In 1864, Union Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman summarized his infamous “March to the Sea” through Tennessee and Georgia with the following remark: “War is hell. The more brutal war is, the sooner it will end.”
He applied the same principle to the Indian Wars in the West following the Civil War. Sherman, along with Gens. Phil Sheridan, George Crook and Nelson Miles, among others, endorsed a policy of attrition against the Indian tribes by allowing them to starve into submission. The will to fight among many tribes was too great and strong for the United States Army to simply break in a single battle, or even a long series of them, for that matter. The Civil War and the Confederate resolve had proven this.
So, the Army allowed the wholesale slaughter of the buffalo, a primary food source for many Indian tribes in the West, thus effectively cutting off their food supply and forcing them onto reservations where they could eat.
Whether or not one agrees with this tactic is a topic of debate for another time and place. But it is clear that such brutality was, in fact, effective in hastening an end to the Indian Wars.
About eighty years later, a lieutenant general named Douglas MacArthur proposed to invade China as part of a plan to sweep the communists out of Southeast Asia for good. But his commander-in-chief, Harry S. Truman, would have none of it. President Truman held a deep fear of communism—especially the Soviet Union to the north. He feared an invasion of China would provoke communist Russia into nuclear war with the United States. Perhaps President Truman had become gun-shy after having authorized the drop of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the devastating aftermath of which prompted the swift surrender of Imperial Japan and officially ended World War II. Whatever the reason, his reluctance to support MacArthur led to the latter’s dismissal, right in the middle of an American-led offensive that had the communist North Koreans on the run, fleeing across the border into China. MacArthur had argued that relentless pursuit of the enemy and its allies was the surest and shortest means to an end—that being an end to the Korean War.
But as history went, President Truman fired MacArthur, ordered Allied forces to pull back, and allowed the communist army to retake Northern Korea. This move not only made the war drag on longer, but it also bolstered the confidence of the communists and ultimately resulted in a cease-fire that drew the political lines that still exist today. Consequently, Korean families have been separated from each other for more than a half-century.
Truman’s cowardice toward communist nations sent a message to the rest of the world that the United States could be bullied and bluffed into submission, because it was willing to pull its punches. Consequently, we locked horns with communism in a 45-year Cold War.
America did not pull any punches in either World War I or II, both of which resulted in Allied victories. She didn’t do that in Cuba, either, when her Roughriders helped to kick the Spanish in the teeth at San Juan Hill. And the Union was particularly brutal and deliberate in its victory over the Confederacy, especially the final two years under the direction of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and his subordinates, Sherman, Sheridan and Custer et al.
As a result of Grant’s deliberate pursuit, Sherman’s March and Sheridan’s raids throughout the Shenandoah Valley, the tenacious and stubborn Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered little more than a year after Grant assumed command of the Army of the Potomac. Prior to Grant’s appointment, President Lincoln had gone through a half-dozen or more commanders in three years, including four between September 1862 and July 1863. Consequently, the war continued on and Gen. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia had built up a head of steam that seemed near impossible to stop. Only the simultaneous victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg kept the Union from summarily losing the war by July 1863. But Gen. Meade’s reluctance to pursue a retreating Lee across the Potomac River dragged the war on and left Lincoln asking what every other American was wondering: How much longer?
Fortunately, Grant was not hesitant the way Meade and McClellan were. He was neither clumsy like Hooker, nor assuming and predictable as Burnside, nor uninspiring as Pope or McDowell. And he certainly wasn’t as arrogant as many of Lincoln’s general staff in Washington, D.C. were.
This same spirit inspired future military commanders like the eccentric Gen. George Patton, who gave German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel all he could handle in North Africa and Italy. Patton’s blood-and-guts style also helped to break the spirit of the German Army at the Battle of Bulge.
The reason why Germany and Japan failed to conquer the world, respectively, was because of brutal warriors such as Patton, MacArthur and other contemporaries of like mind. If not for them, the Second World War could have lasted longer and at much greater expense of lives lost.
