a country in the world today that has a chance of taking over America, or any of its allies.

this Howard nonsense is just another instance of wingnuts inflating the scope and size of today's events for their own political benefit.

Posted by cleek | November 25, 2007 12:55 PM

Churchill didn't do any actual fighting in WW2, but I think it's OK to call him "steadfastly courageous."

Say...I never looked at it that way before.

Now that I think of it, Jesus Christ said "suffer the little children to come unto Me" (or something), which was basically just pro-child rhetoric. And Bush created No Child Left Behind, which is an actual program. But it's still okay to call Jesus the Messiah, and Son of God...

Posted by Bill | November 25, 2007 1:17 PM

If by “doughty” Steyn means that Howard repeated J. Wellington Wimpy’s advice (“Let’s you and him fight”), he’s certainly correct. But then, that’s as correct as Steyn usually is.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | November 25, 2007 1:41 PM

Doughy.

Posted by Condor | November 25, 2007 2:11 PM

Matt, you're being more than a little ridiculous. Stein's writing is, as always, overly dramatic, but his point remains solid.

There are more forms of courage than the willingness to risk being shot, and one of them is courage of conviction. Given how few politicians possess that particular virtue (a point you make on most days ending in "y"), it's not unreasonable to praise Brown for saying what he believes and saying it well.

Posted by heedless | November 25, 2007 3:56 PM

*Gormless best describes Howard. A true moron- he had all the fortitude and character of a plastic Joe Palooka punching wobbly. If there ever were a reason to think that all Aussies are crass, cheap, dull, plain, and stupid - he was it.

Posted by Trevor | November 25, 2007 3:59 PM

Not sure how Churchill got into this debate but though he never fought in WW2 (give him a break, he was getting up there in years) he did, after accepting responsibility for the disaster at Gallipoli, resign his post, enlist in the army and go off to France to fight. Almost exactly like our president, don't you think.

Howard, on the other hand, has much in common with his neo-con breathren in that despite his enthusiasm for war never served a day in the military (though he may have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express). In his defense, he does have a hearing impairment, which explains both why he never served in the military and didn't understand when people asked him "Why the hell are you allying yourself with a nitwit like George Bush?"

Posted by robertl | November 25, 2007 4:04 PM

I wonder if there will ever come a moment when people like Steyn and Goldberg wake up, look in the mirror, and say -- "Man, I'm really ridiculous."

Probably not, as introspection, or even the sort of base-level self-awareness common to most sentient creatures, does not seem to be held in high regard over at The Corner.

Posted by Ben Cronin | November 25, 2007 4:11 PM

A Canadian example: who would win in a cage match between current pro-Bush Prime Minister Stephen Harper and let's-not-go-to-Iraq PM Jean Crétien?

Hint: this one time Crétien publicly strangled and tossed aside a random bystander who got in his way.

Posted by Ian | November 25, 2007 5:00 PM

By that token, Matt, FDR's fireside chats had no meaning during the depression, Churchill's rhetoric meant nothing during WWII, Lincoln's Gettysburg address was meaningless...

you get the point.

You don't like the Iraq policy, so you don't think much of Howard's rhetoric. It's really as simple as that.

Posted by James Robertson | November 25, 2007 5:25 PM

Australia doesn't have more than 2000 or so troops in Iraq, and about their only fatalities was a guy who shot himself. If Howard had any courage behind his convictions on this war, he would have made a compelling case for why that number should be ten times higher, since that would make it at least proportional to the amount of troops America has in Iraq.

So Howard made a concious decision to sacrifice little by signing on to Iraq. There was a great moment earlier this year when, in response to a truly bizarre attack by the PM accusing the senator of being soft on terrorism, Barack Obama essentially told the Howard to send more than a token amount of Australian troops to Iraq or shut the hell up.

I think the term is overused, but Howard is really the quintessential chickenhawk: someone who cheers on war while making few real sacrifices for the cause themselves. He stands about as high as Churchill's big toe.

Posted by sweaty guy | November 25, 2007 6:01 PM

*Gormless best describes Howard. A true moron- he had all the fortitude and character of a plastic Joe Palooka punching wobbly. If there ever were a reason to think that all Aussies are crass, cheap, dull, plain, and stupid - he was it.

