One of these days, I'll stop

...reading Richard Cohen. I honestly don't know why I keep reading his columns - I guess I'm a masochist, plus it at least gives me decent blog-fodder.

Today's offering gives us Cohen comparing Lebanon to Czechoslovakia. Or maybe Sarajevo. Or maybe Munich. I don't know. Neither, I take it, does Cohen, who can't seem to keep his poor historical analogies straight. The first paragraph is this:

In his upcoming book about the horrors of the 20th century, "The War of the World," the British historian Niall Ferguson has a chapter called "The Pity of Peace." It is about 1938, when World War II loomed, and Britain -- especially and importantly Britain -- did precious little to stop it. The warnings of Churchill -- "believe me, it may be the last chance . . ." -- were ignored, and the government under Neville Chamberlain obstinately pursued a policy that forever after made the word appeasement one of the most odious in history. Somehow, though, it looks like 1938 all over again.

and the second paragraph, with no real explanation, is this:

The events in the Middle East are often compared to 1914 and the start of World War I. That war -- the Great War, the war to end all wars -- is actually the all-purpose war. It not only began for what seemed like a trivial reason (the assassination of someone who wasn't a head of state) but it was fought with tenacity and brutality for what now seems no reason at all. In the end, millions died and the world was utterly changed. Why?

but before we actually answer Cohen's question, he's off to the races again:

But when it comes to the Middle East, 1938 is also a pretty instructive year....

and thus begins the historically illiterate invocations of Munich, appeasement, etc etc etc.

Now, I've written before that the events of August, 1914 seem awfully familiar these days - what with a trivial act of terrorism being used by madmen on both sides as an excuse for a wider war. But that's not what Cohen writes about. So maybe it's about how larger powers outside the immediate conflict become tied to the fates of smaller belligerents? (Maybe we could replace "Israel and America" with "Austria and Germany", or "Lebanon and Iran" with "Serbia and Russia"?) But no, that's not what Cohen writes about. Maybe Cohen invokes WWI to explore how the changing nature of technology has rendered previous military calculations obsolete? No, that's not what Cohen wants to write about. Indeed, it's hard to figure out what, if anything, Cohen invokes WWI to mean.

And we haven't even got to Munich yet. But Cohen gets there alright, talking about the need for the French to get some spine or some such:

This inability of Europe to get its act together is what suggests 1938. Back then, Winston Churchill was hardly the only one who thought Hitler was intent on war. After all, the German leader was an ideological zealot and a murderer to boot. Still, England did little. Similarly, you don't have to have Churchillian prescience to see that what happened once in Lebanon can happen again. Hezbollah's avowed aim is to eradicate Israel. Listen to what it says. Pay attention. It will renew its attacks the first chance it gets. This is why it exists.

For the love of God. How does this bullshit even get published anymore? Look, Hezbollah could have the avowed aim of landing a man on Mars, and it would have as much chance of doing that as destroying Israel. The Israelis, last I checked, had just invaded Lebanon and fought pretty nasty battles against Hezbollah, something Hezbollah has been unable to reciprocate - no Shia invasion of Galilee, right? Or did I sleep through that?

Hezbollah are most certainly not nice characters, but unless their threats are backed with reality, then they are not the basis of any kind of planning or reaction on our part. To illustrate, if Israel were threatening a nuclear strike on Beirut, that would be troubling because Israel has the means to do so. Hezbollah threatening the same on Tel Aviv is fantasy.

When George Bush used the term "Islamic fascists," he had a point.

No, he didn't. He never has a point, and only the serially retarded think otherwise at this point.

But it's futile to use colorful language when, in reality, you're out of the conversation altogether. This is another baleful consequence of the Iraq war. The United States is not only preoccupied, it is loathed. The leadership it once was able to exert -- especially in the Middle East -- is a thing of the past. If its credibility is to be restored, another president will have to do so. In the meantime, as we always learn, Europe without American leadership is a mere tourist destination.

Europe: No, fuck you.

I think I will have to stop reading Cohen. There's nothing here, just catty insults against the Europeans, paranoid fantasies about invincible Arab supermen plotting to destroy Israel, and a singular inability to recognize either his own stupidity when it's put to print.