Wednesday, August 13, 2008

George W's WAR

(please read until the end........)

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 was 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 suasion 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 voted 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 endorsing 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,
Oct. 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?


Writer unkown.........thanks, Priscilla....Great find!

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Most excellent, Pris.
We often forget that humans are still the same now as they were then.

It was so hard to fight for our independence, many people just sat on the sides and watched.

And the congress, boy, did a lot of talking.


Things were promised and not all promises kept.
( boy, the more things change, the more they stay the same.)


WVDOTTR

Nikki said...

WOW awesome post Z! One for the books and one that I think should be read by all americans. I think George W and the current conflict will prove to be a victory for the President and the US. History will be good to George, and it is our job to tell the truth as we know it will be skewed by many! Great read...:)N

Z said...

Someone should send this to the people of IRAQ!!

I wonder who wrote it....such great thinking.

Anonymous said...

Z, Yes, I wish I knew who the author was too.

I've thought of another comparison of men. LBJ couldn't stand up to the criticism and political rancor and in his case, ultimately, he didn't have the resolve to see his responsibilites through.

He quit. Of course his own Party left him twisting in the wind. However in Bush's case his Party, while not deserting the war effort itself, has not stood up for the President under the most difficult of circumstances.

While the opposition lied, said the war was lost, and hurled a host of personal insults, his Party with few exceptions, left the burden solely on the President's shoulders, and did not come forward to any degree to defend him.

Bush never wavered and has seen it through, and will until the day he leaves office.

Dottr, what you say is so true.

And Nikki, I agree that History will be good to President Bush in the long run. He has been in office in one of the most difficult and challenging times in our history, and has faced it with determinaton and grace.

Pris

MathewK said...

Good one Z, had me going there. Just goes to show, the more things change, the more they stay the same eh. Those on the left always ready to fold and run.

Anonymous said...

Heh...very very clever. Thanks for that. It's interesting how historical hindsight suddenly makes us a whole lot smarter than the uncritical, follower majority were at the time.

WomanHonorThyself said...

ya got me!..heh

shoprat said...

Very very good. Well done indeed.

cube said...

Excellent post. Both Georges were men who stood firm when difficult circumstances sent others running for cover.

Ducky's here said...

And to this day we won't thank France for the naval blockade.

No France, no win.

Anonymous said...

yes, thank goodness France had a young inexperienced king at that point in time.

Funny how things work out.

The reality is, trying to do the right thing, or something noble is hard work.
Everyone wants an easy or quick fix and there is no such thing.


As for Iraq, no way can some things be accomplished in the space of 6 months or a year.

It takes time to effect long lasting change unless other huge events enter the situation.

It took years to win independence in America.
WVDOTTR

Brooke said...

What are you talking about? Of course we thank France, and we've paid them back in full during WWII.

Great find, Z!

Z said...

Ducky, you're kidding, right?

WV Dottr..great conclusion; Washington then, too, faced building a country...as Iraqis will face now. He had patience, he won..BIG TIME. Hopefully, the same will happen for Iraq.

Brooke...thanks. And yes, we paid France back in SPADES. But, maybe Ducky doesn't think saving France from fascism was a good thing?

Pat Jenkins said...

amazing how the wars that defined our existence, i.e. the revolutionary war, the civil war, met with the most resistance....will the iraq war be another defining moment?...

Anonymous said...

Ducky, You're hillarious. You found a way to respond to this presentation without crediting either or both George Ws!

Of course American patriots must be denied any recognition, right?

I'll expect you back after you untwist yourself out of that pretzel shape you find yourself in.

Pris

Z said...

thanks, Pris...it's hard to ignore the facts this well and change the subject, but I think that's what the whole DNC convention will be like, too.
Would you BELIEVE I just realized now that those dates are when Mr and Mrs. Z are in Santa Barbara!? ARGH!!! (Mr. Z will NOT be pleased sitting around watching the convention like Mrs. Z would like to do!)

Mike said...

Ducky - you obviously missed the point...the similarities between the political situations at times when someone had to step forward, make the difficult decisions, take the heat and lead this country.

France does not represent a consistency of support for the U.S. during both time periods. They were not on our side for the Iraq war because they wanted Saddam Hussein to remain in power. They only trailed Russia in arms sales to Iraq and raked in loads of money by being involved in the "oil for food" scandal. Doesn't sound like the same France that provided the naval blockade.

Z said...

great point, m.a.