Please Help New English Review
For our donors from the UK:
New English Review
New English Review Facebook Group
Follow New English Review On Twitter
Recent Publications from New English Review Press
Easy Meat
by Peter McLoughlin
The Tongue is Also a Fire
by James Como
Out Into The Beautiful World
by Theodore Dalrymple
Unreading Shakespeare
by David P. Gontar
Islam Through the Looking Glass: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J. B. Kelly, Vol. 3
edited by S. B. Kelly
The Real Nature of Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
As Far As The Eye Can See
by Moshe Dann
Threats of Pain and Ruin
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Oil Cringe of the West: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly Vol. 2
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Impact of Islam
by Emmet Scott
Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies
by Ibn Warraq
Fighting the Retreat from Arabia and the Gulf: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly. Vol. 1
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Literary Culture of France
by J. E. G. Dixon
Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays
by David P. Gontar
Farewell Fear
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Eagle and The Bible: Lessons in Liberty from Holy Writ
by Kenneth Hanson
The West Speaks
interviews by Jerry Gordon
Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy
Emmet Scott
Anything Goes
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Left is Seldom Right
by Norman Berdichevsky
Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
by Rebecca Bynum

Saturday, 21 October 2006
Stealing Fitzgerald

I hesitate to write a post critical of someone “on our side” so to speak, and a loyal reader of Jihad Watch to boot, but I find I am compelled to do so in this case. Diana West, a person whose work I greatly admire, has written an article in the Washington Post called A Vote for Civil War in which she blatantly takes ideas developed by Hugh Fitzgerald, involving the exploitation of the Sunni-Shia split in Iraq, and puts them forward as her own. Fitzgerald has worked tirelessly over the last two years refining and developing this strategy and Diana West knows this very well.


Let’s look briefly at the time line. I distinctly remember Fitzgerald blogging on this subject late in 2004, but here are two of his early articles in which he explicitly puts forth this argument:

 The greatest Intelligence Failure of the Iraq War was not about WMD (Jan, 23, 2005)

The Adventure in Iraq (Jan. 28, 2005)

I, myself, took up the argument in these two articles:

 Fighting the Last War (May 7, 2005)

 Disengage, Contain and Constrain (May 14, 2005)

Then still later, in the Sept 26, 2005 issue of the American Conservative, the same argument was put forth by James Kurth in his article, Splitting Islam.


Now, I can forgive her overlooking my work. I can even forgive her overlooking Kurth, but I cannot understand how she could forget to attribute a major political and strategic war policy, originated, developed and refined for over two years, to someone whose work she obviously knows intimately.


In fairness to Diana, Fjordman has been even more blatant about it: see here.

Update: After doing some more digging, I now have in my possession Hugh Fitzgerald posts going back to Feb. 20, 2004 accurately predicting the exact situation we are in in Iraq right now. Hugh has never wavered in his stance and has patiently and methodically built up an entire geopolitical strategy for the "war on terror," an important part of which includes Iraq, and has tirelessly defended this policy from all comers for over two and a half years. I, too, have broadcast and defended this policy since the spring of 2005 when I formally began working at Jihad Watch to the best of my ability because I see it (both then and now) as our best, and indeed our only, hope for survival in this struggle. In fact, I debated John Derbyshire over this very issue (I advocated withdrawal from Iraq, John advocated "stay the course") on Joey Reynolds' Show on WOR in NYC last December. 

Well, a lot has happened in a year and a lot of people have changed their positions, but Hugh Fitzgerald has steadfastly maintained and refined his. He deserves credit for being the first public voice to advocate the only sensible position to take, not only on Iraq, but for his entire war strategy. I simply think it is ungenerous on the part of Ms. West not to acknowledge this. I didn't say it was illegal, or a copyright infringement,or anything of the sort, I simply think it is wrong not to give credit where credit is genuinely due, especially when it is so evident that Ms.West has changed her position on the war due (at least in part) to Mr.Fitzgerald's relentless and unceasing efforts.

Posted on 10/21/2006 7:10 AM by Rebecca Bynum
21 Oct 2006
I thought of that policy myself long before I read the essays by Fitzgerald and Fjordman. So must dozens of other people who think as we do. As Ms. West says, it's common sense, given the values we share. To claim sole authorship is in effect to deny that lots of people are familiar with the ancient tactic called "divide and conquer," of which this proposed policy is a subcategory.

21 Oct 2006
Send an emailRebecca Bynum
Dear Frieda, Here was my reply to West:
It may seem like common sense now, but back when Hugh first started making the argument, he was a lone voice of one, and he deserves credit for taking a courageous stand when nobody else would.
That remains my feeling on the matter.

21 Oct 2006
Send an emailbutterfly
He deserves credit, and praise.

Guns, Germs and Steel in Tanzania
The Thinking Person's Safari
Led by Geoffrey Clarfield
Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
Enter text, Go to search:
The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31