Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cvq3842

If one wishes to adopt the outlook of these contemporary critics of the Iraq enterprise, than World War II could have been charecterized as an endless quagmire that we could never win. How about the strategic bombing campaign of 1943 in which the deep penetration raids into Germany were called off after the catastrophic heavy bomber casualties of Schweinfurt and Regensberg? No one was whining loudly and publicly about the fact that the self defending bomber formation concept was flawed and that they failed in not having a long-range fighter escort ready at the time. We are so used to the Air Force sustaining almost no casualties in current day operations that we often forget that the 8th Air Force alone had more dead (26,000) than all the entire Marine Corps did in World War II (20,000) there were no loudly public howls of quagmire, quagmire we can't win this.

How about the night naval battle off Savo Island, Guadalcanal in August of 1942 in which the United States Navy, defeated by a Japanese navy far better versed in night fighting tactics, sailed away and left the Marines stranded on Guadalcanal? There weren't any howls of quagmire, quagmire we can't win.

How about the slaughter off the Eastern Seaboard of the United States in 1942 in which the U-boats of the German Kreigsmarine during Operation Drumbeat sunk 500 allied merchant ships in a six-month period in the greatest naval disaster in United States history? Again no howls of quagmire, quagmire we can't win.

How about the Kasserine pass in Tunisia in February of 1943? Rommel's Afrika Corps soundly defeated and routed green American troops, sending them into pell mell retreat. Again no howls of quagmire, quagmire these Germans are just too tough to beat.

How about the bloody stalemate inflicted on units of the 1st, 4th, 28th, and 9th infantry divisions by the Germans during the battle of Huertegen Forest as a prelude to the Battle of the Bulge? Or that battle's disastrous opening on the Schnee Eifel in Belgium in which intelligence failures allowed a totally surprised American Army to lose two whole infantry regiments in the opening rounds of the battle? Again no howls of quagmire, quagmire we just can't win.

Or how about the defeat inflicted on the allies during Operation Market garden in 1944 when everyone knew the Germans were already beaten? Or the horrendous losses off Okinawa? Or the bloody repulse at the Rapido River in January of 1944, or the bloody stalemate at Anzio or even the entire checkmated Italian campaign? Again no howls of quagmire, quagmire we can't win.

We often forget that World War II was no unrelieved string of victories until the final triumph. We often suffered defeat on the battlefield, sometimes catastrophic, but we prevailed because we knew that we had to.

Nothing even remotely resembling any of these historical disastrous of World War II has occurred in Iraq, but these infantile naysayers who try to pose the situation has an absolute defeat are either hopelessly naïve or determined to demoralize our soldiers and willfully undermine this effort. Despite the setbacks that have occurred in Iraq, there is nothing here they cannot be remedied to this country's favor.


29 posted on 06/03/2004 6:16:54 PM PDT by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: DMZFrank; All

I really enjoyed your post. I am not nearly as well-versed in WWII as you are, but I certainly understand your point.

While talk of casualties in war always ends up sounding cold-blooded and clinical, I think one of the reasons the casualty figures in Iraq since the end of major combat operations looks so high is because there were so very few casualties in the initial operation. Perversely enough, if the US HAD destroyed the Iraqi army (which some said we should have done anyway) and had the thousands of US casualties some had feared, the losses in this phase may have seemed much lighter. Again, I know I will get attacked for crazy spin - I'm GLAD we have lost relatively fewer troops, and EVERY loss is a tragedy none of us who live past the age of that dead soldier can ever understand. But in a way we are victims of our own success in the initial stage. If you said before going in that we would have 800 casualties by this time, I think everyone would agree it was relatively light.

I wonder if you know how many US troops were killed in attacks in Germany and Japan AFTER the surrender. I know it didn't go 100% smoothly because there is that famous 1946 NY Times article saying our German occupation was a failure. Sorry no cite.

To be fair, war opponents, of left AND right, say that the naysaying, etc. is present in this case because this war is not necessary, or not at this cost. (I do think the operation was the least unpleasant and least dangerous of the alternatives - the risks of inaction were worse than the risks of action.) These opponents say that if there is ever another REALLY NECESSARY war like WWII they will act like Americans did then. But I truly wonder if we would. I don't think it's that simple. One difference that may mean there will NEVER be another WWII is that such a grave threat won't be troops invading allies thousands of miles away, or another Pearl Harbor. It will be a nuke going off in Times Square. The timetable will be instantaneous, not months or years. THE THREAT IS DIFFERENT, SO WE HAVE TO RESPOND DIFFERENTLY! IMHO

There is no "either/or" one factor or another that explains everything. But I agree with you to the extent that one big factor may be that many Americans, for lack of a better term, "just don't get it" - the naivete or undermining you speak of. I have been saying the same thing! They may not have the INTENT of weakening this country and emboldening our enemies, but this head in the clouds "I'm a citizen of the world" mentality has, many times, that EFFECT. In one way, it doesn't matter if someone means to shoot you or just carelessly lets the gun discharge - you're still dead.

And yes, we can win. (Even in Viet Nam the Russians and Chinese were supplying the North, I believe. Again, I'm no expert. But I don't think our enemies have such a huge supply line in Iraq.) It only depends on whether we are willing to pay the cost.

Thanks again for posting. I gotta get to work!

Catch you later, folks!

:)


32 posted on 06/04/2004 6:24:26 AM PDT by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson