First Italy.
Jambo closed his "anti-Italian-campaign" post with the following:
"... FDR buckles under Stalin's pressure for a third front, refuses to listen to the warnings of Churchill concerning Communist post war policies dictating their offensive movements, and throws men and material away into a needless Italian campaign.
Even General Burnside would have looked at Monte Cassino and said, "Not today, boys." And that's BURNSIDE we're talking about. And Monte Cassino is only ONE of many mistakes made on the campaign. All the Allied successes in the boot were bypass actions. My contention is the ENTIRE BOOT should have been bypassed. "
To which the thrust of your first response, Titus, was your first line:
In hindsight, all that Jambo said is true... and perhaps he has understated the facts a bit.
Your second "response" was even more direct:
"The more I think about this, the more I agree with Jambo. "
Now your third:
"In my eyes, the success of the Italian campaign can't be underscored enough... it tied up needed resources and material that could have done much more for the Nazi cause somewhere else, either in Russia or in France."What the F*%$!@!!? Now look, I'm all in favor of the progression of thought and argument. Both they and honest concessions are vitally necessary for productive, useful conversation and the development of the individual, but it seems like you agreed with Jambo when I was opposed, but when I came around to his argument you halted that agreement and now YOU were opposed. And you made some fine points along the way, you just made them in both directions. Ok buddy, Regis Philbin time here, FINAL ANSWER (I feel like I'm talking to my wife over here) - was the Italian campaign (in retrospect, we are all Monday morning quarterbacking here) the best option for Allied military strategy at the time, and did it succeed in its goals, namely 1) trying to get to Berlin and 2.) tying up enough Wehrmacht resources as to aide the Allies campaigns in France?
****
On Gaza ...
You wrote: "What more would invading Gaza give Israel, anyway? "
And you added: "There is a big part of me that thinks that STOPPING the construction would take some of the wind out of Hamas sails, and would certainly remove the opportunity for outside (meaning left-wing American) criticism of Israeli policy..."
Let me ask you something. Do you have to buy a ticket to get to this never-never land you live in? Jesus, Mary & Joseph Titus! They gave up 21 Gaza settlements in September of 2005. Do you know what happened? Ariel Sharon got huge accolades from the U.N. and Palestinian "youth" swept in and set ablaze all synagogues. Palestinian women danced in the street holding up pictures of dead terrorist "martyrs", and HAMAS proceeded to set up rocket sites they have been using up until the recent Israeli response!!!! It even increased their range by proximity and never before shelled Israeli cities were terrorized. For the love of all that is holy, we have seen this movie before, we know how it ends. If you make concessions to tyrants, then their appetite grows only bigger, not smaller. Chamberlain could have added Downing Street to the Sudetenland and Hitler would have still held Neville's head in the toilet, flushing, asking for more.
To borrow a phrase, those who give up land for peace shall have neither.
Look, there is no "wind in the sails" to be removed, there is no amount of Arab condemnation, there is no anything that will abate ideological mad men bent on the Jewish destruction - for Pete's sake Adolf Hitler taught us that if nothing else. DO NOT APPEASE TYRANTS, and ESPECIALLY do not appease tyrants that you can whip to hell and back inside of 72 hours! Hamas, the governing body of the PA, a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION, didn't praise Sharon for those 21 settlements on the radio waves. They went on loudspeaker and praised the "dead martyrs" for bringing about "this day" and called on a new generation of "martyrs" to finish the job. And that "job", if you check Hamas literature, including their own charter, sounds strikingly like conversations held at the Wanasee Conference, i.e. THE FINAL SOLUTION.
So, to your question "what does invading Gaza get them?", my answer is this - the OPPOSITE of what giving up land got them - less suicide bombers and rockets! And if they are FINALLY ready, and that is a big IF, to shrug off the anti-Semitic UN, and haughty European condemnation and secure a real victory by wiping out Hamas leadership, disabling them as an entity forever, bringing in Egyptian and Lebanese forces for security and give the only somewhat "moderate" voice in that government, Prime Minister Abbas, the real breathing room and teeth to form an actual, functioning moderate government (with dislocated foreign living Palestinians if necessary, like we did in Iraq), then MAYBE, just MAYBE, Israel will finally have an actual partner in peace.
"The choices seem so grim..." you wrote of Israel's options. That's because they have only one, and we all know it. Forever defeat Hamas. I'm sure the choices seemed grim when CO's ordered our boys onto shore off those Higgins boats. I'm sure the choices seemed grim when King Leonidus peered down from the rocks at the million man Persian army at Thermopolaye. I'm sure the choices seemed grim to Lincoln when the South secceeded.
Titus, the choices of free men always seem grim when your enemy gives you none.
No comments:
Post a Comment