Does anybody know anything about Andrew Roberts? Or, what do you call a British version of a neo-conservative?

bit from C&L here, quoting from Glenn Greenwald's new book, about a luncheon thrown back in February by the White House for Roberts. This was the event where all the neocons showed up to soothe Dubya's ego and remind him that he was doing God's Work:

Stelzer recounts what he calls the multiple “lessons” they taught Bush at this luncheon. One of the key lessons is Roberts’ view that the U.S. should be most concerned with its relationships with the other “English-speaking countries in the world,” and not worry nearly as much about all those countries where they speak in foreign tongues (”Lesson Four: Cling to the alliance of the English-speaking peoples”).

see the actual rulers of the british empire weren't that stupid.

Good Lord, my thread-starting posts always used to be blog entry-long, weren't they?

Anyhow, reviving this thread b/c I've been reading Arthur Herman's _To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World_, and Herman's tone can occasionally drift into straight apologia or glorifying of 19th-C imperialism. To the point where that whole "Opium War" thing doesnt much get addressed.

Checking Amazon reviews of the guy's stuff, I noticed that he will cite Andrew Roberts as a source, and also writes for National Review and Commentary magazine, which drops my estimation of him even more considerably. What is it with conservative dad-types who dominate popular historical publishing(see also Victor Davis Hanson)? Is it that writing about war stuff just seems cool or quite profitable after you've read enough Tom Clancy(or even Patrick Obrian)? Is it an ideological flavor that nudges you into not really considering all the heinous, full-on war crimes shit that your subjects did more than a little in favor of pushing the more palatable and profitable heroic narrative?

Does everybody nowadays who clings to the Great Man theory have this mindset attached?

I began to twig Herman's political predilections since I'm at the part of the book right before WWI and Churchill shows up. The tone of the writing changes. You get that characteristic weird Winston-deification vibe that neocons sport.

And he writes sentences like

Like most arms limitation treaties, the Washington treaty made the world not a safer but a more dangerous place.

anyone subscribe to the WSJ?
I'd like to read the rest of this so I can hate on him more.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576315142981152396.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I could kind of understand the bad taste 'celebration' up to a point. Now there are British people doing it and the 'patriotism' (see jingoism) thing is continuing full force I'm feeling less understanding. Rejoicing anyone's death is bad taste. We used to pride ourselves on this being what set us apart from the US.

I never thought I'd say this, especially less than a fortnight after the Royal Wedding, but my countrymen's reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden have made me doubt my pride in being British.

The foul outpouring of sneering anti-Americanism, legalistic quibbling, and concern for the supposed human rights of our modern Hitler have left me squirming in embarrassment and apology before my American friends. Yet what I most despise my fellow Britons for is their absolute refusal, publicly or even privately, to celebrate the most longed-for news in a decade.

This was a military operation in a long war against an enemy commander whose courier started the shooting in a compound that, for all the Navy SEALs knew, might well have been booby-trapped. The most famous video clip of that commander is of him firing an automatic weapon.

The idea that bin Laden was retreating to his bedroom in order to give himself up and ask the details of his Miranda rights is risible. Yet Britons utterly refuse to obey the natural instincts of the free-born to celebrate the death of a tyrant.

When the Mets-Phillies baseball game erupted into cheers on hearing the wonderful news, or the crowds chanted "USA! USA!" outside the White House, they were manifesting the finest emotional responses of a great people. By total contrast, when Douglas Murray, the associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, told the BBC's flagship program "Question Time" last Thursday that he felt "elated" at the news, he was booed, heckled and almost shouted down.

Another panelist, the writer Yasmin Alibhai Brown, was applauded when she said she was "depressed" by the killing, as it "demeans a democracy and a president who has shown himself to be the Ugly American. He's degraded American democracy, which had already degraded itself through torture and rendition." The former Liberal Party leader Paddy Ashdown was then cheered when he said: "I cannot rejoice on the killing of any man. I belong to a country that is founded on the principle of exercise of due process of law," as though the United States was founded on some other idea.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, told reporters: "I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn't look as if justice is seen to be done." Writer Henry Porter whined about "vital moral issues" in the Guardian. Add to that lawyers Geoffrey Robertson in the Daily Beast and Michael Mansfield in the Guardian defending bin Laden's human rights, and a commentator on the radio station LBC saying that no one should celebrate the death because "we live in a multicultural society," and you can see how utterly degenerate modern Britain has become when it comes to prosecuting the war against terror.

Of course, all the people so far quoted (except Mr. Murray) come from the salaried commentariat, who might be expected to parrot liberal and establishment pieties. The reason I am so worried is that ordinary people I met in London last week shared their pusillanimity.

There was the lady at a cocktail party who told me "It's those gun-toting Yanks at it again." There was my son's classics teacher informing his young charges that he thought bin Laden deserved the "dignity" of a fair trial. And there was the letter about the U.S. celebrations to the conservative-leaning Daily Telegraph stating that terrorist cells "will be further fuelled by those inappropriate reactions by people who should have known better." How? How, Ms. Tess Hyland of Bathurst, could al Qaeda possibly hate us more than they do already?

To the man who told me he didn't believe bin Laden was buried at sea "according to Muslim rites," I repeat that Mussolini was hung upside down on a meathook and then urinated upon. And as for those people who genuinely thought that the United Nations and Pakistan should have been informed of the raid beforehand, Lord, give me strength!

