« NIGHTLINE GETS SENTIMENTAL | Main | IF ANYONE IS OUT THERE . . . »

April 27, 2004

Comments

Leon

Sounds like the reporter is "corrupt," whatever he means by that, not the military. What bothers me the most about his statement is that he believes it is inevitable, no matter what, even in righteous wars. But I'm betting in his mind there is no such thing as a righteous war. There is no way that he can be a credible reporter on this topic. Time to send him to the local crime beat...oh wait, "even righteous arrests corrupt the police."

John Cunningham

Sounds to me as though Atkinson is not anti-war, but anti-American. If we followed his view, and refrained from any way [since it would soon be corrupt] then sooner or later the war will come to us. If had moral consistency, he would quit doing news reporting and take a post on the editorial page. Or, he could just go to work for al-Jazeera. They too see the war as a corrupt enterprise.
Atkinson reminds me of the old saw that a liberal is a guy who won't even take his own side in a fight. If his view had prevailed in the 1940s, he would either be speaking German, or be a lampshade.

IceCold

Wish he'd share the basis of his dogma. Otherwise, I'll just have to continue to regard him as a superficial and lazy observer, who also doesn't understand the purpose of militaries and national security policy: not avoiding all fights at any cost, but at ensuring security. Come on, Rick, let us in on the secret -- what magic policy eschewed by the evil "neocons" would have ended the intolerable existing and potential threat posed by the Iraqi regime, a year ago and after the (impending) formal end of all (ineffectual, post-9/11) "containment"? (sound of crickets chirping .....)

He was one of the contributors to the preposterous WaPo article that kicked off the short-lived "long war, quagmire, stuff we didn't expect" panic among the usual clueless elements during the March sandstorm. That should have been mortifying enough to send him off to continue work on the WWII book trilogy, the first part of which I got 1/3 the way through before the lack of punch and the annoying prose style bogged me down in a "quagmire" of my own.

I'm all for clear-eyed reporting on "corruption," inevitable or not, but just make it more believable than the often laughable military analysis we've been provided in the past.

The comments to this entry are closed.