On the Dissent stuff, the blanket bit about boring isn't merited in my opinion. I agree with that description concerning Walzer's attempts to count the angels, etc. . . . but the Mills piece was quite good, as is/was David Rieff's piece. And the argument interests me. I think it's terribly important to keep the ethnic slaughter issue in the public mind, whoever does it. It's too easy to consider it something us tough-minded professionals think of as liberal wooliness and not keep thinking about the humanitarian issues, not to speak of the longer term national interest issues.
As for Powers' article, I agree about the framing but it is an effective frame for NYRB readers. And your frame would, best I can tell, produce a different article than the one she wished to write.
As for eating NYRB's lunch on foreign policy issues, I don't disagree with the exception that their point of view on those issues means they will highlight different things than FA. And do so in different ways. Lots of voices. And, for once, they are not all on the right.
John
P. S. Oh, yes, I put up a generic request for any short comments on Seymour Hersh's Samson Option. Do you have any? |