For the past five years, I've been writing a history of the Second World War, and if there is one central lesson I have taken from this study, it is that the intestinal fortitude of a people matters much more than weaponry, economics or even grand strategy. British fortitude was tested almost to breaking point in 1940 and 1941, and Russian fortitude in 1941-43, but they held, whereas Germany's and Japan's collapsed in 1945. Morale is almost impossible to quantify, whereas demoralization is all too evident.

From Britain's pathetic and ignoble reaction to the death of our greatest ally's No.1 foe, I fear for our fortitude in the continuing war against terror. The British government in London and the British Army in Afghanistan are magnificent, but if the people themselves are shot through with what Winston Churchill called "the long, drawling, dismal tides of drift and surrender," I wonder whether we can be counted upon for much longer.

As a commentator on the Royal Wedding for NBC, I was filled with pride in my country for the precision-timing and perfect step of the Household Division, the fine behavior of the crowds, and the charm and personability of the young couple. Today all I feel is shame at my country's pathetic reaction to your own great day of joy.

Mr. Roberts's "The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War," will be published next Monday by HarperCollins.

To the man who told me he didn't believe bin Laden was buried at sea "according to Muslim rites," I repeat that Mussolini was hung upside down on a meathook and then urinated upon.

Um, how does this work as a response?

what an awful person

Love his complete ignorance that the 'demoralization' of present-day Britain might not be down to bid Laden's death but might have more to do with his Tory university mates and banking chums.

Well, maybe that the possibility of Terrorist activities looms larger in peoples mind?

Whereas this guy seems to suggest a mindset of "Well, tomorrow I or somebody I know might die via a bomb. but WHAT THE HELL LET'S CELEBRATE NOW!!! WOO WOO WOO WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!! (oh,ok, number 2 then.)"

United Nations and Pakistan should have been informed of the raid beforehand, Lord, give me strength!

should = legally required, no?

Does he suggest we do away with international law?

He's already against human rights law

"For the past five years, I've been writing a history of the Second World War" - UK readers who bought the book two years might be impressed to learn he's still writing it.

*two years ago*, even.

kinda shocked that article hasn't been approvingly linked to on arts and letters daily.

What was the popular reaction in Britain to the news of Hitler's death? Were good honest, intestinally fortitudinous Britons whooping in the streets?

um, yes?

but surely that was more of an 'end of the war' thing rather than a 'ding dong the witch is dead' thing?

For the past five years, I've been writing a history of the Second World War

Maybe he hasn't got that far yet but there was a little thing that happened at the end of the war, called the Nuremberg Trials? You know, where, instead of simply blowing their brains out and dumping them in the North Sea, the Allies put the leaders of the Reich on trial, with defence counsels + the whole shmeer, in full view of cameras and the world's media?

then hung them and dumped them in the North Sea

That Rudolf Hess was living a life of luxury, Spandau Prison was a place, man in pub told me

A palace, i mean, though it was obviously a place too

Nazis were government officials etc on the losing side of a war that was over, easier to hold and try for genocide. OBL led an organization, but he was a free agent. SLIGHT DIFFERENCE.

And there was the letter about the U.S. celebrations to the conservative-leaning Daily Telegraph stating that terrorist cells "will be further fuelled by those inappropriate reactions by people who should have known better." How? How, Ms. Tess Hyland of Bathurst, could al Qaeda possibly hate us more than they do already?

pretty sure the 'fueling the hate' argument isn't referring to current members of al qaeda, andy.

funny that a guy who is plunged into despair by a conversation with a 'lady at a cocktail party' feels justified in lecturing others on their lack of 'intestinal fortitude.'

probably one of the least offensive andrew roberts pieces i've read

United Nations and Pakistan should have been informed of the raid beforehand, Lord, give me strength!

should = legally required, no?

Does he suggest we do away with international law?

― owenf, Thursday, May 12, 2011 10:53 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

really man? this is pretty much to say you'd rather osama had lived out his life in secluded peace. anyway im sure international law enforcement will come down on the US like a ton of bricks, so i guess justice *will* be served.

I'm not saying I'd rather Osama had lived out his life in secluded peace. But the US does have a wonderful history of abiding by international law (and when they do slip up oh so rarely they always say sorry and pay the consequences) COUGH COUGH

I'm not saying I'd rather Osama had lived out his life in secluded peace

ok, you'd rather a world where pakistan could be trusted with the knowledge -- i guess we all would.

im not a big believer in international law, again, not because i dislike the idea necessarily, just on the literal level of belief. it's unclear where it derives its authority from, who enforces it, etc. presumably pakistan is in breach of various international laws relating to terrorism; presumably also the US is in breach of international law by launching attacks inside pakistan. im sure sure who gets charged and sentenced, or by whom.

Ha ha, extraordinary self-loathing whinge from Roberts there, excoriating Britain for nothing more than, well, Not Being America.

Biggest lol, when he tries to exclude (baselessly) the guy he likes from the ranks of the obviously evil and depraved 'salaried commentariat'. Most o_0, when he suggests that the Germany and Japan lost the war because they suddenly turned conchy in 1945.

That's some classic shit. Obviously German demoralization had nothing to do with the army mostly being kids and geriatrics by 1945.