RE: Actually, the Middle East Is Our Crisis Too
This is a really odd article.
From the title, one would suspect that Charles, bless his little neo-con heart, is attempting to spin up an argument for the US to get involved militarily in Israel's conflict with Hizbollah. However, when one reads the body of the article, it really has little or nothing to do with the title.
As for the article itself, the argument Charles is using to establish his predicate is so thin, one can almost see the naked emperor underneath. The rhetorical journey from the me-too sport in which the jihadists are engaged to the dual papacy of Rome and Avignon is not one anyone with any sense would dare begin. Charles might as well compare it to the Church following the great schism for all the historical accuracy he seeks but misses. The establishment of the papacy-in-exile at Avignon was the result of political machinations gone awry. Clement V fell into his own trap and the following 73 years were nothing more than a face-saving maneuver. In any case, the enmity between Rome and Avignon that was the hallmark of the period has no analog in the pan-Islamist situation.
Regardless of the fact that I find myself in disagreement with Charles Krauthammer better than half the time any more, he has always heretofore produced lucid, intelligent writing. This article is a mess. Is it symptomatic of the neo-con disintegration now underway?
From the title, one would suspect that Charles, bless his little neo-con heart, is attempting to spin up an argument for the US to get involved militarily in Israel's conflict with Hizbollah. However, when one reads the body of the article, it really has little or nothing to do with the title.
As for the article itself, the argument Charles is using to establish his predicate is so thin, one can almost see the naked emperor underneath. The rhetorical journey from the me-too sport in which the jihadists are engaged to the dual papacy of Rome and Avignon is not one anyone with any sense would dare begin. Charles might as well compare it to the Church following the great schism for all the historical accuracy he seeks but misses. The establishment of the papacy-in-exile at Avignon was the result of political machinations gone awry. Clement V fell into his own trap and the following 73 years were nothing more than a face-saving maneuver. In any case, the enmity between Rome and Avignon that was the hallmark of the period has no analog in the pan-Islamist situation.
Regardless of the fact that I find myself in disagreement with Charles Krauthammer better than half the time any more, he has always heretofore produced lucid, intelligent writing. This article is a mess. Is it symptomatic of the neo-con disintegration now underway?
posted by Anonymous | 8:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home