Bozell ridiculed Begala, Carville for citing military historian van Creveld; U.S. Army, Navy would disagree with Bozell's assessment
SUMMARY: In his column, Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III criticized CNN's Paul Begala for referring to Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor Martin van Creveld as "one of the most esteemed military historians in the world." Bozell then denigrated van Creveld as an "obscure" fringe figure. In fact, according to a bio that appeared with an op-ed by the professor, van Creveld "is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers."
In his March 22 nationally syndicated column, Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III criticized CNN political analysts Paul Begala and James Carville for citing Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor Martin van Creveld's November 25, 2005, op-ed in the Jewish newspaper the Forward, in which Creveld described the Iraq war as the "most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them." Specifically, Bozell attacked Begala for referring to van Creveld on the March 20 edition of CNN's The Situation Room as "one of the most esteemed military historians in the world," and denigrated van Creveld as a fringe figure by calling him "obscure." Bozell also sarcastically referred to van Crevald as "this learned professor," the "good doctor," and "Begala and Carville's new most esteemed historian in the world." The U.S. Army, however, apparently disagrees with Bozell's dismissive characterization of van Creveld, whose work is required reading for U.S. Army officers. Van Creveld has also delivered a paper at a conference sponsored by the U.S. Naval War College.
From Bozell's March 22 column:
Days later on CNN's "The Situation Room," Paul Begala, who bows toward Chappaqua on a prayer mat about as often as [Time columnist Joe] Klein, spouted his new enthusiasm for an obscure professor named Martin van Creveld, whom he called "one of the most esteemed military historians in the world." Quoting this learned professor, Begala proclaimed, "This is the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C. sent his legions into Germany and lost them." (Unsurprisingly, James Carville used the very same professor and the very same quote the following morning on NBC's "Today.")
Begala claimed his good doctor had said it recently, but that wasn't true: It was published in the Jewish newspaper The Forward in November. That's not all. Begala didn't finish the sentence he's quoting in that article, which is understandable since it would have given the audience the true flavor of this man's thinking. It ends, "Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men."
And there's more still. If you want a good look at what Begala and Carville's new most esteemed historian in the world would have us do in Iraq, that comes earlier in the piece. He suggests our model is the fall of Saigon, a complete, abject withdrawal: "Clearly this is not a pleasant model to follow, but no other alternative appears in sight."
Bozell's apparent low regard for van Creveld is not shared by the U.S. Army. Van Creveld's November 25, 2005, Forward op-ed, which Begala wrongly claimed was published on March 19, featured a short bio of van Creveld which noted that "[h]e is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers." Van Creveld's Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton (Cambridge University Press, 2004) is featured on the "U.S. Army Chief of Staff's Professional Reading List" for field officers and senior non-commissioned officers. This list, according to Army Chief of Staff Peter J. Schoomaker, "is a way for leaders at all levels to increase their understanding of our Army's history, the global strategic context, and the enduring lessons of war."
In fact, Begala, immediately after he described van Creveld as "one of the most esteemed military historians in the world" on the March 20 Situation Room, noted that "he's required reading for our American troops." Bozell omitted this comment from his attacks on Begala.
Similarly, a U.S. Naval War College bio of van Creveld states:
Martin van Creveld, born in the Netherlands, has lived in Israel since 1950. He holds degrees from the London School of Economics and The Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where he has been on the faculty since 1971. He is the author of fifteen books on military history and strategy, of which Command in War (1985), Supplying War (1977), and The Sword and the Olive (1998) are among the best known. Professor van Creveld has lectured or taught at virtually every strategic institute, military or civilian, in the Western world -- including the U.S. Naval War College, most recently in December 1999 and January 2000.
The bio also states that van Creveld delivered a paper at "a conference on 'alternative futures' at the Naval War College in January 2000."
Bozell has always been a Republican hack - and most of the Repubs are very good at ignoring history - or they would see that their party is imploding from the same excesses and lack of ethics as the Democratic Party of the '80s which cost them so dearly at the time. Goes back to a basic tenet of politics - you don't bother bribing someone who has no power. This goes straight back to Rovian principles anyway ( hey, why have we honored Rove the high school dropout with his own philosophy anyway - he's not worth that - why don't we just refer to his tactics as Sleazy, rather than dignify him with Rovian???) ignore the message - smear the messenger. Classic.
Can anyone direct me to a biography of Brent Bozelle? His credentials, experience, his job descriptions, his training, his military service? I can't seem to find anything.
Yet, it must be an impressive BIO, for him to be disrespecting and smearing this man of great accomplishments and scholarship, van Creveld.
Help, please.
He was supposed to be a historian himself. Have no other info, yet.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Here's a bio: [link to www.townhall.com]
which is immortal, you attack the person that mouthed the notion. Van Crevald's assertion is steely: tempered in meticulous scholarship. So what does Bozell do? He attacks van Crevald. It's a standard tactic when one is overmatched.
No wonder Hell Bent Bozo doesn't want any accurate, embarrassing, historical comparisons used against his idol Duhhbya.
After all, Georgie's college degree is in, you guessed it, History.
This is along the same lines as what the GOP did to John Murtha. As soon as Murtha spoke out about bringing our troops back from Iraq the Republican machine began attempting to marginalize Murtha's credentials and stature even though up until that point he had universal respect regarding military matters. This military scholar is just undergoing the same thing to a lesser degree.
It's swiftboating.
