Question:

Will you read this about war

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

G.

W's War

No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive.

Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an

unconscionable thought.

Yet, some wars need to be waged and someone needs to lead.

The

citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any

given war. It's up to our leader to convince them.

That's why we call

the leader, "Commander-in-Chief.

"

George W.'s war is no different. There was lots of resistance to it.

Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea.

The

Commander-in-Chief had to lobby for legislative approval.

Along with supporters, George W.

used the force of his convictions, the

power of his title and every ounce of moral persuasion he could muster

to rally support.

He had to assure Congress and the public that the war

was morally justified, winnable and affordable.

Congress eventually

came around and vote d overwhelmingly to wage war.

George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support.

But in the end,

only one European nation helped us.

The rest of the world sat on its

hands and watched.

After a few quick victories, things started to go bad.

There were many

dark days when all the news was discouraging.

Casualties began to

mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small.

Congress began

to drag its feet about funding the effort.

Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were

beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander-in-Chief of

misleading them.

Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot

and even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.

As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of

the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted.

Yet

through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endor sing the

struggle.

Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then

and there, in overwhelming and total defeat.

At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes.

More troops

were added and trained.

Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals

installed.

Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve.

Now it was

the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and

losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned.

Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just

George W.'s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary.

He

knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts.

Then, in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perhaps the most historic

example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly

defeated.

After six long years of war, the Commander-in-Chief basked in

a most hard-fought victory.

So on that historic day, October 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown, a

satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and

accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the

Revolutionary War.

What? Were you thinking of someone else?

 Tags:

   Report

6 ANSWERS


  1. O.K. I read it. Iraq is not a war. It is a military offensive. One authorized by the Congress in October of 2002, through its passage of Public Law #107-243 and was not launched until March 19, 2003. So, it wasn't "George W." (as you called him) who pushed for the "war". That Congressional Authorization also mirrored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, when President Bush the Younger was still serving as the Governor of Texas.

    There was no Revolutionary War. It was the War For American Independence. We didn't overthrow King George III and it wasn't our intention to do so. The Declaration of Independence merely put forth the idea of one people (us) dissolving the political bonds which connected us with another people (the British). And that war was not concluded until the Treaty of Paris was signed by both parties, long after the Battle of Yorktown.

    As for the support of other military forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom there are over two dozen other nations who have provided troops to the effort. Not just the British. And NATO has had forces there for the past year training Iraqi Security Forces.

    Don't get me wrong. I despair at the uninformed naivete of those who oppose our military actions in Iraq. But, I also think one needs to use facts to counter that position.  


  2. Very good! But I think more would read it if you took out some of the spaces. I almost didn't.

  3. Thats pretty funny did you write it? The only complaint I could give it is for a moment it sounded pro-bush and thats bad, but that doesn't really matter anymore. Very clever and well thought out, it sounds like your very smart.

  4. fabulous!!!  i loved it...and would like to copy it, is that o.k.?

  5. You seem to be trying to compare the American Revolution to the War in Iraq.  They do not compare.  If anyone thought you were writing about the Iraq War it is because you tried to word it in such a way.  Just a historical note, there was no Congress to lobby and the revolutionary Americans were aided by several European nations.  In the twenty-first century there should be more options.

  6. No, because victory, for the US anyway, was never an option in Iraq.

    The neocons’ Iraq/Middle East plan started as a stupid idea doomed to failure, but it did not necessarily have to be a total catastrophic failure (that was Bush’s personal contribution).

    Every non-partisan Middle East expert in the world predicted that the most likely outcome of invading Iraq would be a civil war and regional destabilization. Actually, anyone with the slightest real knowledge of the region knew this to be true.

    The President’s own father knew it and said so in his 1998 book, ‘A World Transformed’. In it, he - Bush the Wiser - explains why invading Iraq and removing Hussein from power would:

    1.result in America becoming stuck in a no-win Vietnam-like quagmire;

    2.result in America losing its friends and allies;

    3.result in America losing its standing in the world and its ability to lead and influence international political events;

    4.result in jeopardizing America’s own interests in the Middle East, undoing decades of intense effort to put ourselves in a position to be politically effective in the region;

    5.result in increased hardship for both those who live in the Middle East and America’s own citizens; and

    6.further destabilize the already volatile region with the possibility of causing regional (or greater) armed conflict.

    If Bush had listened to his real father instead of the imaginary one he hears in his head we would not be in this mess.

    Or, he could have listened to:

    Colin Powell (then Secretary of State) who told Dubya, “If you break it [Iraq], then you own it”; or

    The first Gulf War commander, "Stormin" Norman Schwarzkopf, who said that if America invaded Iraq it would be a, “dinosaur in a tar pit”.

    Conservatives rag on liberals for not having a plan (which is true, they don’t) to hide the fact that they also do not have – and never have had – a plan either. The fact is that there is no ‘plan’ that produces a single positive for America. We are going to leave; the only question is when. Politically, and in terms of Iraq’s future, leaving tomorrow or next year is no different that if we had left yesterday or last year.

    Well, there is the difference of the numbers of wounded and dead; the families destroyed; and the further loss of America’s standing in the world by staying. At least that is the conclusion reached in recent reports by the US Department of State and a consensus of America’s 16 Intelligence Agencies.

    But what do they know, huh?

    Maybe the Bush strategy of endlessly s******g ourselves will ultimately bring the terrorists to their knees – in laughter, anyway.

    =====

    edit --

    Quick, name 3 battles won against the British.

    The American Revolution more accurately demonstrates the truth that in warfare, the home team always has the advantage. During the American Civil War, Robert E. Lee was never defeated on the field of battle in Virginia; but then, he never won on the road.

    An invaded nation does not need to win battles in order to win wars; they only need to keep resisting to triumph; mostly by making the war too expensive and bothersome for the invading nation so they eventually decide that it is not worth the effort—just like England decided concerning the rebellion in the American colonies.

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 6 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.