It would be great if as powerful a spokesman as David Ignatius would avoid the periodic rhapsodies the Washington Post is so prone to engage in when the topic is Obama. Of course, to do so would run counter to the media culture of the most popular president among the press in history.
His latest recant, echoing Obama's own recant, of the Libyan War is a demonstration of this phenomenon. Rankly claiming that Obama is really stepping back in order to appease the masses of Arab nationals, proclaiming Obama is against being a "post-colonial power in the Middle East," or at least "military intervention," Ignatius would do better at not writing a column at all rather than acting as sycophant and shill for Obama by contorting facts and history.
Yet he cannot do this. Especially when some trick of thought worthy of a much lesser place than the Washington Post rather than that august press institution. Yet that is what the Washington Post has become. We now have Krauthammer as a guiding light, Robinson to spread the Eugenic wealth, and the rest of the intelligentsia seeking to make you think in non-linear directions rather than facing fact as it presents itself.
My comments on Ignatius come from the following quote in a recent article in the Washington Post.
He senses (rightly, in my view) that over the past several decades America, without really intending to, became a post-colonial power in the Middle East. The narrative of American military intervention stretches from Lebanon to Iraq to Afghanistan, with the ghastly interlude of Sept. 11, 2001. Obama seems determined to break with it. He really is the un-Bush.”
It is unclear what the goal was here. Pure tripe perhaps. Let's break this wonder of intellectual thought down a bit to see what Ignatius is apparently saying.
"He senses" meaning Obama senses this fact. As if any sensing is required. As if this takes some dramatic, powerful analysis.
"(Rightly, in my view)" as if this is some type of benediction about some great thought.
"That over the past several decades" whatever that timing might be.
"America, without really intending to" and here is the most absurd statement, as we will see.
"Became a post-colonial power in the Middle East."
Now this one tells us, apparently, that it takes a president to "sense" that America (apparently the United States of America) is a power in the Middle East. Really. How amazing. Moreover, when exactly did "post-colonial" happen? Are you saying that the US was not a power in the Middle East before the British left Palestine? And who are the colonialists anyway? How far back are you going?
Is it even worse to contend that America never intended to become a power in the Middle East. Really. With all that oil, America never intended to be a power there. With Israel in the forefront, America never knew that it would have to be a power there?
Ignatius was not done with this profound statement. For it was the lead-in to a complete non sequitur that shows a lot less learning.
Namely, that "the narrative of American military intervention stretches from Lebanon to Iraq to Afghanistan." Let's forget the use of the "ghastly interlude" which makes no sense other than to add it. Let's start with Patton. Although perhaps this action in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere is before the US became a "post-colonial power," surely we should include every intervention if it is military and includes Libya, should we not? And by the way, is Afghanistan the Middle East? Moreover, what about Israel? Do we need to send troups somewhere for it to become an intervention?
Then we have the real killer.
"Obama seems determined to break with it."
What is "it?" The post-colonial power? The military intervention?
So, Ignatius is telling us that sending the military into, over and soon perhaps through Libya is not US military intervention because of what?
Of course, how could anyone other than Ignatius even have the temerity of adding his final thought.
"He [Obama] is really the un-Bush."
Come again? What are you saying here? That Obama's military intervention is "un-Bush?" Why? Because he has not gotten an invasion into Libya? Because he got NATO do do what he wanted?
This is a completely absurd paragraph, from an author who does not do much with his words these days. Did he ever do better?