No Way To Treat A Lady (cont.)

A while back, Paul Krugman took a cheap shot at Simone Ledeen. Her forceful and eloquent reply appears in the NRO.

We are enthralled by her main points, but she also leaves us with a bit of a puzzle in a parenthetical aside:

"I won't dwell on the fact that Krugman also quoted my father out of context; those interested can verify this for themselves."

Ah ha! This is what Krugman said:

If the occupiers often seemed oblivious to reality, one reason was that many jobs at the C.P.A. went to people whose qualifications seemed to lie mainly in their personal and political connections — people like Simone Ledeen, whose father, Michael Ledeen, a prominent neoconservative, told a forum that "the level of casualties is secondary" because "we are a warlike people" and "we love war."

Here is a WaPo account of the forum in question:

Hawks on War Against Hussein Stay the Course

Strong proponents of the war against Iraq yesterday dismissed fresh concerns that the conflict could take much longer and produce more casualties than generally anticipated, expressing continued optimism about the conflict's ultimate outcome.

...they maintained that eventually the war would prove a success, and that even a prolonged war could become an opportunity to demonstrate renewed American resiliency and backbone.

...Along similar lines, Michael A. Ledeen, author of "The War against the Terror Masters" and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, argued at a forum on Iraq earlier the week:

"I think the level of casualties is secondary. I mean, it may sound like an odd thing to say, but all the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war. . . . What we hate is not casualties but losing. And if the war goes well and if the American public has the conviction that we're being well-led and that our people are fighting well and that we're winning, I don't think casualties are going to be the issue."

Hmm, my theory that Ledeen was quoting from General Patton goes out the window:

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

Men, all this stuff you've heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans, traditionally, love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle.

When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball players, the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans...

We do encourage Mr. Ledeen, and others, to focus on the General's opening thought. And Paul Krugman, who routinely compares America to a banana republic, may want to reflect upon our nation's martial history.

Comments

[Paul Zrimsek]

The WaPo article doesn't give quite all the context it might either. Here, courtesy of one of Roger Simon's commenters, is a better one.

[TM]

Thank you - it's great to know I have achieved a mind-meld with Mr. Ledeen.