Tho' titled Family & Friends, his current blog is no less political than his old one... (and I've been happy to steal from it!)
So: Family & Friends is now added to "My Blog List".
Among other things, PM notes that another one of our favorites - tho' often using more earthy language than either of us is comfortable with - seems more often than not to hit the nail on the head. I refer to The Well-Armed Lamb, by friend Woody.
... and I'd be just an unrepentant sinner if I didn't call your attention to yet ANOTHER brilliant poster: OneFly over at Outta the Cornfield. His language, too, is somewhat more... earthy than mine, but he, too, seems more on-target than most of the folks I read.
(Maybe I'm just reading the wrong folks.)
So - how come nobody is listening to this quartet?
Just for grins, here's the latest from PM:
Our Achilles HeelWell... yeah: PM's posts frequently reference history, which helps explain why they're so out of touch with policy-makers!
…the 1776-1783 (American Revolution) conflict contained two strategical problems… The first of these was that once the American rebellion spread, its suppression involved large-scale continental fighting by British forces at a distance of 3,000 miles from the home base… maritime superiority alone could not bring the largely self-sufficient colonists to their knees… To conquer and hold the entire eastern territories of America would have been a difficult task for Napoleon’s Grand Army, let alone the British-led troops of the 1770’s The distances involved… exacerbated the logistical problems: “every biscuit, man, and bullet required by the British forces in America had to be transported across 3,000 miles of ocean” (D. Syrett, Shipping and The American War 1775-1783[London 1970]) … Moreover, colonial society was so decentralized that the capture of a city or large town meant little. Only when the regular troops were in occupation of the territory in question could British authority prevail; whenever they were withdrawn, the rebels reasserted themselves over the loyalists… (How many troops were) now needed to reimpose imperial rule—150,000, perhaps 250,000 “It is probable,” one historian has argued, “that to restore British Aurthority in America was a problem beyond the power of military means to solve, however perfectly applied.”
BUT: does this description of Britain's dilemma strike a chord?
aside: back in the good old days, W was quite fond of citing the American Revolution as his model for Iraq.
He wasn't all wrong... he just didn't correctly identify the sides!