After a recent post, several of you took me to task for saying we're not succeeding in Iraq because we didn't make the enemy uncomfortable enough when we first attacked. I stand by my position.
I don't—and won't—ever consider a war time enemy "people we are trying to help." We didn't go to war to help the Iraqis, but to help ouselves and protect America from terrorists. If the Iraqis benefit from a regime change, fine. If not, we'll try and help after the shooting ceases.
If we plan wars based on trying to make an enemy love us rather than fear us, we're going to lose. History proves it.
That's not just my opinion. Gulf War I aside, we haven't won a major war since WW II ended. And we didn't end that one with kindness.
One old-timer who knew how to fight and win wars was General William Tecumseh Sherman. He's still reviled in the parts of Georgia he burned on the march from Atlanta to Savannah, but four months after Sherman hit Savannah, the War Between the States ended.
Sherman hated war, as do all who fight and die in battle. But he knew how to win. Here are three of Sherman's nuggets about military success:
1. “If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.”
2. “War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”
3. “Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.”
The war in Iraq is still winnable. But if we seek military victory, we need to fight harder, not negotiate more. If we seek only political "victory," get the troops home soon and send more diplomats.
Meanwhile, the way things look now, a third—and worst—option, is looking more and more likely.
Next stop...Korea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
i understand your opinion, Alex, but your statement--We didn't go to war to help the Iraqis--isn't true. one of the objectives was to liberate the Iraqis from the reign of Saddam Hussein, to bring freedom, democracy, and liberty to the citizens of Iraq.
Our enemy was the government of Iraq led under Saddam, not the Iraqi people. Besides, there were no "terrorists" in Iraq. The war was sold to America on the grounds of WMD's, a nuclear threat, and a weak Al-Queda "link".
We found no WMD's, no nukes, and no Al-Queda link. Thus, if we had went in with guns blazing and no regard for innocent human life we would have found ourselves surrounded by dead bodies and no reason to have killed them in the first place.
Alex, you were wrong and there's nothing wrong with admitting it. However, there is something wrong with defending a position that is morally empty. The worth of human lives cannot be calculated by cold utilitarianism. Even if killing 100,000 Iraqis could save 1, 000,000 Americans, we must try to not waste innocent human life. You are arguing for the disregard of the worth of human beings. That's pretty sad.
I appreciate your revisiting this blogpost. Thank you.
Now...
1. Great quotes from Sherman, however, when visiting Savannah, we were told by the people there,that the reason they didn't get burned to a crisp (in their opinion) was that Sherman was wined, dined, and told he was beautiful by all the Savannah elite. My husband knows more about this part of history than I, and he informs me that upon leaving Savannah Sherman continued his fiery tirade on up to the Carolinas, and then the end of the war. So, I guess that the people of Savannah embraced the "make friends with the enemy" concept.
2. You ended with a third and "worst" option.."Next stop...Korea." We discussed this last night here and my husband totally agrees with you. I do not completely understand what you mean. I recall the summer prior to our invasion of Iraq Korea cheekily going on about "We have nuclear capability, folks...why aren't you paying attention to us right now, instead of Iraq? We have WMD right here fellos' come and get 'em..." Iraq remained at the forefront, but Korea did say they would put them away for a while. A couple of months ago, they did bring them out to prove they had been telling the truth back then.
Now the question is, just exactly how did we get into Korea in the first place? Did Korea attack us? I don't think so. Onward to Viet Nam...did they attack us? Again I don't think so. Now we are visiting Iraq. Did they attack us? Absolutely not.
3. Quite aptly you point out that that since WWII (Gulf War I aside) we have not won a major war. Well, these other wars seem to be somewhat pre-emptive. Can that be our problem? Frankly, I wonder about Gulf War I...If we won, just why were we so quick in our revisit?
4. Actually, I think you pretty well summed things up in how to win...however, it rather takes my breath away...and frankly, it's the reality of where we are, but it sure is not what we were sold in going into this thing.
Post a Comment