Posted on 05/10/2007 2:05:05 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Better that there are no dead Marines, they can’t reincarnate like people here at FR.
Patton would have had little trouble handling Iraq..and the insurgents...as long as he were free to command. This stuff isn’t rocket science unless the hands of the command are tied by politics.
Your reply indicates that you have not operated under counter-insurgency doctrine.
"Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!" -Lt. Gen. Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller, USMC
My reply indicates that I know that Patton wouldn’t have tolerated the type of political hamstringing current commanders are forced to endure. Left to make his own rules within the actual legal framework of the Geneva Convention, Patton could have handled this “insurgency.”
I have previously posted information about a group of men who were called “The Regulators,” who took up arms in the North Carolina Piedmont, against the British militia. This was prior to our war for independence. The Regulators were whipped, but they were right. They were defending their homes, families and churches from the British militia who was detached under orders of Anglican clergymen in eastern North Carolina who detested the Baptist revival led by one Shubal Stearns. The outcome of the battle didn’t determine who was right and who was wrong.
I believe that you were trying to imply that General Robert Lee is somhow to be doubted as to his Christian leadership in time of war, and that his insistence upon his troops abiding by Christian principles (these were my points) means nothing just because he surrendered to General Grant. Well, General Grant himself knew better than that. Grant respected Lee as a Christian Gentleman and leader. Lee’s surrender never changed that.
And the defeat of the Confederacy doesn’t indicate that President Lincoln was correct in every one of his positions with regard to the Constitution or the Union, either. I and millions of others believe that he made trash of the Constitution. We, however, still believe that he was also a Christian with an upright testimony. He erred in his view of how to preserve the Union, in our opinion, but he was a fine man and a Christian in his innermost principles.
Patton's credo most likely would have been: "Grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow." Unfortunately, that does not conform to contemporary doctrine.
On balance, we do not disagree.
Which branch of service and MOS?
One function of the General is to say the right words. What the General does is demonstrate what he meant. He says fight fair; he means dominate and rule fair when possible.
“Is it possible to win ‘nicely’? I don’t want indiscriminate slaughter of innocents, but I want to win!”
As we all do. But such wars are political in ature as well as militray. Defeating the enemy units militarily, whether regular or irregular is one thing - but one must careful to avoid being defeated politically. The Tet offensive, for example, was a military disaster for the Viet-Cong, but they managed to turn it into a political boon.
The Coalition troops in Iraq walk a fine line, but there is no viable alternatie. Incinerating whole cities or communities won’t help them win this war - and more importantly, will only spell the end of any US-friendly Iraqi government.
--
War is hell. I'll take the last two words to mean.. Git It Done!
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.