Describing This War
Justin Higgins — Sat, 2007-11-10 14:17
"Uncommon Valor was a Common Virtue."
Any time you compare wars, you're going to get criticized. Liberals tried to compare the War on Terror, specifically Iraq, to Vietnam (needless and bloody, in their minds). President Bush made the same comparison recently and talked about the ramifications of leaving, comparing the Khmer Rouge to an al-Qaeda takeover. This war however, probably more than any other, has been compared to World War II.
Each war began with a surprise attack on the American homeland. Each time, the enemy hoped that the attack would break our will, and each time we responded with unmatched force. Each war was a multi-front war where we faced like-minded enemies.
I supposed Michael Yon's recent picture, showing Iraqis pulling together to rebuild a church, sparked all of this thinking. Then, I was inspired to write about the comparison after reading a Mudville Gazette post entitled How the War was Won (Part One). The entire article is a must read, comparing some military actions with what we're doing today, and explaining how the change in Iraq has occurred. The final point of the article:
How did we win this war? Simply put, we won because we are the best. The finest soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines in the world, and the best hope for people seeking hope for a future. And we are tired and hot is turning cold and we are far from home and soldiering on but you can't take that from us, and we won't let anyone take it from them.
Is the article unbashingly optimistic about the changes on the ground in Iraq and about the progress our military is making? Yes, as it should be. We're winning this war, and the defeatist rhetoric needs to end at home, so the victory-enabling support can begin.
- Justin Higgins's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Lend-Lease---
looneyontheleft — Sun, 2007-11-11 15:12Actually, with the Lend-Lease program, the Destroyers for Bases program and embargos, the US was involved well before Pearl Harbor.
And if we count the actions of US corporations during the thirties, the US was involved in World War Two well before the phony war and the invasion of Poland.
I Know That
Justin Higgins — Sun, 2007-11-11 14:12LOL. I know that. Our involvement began with Pearl Harbor.
Incorrect Information
Hammer — Sun, 2007-11-11 13:57WWII didn't start with Pearl Harbor. It had already been raging for years in Europe and Asia.
I don't know-
looneyontheleft — Sat, 2007-11-10 20:05---US boys and girls sent half-way around the world, to a country full of brown people with an unclear or constantly changing mission; and are kind of stuck there with no real way out. Kind of sounds like Vietnam.
But don't forget, once we left Vietnam, the Vietnamese immediately went to war with China (but, but, but, werent 'we' fighting in Vietnam to stop China from taking over in S.E. Asia), then destroyed the Khmer Rouge and then became a good, little capitalistic country, just like the one the US wanted there in the first place.
Of course, none of these things would have happened had the US stayed past '75.
But hell, you pour enough soldiers into an area, like the surge did, and things will calm down. Kind of like when the police in inner cities pour into an area when pressure is applied to them. The crime stops and the criminals stay inside. The surge is a band-aid.
Read 'With the Old Breed' by EB Sledge or 'The Boys Crusade' by Paul Fussell or 'Another River, Another Town' by John Irwin or 'The Good War' oral history collection by Studs Terkel. The troops in world war two were just like the troops in any other conflict. It had its share of cowards, criminals, murderers, thiefs and incompetents just like any other pool of soldiers. I think its unfair to the WW2 era troops, as well as to the troops from any other US conflict to put 'The Greatest Generation' on such high esteem.
(And don't forget, outside of that immediate post-Pearl Harbor surge in guys volunteering, the best and the brightest still had to be drafted on fear of imprisonment)