I am hopelessly ill-suited to serious scholarly work because I tend to be defensive of those I like, even when they are difficult to defend. In PB’s case, I cheered him on when he skewered that silly Burke woman from NOW who protested the absence of women at the Masters. I loved The Death of the West, which I consider a devastatingly brilliant work, both for its honest demographic analysis and, even more so, its calling-out of “the politics of posture”. Perhaps his own analysis can shed some light on his blindness in the case of Israel. In The Death of the West, chapter “Intimidated Majority”, Buchanan writes, ” ‘I have measured out my life with coffee spoons,’ laments T.S. Eliot’s J Alfred Prufrock. So, too, have our cultural elites. But in their minds they daily heave a cutlass against Nazis, fascists, and Klansmen who would otherwise fall upon defenseless and persecuted minorities. Why shouldn’t one feel good about oneself?”

In the same way that silly pseudo-radicals envision themselves as courageous protectors of the down-trodden, so may Buchanan believe himself to be a fair arbitrator between Israel and those who openly seek its destruction. Or maybe it is what I feared: that he is at heart an unrepentant anti-Semite.

I am defensive of those I like when they are difficult to defend. Not when they’re impossible to defend. Thus the imminent end to my American Conservative subscription.

I do indeed respect Pat Buchanan’s intellect, and have often said so. In my first critique of his position, “The Jewish Connection,” I wrote:

“Buchanan is one of the few American patriots left among the ‘nattering nabobs.’ He is a thorn in the side of the swarm of ‘neoconservatives and their pseudo-conservative allies—Messers Limbaugh, O’Reilly,’ and Savage—with whom Buchanan is forced to joust.”

In “Buchanan of Arabia,” I called him “brilliant,” although I said he was “consistent in his inconsistencies.” (Economic protectionism included.)

That he is so bright and seems a really nice man makes his position on Israel even more incongruent, irrational, and inconsistent with his valiant defense of the West. (See “Death by the West.”)

—ILANA

I have subscribed to TAC since its inception, but will likely let my subscription lapse at next renewal. The magazine has become a one trick pony. Also, Buchanan’s recent proposal of foreign aid to Hamas was just too darn much. Indefensible.

With that said, TAC isn’t quite as one-sided in ALL issues as it has been in the case of Israel. For instance, about a year ago TAC published an article that basically lambasted Buchanan over his thesis that America ought not to have entered WWII when it did. One contrary article doth not an open forum make, but hey, it is Buchanan’s mag. He and his cronies can publish whatever they please. That they occasionally stray from the party line is more than can be said for lots of other publications.

Finally, I note, with respect, that you pay a lot of attention to Buchanan. Granted, most of this attention is in the form of pointed criticism. Still, I can’t help but think that you respect his intellect. I sure do, though I’ve lost some following his hypocritical foreign-aid suggestion.

Hopefully someone at the top understands that some changes needs to be made.

Then again maybe not…

Nice article, but woe to you when you wrote it! I bet you got flammed for that sucker – especially the final few sentences. Ouch.

The large majority of people in uniform are support personnel (clerks, mechanics, medics etc) doing the jobs that enable the military to put a man under arms in combat. The ratio ranges from 7:1 to perhaps as high as 20:1. Air forces are of course, mostly support personnel and a very few combat fliers. Many, perhaps most of these jobs are gender neutral.

And as I recall, during WWII the recruiting slogan for the Women Marines (the B.A.Ms) was “Free a man to fight!”
[The point was that, given the silly tenor of TAC piece, the call-up detail was likely a rhetorical embellishment.]

Just random thoughts, but I wonder if the current climate in our culture is causing fewer men to enlist in the Forces. These are some general musings – so they could be wrong – but it doesn’t seem as though the military exudes a masculine drive anymore. In fact, it seems as though nearly all aspects of it’s once masculine nature has left, from the Marine’s original motto ‘looking for a few good men’ to even the term ‘servicemember’ instead of ‘serviceman’. Maybe this is why fewer men have been enlisting. [Great observation, echoed here in “Osama’s Snickering at Our Military“]

In fact, the units that seem to have the highest camaraderie are all male units, like Special Operations, despite their notoriously high attrition rates.

Then again, I might be off base with this one. [I don’t think so]