Michael Goldfarb

I had sort of thought that the original configuration of The Weekly Standard's "worldwide standard" blog was the worst imaginable magazine blog. Eventually, though, they had a personnel change and Michael Goldfarb took over and the thing actually became considerably worse — lacking that amusing train wreck quality it had previously sustained. Still, he does sometimes have his moments.

Here, for example, he's huffing and puffing that The Los Angeles Times won't correct some alleged errors that range from the trivial ("In the same column, Rutten wrote that Beauchamp had 'described the ridicule of a disfigured Iraqi woman . . .' In fact, the woman has never been described as Iraqi.") to the in-fact-perfectly-accurate ("Rutten also said that Beauchamp 'described . . . attempts to run over stray dogs with Bradley fighting vehicles . . .' In fact, Beauchamp actually described three incidents in which military personnel had killed stray dogs.") meanwhile, he seems to have no intention whatsoever of correcting his straightforwardly false August 6 item "Beauchamp Recants".

There, Goldfarb wrote that Beauchamp had "signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only 'a smidgen of truth,' in the words of our source." This never happened.

Meanwhile, we've been noting the shortage of captains and majors afflicting the military and wondering when age-appropriate advocates of an aggressive military posture like Goldfarb are going to step up to the plate to fill some of these absences. Well, he seems to have decided today that he should do his part to cope with growing personnel shortfalls in the State Department's mission in Iraq by . . . calling professional foreign service officers "diplowimps" because, I suppose, they've failed to demonstrate the sort of awe-inspiring courage required to write a blog from 17th Street. Maybe instead of being such wimps, the striped pants boys ought to join Goldfarb in trying to gin up a new war from the front-line cubicles here in Washington.

Comments

They also serve who work cash Kristol's checks, Yglesias.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 1, 2007 9:53 AM

Matt, if everyone like Goldfarb enlisted there would be no one left to gin up support for new wars. And then where would America be.

Posted by Bill | November 1, 2007 9:56 AM

It's a good point, but in fairness a new recruit wouldn't start out at captain or major.

Posted by minderbender | November 1, 2007 9:57 AM

I don't care about this story, don't know the details, and haven't looked at anything from the Weekly Standard's camp in so many years I can't recall, but saying that military personnel killed stray dogs is not the same as saying that they tried to run them over with a Bradley. There may be many good reasons to kill a stray dog, but there are few circumstances in which using a Bradley would be a good idea.

Posted by Will Allen | November 1, 2007 10:23 AM

a new recruit wouldn't start out at captain or major

i think someone with the keen military acumen of Goldfarb or ConYank or Dan Rheil would automatically start at major, if not higher. the recruiter would recognize their awesome skillz and immediately recommend them for leadership positions.

Posted by cleek | November 1, 2007 10:25 AM

a new recruit wouldn't start out at captain or major

my dad made captain in two years. but they were shortages back then. as there are today, apparently.

Posted by mike | November 1, 2007 10:30 AM

The Weekly Standard...HQ of the Chairborn Rangers!

-SPD

Posted by Steve Duprey | November 1, 2007 10:34 AM

Thanks, Matt. I'm a civilian attorney and a judge advocate in the United States Army Reserves. I'm sick of seeing this armchair quarterbacking from guys who want to see American Soldiers fight and die for something they believe in, but are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are.

If the war is so worth fighting, and they're so eager to see it fought, they should pick up a rifle. If they want to stay in their cushy offices, they have no right to talk about those who are unwillingly sent to Baghdad.

Man, that pisses me off.

Posted by Jason | November 1, 2007 10:38 AM

"my dad made captain in two years. but they were shortages back then. as there are today, apparently. "
Posted by mike

And a war with Iran would probably make those shortages more severe. He might make captain within a year. If he lives, but isn't Iraq safer than Philadelphia?

Posted by Barry | November 1, 2007 10:51 AM

wondering when age-appropriate advocates of an aggressive military posture like Goldfarb are going to step up to the plate to fill some of these absences

Hehe. The pathetic chickenhawk defense. So sad.

Same time that chickenhawks like Matthew joint the DC Fire Department. After all, Matthew surely advocates protecting himself from fires, which is a dangerous job. And DC has a shortage of good firemen. But yet Matthew leaves this job to others and refuses to join himself. I can only conclude that he's a chickenhawk.

Posted by Al | November 1, 2007 11:18 AM

DC isn't short of firemen, Al.

Posted by ajay | November 1, 2007 11:27 AM

Al (no doubt unwittingly) makes a compelling case for compulsory government service for all citizens. Many countries do just that. God forbid we all felt like we had more of a stake in our communities.

