OK, so this is my first real post (intros don't really count...)
Let's jump right into things. I get the sense that many people are discouraged by the progress (or lack thereof) in the war on terror. I am particularly frustrated because the Bush administration has demonstrated itself to be completely inept with everything it attempts to handle. A change needs to be made now.
Unfortunately, we can't wait until the next election to bring in a new commander-in-chief (be it Dem or GOPer) so we need better people around the president. ASAP. For me what is most discouraging is that it seems that we should be doing so much better. The United States has the ability to win this war, but lacks the leaders necessary to do so.
I am reminded of the Civil War, specifically with regard to the generals of the time. (I would never talk smack about Lincoln...) It was not until Ulysses S. Grant became the main Union general that we were able to win that war. The problem before he took over was that almost none of the other generals appreciated what was necessary to defeat the Confederacy. What amazes me is that one person could make such a difference to really turn the tide of the war and, eventually, finally end it. Right now I am looking for our modern day General Grant... Let me know if you have any suggestions who that one person might be who could change things and help us win.
It is clear now as during the Civil War that our troops are totally capable. We just need to give them the right leadership to do the job.
7 comments:
Your rock! Solid start!
David
What seems to lack in this war is a defined objective. If there is no objective then how do we set milestone for an ultimate goal to win. Win what? Freedom? I honestly don't know if the best solution is to stay or to leave. From the media it's not clear to me if Iraqis want us there or if we are the source of the problem. If we decide to stay, then I think we need a draft. There is just not enough talk about war, people don't know that there is a war, a draft will be a rude awakening to put the war back in the spotlight.
-Oren
You have too much time on your hands. Don't those High School kids keep you busy?! Maybe you should transfer to Elementary like me :)
Leadership has nothing to do with it. We have entered a quagmire in Iraq... One we should never have entered.
Enough whining about the past, though. I'm going to echo Oren's question: what is the objective for winning this war?
And unlike your example, Jonathan, General Grant and President Lincoln had (a) the power to overrun the South, (b) the resources to overrun the south, and (c) the popular support to fight an extended war. Iraq is rapidly becoming the Next Vietnam (Vietnam: The Next Generation?). Before going into the First Gulf War, President G.H.W. Bush declared that "that this will not be another Vietnam" (see the full speech here). Why didn't Bush 41 order the invasion of Iraq in '91? Because he knew it would be the very quagmire we're looking at today. Popular support for both the war and the president are waning, just like the late '60s and early '70s saw with Vietnam.
Without a clearly defined objective, some idea of what "winning" this war will look like, and necessary popular support, the president is looking at his party losing control of one or both Houses of Congress in November... To say nothing of leaving this war for his successor.
Brother,
The war in Iraq could have worked better had it been for a few things: a clear set of goals for winning the peace as well as planning for it, other countries adding more than a few thousand troops (less than 5,000) and a world acceptance. I think the current administration was too eager to go. We should have finished in Afganistan first.
Sam Stein
Alpha Pledge class
First, I want to thank everyone for posting their comments. To address some issues:
1) At the time that Grant became major-general, support for the war in the North was waning. In fact, Lincoln's re-election chances were looking dicey against his former general George McClellan. It was Grant's determination to win (and General William Sherman's capture of Atlanta) that ultimately gave Lincoln re-election victory in 1864. In my opinion there was the sense among the public in the Union that at last they had the generals who would put an end to the war.
2) I think it's interesting that many people immediately associated the War on Terror with Iraq. In my mind they are separate issues. I was referring specifically to the fight against Al Qaeda and the spread of radical Islam by the Saudis.
3) Yes, Lindsay, I don't really have time for this! My high schoolers are rather demanding, but I felt the need to blog anyway...
Also: I wanted to say that I completely agree with Sam that we should have finished Afghanistan. And, oh, I don't know, actually used US troops at Tora Bora when there was a chance to capture bin Laden...
Post a Comment