The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Up From Academia

10.27.05 @ 12:01AM

STRANGLEHOLD
Re: James Bowman's Liberal Obsolescence:

James Bowman cannot seriously believe that the left's stranglehold on the contemporary academy is going to wither away of its own accord, as radical professors grow "bored" with their deconstructionist wordplay and once again engage in a serious, respectful exploration of the great works of Western culture. This view fundamentally misunderstands the leftist educational agenda, which is not about knowledge, but about politics. The left sees its educational role as one of indoctrinating young people to oppose the individualist, capitalist ethos upon which this country was built. They surely will not grow "bored" with their agenda, at least so long as they have not succeeded in turning America into the socialist dystopia of their dreams. Mr. Bowman's hopeful musings strike me as the kind of wishful thinking that many conservative intellectuals engage in, who refuse to admit once and for all that, with very few exceptions, our nation's institutions of higher education are beyond repair. See my article on this subject, "Reclaiming Higher Education From The Left," that was posted on American Thinker and Real Clear Politics last month.
-- Steven M. Warshawsky
New York, New York

If the elite, liberal college professors want to know why there are so few conservatives among their ranks, I think I can explain it in one sentence. "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."

Looking back on my own education, I can tell you that by far, the best undergrad and graduate school professors I ever had were the ones who had prior or parallel careers in the business world. The worst professors I had, and there were plenty of them, were the 'career' academicians, the ones who spent the ten years following high school 'studying,' and had been 'teaching' ever since. Most were pompous windbags who craved the sound of their own voices above anything else and who devoted a whopping 4 to 6 hours per week to classroom instruction. And these are the people who, like Howard Dean, claim that Republicans never work a day in their lives? Amazing.
-- Kevin Cecotti

Reading James Bowman's article brought back memories. Early in my college career I toyed with the idea of majoring in English. Then after sitting through a couple of idiotic classes worth of straining metaphorical gnats to arrive at professors' predetermined leftist conclusions I decided I had had enough.

At that point I switched to engineering, a field where there are discernible, testable, definitive correct answers that cannot be wished away according to the professors' political leanings. I'm referring to the hard engineering disciplines, of course (i.e., structural, mechanical, electrical, chemical, etc.). The soft engineering disciplines (i.e. environmental, transportation, industrial, etc.) are susceptible to monkey business. But anyone who chooses to ignore, say, the laws of gravity or thermodynamics will soon find that their building will not stand up, their engine will not function, their compressor will not compress, their diffuser will not diffuse, and so on. These unforgiving immutable laws care not one whit about engineers' political opinions.

I tip my hat to Mr. Bowman and the rest of your staff who were able to persevere in the literary disciplines long enough to become as proficient at it as you are. I know I didn't have the stomach for it. Your work supports our freedom, a very noble pursuit indeed. The most delicious aspect of it, to me, is that you were probably trained in your craft by flocks of leftist dingbats whose crazy ideas you so adeptly discredit. It is a real testament to your abilities of being able to cavort with fools but not be taken in by their folly.
-- R. Trotter

IRAQ PLANS
Re: Christopher Orlet's What's the Plan, Stan?:

Wow! Outstanding! Every Specator.org reader ought to print this one off, and paste it to a Lib's forehead.
-- C. T. Botkin
Maj. USMC (Ret)
Muncie, Indiana

Thank you for presenting Christopher Orlet's concise recitation of the positive results of our Iraqi Adventure (offered in the positive sense). Here is one positive that it seems many people overlook. I am certainly not privy to any secret plans, nor am I a military planner, however I would be amazed if our military wasn't taking the opportunity to build permanent military bases in the Kurdish and Shiite regions if Iraq. This is in addition to the permanent bases that are being established in Afghanistan. Is it so difficult for the left in this country to see the benefit of having permanent, fully armed (nuclear capable) military installations bracketing Iran, within two hours flight of Syria and looming above Kashmir (in an attempt to keep the Pakistanis and the Indians from launching a full blown nuclear war over some uninhabitable mountains)?

We used to refer to Israel as our aircraft carrier in the Middle East. With a permanent presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to our Israeli friends, our military can essentially leap frog from one Middle East hot spot to the next, all the way to the Indian Ocean.

If you think that your liberal adversaries are incapable of grasping this argument try this; when they ask when we will "get out of Iraq" simply tell them "the first Thursday after we get out of Germany."
-- Keith Iott
Salisbury, Maryland

Chris Orlet makes a good case that, contrary to "popular" understanding, there was indeed a plan for post-war Iraq.

But if you would like to read about a plan that WORKED, take a gander at the U.S. Army WW2 "Green Book" entitled "The Supreme Command," Chapter IV, "The Machinery of SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force)." The thirty-two pages of that single chapter sound like a hell of a lot better thinking (and planning) than went into post-war Iraq. Most significantly relevant to the present situation, consider the section on "Press Censorship," pages 90-91:

In general they [the press] were not to release military information that might prove helpful to the enemy, unauthenticated, inaccurate, or false reports, or reports likely to injure the morale of the Allied forces. The following items were among those which could be cleared only by SHAEF censors:

(1) all matters of high policy involving SHAEF or the Supreme Commander;
(2) the release of information on troops of various nationalities taking part in actions;
(3) casualties and troop strength;
(4) cipher work and code words;
(5) civil affairs;
(6) confirmation of enemy allegations, atrocities and the like;
(7) escapes;
(8) gas and chemical warfare;
(9) military equipment;
(10) strength and morale of troops;
(11) high-ranking officers at SHAEF;
(12) changes in command and movement of high-ranking officers;
(13) stories concerning prisoners of war involving harsh treatment;
(14) psychological warfare;
(15) resistance and underground movements;
(16) sabotage and spies; and
(17) naval ships and commanders.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Transportation, Education, Business, Environment, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, NATO, Oil