--
Peter Gutmann wrote:
Well it wasn't the point I was trying to make, which was comparing
it to predictions made by (the propaganda division of) another
super-power in the mid 1940s about winning an unwinnable war because
God/righteousness/whatever was on their side, and all they had to do
was hold out a bit longer. Compare the general tone of the WSJ
article to the one in e.g. the first half of
http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documen
ts/htestmnt.htm.
But it is hardly a matter of "holding out". So far the Pentagon has
shattered the enemy while suffering casualties of about a thousand,
which is roughly the same number of casualties as the British empire
suffered doing regime change on the Zulu empire - an empire of a
quarter of a million semi naked savages mostly armed with spears.
As quagmires go, this one has not yet got shoelaces muddy. The
enemies are the one's that have heroic fantasies of holding out
against hopeless odds, as for example Fallujah. The question is not
whether the terrorists keep Falljah, but merely whether Pentagon gets
a city or a pile of rubble.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
9M6CeBC9wwBisQe3JNJvnnu758kvx8Rq2e2KM9b2
41XkwhnPAbRy29/XaMnNedLxI40PWmNEk4y2tUdn7
