Posted on 09/05/2013 1:18:56 PM PDT by Idaho_Cowboy
This is where we came in. For we've seen this movie before, or rather this all too real, all too familiar tragedy. And travesty. In the Korean War and Stalemate, for painful example, the military objective became not victory but an unending, inconclusive draw -- day after bloody day. And year.
After a dramatic end run -- the master stroke that was the Inchon Landing, Allied troops led by American forces headed for the Yalu and the liberation of all the Korean peninsula. But on the verge of victory, the military calculus was turned upside down by the massive intervention of well-prepared, well-supplied troops pouring into the battle from Red China -- in what seemed infinite numbers.
The armistice in Korea was achieved within months of Dwight D. Eisenhower's inauguration as president and commander-in-chief of the country's armed forces. That armistice now has lasted half a century, however precariously at times. Leadership can be all in these dangerous matters.
Vietnam would provide an even starker and longer example of the toll that indecisive leadership can take year after terrible year.
Now, once again, an uncertain trumpet is sounded. A president and supposed commander-in-chief has invited Congress to set military policy. Just as it finally did when the war was in Vietnam, cutting off supplies and air support, leaving the forces of freedom defenseless.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
That being the case he could avoid going to war entirely, and still say that he's won it. And thus the war effort itself is merely the evening's entertainment.
It was indeed a master-stroke, but it also could have very easily been an utter disaster.
Allied troops led by American forces headed for the Yalu and the liberation of all the Korean peninsula.
This is also what is known as becoming greatly over-extended. Which is helped by ignoring those who point out that this is what is happening.
But on the verge of victory, the military calculus was turned upside down by the massive intervention of well-prepared, well-supplied troops pouring into the battle from Red China -- in what seemed infinite numbers.
As should have been, and was, foreseen by many. That Allied troops were "surprised" is astonishing. The Chinese did exactly what they said they would do, but we greatly underestimated their capability to do it.
And the Chinese troops were not all that well supplied.
Remember, we had a monopoly on nukes at the time. It wouldn't have been a perfect solution, but it was a hell of a lot better than the current result.
“Five more no votes and Scooby Doo will say, “Ruh Roh”
I wish it was Scooby Doo, he at least can figure out right from wrong.
Not exactly. The Chinese attacked at the end of 1950, and the Russians detonated their first Bomb in August of 1949.
We no doubt had more, bigger and better Bombs, but we didn't have a monopoly.
It is a real time update 44 Yes 213 No....
Good article.
As one who has lived through many wars, I say ENOUGH ALREADY!
Wondering why we are focused in discussion of yeah, or nay on this “war” rather than impeachment? Perhaps THAT is the diversion.
I believe Obama wants congress to turn him down. This is why Nancy and Boxer and Durbin voted “no”. They’re counting on the mean old republicans to bail them and Obama out. They should vote present and let the democrats have it. If the majority of the “yea” votes were to be from the democrats, Obama wouldn’t know whether to s... or go blind.
Isn’t it funny that when Obama ran out of people to blame he started blaming the entire world. And if this is approved it will be the Obama AND the republicans against the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.