Yesterday I pointed out the dissimilarities between our current campaign in Afghanistan and the one waged by the Soviets in the 1980s. Along comes Barry Strauss, one of our leading ancient historians (meaning that he studies the ancient world, not that he himself is ancient!), to dispel any analogies that might be mooted with the frustrating (if ultimately successful) campaign waged by Alexander the Great in the same region. Strauss notes some similarities — namely that “Afghanistan still represents tough terrain for soldiers. It still is a paradise for brigands and bandits.” But he also notes the fundamental difference — “the kind of war that the surge in Afghanistan represents could not be more different than the war that Alexander fought in the region. The surge aims to protect civilians, not kill them. Allied plans aim at defeating warlords through policing, reconstruction, and diplomacy, not by wiping out cities.”
For those interested in reading more on the subject, I recommend Frank L. Holt’s excellent study Into the Land of bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan. We should by all means study the past; heck, that’s what I do for a living. But we shouldn’t expect a replay.
It might force McCain to atone for the sins of his off-message associates later in the race.
I think McCain is very keen to be the first to apologize for others without the pressure to do so. He blasted and disowed the guy who called the Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, and if there is one thing McCain likes to do, is blast Republicans — even those who are forced to now support his bid for presidency.
I agree with the rest of your post, but I think that when McCain gets the opportunity to challenge those who are distorting him, he will not in the least bit come accross as needing an apology. He can demand with earnestness and gravitas that Obama the kid live up to his lofty ideals — which McCain can greatly contrast give thant, for all his faults, he is not a hypocrite.
I agree with the “whining” danger. If it becomes part of a pattern, it has the disadvantage of putting McCain in the position of always responding rather than staying on the offensive by defining the message and the perameters of debate.
If those advising him are fearful of making the Kerry mistake of not challenging quickly and forcefully, then they should rely more on a rapid response team of surrogates (a job for the RNC) and reserve McCain’s direct involvement to be used sparingly. Consider the source and respond in kind.
Are the incompetent blunderers who formed the Bush administration migrating to the McCain camp? That might explain everything.
It is a mistake for McCain to miss opportunities to take well-aimed shots. Why not ask Obama how a typical white person is to put together Obama’s “tax the rich” and Obama’s failure to correct Wright’s assertion that “Obama ain’t rich”? Is there a racial standard for taxes?
Instead of apologizing for others, why not, through surrogates at least, ask Barrack (the mohamedan winged horse) Hussein Obama about the meaning of FIRST name?
Every time a pundit or reporter talks about Obama voting against the war, why doesn’t someone in the McCain camp point out that 200,000,000 other Americans who were also not senators at the time didn’t vote in the senate either. Did citizen Obama write to his senators? call his congressman? How exactly did his being agaisnt the war from the start manifest itself?
Obama is a lightweight but should not be allowed to get a free pass.