Can you link to Judis' reply if/when he posts one? Becuase Kirchirk (sp) seems to have pointed out a huge hole in Judis' argument. I know you hold Judis in high esteem, but doesn't his argument look weak now?
 DevinCarpenter | 1:51 PM

Perhaps that would be a huge hole, if the "government" of Somalia wasn't something created a few years ago in Kenya, filled with warlords and that lacks all popular support.

Also, his Canada analogy is hilariously terrible, from this Canadian's perspective.
 G | 2:11 PM

I don't recall seeing this guy Kirchick until recently. He reads like Marty's illegitimate son. Quite the suck-up, inn't he?
 Farinata X | 2:47 PM

Ahem. John Judis is a very good journalist, but he is not infallible. No good investigative journalist could approve his nasty comments in 1992 portraying I.F. Stone as a Stalinist in NYT. Stone is the guy who used his journalist's skills to show we were being misled about nuclear testing in the 1950s and about Vietnam in 1965 (his paper on the White Paper). The whole episode was disgusting: it was like he was channeling Sidney Hook.

That doesn't mean he's wrong about Somalia. I think he's right. But he doesn't deserve a halo quite yet.

Dan Tompkins
 Dan Tompkins | 5:38 AM

Shouldn't it be "The Judis"?
 TS | 8:06 AM