Robert Novak, receding into irrelevance

You ever notice that some writers have shelf lives, like dairy products? They’re good for a few years, maybe even decades, but then they sputter out into irrelevance.
Such a man is Robert Novak, who used to write a good column but is rapidly becoming a right-wing Andy Rooney. His writing used to be exciting because he really did provide solid “behind the scenes” information on what was “really” going on around D.C., and his assessments were correct more often than not.
Today, he’s a cranky old man (despite converting to the fulness of Catholic truth a few years ago.) His sharp analysis has lapsed into lazy repetition, his source material mere anecdotes. Here’s one example:

It is a strange war [in Afghanistan], with the JAGs — Judge Advocate General military lawyers — given a hand in military decisions. My sources tell of military commanders, despite credible intelligence of enemy forces, calling off air strikes on the advice of JAGs. This is the kind of restraint the U.S. military has experienced starting with the Korean War, when as a non-combat Army officer, I knew our forces had their hands tied behind their backs.

While it’s certainly true that excessive legalism has hampered effective warfighting in the past, the presence of JAGs doesn’t necessarily mean anyone’s hands are tied. JAG officers don’t make decisions, they simply advise. Commanders either follow or disregard the advice. It’s not such a bad thing to have an officer who can help clarify the ambiguities of target selection and international law.
Because of the nature of my unit, I’ve known dozens of JAG officers, and they are hardly pacifists. They see their role as supporting the warfighting effort, and so they strive to balance military necessity against moral and legal obligations. Novak should meet a few of them instead of relying on a half-century-old memory.