But drawing an analogy between fighting fires (to save lives) and fighting "wars of choice" (to kill people) is stupid. For one thing, Matt isn't advancing the ridiculous argument that the future of The West hinges on whether we fight fires more effectively. But nice try.

Posted by Bill | November 1, 2007 11:28 AM

It's apparent that there's a shame shortage.

As for Al's argument, it's also dangerous to drive a cab, fish, and mine coal. It's dangerous to get on a roller coaster, eat fugu, and drive 70mph. We make distinctions between those and the dangers of warfare. And Al, ever the feckless reductionist, knows that.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 1, 2007 11:43 AM

Al apparently never served his country, and feels badly about it, so he hates the chickenhawk argument.

As a veteran, I love it. There is nothing lower than someone who propagandizes for war but would never in a million years serve. And it is amazing how virtually every single person behind the planning and propagandizing for the war in Iraq is a chickenhawk. Almost to a man, er, boy, or whatever they are.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | November 1, 2007 11:56 AM

Al, have you noticed Matt *setting* any fires lately? Seems relevant.

Posted by Justin | November 1, 2007 12:08 PM

The ultimate Republican warrior? Leeeeeeerroooooyyyyy Jennnnnnnnkinnnnnnsss!

Posted by Jamey | November 1, 2007 12:36 PM

Al, I missed the part where Matty mocked others for not volunteering to serve as firefighters. Which, of course, is a closer approximation of what Goldfarb did when he crapped all over the foreign service types.

Posted by Jamey | November 1, 2007 12:39 PM

The Chickenhawk Law: The fervor in which you support aggressive US military action is inverse to the amount of time you or your children spent or will spend in US Ground Forces.

Posted by RobertSeattle | November 1, 2007 2:43 PM

I don't know what Goldfarb's problem is, but Beauchamp was definately lying in those articles, and anyone who had spent one minute in uniform knew it.

Posted by Tassled Loafered Leech | November 1, 2007 4:04 PM

The Bush Administration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkCNJRfSZBU

Posted by Kyle | November 1, 2007 4:50 PM

This is sort of a dumb debate - The whole point of calling someone a chickenhawk is to throw them off balance in a debate by making them self consious of their own weakness. Essentially, a true chickenhawk is someone who is middle aged and older (Cheney Bush) who has had time to reflect on their own past when the advocate actions for other people. In other words - they know how they behaved and they recall their fears - but they then ignore those recollections or hide those past feelings - instead, they take a cavalier approach to war.
Goldfarb is too young to fit that definition - He is sort of in the middle of it all. He has not had time to reflect and think about the weirdness of his casual advocacy for optional wars. It's really not fair to judge him by the same standards as his boss. Afterall, Kristol knows now how he once felt and he still acts today they way he does. That's very differnt - This Fire Department nonsense is just a distraction.

Posted by Comment | November 1, 2007 4:53 PM

To clarify - a young pundit cannot really be called a chickenhawk - It's a slack use of the term.

A chickenhawk is a middle aged man who has a cavalier approach to war, even though he has the benefit of reflecting on his own past.
Theoretically a woman could be a chickenhawk too - but that's unlikely because the process of becoming a chickenhawk is very much tied to historical and cultural expectations.

Posted by Comment | November 1, 2007 5:36 PM

Good point, 'Comment'. We should just call them cowards.

Posted by Z | November 1, 2007 6:44 PM

Certainly, if this was a war I believed in, and we were low on recruits like we are now, I would enlist. Period.

But these guys? They jump up and down behind our military, screaming insults at the people they don't like, because they know they are safe. If you haven't already (and I don't have time to track down the line), you should take a look at that article on race that Norman Poderhertz wrote back in the 60's? 70's?. What a weak little man.

Posted by Z | November 1, 2007 6:51 PM

We think people should go easy on the insults on both sides - It's wrong for people to criticise war opponents for having an honest strong held view. That provokes the counter insults - Part of it is that people who are just getting started in punditry do not have the benefit of reflection, of time. They are trying to make their mark, or guided by the passions of the moment. That's not an excuse - just an explaination. Often, though they think they are independent thinkers - but in reality they only know what they know, as Rumsfeld might say. But as time goes on - sometimes they reconsider.

Posted by Comment | November 1, 2007 7:27 PM

Maybe Goldfarb could join the Foreign Service and go serve at that fabulously huge embassy in the Green Zone to show up all the diplowimps he scorns. Of course, the Foreign Service in the past has had very high standards, but that shouldn't be a problem. I'm sure they'll be relaxing them soon, now that the exodus is starting. They'll have a lot of positions they'll need to fill with Regents University drones.

Posted by Delia | November 2, 2007 12:55 AM