Thursday, September 01, 2005
With regards to war: Finish what you start
I can not think of a time in which an entire population of any civilization was 100% in favor of going to war. Even the great American wars which are taught in class rooms across the country, wars like the Revolutionary War or WWII, each of them had their detractors.
Now, today in America there is an ever growing group of citizens who are protesting to bring American troops home from Iraq. It is this mentality, this desire to get out before the job is done, which allows nations to think they can fight and win against America.
Read any revolutionary text, or any war on guerilla tactics, and you will find passages saying things to the effect of: Keep fighting, our willingness to fight for many years will eventually wear down our enemy. Nowhere was this more true than in the Vietnam War. The United States military won just about every major military engagement in that war; however, the will of the American people wore out and we left the area. Once we left, communist North Vietnam was free to take over South Vietnam. Don't get me wrong, there was much more to that war and I hope the historical parallel I am trying to draw does not over simplify the "Conflict in Vietnam."
Often times when a president must decide between going to war or not, they must make difficult and often unpopular decisions which are beneficial to our citizenery in the long run. This is where the true leadership of a president comes into play. Can the president lead the American people to do what is best for them, even in the face of mounting adversity? Everyone knows about the "big wars," but here are a few less-popular-wars (both at the time and in our memories) which were significant in forging the mightly nation we are today.
--> Without President Polk's anexation of Texas and the ensuing Mexican-American War we would not have Texas and much of the Southwest as States today.
--> In the Spanish-American War, we took control of the Phillipines, Manilla, and essentially drove the Spanish out of Central America, thus asserting ourselves as an international player.
--> Even in World War I many issolationist-Americans were completely against us enter "Europe's War." However, in the end, by joining the war we had a significant role in deciding the peace treaty and ultimately cemented our position as a global force.
Now flashforward to our last two presidencies. President Clinton bombed Serbia and President Bush bombed, invaded and now occupies Iraq. Compare Clinton's military legacy with the above mentioned historical examples and decide what President Bush should do:
~President Clinton bombed Serbia until Slobodan Milosevic was given over to the war crimes tribunal in the Hague. Now, No one is complaining that Milosevic was captured and once the American objectives were achieved we left. I argue that the objectives were too near sighted. With Milosevic gone, and with no aid in forming a new government Serbia still struggles (10 years later) to rebuild while Muslim portions of Bosnia have become hot beds for terrorist activity.
~President Bush is now in the middle of a messy situation in Iraq. Should Bush (1) remove the American military and leave the people of Iraq to defend themselves like we did in Vietnam, (2)do we remove our troops and let Iraq become a launching pad for terrorist activity like Clinton did with Bosnia, or (3) does America stay the course, establishing a new government in Iraq, and in the process further extinguish terrorist cells over seas?
Obviously, there are volumes of historical text outlining the politics, policy and nuance of America's military past. This comparison was not intended to gloss over these details, it was intended to show the American people what is at stake in Iraq. We must stay the course, we must prevail, we must maintain our status as a global power, we must spread democracy and fight terrorism - no matter what the cost.
Now, today in America there is an ever growing group of citizens who are protesting to bring American troops home from Iraq. It is this mentality, this desire to get out before the job is done, which allows nations to think they can fight and win against America.
Read any revolutionary text, or any war on guerilla tactics, and you will find passages saying things to the effect of: Keep fighting, our willingness to fight for many years will eventually wear down our enemy. Nowhere was this more true than in the Vietnam War. The United States military won just about every major military engagement in that war; however, the will of the American people wore out and we left the area. Once we left, communist North Vietnam was free to take over South Vietnam. Don't get me wrong, there was much more to that war and I hope the historical parallel I am trying to draw does not over simplify the "Conflict in Vietnam."
Often times when a president must decide between going to war or not, they must make difficult and often unpopular decisions which are beneficial to our citizenery in the long run. This is where the true leadership of a president comes into play. Can the president lead the American people to do what is best for them, even in the face of mounting adversity? Everyone knows about the "big wars," but here are a few less-popular-wars (both at the time and in our memories) which were significant in forging the mightly nation we are today.
--> Without President Polk's anexation of Texas and the ensuing Mexican-American War we would not have Texas and much of the Southwest as States today.
--> In the Spanish-American War, we took control of the Phillipines, Manilla, and essentially drove the Spanish out of Central America, thus asserting ourselves as an international player.
--> Even in World War I many issolationist-Americans were completely against us enter "Europe's War." However, in the end, by joining the war we had a significant role in deciding the peace treaty and ultimately cemented our position as a global force.
Now flashforward to our last two presidencies. President Clinton bombed Serbia and President Bush bombed, invaded and now occupies Iraq. Compare Clinton's military legacy with the above mentioned historical examples and decide what President Bush should do:
~President Clinton bombed Serbia until Slobodan Milosevic was given over to the war crimes tribunal in the Hague. Now, No one is complaining that Milosevic was captured and once the American objectives were achieved we left. I argue that the objectives were too near sighted. With Milosevic gone, and with no aid in forming a new government Serbia still struggles (10 years later) to rebuild while Muslim portions of Bosnia have become hot beds for terrorist activity.
~President Bush is now in the middle of a messy situation in Iraq. Should Bush (1) remove the American military and leave the people of Iraq to defend themselves like we did in Vietnam, (2)do we remove our troops and let Iraq become a launching pad for terrorist activity like Clinton did with Bosnia, or (3) does America stay the course, establishing a new government in Iraq, and in the process further extinguish terrorist cells over seas?
Obviously, there are volumes of historical text outlining the politics, policy and nuance of America's military past. This comparison was not intended to gloss over these details, it was intended to show the American people what is at stake in Iraq. We must stay the course, we must prevail, we must maintain our status as a global power, we must spread democracy and fight terrorism - no matter what the cost.
