I wrote couple of times about Max Boot. Now people in TAC recalled him and all for the wrong reason of Boot's party affiliation. Hint: Boot's party affiliation is Israel and, generally, with settling whatever accounts he has with his place of birth, Russia that is. But while paying attention to Boot's party affiliation's ambiguity, which, under present circumstances, is absolutely irrelevant (it was GOP which gave birth and brought up fanatics of neocon variety), the author of the piece makes a good observation:
Max Boot first came to public notice, or at least to mine, during the run-up to the Iraq war. He had persuaded a television producer somewhere to label him a “Defense Expert,” which, in the natural order of things, caused some people to mistake him for a defense expert. He had never been involved in even minor military operations himself, but he seemed uncontained in his enthusiasm for military operations involving other people. As the country debated the merits of an expedition to Iraq, Max Boot seemed to be everywhere. He was in every room. While he was rarely the most influential voice in any of those rooms, he was almost always the loudest. Among his several asseverations, all of them unburdened by either evidence or experience, were these: an American invasion would rid Iraq of nuclear weapons. (Iraq had no nuclear weapons.) An American invasion would cause the Iraqis to rise up and greet us as liberators. (They rose up and fought us as invaders.) An American invasion would bring democratic stability to a troubled region. (It brought chaos.) An American military victory would be quick and decisive. (After 16 years and incalculable losses in blood, treasure, prestige, and morale, the American military is still in Iraq.)
Ah, that's warmer. But it is distinction without a difference--I am talking about highlighted in yellow. I have a question to ask: and how is GOP different in respect to evidence or experience in anything real war related? Max Boot may be vomit inducing neocon, but the armies of "military experts" in GOP are the same breed of humanities "educated" ignoramuses from Ivy League degree mills and who wouldn't be allowed in any serious armed forces, despite their numerous Ph.Ds in God knows what useless for real war and foreign policy degrees, to be in charge of toilets in the company's barracks or on the frigate size ship.
I don't understand what is so important about Boot's affiliation when decision, as an example, to attack Iraq (just for the sake of argument) was made inside Republican Administration and its courtier of "military experts" who can easily be called clones of Max Boot. Max Boot, the same as people who pushed through the invasion of Iraq both in the government and media are to warfare what I am to Chinese choreography or quantum mechanics. How about the author of the piece in TAC admits that for all Boot's despicable incompetence, things stated about him in the article equally apply to most of American "elites" their party affiliation notwithstanding. Incompetence and dual loyalties is what defines them and it, in this case, becomes merely an exercise in futility trying to sort out different sorts of shit.