|
The McClellan of Mesopotamia
In reply to a Diana West column on Iraq, a commenter makes, in strong language, points about the desert quagmire that have many resemblances to those I’ve been making for close on four years:
Ask General Sherman about limited war. Thank you, Diana West, for saying what I have been shouting out for the last four years. Either kill them, or get out. No nation has won a protracted, “limited war.” At first, we conservatives supported the war, because we assumed that Bush planned to win it, to annihilate the enemy—if small-arms fire came from a building, we expected to see 500-lb bombs dropped on it. We didn’t expect to see our soldiers have to go in and clear out neighborhoods house-to-house. We didn’t expect to see our troops sit in the desert, drive around aimlessly and get blown up. Bush is the General McClellan of the Iraq war. You can’t win if you won’t fight with all your resources. You can’t win a war unless you are willing to kill the enemy where he lives. Bush is an incompetent buffon who does just enough not to lose, but not enough to win. His military tactics are as criminal as those of WWI generals who sent their infantries charging into the face of machine guns. This battle will be Bush’s Gallipoli.
Retreating now would not be a disaster, if it meant we could regroup while we await for another commander-in-chief. Stategic retreats have nothing to do with lack of commitment or courage. The Republicans look stupid trying to conflate this retreat with cowardice. We are retreating because we are out of ammo—that missing ammo being my analogy for the non-brain of the current president. We retreat, reload, and head back in, maybe in a different battlefield, but at least we won’t have Clem Kadiddlehopper for a military leader like we do now. Bush has not only singlehandedly lost the war, he has destroyed the Republican Party. He is worse than Herbert Hoover, worse than Richard Nixon, worse than Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg. He has fewer brains that General Burnside. I could go on and on. I am an apolplectic, stupid former Republican who was taken to the cleaners by the phoney internationalists, The Bush Dynasty, the compassionate conservatives, the destroyers of Reaganism. Any calumny, any “I-told-you-so’s” heaped on me by my liberal friends I totally deserve. Can’t we have a vote of no-confidence and get rid of this worthless bum? Robert R. writes:
Lawrence, this is amazing! I read Diana’s column and the comments—of which there are over 100—and found one that I absolutely agreed with. Then I read your piece and you and I had chosen the same comment!Josh writes:
You posted a comment in which the commentator stated that “[President] Bush is an incompetent buffoon who does just enough not to lose, but not enough to win,” but then went on to say, “[President] Bush has not only single-handedly lost the war, he has destroyed the Republican Party.” Excuse me, but this is a clear contradiction that you are proffering as truth. You aren’t seriously arguing that the war is lost thereby implying that the jihadists have won?LA replies:
Well, I get your point. What if instead of saying “lost,” the commenter had said, “[President] Bush has not only single-handedly made an utter fiasco of the war, he has destroyed the Republican Party.” Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 28, 2007 02:11 PM | Send Email entry |