As a woman, I dislike expressions that equate courage with manhood, but in this case, I gotta say, "Bozell, be a man. Construct an intellectual stand. Swiftboating isn't a stand. It's cowardice."
with what the right wingnutz did to Sen. John Kerry - who went from decorated war veteran to Sheer Insanity's comment that he didn't even have proven combat experience; or Gen. Wesley Clark who had the nerve to run for president and then was savaged...Or Sen. John McCain vs. George Bush in South Carolina...
It's things like this that make Media Matters so great. I honestly never knew about this before I came here after reading his column. I posted a link to this from their "Newsbusters" blog just to get some reaction. I'm going to guess a lot of mocking. :-)
Keep up the good work, guys!
Check out what Robert Kaplan ( who is loved by neo cons by the way) had to say about van Creveld in his famous Atlantic Monthly piece of Feb. 1994 entitled "The Coming Anarchy"...
"When I asked Pentagon officials about the nature of war in the twenty-first century, the answer I frequently got was "Read Van Creveld." The top brass are enamored of this historian not because his writings justify their existence but, rather, the opposite: Van Creveld warns them that huge state military machines like the Pentagon's are dinosaurs ...."
AND
"Debunking the great military strategist Carl von Clausewitz, Van Creveld, who may be the most original thinker on war since that early-nineteenth-century Prussian, writes, "Clausewitz's ideas . . ."
The whole famous Kaplan essay in which van Creveld is quoted extensively can be found on the web at [link to dieoff.org]
Isn't it funny how qualified commentators who have well founded opinions running contrary to the current administration are suddenly "obscure".
Bozell's input on matters dealing with the military come from where exactly?
He's another conservative hack who never showed up, but he's in good company: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Dick Cheney, Neil Cavuto and the current President.
America is lucky to have you....
Not that it makes a whole heck of a lot of difference, as Americans - military or not -hardly have a monopoly on military wisdom, but I would point that that von Clauswitz and Sun Tzu, just to name two authors, are not exactly "American"...
regarding van Creveld's work, there is a maxim among military experts - "Amateurs study strategy and tactics; professionals study logistics."
Or, to put it another way, if the German army had U.S. Army logistics (and didn't invade Russia with an army supplied by horse-drawn equipment) WW II may well have turned out a bit different...
had a very advanced army, actually, and very good scientists that were constently updating their machinery. A lot of tanks etc. were build during the 1930's as a project against unimployment.
The Germans thought they could surprise Stalin with a Blitz-Krieg. Despite the material that the USA sold to the UK, they were not able to defeat the Germans. The UK would have been defeated when the US would not have joined the war and escorted the ships to the UK. The U-boats almost eliminated almost all possibilities before that to get goods to the UK.
May I respectfully suggest you go back and review the literature?
I was not talking about the highly mechanized German army attack. I was referring to their badly overextended lines of supply (particularly after the Russian "Scortched Earth" policy).
The Japanese army had no supply system for food - only for more soliders and munitions. They soliders on the Pacific Island were left to fend for themselves - with some grisly results.
The German army supply system was horse-drawn and simply not up to the task(s) of modern war...
Please see:
[link to www.user.dccnet.com]
Germanny could not win due to lack of supplies and the cold, and the hardness of Russian soldiers, just like Napolean lost the war against Russia.
due to a lack of supplies." Correct. Why? Because they had a horse-drawn army.
[link to www.amazon.com]
Napoleon found himself in Moscow cut off from France. While "an army travels on its stomach" Napoleon's army had no supply train for food. His soldiers were expected to live off the country.
The depressing photos of dead Russians and burnt out tanks in your link have nothing to do with the topic.
Although our posts don't have much to do with MM4A's topic, either...
You seem to be correct on the supply by horses. You are certainly correct about my post being off-topic.
I will pay more attention next time in history class!
Respectfully yours.
YB
not yours. "Our."
The fact that the Germany army was a horse & wagon operation is far from a well-known fact. The "blitzkreig" (sp?)gets the publicity. And, as Henry Ford said, "You can't fix a dead horse with a wrench."
American baseball stopped using horsehide balls when Russian farmers finally went to tractors.
Bottom line for Mr. L. Bent Bozo The T---d - professionals study logistics.
Or historians for that matter. The administration has already stated that they are not members of the reality based community anyway. They are now Imperialist's who make up their own reality as they go along. If only so many Americans didn't have to be killed and maimed to bring about the reality they're trying to create.
>> Specifically, Bozell attacked Begala for referring to van Creveld on the March 20 edition of CNN's The Situation Room as "one of the most esteemed military historians in the world," and denigrated van Creveld as a fringe figure by calling him "obscure." Bozell also sarcastically referred to van Crevald as "this learned professor," the "good doctor," and "Begala and Carville's new most esteemed historian in the world."
"most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them."
Just an FYI, the Roman legions were lost in AD 9, not 9 BC.
The Rightwing line, adopted by Bush, is that "everything changed" on 9/11.
What a shame all that study of "HISTORY" was wasted. There is essentially, by new rightwing standards, NOTHING that can be learned from or applied by studying history. Experiences don't matter, because this war is completely "different".
Bush and Bozelle got their degrees in a subject that does them absolutely no good, by their own reckoning. Compare and contrast, examples, analogies, cause-and-effect -- none can be used to analyze or criticize the Bush Administration's current policies, because "everything is different" and this is a "new type of war".
Meanwhile, we continue to try to conquer and culturally convert foreign nations with ground forces. Uh, that was the LAST war ... but everything's different, now. We have entered a zone where KNOWLEDGE is useless. Perfect for Bush.
His father with WM.Buckley defende McCarthy;like father ,lilkeson.