Flit

KIND OF LIKE LEAVING THE

KIND OF LIKE LEAVING THE SPONGE IN THE PATIENT, REALLY

We've gotten so used to the "fake" accidentally inserted editor's note... the [what's wrong, are you drunk --ed.] inserted in a text where a commentator wants to make fun of themselves and prick the balloon of their own pretensions. (Kaus is particularly annoying in this regard.) The fake is so common a device now, that we almost forget these things really happen every now and again... the editor's annotations make it into the final copy, uncut.

This appears to have happened to Jacob Weisberg today on Slate. Because this is the web, and this will no doubt soon be memory holed, I'll reprint verbatim for the ages:

But if this seems a propitious moment to finally get Saddam in certain ways, it's a distinctly impractical one in others. We are still engaged in a complicated campaign against the far-flung and not inconsiderable remnants of al-Qaida. Moreover, that war has left us militarily depleted. It will take months to replenish our [Jake, do you want these so close to each other?] stock of precision-guided missiles.

Classic. It opens so many questions... which proximity is it the editor is concerned about? Is Jake keeping his missiles too close together, or his nouns? Did he make the classic writer's mistake of using the same word twice in adjacent clauses? Likely whatever error was there was repaired... the editors' note, however, stayed in until after posting. It's kind of like if the long-believed extinct and known-only-by-reputation dodo showing up alive and well and living in a timeshare in Seattle. [Okay, that's enough similes about grammar -- ed.]

THE PILE-ON AWARD, vol. 1

THE PILE-ON AWARD, vol. 1 -- WILLIAM JOHNSON

In what should be something of a journalistic first, but probably isn't, there is not a single original thought in the entire column by failed Anglo Quebec politician William Johnson in the Globe today. It's a complete waste of space, devoted to reiterating the old, fallacious pro-Bush arguments on the Guantanamo issue every other commentator either made or refuted to weeks ago, if they were so inclined. Apparently English Montreal really is its own solitude. I'm accordingly opening nominations for the William Johnson Commemorative Bursary, for those commentators who decide the world needs yet another column on an already well-debated issue, and don't let the fact they haven't the slightest thing to add to the debate slow them down. The Prize is one original column idea, emailed to the winner. We'll hold a vote in December, or something. Other nominations welcome.

Maybe next week Bill will give us his Superbowl predictions...

THINKING FOR SOLDIERS, vol. 6

THINKING FOR SOLDIERS, vol. 6 -- CARL CONETTA'S "STRANGE VICTORY"

(Thanks to Den Beste for finding this first.) An important first pass at an overall analysis of the Afghan campaign over at the PDA site, by Carl Conetta.

I'm going to part with the Captain of the Clueless again on this one, for I feel this is a very balanced and judicious report, which clearly outlines the reasons the war developed the way it did, and what the alternatives would have been, and what likely trade-offs would have resulted. The Afghan campaign was not, cannot have been, perfect in planning and execution. It had problems: for instance, Conetta rightly points out the unsatisfying results of the Tora Bora cave searches, which would have been impossible to improve on without substantially more U.S. troops on the ground. That's the trade-off. He also mentions the lack of rapid deployment of a proper stabilization force early on, which has made and is making Mr. Karzai's life exceedingly difficult and dangerous right now. The trade-off to that, however, as Conetta clearly states again, is the potential for resentment and quagmire a massive influx of foreign troops would have produced. But that doesn't mean, nor do I believe Conetta is arguing, that this was not then "the best of all possible wars:" any alternative war plan would also have been imperfect in its achievements as well.

I believe Conetta, with this, and his previous study, the first serious estimate of Afghan civilian casualties, has established himself as a responsible scholar and important contributor to the Afghan debate. He's actually trying to answer the questions people want answered now. I really don't sense an agenda here, just serious, stolid military scholarship. I, for one, will be looking forward to his byline in future.