Over at Howard County Blog, the Blogger-in-Chief , David Keelan, doesn't think my ridicule of Newt Gingrich's article in Human Events was justified.
Let's just say,that he was unable to persuade me that (1) Newt is not a gasbag, and (2) that Newt had much to say of any importance in his article.
First, the underlying premise of Newton's article is that the U.S. can't afford to lose Iraq. I agree that losing Iraq will be disastrous for the U.S. and for the Middle East. What I find ridiculous about Newt's article is its implicit assumption that the U.S. could still "win" in Iraq. It's too late for that. We should have never invaded in the first place. Once we invaded, we botched the occupation. There is no way to win there now. The sooner we leave the better it will be for both us and the Iraqis.
Second, I find using the particular example of the American Revolution to make his point, rather interesting given the former Speaker's previous occupation (Professor of American History). The military success of the American Revolution, where a small, poorly funded army of insurgents defeated the greatest superpower the Earth had ever known (at the time) at the height of its powers, showed how difficult it is to defeat an insurgency when you are despised by the locals. Newt had the analogy reversed, we are now in the same position as the British, not General Washington.
Perhaps the question should have been: What would have happened if King George had a Baker Commission?
Better yet, what would have happened if George the 43rd had a Baker Commission before he decided to invade?