George W.s War

[Herms 10]

No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought.

 

Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It's up to our leader to convince them. That's why we call the leader 'Commander in Chief.'

 

George W.'s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander in Chief had to lobby for legislative approval.

 

Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral suasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.

 

George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end, only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched.

 

After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort.

 

Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander in Chief of misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.

 

As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted. Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle.

 

Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat.

At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.

 

Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned.

 

Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts.

 

Then, in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the Commander in Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.

 

So on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown , a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War.

 

What? Were you thinking of someone else?

 

[DYB-Mike 10]

Herms,

 

Yes, you got me, but you left out the part about the weapons of mass destruction hidden in the crates of tea.

 

YIS,

Mike

 

[Beavah 205]

Amusin', Herms.

 

A bit of a stretch in some places, though, eh?

 

Washington was selected as Commander in Chief by a Continental Congress that was already at war, eh? There was no need for him to lobby Congress; he was dispatched immediately to Boston to take command of a body that Congress had already commissioned as the Continental Army. In fact, Washington was humble and reluctant to take up such a charge, accordin' to his writings. So all that bit about needin' a leader to convince them, congressional resistance and all that is just a bunch of palaver.

 

Washington never lobbied foreign governments support either, eh? That was Congress's job, with Ben Franklin bein' the most notable success.

 

There was no substantive talk in Congress of surrender in 1777, eh? In fact, the Americans achieved several successes that summer, and the Articles of Confederation were drafted and sent to the states for approval, cementing Congress' intention of permanent independence. To imply that it was Washington who alone held his resolve is to slander those many honorable men who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause, and lived up to their pledge.

 

These George W. "mythic personality" pieces that roam the internet are amusin' that way. Make us feel all warm and patriotic about Washington and try to project that feelin' on a completely different and much less honorable and capable fellow. Comparin' Washington to George W. in some muddle-headed fictional account of da role of Commander in Chief is really quite odd, IMO. Washington, a real military commander who served in two wars during many major combat engagements would have mopped the floor with Bush who never served in war and avoided combat duty. Washington, of course, was also humble and smart enough to entrust governance to Congress and the people, eh? Even when he disagreed with Congress, he supported their authority.

 

The honor of a real military man, eh?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[ghermanno 11]

I may be mistaken, but didn't we FIGHT the George that said "Support me or you are a traitor" back in the 1700's?

 

Seems to me that we have another King George to worry about...

 

Just my $0.02

[John-in-KC 311]

My issue is not with the Strategy, not with the Operational Art, or even with the Tactics, Techniques and Procedures.

 

My issue is with how we got where we did.

 

When I was a Lieutenant, long ago, General Shy Meyer was the Chief of Staff, Army. I remember a Division Officer's Lecture he gave to the Big Red One, the First Infantry Division, at Fort Riley. He talked about the Three Days of War:

 

- The Day Before war, when armed forces train, maintain and prepare.

 

- The Day of War, when armed forces fight for their nation to win the battles their political masters say must be won.

 

- The Day After War, where armed forces assist the nations they fought within to recover and become whole again.

 

We failed, desperately, to resource the Day After War during this little fracas. Had the President called General Mobilization, had he used the incredible pool of talent in civilian occupations and professions which the Reserve Components bring to the table, we'd have had Iraqi Military Age Males helping us reconstruct their nation before the end of 2003. We'd have destroyed the leftover grenades, 152mm, 122mm, 105mm, 155mm artillery shells which became the basis of all too many first generation IEDs in the opening months of the counter-insrugency.

 

No, we let the Ba'athist special operators and ordinary soldiers melt away to fight as insurgents another day.

 

Oh by the way, we didn't have a force large enough to support a decent turnaround plan between home station in the States and the Theater of Operations. I saw in Army Times last week that we're just about at Viet Nam promotion points for the officer corps: 18 months second LT to first LT, no more than 18 months first lieutenant to captain, and captain to major no later than the 10th anniversary.

 

We the American people, in the personage of our civilian political leadership, are riding this force hard, putting it away wet, and calling out it again before the dawn.

 

I'm glad I'm retired. I can say such things. We can do this war, but we need the support of the American people to have enough troops in force to get the job done.

[TheScout 10]

Very interesting piece. Washington was very unpopular in the depths of the Revolution. Madison was hated in 1812. Lincoln was not liked very much in the Civil War. Truman had dismal approval ratings during Korea.

 

It will be interesting to see how history shows Bush. It might be very different from how he is regarded today.

[Gunny2862 11]

Another great post Hermes.

And John, and another reminder that as yet no one in the world wants to go toe-to-toe with American forces when the leash is off those awesome dogs of war.

