Thursday, November 30, 2006

Point and Counterpoint in the Corner

[Sounds like McCarthy is as fed up with the Bush administration as I am]

Posted at 7:08 PM

Thought experiment [Rich LOWRY]
Someone was just making a good point to me. What would Gen. Casey's reaction be if he had a commander who was losing a battle, so he decided to add a tiny increment to his force. Then he kept on losing, so added another tiny increment. And so on. He would probably relieve him. But this is exactly what Gen. Casey himself is doing in the Battle for Baghdad

Re: Thought Experiment [Andy McCARTHY]

Rich, what if Gen. Casey was taking his orders from civilian leadership that denied there was a war going on between Israel
and Hezbollah this summer when there was a raging war going on between Israel and Hezbollah?

What if he knew that our enemies were being directed and abetted by Iran – which was also steering Hezbollah during the aforementioned not-a-war against Israel – but the said civilian leadership was not letting him do anything about that?

What if he knew that Iran was supplying munitions and killing his troops in Iraq, but his civilian leadership – while telling the country that rogue nations had a choice either to be “with us or with the terrorists” – was actually offering Iran economic assistance, aeronautics assistance, telecommunications assistance, agricultural assistance, and all manner or assistance under the sun if Iran would only please, please pretend to stop building nukes?

What if Iran not only laughed off that offer, but continued to help kill Gen. Casey’s troops in Iraq while continuing to harbor al Qaeda leaders (including Osama bin Laden’s sons)?

What if while all that was going on, Iran promised to obliterate Israel and to conduct blistering attacks in and against the United States, and the civilian leadership still evinced no interest in doing anything meaningful against Iran?

How much should we then blame Gen. Casey for the Battle of Baghdad when his civilian leadership has no stomach for dealing with the enemy behind the Battle of Baghdad?

No comments: