Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Another surrender monkey is born
Gary Hart, a man for whom I once had a lot of respect, as he was one of the country's best thinkers on the ties that bind a Republic together with his army, has officially lost his mind.
What has gotten into Democrats to make them so quick to take counsel of their fears? To embrace hopelessness and defeatism.
We should be concentrating on finding Al Qaeda and Ba'athist remnants where they live, putting them on the run, and killing them. They do not have the combat power to accomplish what Gary Hart fears - the annihilation of the US Army in Iraq.
Gary Hart's grasp of history is shaky - his analogy with Napoleon's retreat from Russia simply absurd.
For instance:
*There was no scorched earth policy to speak of in Iraq.
* Even if there was, US forces are not relying on local foraging for subsistance, like Napoleonic armies. The US is fully capable of supplying itself from outside the country.
* Unlike Napoleon, US troops don't have to walk, and are never more than two-and-a-half days drive from Kuwait.
* US forces fought their way into Iraq - they are perfectly capable of fighting their way out. But the Iraqis are less capable of stopping them.
* Napoleon did not have unchallenged Air Supremacy.
* The weather in Iraq does not hamper mobility in any way, unlike Russia.
* Napoleon's army was destroyed by the elements far more than by General Kutuzov. But hot, dry weather favors the U.S.
* Napoleon's army was uniformly despised by the Russian populace, which participated in the scorched earth strategy, which is essentially a logistic strategy. U.S. forces are welcome in most of the country. Iraqis are not going to destroy entire cities to spite the U.S.
* Napoleon was successful at Borodino like Grant was successful in the Wilderness. That is, not very. He just kept going.
* Napoleon lost half the remainder of his army in a single river crossing. That's not going to happen in Iraq. The US Army can carry its own bridges, if need be.
* Kutuzov was a beloved figure who united the country. Zarqawi is despised throughout Iraq.
* Iraq is not Russia.
* Sanchez is not Napoleon.
And Gary Hart needs a Patton-like slap across the face.
It ought to be Zarqawi worried about annihilation. Not us.
Jeez, what a loser.
Splash, out
Jason
What has gotten into Democrats to make them so quick to take counsel of their fears? To embrace hopelessness and defeatism.
We should be concentrating on finding Al Qaeda and Ba'athist remnants where they live, putting them on the run, and killing them. They do not have the combat power to accomplish what Gary Hart fears - the annihilation of the US Army in Iraq.
Gary Hart's grasp of history is shaky - his analogy with Napoleon's retreat from Russia simply absurd.
For instance:
*There was no scorched earth policy to speak of in Iraq.
* Even if there was, US forces are not relying on local foraging for subsistance, like Napoleonic armies. The US is fully capable of supplying itself from outside the country.
* Unlike Napoleon, US troops don't have to walk, and are never more than two-and-a-half days drive from Kuwait.
* US forces fought their way into Iraq - they are perfectly capable of fighting their way out. But the Iraqis are less capable of stopping them.
* Napoleon did not have unchallenged Air Supremacy.
* The weather in Iraq does not hamper mobility in any way, unlike Russia.
* Napoleon's army was destroyed by the elements far more than by General Kutuzov. But hot, dry weather favors the U.S.
* Napoleon's army was uniformly despised by the Russian populace, which participated in the scorched earth strategy, which is essentially a logistic strategy. U.S. forces are welcome in most of the country. Iraqis are not going to destroy entire cities to spite the U.S.
* Napoleon was successful at Borodino like Grant was successful in the Wilderness. That is, not very. He just kept going.
* Napoleon lost half the remainder of his army in a single river crossing. That's not going to happen in Iraq. The US Army can carry its own bridges, if need be.
* Kutuzov was a beloved figure who united the country. Zarqawi is despised throughout Iraq.
* Iraq is not Russia.
* Sanchez is not Napoleon.
And Gary Hart needs a Patton-like slap across the face.
It ought to be Zarqawi worried about annihilation. Not us.
Jeez, what a loser.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
I think that other than Liebermann, they've lost their collective minds! It bewilders me to see and hear them acting like scared rabbits. Never thought I'd see the day when Americans would abandon our troops in such a manner.
# posted by 
: 8:13 PM
: 8:13 PM
Don't forget disease rate and death from injury in Napoleonic times (severe) compared to today (negligible).
the first concern must be the safety of US forces.
The purpose of the Army in Iraq is to WIN THE WAR not to be "safe".
What a putz.
the first concern must be the safety of US forces.
The purpose of the Army in Iraq is to WIN THE WAR not to be "safe".
What a putz.
# posted by : 12:40 AM
: 12:40 AM
Wow, the comments to Hart's post are spectacularly stupid, too. I haven't seen that level of ignorance and derangement since the last time I read the comment section in William Arkin's blog.
# posted by : 12:46 AM
: 12:46 AM
Jason,
Great comments on Hart's illogical column; I like the rest of the blog, too!
I wrote a similiar critique of Gary Hart's erroneous comparison of the U.S. Army in Iraq to Napoleon in Russia over at my blog, the Wilsonizer (www.wilsonizer.blogspot.com). Check it out if you get the chance.
Stay in the fight!
Bob W.
Post a Comment
Great comments on Hart's illogical column; I like the rest of the blog, too!
I wrote a similiar critique of Gary Hart's erroneous comparison of the U.S. Army in Iraq to Napoleon in Russia over at my blog, the Wilsonizer (www.wilsonizer.blogspot.com). Check it out if you get the chance.
Stay in the fight!
Bob W.
