"But just the problem I identify should be enough to disqualify this guy from teaching anyone anything anywhere. Moreover, even if the crazy-filter failed to catch him before he got tenure, in a non-insane country the country's most prestigious newspaper wouldn't be printing something like this."

Fortunately for academia, doctorates are granted to those displaying academic rigor of enough significance to advance their fields and not just to those opinions that are held to be popular.

Unfortunately, the standards beyond the PhD level drop significantly and are based primarily on two things - publishing and fundraising. In International Relations, the latter often goes to those willing to tow the mainstream Realist line in support of policies favorable to political / economic institutions. This seems to have the double-effect of legitimizing the crazies while simultaneously further entrenching the hawkish policies as the academic mainstream. Of course, this then makes it easier for such people to publish and the cycle continues.

Particularly with regard to military academies, there is a tension between fostering an environment of academic integrity - which tends to gravitate towards what Americans erroneously consider more of a "liberal" agenda - and appeasing the symbols of both the political winds and the pressures of military hegemony.

To be fair, I have to imagine that the higher administration of such institutions fancy themselves social scientists and have, like the rest of us, been instilled with a need for diversity of opinion, sound methodological practices, and exterior collaboration/conferencing. But it is doubtful that such institutions will change their stripes in the near future for two reasons. The first is that they have become homogenized to such an extent that they believe inherently minor differences constitutes broad diversity (and the rest of the "liberl" IR community are a bunch of quacks) and so little effort is made in recruiting outsiders. The second is that they don't convey much sense of invitation to other institutions through conference presence, publications, enagagement outside the Ivory tower, etc.

I'm (hopefully) finishing my PhD in April and have been job hunting myself for the past few months. My work is specifically in counter-terrorism and I have a lot of ideas on contemporary conflicts that are not only pragmatic, but deliberately address Realist concerns. I think I would make a fabby addition to any military academy - except for the fact that I would never, NEVER apply for the post. I have no intention of approaching a university that (seemingly) hates what I stand for and in which I would be unlikely to make tenure. I can see that this is unfair to myself, the insititutions, their students, the profession, and the country as a whole. But I doubt I am alone in my hypocrisy.

The comparison is even more outrageous than it seems. In reality, most Vietnamese are Buddhist but in the same way that many agnostics in America nevertheless self-identify as Christian. (For instance, I identify as Lutheran but haven't been to church in more than a decade.) There's lots of ancestor worship in Vietnam but basically zero religious fervor in most of the population.

This is very different than, say, America. I suspect that the Shia and Sunni in Iraq are also rather fervent believers - not at all like Vietnam.

"A highly effective national war leader."

It would seem that for Moyar an effective war leader is one who takes steps which keep war going for decades. While certainly not all Diem'sfault, it is hard to see that his policies in 1955 led to good times for Vietnam and its people--unless, like Moyar, you're crazy.

Yeah, I was going to take issue with "a highly effective war leader" as well. Someone whose corrupt, autocratic government perpetuated a civil war and ended in flames and a US-supported assassination/coup shouldn't necessarily be described as "highly effective", unless you forgot one or two letters, like "in-".

Also:
>WHAT IN THE NAME OF GOD'S OWN HOLY NIPPLES IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY?

This settles the long-standing mystery of why men have nipples.

And there in America, the LA Times will publish a neocon nutcase's rousing call to bomb Iran. The title of that one was really subtle: "Bomb Iran" And just in case you missed the message, the opening line was "We must bomb Iran."

Don't you people have laws against that kind of thing???

Don't you people have laws against that kind of thing?

Laws against what? LOVING AMERICA?!?

OMFG, I don't even know where to start. Almost every sentence he wrote is wrong in multiple ways. In a sane world it would be sufficient to put up a sign saying, "Here be idiots", and let it go at that.

However, Moyar engages in a propaganda technique that will be studied by future generations, in much the same was as we study Goebels' the Big Lie (to which the neocons are no strangers). In this technique, the most outrageous and falacious arguments possible are made in a major media outlet. If you do not counter them, they are out there and gain normalcy over time by simple repitition. If you engage and counter them, the mere act of engagement gains normalcy for the ideas. Either way, once the insane idea is floated, every time someone makes any point remotely related, the press trots out an adherent of the insanity to "balance" the sane perspective.

I really don't know how to counter this kind of propaganda, and evidently no one else does either, since it seems to work. You can't debunk the ideas rationally, because they do not use reason as support. The arguments are essentially emotional, supported only by wildly strained analogies and outright falsehoods.

Plus that nasty little question: How'd that work out for Mr. Diem? He still our boy in Asia?
Oh, never mind...

What I love is this sudden wave of erudition on the Vietnam war, coming from the Iraq war hawks.

Had they tried such nuanced analysis with their 60's counterparts, the response would have been along the lines of, "Bullshit! We've got to stop those goddam commies in 'Nam or every freakin' Southeast Asia country will end up flyin' the hammer n' cycle and then it won't be long before we all have to start learning how to speak Russian!"

Proving what we might have suspected- "Marine Corps University" is a working definition of oxymoron.

Or some kind of moron.

Migawd, these are the people "defending us"? We are in some deep doo-doo now.

It should reassure Maliki that he is being cast as Diem in this drama. This begs the question: Who're going to play Marshall Ky and General Thieu in Iraq, Son of 'Nam?

Since the New York Times (née Pravda) is America’s tabloid of record, the only thing surprising about that article is that it doesn’t mention how all the dubious suppositions are supported by ‘highly placed government sources’ and/or unicorns.

suarabh: Re: "This settles the long-standing mystery of why men have nipples"

Wait a second, so God is a MAN?

Dammit, Serialcatowner, you beat me to the punch. Fie, oh fie.

Hey, folks, we're dealing with a Marine, not Rene Descartes.

Poor general Westmorland, till the end he believed he had never lost a battle in vietnam. But as the Vietnamese would say, this may be so but it is irrelevent. The same with that nut, this may be so , but it is irrelevent. It hard to deal with pathology. Amin
PS. Please proof read the statment, that guy is too much