Posted on 09/13/2005 4:02:53 AM PDT by Convert from ECUSA
Second of three parts
American writer and social historian Studs Terkel memorably called World War II "the good war." Terkel interviewed hundreds of GIs and their families many years after the war. They recalled that the struggle lifted them above their personal lives to fight on behalf of something they believed was greater than themselves. World War II was good, despite the millions of deaths, the limitations on daily lives, the encroachment on peacetime liberties and the arduousness of wartime life. The war was good because the sacrifice was for a noble cause, for the perpetuation of America and the American way of life. The struggle against Islamist terrorism is an equally good war -- and for the same reasons. We have just as great a responsibility to win our struggle against insurgent Islamist aggression as our parents and grandparents had to win World War II.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Ping!
This otherwise good article should have at least mentioned that this case was reversed later by the Supremes.
He also does not bother to show exactly how a 12 year old respectfully not participating in the Pledge constitutes a military menace to the US.
This is GWB's biggest failure: PR.
He has let the Michael Moores and Cindy Sheehans define the debate.
He has failed to get on the tube and make his case. It needs to be made over and over. People need to be reminded. Over and over.
And he has not done it.
Not sure which side you're arguing here.
Bush ought to be making us remember. But it seems you're right - he can't.
Most families are not involved in the war. Their sons are home watching it on TV while the daughters of the Ghetto and Appalachia are deployed in their stead. The difference between past wars and now is the fact everyone had somebody in the service, and the services were masculine.
Ping!
The war power of the United States is virtually without limit, when used properly.
Much more than "PR" is required to get the job done.
By the end of December, 1941 the United States had full censorship of press and mail. On June 13, 1942, we began a fully funded war propaganda effort, which created daily press stories and other methods of telling a favorable story about our wars against Japan and Germany.
Now, 60 years later, the elderly remember with a warm glow how "everybody was pulling together".
That's true, but it was true at least in part due to a massive government effort to suppress bad news and promote the nation's war effort.
Many other means of promoting the war effort were used, as well.
None of this is being done now, although it is well within the war power of the US.
Hooray! Another banner to march under. Hold it high!
Since WWII the divorce rate has gone up dramatically. The number of WWII type two-parent families has dropped just as dramatically. Prior to and during WWII, FAMILIES were the social foundation of the country. The President today is president of a very different America than just 60 years ago. Thank the '60's and the baby boomers.
This war is not like Vietnam: bright and studious people of both races are manning the Humvees. It's not like that this time.
World War II was won because it was a total effort including the press. The only negatives came from the Axis propagandists.
Today the Iraq war effort seems half-hearted because the American (press) propaganda we hear is defeatist, like that of Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally.
Vietnam was lost because of the Liberals and the MSM. They were our enemy and they defeated us when our military was winning. They are at it again. Curse those b______s! We first have to defeat them, and then the Islamist terorists.
I am well aware of that. I didn't say that was all that was required. I said that it was GWB's weak point. He's good enough at it when he does it. He just doesn't do it enough.
I am not advocating a "fully funded war propaganda effort". I am advocating that Bush himself do a better job of arguing his case. That's true for any initiative, SocSec, War, Immigration, whatever.
Why not?
The last war we won, and all the other wars before it, required exactly that, and press censorship to boot.
Why is now different?
He isn't.
Hmmmm. James Webb had no problems with the men he went to combat with in Vietnam; and he made the effort to point that out last time I heard him speak. Of course, as a Vietnam-Era company commander, he didn't need to worry about the day care center and soldiers in "pregnant-nondeployable" as our current commanders do. Then again, Webb was fighting against a far more capable and determined enemy. We are fortunate this time around that we are fighting cowards and incompetents.
Both races?
BTTT
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.