Everything's Fine in America...
Thomas Sowell writes in today's Wall Street Journal on "Diversity's Oppressions," with several serious logical flaws hampering his argument.
Being the WSJ, Mr. Sowell states unabashedly that Iraq is a "catastrophe" which grew out of this messy thing called diversity. It's Professor Henry Higgins' A Hymn to Him, this time riffing on race.
America, he says, should not be "gushing about how we...celebrate diversity." Rather, our best achievement is in "taming its dangers that have run amok." From this innocent dais advancing the benefits of homogeneity (as long as you take his suit-brand flavor, I presume,) he says, "However we got into Iraq, we cannot...leave(ing) events to take their course." But in direct contradiction to this, he states earlier that created nations, like those in the Balkans, have "never had the cohesion of nations that evolved over the centuries out of the experiences of peoples who worked out their own modus vivendi in one way or another." Like the administration, Sowell wants it both ways.
Amazingly, Sowell goes on to chastise those who would say that Iraq does not equate with the war on terror by noting that the terrorists "converge on that country with lethal and suicidal resolve." Yes, Mr. Sowell, they too know the benefit of the press, and by noting that they are dropping into the fray you admit that the fine mess we've brought on is what attracts them.
On technical points, the examples of Pearl Harbor, Bataan, the Kasserine Pass, and the Battle of the Bulge as disasters does not bear up to serious review. All cited examples were merely tactical setbacks in the strategic Allied march to victory. It is absurd to analogize Iraq to these tactical losses. Iraq is a strategic blunder that has no equal in the annals of American military history.
Contrary to Sowell's contention, Iraq is not a new nation; it is a non-nation propped up and artficially supported by U.S. interests. Iraq was described by one officer who'd served in advisory capacity in Iraq as "gluing feathers on a body to create a duck." Only problem is, this duck won't even quack, let alone fly.
Sowell further says that abandoning "our Iraqi allies" would be folly, but he does not explain who these hapless souls may be.
I contend that the U.S. has no allies in Iraq, other than self-serving savants promoting their own agendas. An ally considers the welfare of others to whom he is bound. the Iraqis don't care one iota about American objectives; they are in the game for their own selfish interests.
Iraqi operations are hampered by unrealistic strategic objectives that cannot be implemented tactically. Without strategic or tactical plans, there is no option for success. The Battle of the Bulge was a tactical setback that could not affect the outcome of the war. Russian Army groups were closing fast on Berlin, and the Bulge was a minor sideshow.
Hitler was well-advised by his General Staff to implement the last strategic reserve of the Wehrmacht in defensive battle on the East front, rather than squandering them as he did in the Bulge. The comparison of the Bulge to Iraq is a stretch that does not comport with the facts.
The tactical battles in Iraq fail to further strategic objectives. Bear in mind that America never lost a battle in RVN, but...
Being the WSJ, Mr. Sowell states unabashedly that Iraq is a "catastrophe" which grew out of this messy thing called diversity. It's Professor Henry Higgins' A Hymn to Him, this time riffing on race.
America, he says, should not be "gushing about how we...celebrate diversity." Rather, our best achievement is in "taming its dangers that have run amok." From this innocent dais advancing the benefits of homogeneity (as long as you take his suit-brand flavor, I presume,) he says, "However we got into Iraq, we cannot...leave(ing) events to take their course." But in direct contradiction to this, he states earlier that created nations, like those in the Balkans, have "never had the cohesion of nations that evolved over the centuries out of the experiences of peoples who worked out their own modus vivendi in one way or another." Like the administration, Sowell wants it both ways.
Amazingly, Sowell goes on to chastise those who would say that Iraq does not equate with the war on terror by noting that the terrorists "converge on that country with lethal and suicidal resolve." Yes, Mr. Sowell, they too know the benefit of the press, and by noting that they are dropping into the fray you admit that the fine mess we've brought on is what attracts them.
On technical points, the examples of Pearl Harbor, Bataan, the Kasserine Pass, and the Battle of the Bulge as disasters does not bear up to serious review. All cited examples were merely tactical setbacks in the strategic Allied march to victory. It is absurd to analogize Iraq to these tactical losses. Iraq is a strategic blunder that has no equal in the annals of American military history.
Contrary to Sowell's contention, Iraq is not a new nation; it is a non-nation propped up and artficially supported by U.S. interests. Iraq was described by one officer who'd served in advisory capacity in Iraq as "gluing feathers on a body to create a duck." Only problem is, this duck won't even quack, let alone fly.
Sowell further says that abandoning "our Iraqi allies" would be folly, but he does not explain who these hapless souls may be.
I contend that the U.S. has no allies in Iraq, other than self-serving savants promoting their own agendas. An ally considers the welfare of others to whom he is bound. the Iraqis don't care one iota about American objectives; they are in the game for their own selfish interests.
Iraqi operations are hampered by unrealistic strategic objectives that cannot be implemented tactically. Without strategic or tactical plans, there is no option for success. The Battle of the Bulge was a tactical setback that could not affect the outcome of the war. Russian Army groups were closing fast on Berlin, and the Bulge was a minor sideshow.
Hitler was well-advised by his General Staff to implement the last strategic reserve of the Wehrmacht in defensive battle on the East front, rather than squandering them as he did in the Bulge. The comparison of the Bulge to Iraq is a stretch that does not comport with the facts.
The tactical battles in Iraq fail to further strategic objectives. Bear in mind that America never lost a battle in RVN, but...
posted by rangeragainstwar at 7:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home