Wow, I had no idea Howard could bring out such a torrent of anti-Australianism. Sleazebag he might be but I'd still take him over our last three GOP presidents.

Posted by sweaty guy | November 25, 2007 6:06 PM

Forget Howard (I certainly intend to); the idea of Alex Downer as doughty warrior is hilarious. He's the last word in witless South Australian toffs, and it's widely agreed that the main reason he was made Foreign Minister was to keep him at a safe geographical distance from a) the electorate and b) any actual policymaking for as many weeks of the year as possible.

My favourite Downer moment was when he went to Iraq to warn its citizens that if they didn't get their act together and stop fighting, freedom-loving DOUGHTY WARRIOR GOVERNMENTS like his and Bush's might be voted out in favour of pansy non-freedom-loving lefties. So they should be finding ways to transcend centuries-old animosities so that the Australian Labor Party doesn't get elected. (Unfortunately, the Iraqis didn't get the message.)

Posted by Lucy | November 25, 2007 6:09 PM

doughty warriors = doughy wankers

Posted by joejoejoe | November 25, 2007 6:18 PM

Re: FDR's fireside chats had no meaning during the depression, Churchill's rhetoric meant nothing during WWII, Lincoln's Gettysburg address was meaningless...

FDR worked himself quite literally to death during WWII. Churchill (as others have mentioned) was in direct personal danger should the British be defeated. And Lincoln, when a lightly defended Washingtron was attacked in a surprise CSA raid, went out to the front line to encourage the soldiers, standing within easy shooting distance of the enemy. They don't make 'em like that any more, and Georgie-boy proved on 9-11 when he jetted all over the country in a cowardly panic looking for refuge from non-existent dangers.

Posted by JonF | November 25, 2007 7:10 PM

If there ever were a reason to think that all Aussies are crass, cheap, dull, plain, and stupid - he was it.

Wow, I had no idea Howard could bring out such a torrent of anti-Australianism.

They hate us for our freedoms.

Posted by Aussie Amit | November 25, 2007 7:30 PM

All those right-wing Australian types - with their lard asses and red faces - remind you of Afrikaners.

Posted by Linus | November 25, 2007 7:38 PM

All those right-wing Australian types - with their lard asses and red faces - remind you of Afrikaners.

Or firehose-wielding southern sheriffs. Or the Archie-Bunker, "hard hat" types up north.

Posted by sweaty guy | November 25, 2007 8:07 PM

Howard was an effective proponent of Australia's national interest, satisfying the hyperpower with his rhetoric and a few troops in Iraq who hardly ever got in harm's way.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 25, 2007 8:49 PM

John Howard got Thatchered. He is the best thing to happen to Australia since Hiroshima. It is a pattern that the Anglo countries turn their back on the best leaders. Churchill, Thatcher, Howard

The Australian economy has been spectacular. Howard was steadfast against IslamoFascism and loopy leftism

Maybe the French will get a leader with spine in Sakozy.

America does not have a leader with spine. We have a great economy and are taking the war to the enemy, but unfortunately we have an incoherent weeny as President, who has no political savy, and at least a dozen weenies lined up to take his place.

I see Bush as strong military commander though. He was a figher pilot. Spent more time on active duty than Kerry or Gore (had better grades and more brains than Kerry: you don't get through flight school without being a pretty cool customer, maybe just my Air Force bias here)

Despite what the little men here say about him, flying out of harm's way on 9/11, he'd have been a fool to stay put that day and anyone who disagrees can just kiss my ass (they'd have loved to see an AirJihad plane crash into Bush).

Posted by Jozef | November 25, 2007 9:11 PM

John Howard is not "courageous," and now he's out of parliament, thank God he is GONE.

Posted by Peter | November 25, 2007 9:42 PM

Jozef, you should consider flying AirJihad, it is much better than Jet Blue for middle Eastern locations -- and those stewardesses: two words: allahu akbar!

