Piers Morgan, friend to President Trump and morning television host in London, has written a new piece for the Daily Mail.
*NEW: Omarosa offered me sex to win Celebrity Apprentice, then called me a 'f***ing f*gg*t', invented gay smears & threatened to punch me. Why the hell was this vile creature ever employed at the White House? https://t.co/HyxnSWyBLZ pic.twitter.com/UbXQzDX1Tj— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) February 13, 2018
Were Morgan and Omarosa Manigault Newman nation-states, these assertions would add up to a declaration of war on the president's former staffer.
Yet, considering that Manigault Newman continues to attack the president from the "Big Brother" house, I'm wondering who might win if these two celebrities were nations at war?
Let's consider it.
For simplicity's sake, let's imagine that Manigault Newman and Morgan both have land mass continents with equal conventional forces, but no nuclear weapons. That baseline established, considering Manigault Newman's penchant for striking out against those who she believes are disrespecting her, I believe she would launch the first strike. It would likely come via a bold-but-direct assault from air, land, and sea.
Morgan, not someone of limited ego, might be taken off balance by this aggressive first wave. Still, Morgan's personality, calculating and charismatic in equal parts, would probably allow him to mobilize reserve forces and keep his military in the fight.
That short-term survival would plant the roots of Morgan's ultimate victory.
After all, Manigault Newman's take-no-prisoners approach to war-fighting would lead her to overcommit her forces everywhere rather than holding key units in reserve to take advantage of Morgan's developing vulnerabilities. Manigault Newman's impatience would also likely lead her to neglect critical elements of military strategy such as intelligence collection and exploitation and logistics-supply. And that would be disastrous.
Within a matter of weeks, Manigault Newman would lose the strategic and tactical initiative and face a disastrous choice: attempt a Dunkirk-style withdrawal or stand and die on Morgan's continent.
In the context of her unwillingness to leave the White House when fired, it seems that Manigault Newman would choose to stand and fight.
Recognizing her limited maneuver warfare skills on the ground, Morgan would thus surround and deplete the invading army. As we have seen by Morgan's Daily Mail piece — timed just when Manigault Newman couldn't respond (she's stuck in the no-information-zone of the "Big Brother" house) — the British broadcaster is a keen tactician: someone who, unless it's Ben Shapiro or Emily Miller, revels in aggressively outmaneuvering his adversaries.
At this point, Morgan would hold the initiative for the rest of the war.
Manigault Newman would be left with few good options. She might attempt to harass Morgan's forces with submarine warfare and bolster her army in the hope of repelling Morgan's inevitable invasion. At the same time, however, like the RAF and 8th Army Air Force from 1943-1945 (see point 3), Morgan would be launching relentless bombing campaigns of Manigault Newman's home industrial base. This would weaken Manigault Newman's national morale and deny her the ability to reconstitute an effective military. Each submarine loss would become irreplaceable, each new bombing raid another cut against her nation's psyche.
And Manigault Newman, like Trump, ain't no Churchill.
A courageous leader, Manigault Newman would encourage her forces to fight valiantly and extract a high price on Piers' invaders. But ultimately it would be fruitless. They might never surrender, but the inevitable would soon be measured by Morgan's grinning face beaming across Manigault Newman's capital city.
At that moment, Piers Morgan would win the war. Manigault Newman's best hope then?