26
Jul

George W.’s War

Posted by: Wordsmith @ 7:18 pm in American Exceptionalism, The Iraqi War

Visited 881 times, 4 so far today

From Investor’s Business Daily, sent to me by a friend:

George W.’s War

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT

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.


Print This Post Print This Post
This entry was posted on Saturday, July 26th, 2008 at 7:18 pm and is filed under American Exceptionalism, The Iraqi War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

12 comments so far

 1Reply to this comment  

An excellent editorial and every word applies to today’s war just as well.

I’m still waiting for all the defeatists and those who would have had us surrender to be held accountable for their words and actions.

I cannot believe that with an election coming up people will elect Obama President after he lobbied for defeat and still refuses to admit that was a mistake.

Likewise, those members of the House and Senate who said this war was “lost” or that they didn’t believe we could succeed should be held to the same high standard they daily demanded of President Bush and our military.

It’s scary to think what might have happened if John Kerry had been elected in 2004. We might now have a complete and total mess in Iraq and throughout the Middle East with Iran running even more rampant than they currently are.

The same could happen this year too. People who beg for “change” should think long and hard. It very well could be change for the worse and like the 4 years America suffered under Jimmy Carter we would only find out too late and the consequences (Iran again) could last for decades.

Leadership is about doing what is right. Not what is easy or sounds good at the time. People who think Obama is the answer should give some careful thought to that if they are capable of thinking at all.

July 26th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
 2Reply to this comment  

IBD is a hot source, Michael Ramirez especially…

July 26th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Scrapiron
 3Reply to this comment  

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23520981-details/Barack+Obama%27s+broken+promise+to+African+village/article.do

The link is to:
Good article that shows what it means to trust someone who can’t be trusted, even by his ‘Islamic’ family. Hussein O’s only interest is himself and his inflated ego. He hold the record for ‘here’ votes in the U.S. which is only to avoid making a decision He swore to serve the people of Il for 6 years and has served only 143 days in the Senate since he was elected. Once a liar and failure always a liar and failure. Now you want a known liar who won’t follow his sworn word to be POTUS. What a bunch of nuts BDS has produced in the democrat party.

July 26th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
bigpapa
 4Reply to this comment  

Received this in an email yesterday…
Only too true…
Thanks to the MSM… and the idiots that follow them…

Nobama is a moron who hasn’t a clue what is best for our country….
He only does what his handlers tell him to do….

As many times as I have disagreed wtih GW… I can agree he wants what is best for our country except for immigration.
Regardless of public opinion…. I can respect that he has the strength of his convictions..

July 26th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
scriptamanent
 5Reply to this comment  

“But in the end, only one European nation helped us.”

My American friends:
Please, don’t forget that Aznar, the Spanish president at that time, also supported Bush, facing a strong opposition from the Spanish left. He was a strong president; he knew what he had to do.

Then, after the Madrid bombings, three days before the election, Zapatero won unexpectedly, and he cowardly surrendered and retired the troops from Irak: Spain cowardly surrendered (shame on us).

It is really sad to think that in the future Irak will be able to thank USA and UK for what they did, and Spain will not be there… when it was at the beginning.

We already have our Obama, unfortunately.

July 27th, 2008 at 3:30 am
atadOFF
 6Reply to this comment  

Scriptament, the post was referring to the American civil war, not the war in Iraq. It was simply drawing parallels to illustrate a point.

July 27th, 2008 at 6:52 am
 7Reply to this comment  

atadoff: Actually it was the Revolutionary War but does it matter?

The point is that in every great and difficult challenge this nation has ever faced there has been a group of people who insist we cannot succeed and shouldn’t even try.

We call them Democrats!

July 27th, 2008 at 7:32 am
scriptamanent
 8Reply to this comment  

Yes, atadOFF, I know, but the post is so good because of the similarities.

I was proud of my country when Aznar decided to support Bush in such great and difficult challenge, as Mike’s says.

Can anyone imagine the shame and humiliation that many Spaniards felt when Zapatero, our Obama, decided to retire the troops, betraying our allies? He even asked the rest of the countries helping Irak to do the same thing and retire their troops.

The Spanish soldiers in Irak came back home crying in humiliation and anger.

July 27th, 2008 at 8:13 am
wordsmith
 9Reply to this comment  

Here’s another piece (by Michael Medved) in the same spirit as the one posted:

The handsome young Democratic nominee is the most spellbinding orator of his generation, promising dramatic change to correct economic injustice and bring an end to a bloody, unpopular war. Republicans deride him as a showboating demagogue with scant governmental experience and place their faith in a gruff, battle-tested veteran who asks for public patience to fight the war till victory. Meanwhile, halfway around the world, anti-American insurgents have recently lost thousands of fighters to desertion and improved U.S. tactics, but they believe they can exploit their enemy’s war weariness. The guerrilla fighters, therefore, intensify their gruesome attacks as part of a conscious effort to influence the November election on behalf of the Democratic “peace” candidate.

Though contemporary Americans will assume the above description applies to Iraq and the 2008 campaign, it’s also an accurate summary of the situation leading up to the fateful election of 1900 and the darkest days of our four-year war against insurrectionists in the Philippines. This nearly forgotten conflict deserves renewed attention today since the parallels with our present predicament count as both eerie and illuminating.

Read the rest

July 27th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Arthurstone
 10Reply to this comment  

Excellent analysis by Micheal Medved.

Just kidding.

A lefty when ‘revolution’ was sexy. A conservative when the tide turned. But always an opportunist with a shrewd sense of what is best for his career.

As for his ‘analysis’:

A filthy colonial war in the early 20th century.

Another in the 21st.

I guess we never learn.

July 28th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Wordsmith
 11Reply to this comment  

A lefty when ‘revolution’ was sexy. A conservative when the tide turned.

Actually, Arthur, what turned him into a conservative was seeing the aftermath of the Vietnam conflict with millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians murdered, displaced, and put into re-education camps….and the so-called “peace” movement remaining silent and unmoved by the suffering.

Why don’t you ever condemn al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists, Arthur? Do you ever lodge a protest comment on jihadi websites, denouncing their violence? Why doesn’t the anti-war movement, if they want to end wars, protest against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Ahmadinejad? Why is “your side” so infatuated with dictators like Fidel Castro and “revolutionaries” like Che Guevara? What makes them heroes and the U.S. villains in the eyes of so many anti-American leftists?

A filthy colonial war in the early 20th century.

Another in the 21st.

Well, that would be the Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Ward Churchill point of view. *snicker*

Here’s another one for you to munch on, Arthur:

In the late 1950s most Cubans needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said “Praise the Lord.” And when the young leader said, “I will be for change and I will bring you change,“ everyone yelled, “Viva Fidel.”

But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner’s guns went silent, the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down … to third world status. By the time change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts and inner tubes. … And now I’m back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, “What Change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?”

Would we? ~ Manuel Alvarez, Jr.

July 29th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Arthurstone
 12Reply to this comment  

That said, there are very few, if any, people I know who are ‘infatuated’ with Fidel or Che or Ho Chi Minh.

But I do know a great many people who believed none of those guys or their pokey little countries posed any threat to the US. And most people have come around to the idea that Saddam Hussein didn’t either.

July 29th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

Email me if your comment is caught in spam