 

In both Iraq and Afghanistan it's the third day that hasn't been resourced an area that traditionally has been given to statesmen and nation builders while the "occupation" forces stood around ensuring that they didn't have to re-fight days one and two.

 

It's not a military failure if it can even be called that, its a completely different end(of a war) where we are trying to rebuild a society that was under a different and prior form of occupation instead of trying to get them to rebuild on their own successes as a people.

 

 

[FScouter 24]

"Washington was very unpopular in the depths of the Revolution. Madison was hated in 1812. Lincoln was not liked very much in the Civil War. Truman had dismal approval ratings during Korea."

 

Maybe folks just don't like war.

[packsaddle 753]

How about McKinley or Johnson or Nixon? Wilson, Polk?

[Rooster7 11]

It's easy to blame leaders...but there isn't always a clean and easy answer to every problem. If one is confronted with an enemy, whose goal is your destruction - then what is the acceptable answer/response? What if we postpone the inevitable (i.e. war) and your enemy gains such an advantage that the cost in terms of sacrificed lives increases ten or hundred fold? Or the conflict is brought to your borders? Or the sacrificed lives now become those of civilians women and children? Or our very freedom is sacrificed?

 

If/When that happens, will anyone attack the integrity of the previous Presidentsthose who chose not to act? In todays world, probably not. Our generation not only seeks immediate gratification, but cannot see beyond their collective nose. We demand complete and perfect answers from our leaders for each and every problem. So, the safe President makes great speeches and takes little action. This is how he protects his legacy. And when another President seeks to protect his country, rather than his legacy, hes ridiculed as a hate monger or portrayed as catering to special interests.

 

Its a fallen world. In short, as long as God allows us to rule this planet, we ought not to expect to see Heaven on Earth. Theres always going to be conflicts and problems that cannot be resolved easily, and in some cases may never be resolved.

 

That said, I continue to be thankful for our President.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I find it particularly easy to blame leaders who are ignorant, incompetent, and lie.

[Gold Winger 9]

.(This message has been edited by Gold Winger)

[theysawyoucomin' 10]

Anybody looking for WMD can go exhume some 5 year old Kurdish children and look in their lungs. Poison gas is a WMD. Nobody cared about those five year olds. Little brown kids don't get much press unless the US did it.

 

If Saddam had no WMD why didn't he simply comply with the UN demand for inspection?

If he had nothing to hide, why not let folks look. If the inspections had occured ,no way would any invasion ever have taken place.

 

No matter what side of the aisle you are on you cannot answer that question. Why didn't he let people look if he had nothing to hide? Don't tell me national sovergnity (spelling?) he sure lost that with 100k invaders on his soil.

 

 

 

Saddam was a master at staying in power, did he miscalculate a second time? He thought the US and world didn't care about Kuwait.

Wrong, all those conservatives need gas to drive to the gun club to shoot their automatic weapons, all those liberals need to drive to their wine and cheese parties and think up new gov. programs.

He thought the US would not come backafter Sept 11th. He probably had nothing to do with it but a wounded beast doesn't dare about who blood is going to get spilled. After Sept. 11th we were a wounded beast. He misjudged again and paid with his life and his sons. As for being an illegal war or GWB standing a Nurmberg (sp?) type trial in some liberal small town in Vermont, the UN said Saddam was fair game for anybody. The folks in Vermont want to cede all power to the UN except when it does not suit them.

 

As for finding the WMD, is it possible somebody got a pretty nice gun collection prior to us going in there? I know the DNC doesn't think it's possible, but it could be. Maybe we'll find something in a container in one of our ports and there won't be an argument at all.

Only this time it will be our five year olds.

[John-in-KC 311]

Rooster,

 

"The buck stops here." Desk sign of Harry S Truman. He understood.

 

Gunny, concur. Both times, our forces got the basic job done. We were sorta ready for the aftermath in Afghanistan, we (as in the Defense and State DEPARTMENTAL folk) were clueless in St Louis for for Iraq. We didn't serve guys like you well as a consequence.

[GernBlansten 10]

We knew he "had" WMD at sometime because we sold him WMD in the 80s. He then used it on his own people and the evil Iranians.

But if he did still have them, why didn't he use them on us during the invasion? Did he like us more than the Iranians or the Kurds? Kinda silly to get all those WMD and sit on them when you really need them.

 

But he lied about having stockpiles of WMD. Why? Because he needed to remain in power. Without the hollow threat of WMD, he was vulnerable. If he said he didn't have any and let the inspectors verify it, Iran would have jumped him and the Kurds would have rebelled.

The US used his lies, fortified with our own to make a case for war. It wasn't the WMD that we wanted, it was a base from which to spin our web of influence. Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!