Posted on 09/25/2010 9:20:33 AM PDT by Graybeard58
Barack Obama is America's second wartime president from Illinois. Depictions of the first are, of course, on every penny and $5 bill. The new book, "Obama's Wars" by Bob Woodward, offers troubling contrasts between the way Abraham Lincoln learned to handle a war and President Obama's role in overseeing U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.
President Lincoln, whose military experience amounted to a brief and undistinguished appearance in a minor battle against Native Americans, learned about wartime leadership on the job. From the attack on Fort Sumter in 1861 through the Union victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg in July 1863, he led mainly by default, thanks to the arrogance and vainglorious incompetence of some of the worst generals ever to wear a U.S. uniform — John Fremont, John Pope, Ambrose Burnside, Henry Wager Halleck and George McClellan.
Only after the emergence of Ulysses S. Grant in 1863 did Lincoln settle into his proper role of setting overall conditions for victory and providing Grant with the men and materiel needed to win the war.
The greatest test of the Lincoln-Grant partnership was in late summer 1864, with Union forces apparently bogged down in Virginia and Georgia. The presidential election was but a few months away, and Lincoln for a time expected he'd lose. But rather than worry about his popularity, he stuck to his goal of trying to win the war and shielded Grant from those who would have meddled with his plans and strategies.
Then, in a matter of weeks during early September 1864, Sherman took Atlanta and Sheridan began winning battles in the Shenandoah Valley. By October, it was clear a Union victory was inevitable. And the same became true for Lincoln's re-election.
That leads to the key moment in Woodward's book, which, in the words of The Associated Press, "exposes the roots of an Afghanistan exit plan driven more by politics than national security and shows the president worried about losing the support of the public and his party." The book quotes Obama as saying, "I have two years with the public on this."
Therein lies the crucial difference between Obama and Lincoln. When Lincoln found Grant, he backed off and let his general run the war. Throughout the internal debates about Afghanistan strategy, Obama was receiving advice from Gen. David Petraeus, whose successes in Iraq gave him credibility comparable to that acquired by Grant in Vicksburg and Chattanooga.
But unlike Lincoln, Obama didn't like what his generals were telling him about essential troop levels and commitment of materiel. And so, unlike Lincoln, Obama chose to micromanage the war, dictating a six-page, single-spaced "terms sheet" that led inevitably to a dubious, official "exit strategy." Regardless of conditions on the ground, Obama has committed himself to starting a withdrawal of U.S. forces in July 2011. In the AP's words, that's "an arbitrary date that many in the military see as artificial and perhaps premature."
Since Lincoln's time, the U.S. military has had bad experiences with inadequate resources (think Somalia and the early years of the war in Iraq) and ill-defined, open-ended goals (think Lebanon and Vietnam). When his generals told him what would be needed in Afghanistan, what the strategy with the best chance of success was and how long it would take, Obama's duty was to commit himself and this nation's vast resources fully to that course of action, as Lincoln did with Grant in 1864, or decide the war was not in the national interest.
History records that Lincoln's patience and courage paid off. Sadly, Woodward's account of the internal debate over Afghan strategy suggests that last fall in the Obama White House, patience and courage were in short supply.
I believe wannabee’s comment was a facetious adjunct to the ‘tongue in a light-socket’ imbecilities of gunnyg.
Thank you. I’ve got a cold and am somewhat irony-challenged today.
Millions of people fled here from Europe after the liberal (in the original sense of the term) revolutions of 1848 were crushed by the autocrats. Some percentage of them were socialists or leaned in that direction. Some of them were among my ancestors.
A great many of them served, often with great distinction, in the armies during the Great Rebellion. Most of these were in the Union armies, as few immigrants had cared to go south and compete with the slavery system. Besides, most of them were abolitionists.
To classify all of them, or even many of them, into infiltrating commies is despicable. It’s also quite anachronistic, at least 50 years before the socialists adopted such tactics.
Not all of the burning was Sherman’s doing. Hood’s men also set fires to prevent materiel from getting into Sherman’s hands. Sherman ordered civilians to evacuate Atlanta when he took the city. Then he ordered “public buildings, machine shops, depots, and arsenals” burned. His troops were overzealous. According to recent estimates 1/3 of the city burned down. That’s the sort of thing that would shock us if it happened in peacetime, but wasn’t unheard of in wartime. Suffice it to say, it wasn’t “mass murder of men, women, and children” as you said in your contribution.
And you will lose every time in any forum were you don't get to impose your self as judge, jury and executioner!
By all means hunt it up.
Here it is in all its glory!
To: Bigun
Mine arrived from eastern Europe early in the 20th Century. So what?
You can call that hatred all you want but it will never-the-less remain a lie!
And unless you can come up with some quotes supporting your slander about my 'pathological hatred of anything and everything Southern' then I would say my description of you is just as accurate as your description of me. What you call 'pathological hatred of anything and everything Southern' is merely a refusal to swallow your Southron bullshit and recognize your rebellion for what it was and your leaders for what they were. Nothing more and nothing less. That's what annoys you so much, the fact that there are people out there that you can't snow.
You're the direct descendant of generations of Southern gentry, not a single one of which owned a slave. Am I close?
Nope! Not at all!
Bring it on.
It seems to me that we have been going at this for the better part of ten years now on this forum without anyone having changed their position one iota so I don't see the need for me to waste another minute of my time with you.
Most of the folks who have been here for any length of time have long ago recognized you as the red diaper scum you are anyway so it's hasta la vista as far as I'm concerned!!
And most recognize you for the boob you are, so I suppose it's kind of even.
...so it's hasta la vista as far as I'm concerned!!
Run away little boy.
That’s amazing. I didn’t mean to assasinate Lincoln’s character. I just heard, sometime in public school, that Lincoln had fooled around with some of the slave women and that he educated his black children,illegally. Anyway, I was only asking, not accusing. Some got upset with me.
I was just asking. Check out gunnyg........ http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/the-five-black-presidents-of-the-united-states-of-america/ I think I heard that in school when I was about 10.
Yea, and I had heard that Lee had buggered baby baboons, but I figured that perhaps it wasn’t the time or place...
???
Learned a lot and probably has the same goals. I’m sure killing hundreds of thousands red state Southerner would be just fine with him.
Learned a lot and probably has the same goals. I’m sure killing hundreds of thousands red state Southerners would be just fine with him.
He saved the United States, destroyed the Republic and murdered hundreds of thousands. Lincoln is a tyrant, a hone grown terrorist, just like Barry Soetoro.
Wrong is an understatement!
Those are facts, get your head out of your a$$.
the boy has always been wrong—obvious why you would agree...
as you wish.
thieves.
Hey Yank, you will forever worship those spineless, gutless Yankee comrades of yours that waged war on a third of the population to keep them chained, so that they could continue to plunder the states for their own benefit. Almost 95% of Southern wealth was plundered by yankees between 1861 and 1874, first by the morally superior yankee military looting Southern homes and women, then by military reconstruction governments comprised of yankees that plundered state treasuries, actions that took almost a century to recover from. So post away from your moral high ground and condemn those that had the GUTS to secede, condemn those that joined their ancestors in desiring to live under a government of their choosing.
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.