Posted by Daniel Shays | November 25, 2007 10:13 PM

This is one of those threads that demonstrate the foolishness of "left" or "right," these old cliches from the French Revolution. Howard lost primarily because Australians are apparently tired of him after 11 years and Rudd finally gave them an attractive and charismatic alternative. The evident folly of the Iraq war certainly did not help. He certainly was never a "warrior" and he was not Mrs. Thatcher, or even Robert Menzies or John Curtin (Australia's WWII PMs).
There is tremendous Churchill, Truman, and Lincoln envy among these war worshipers who now dominate the Republican Party. But Al Qaeda is not the Wehrmacht or the Army of Northern Virginia. In one sense it is a group of a few hundred fanatics living in caves. If they do overthrow us then God must really be on their side. At most it is the inspiration to thousands of disaffected young men in Europe who can make lethal nuisances of themselves.

But to be afraid of these people and compare them to regimes that bestrided the world as great military powers (Germany and he Soviet Union) is absurd. Even Iran is a half-broken country whose power has been increased by our own folly and dependence on oil then any skill on their part. And to compare one self to the generation fighting the Nazis and the Soviets, especially when these war hawks take no personal risk themselves, is absurd self-flattery.

Jozef, John Kerry shared a common experience with Churchill, Lincoln, and the first President Bush that George W. Bush managed to avoid. They all heard the buzz of bullets flying past their heads. And Air Jihad's amateur pilots had a difficult enough time hitting fixed targets. Certainly there was no rush to the post of danger by the President.

Hundred of thousands of people are dead Jozef, including close to 4,000 Americans, with more dying every day and no end in sight. And is the country safer, more prosperous, or freer then it was in 2000? I think not.

Posted by Rickstersherpa | November 25, 2007 10:27 PM

Rickstersherpa, I agree with just about everything you say. Though I do think the fact that Labor now runs every state and the federal government in Oz, and that the Liberal party seems to have imploded somewhat in the last 24 hours, would indicate a pretty sharp turn to the left in Australia. Even if Rudd seems like more of a third way type personally.

But yeah, one of the stranger things about combating terrorism since 9/11 has been, at least in America, that it seems impossible for people to get called on overstating the threat. The media just won't do it. As a result, guys like Huckabee can say stuff like "Islamofascism is the greatest threat our country has ever faced!" and not end up being taken for demogogues. Whether this comes from War Envy or what, I don't know, but pols seem to have a complete free license to keep this stuff up.

Posted by sweaty guy | November 25, 2007 10:47 PM

I believe doughty warrior John Howard proved his worth by crying "Forth Eorlingas!" at Helm's Deep.

Posted by Zack | November 25, 2007 10:50 PM

Hint: this one time Crétien publicly strangled and tossed aside a random bystander who got in his way.

Dude, if you watch the video the guy ambushed Crétien and aggresively starts to ask a question about 8 inches from his face. I say "starts" because yes, Crétien grabs the dude by the neck and tosses him away.

Posted by SAO | November 25, 2007 11:06 PM

That Steyn gives a flip about who "had the best rhetoric on the present war" shows his complete vacuousness.

The actual war in Iraq has not been affected one whit by the success or failure of rhetoric on the homefront. Bush has gotten every dollar, every soldier, he's ever requested for this war. The war is a total cock-up anyway.

Steyn's concern with rhetoric betrays his underlying sense that the true battle is here at home, and the war in Iraq was no more than a tool to politically defeat what passes for the American left. Better rhetoric, he believes, might have made a difference there. That's what he's after.

He's wrong even about that. There comes a time when the pig's been around long enough that no amount of lipstick is going to make people think it's not a pig. To most Americans now, right-wing rhetoric is the Chimperor's new clothes, and they see right through them. They're ready to bring the troops home, even if we're 'winning.' 'The economy' may be doing OK, but their economy is pretty shaky. And why the near-silence about New Orleans: did we ever fix it? Guess not.

After awhile, it all piles up, and no rhetoric can keep people from seeing, or smelling, the pile.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | November 26, 2007 6:27 AM

Semper Fi Moon Pie*

George W. Bush is the supreme dough(t)y warrior. As a young man he smote the Vietcong out of the skies of Texas. As president he faced down Islamofacism from the frontlines of Offut, Nebraska. Bush's courage knows no end because it knows no beginning.

*the motto of the doughy warrior
**the motto of the doughy warrior pundit is Sic Semper Cheeto

Posted by joejoejoe | November 26, 2007 10:34 AM