Indeed, where would the world be today if the warrior spirit hadn’t existed in at least a few during history’s most pivotal conflicts? More importantly, imagine how much better our world might have been had the warrior spirit not been shackled by the fears of a few.
Perhaps we’d be looking at a unified Korea and democratic Vietnam.
But history is what it is. All we can do is learn from it. God willing.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
McCain trumps Obama with an ace
For those of you keeping score, it’s John McCain one, Barack Obama zero.
The Maverick pulled a five-card ace to claim the first hand of the world’s largest poker game. Obama “The Changer,” on the other hand, stumbled with a deuce.
One day after Sen. Obama delivered an historic acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colo., Sen. McCain rained on his opponent’s parade by making history for his party. The Maverick named Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate for the 2008 election, marking the first time that a woman has appeared on a Republican presidential ticket.
The night before, Barack Obama accepted his party’s nomination, becoming the first black American to head a major party ticket in a presidential election. The event had been carefully planned and choreographed to correspond with the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous “I have a dream” speech, something the mainstream press called “ironic" and was anything but.
McCain’s selection, though, couldn’t have been timed better or more brilliantly. The morning after Obama’s night on stage, the media swarmed and swooned over his acceptance speech like bees to honey. That’s when The Maverick lowered the boom.
Suddenly, the press was torn between continued “in-depth” analysis of Obama and McCain’s historic pick for a running mate.
And while McCain gave Obama his moment in the spotlight, he didn’t let him enjoy it for very long. The Maverick’s choice for vice-president sent the “O-camp” a message that he is capable of running stride-for-stride with The Changer, in spite of the latter’s younger, fresher legs.
But McCain’s veep choice is far more than an historic first. It’s good, smart political strategy and also a wise move by the moderate Arizona Senator to shore up the Republican Party’s conservative base. McCain risks losing a significant chunk of conservative voters, who have grown discontented with the senior senator’s rather “progressive” voting record on such issues as illegal immigration, the environment, and big government. Putting traditionally conservative Palin on the ticket as the vice-presidential running mate, though, has effectively reinvigorated what was becoming a very disappointed conservative voting block.
Gov. Palin may also prove to be an Achilles Heel for the Democrats, who have always claimed to be the party of women, minorities and the working class. Palin’s husband is an active member of the Steelworkers Union and a working class guy. Prior to her election as governor, Palin and her family lived as ordinary blue-collar, middle-class people. Her presence on the Republican ticket has the potential to take away some blue-collar labor votes that the Democrats have traditionally counted on. Furthermore, Palin as a woman is one Tuesday away from doing what Sen. Hillary Clinton has only dreamed about her entire adult life: Getting elected to the executive branch of the United States government. Female voters who otherwise wanted to vote for Hillary because she is a woman may, in fact, be inclined to cast their ballots for McCain-Palin because of the Alaska governor. However shallow it may seem to vote for somebody based on their gender, the fact of the matter is that people do and votes that may have gone to Hillary could wind up in McCain’s bag.
But I don’t think Palin’s candidacy for vice-president will be lauded, praised or celebrated the same way Clinton’s presidential campaign was. This is because the former is an economic and social conservative with pro-life, anti-abortion views. So it is unlikely she will garner much of the feminist vote despite her gender.
Another favorable attribute in Palin’s court is her youth. She is a young, attractive 44 years old. Obama is two years her senior at 46. So, Obamanation can no longer use youth as an advantage for its candidate, since the Republican ticket proves to be even younger.
Moreover, the Democrats cannot claim to be the minority ticket, either, in this election, because Palin, by virtue of her gender, is a political minority.
What Palin’s placement on the Republican ticket has done, ultimately, is steal the thunder from the Democratic Party by taking away its uniqueness and neutralizing its historical significance for voters who shallowly vote on such trivial matters as race and gender. If McCain wins in November, then Palin will be the first woman vice-president in U.S. history. Not at all unlike the prospect of Obama becoming the first black president in American history.
Perhaps more than any other advantage, though, Gov. Palin adds executive experience to the Republican ticket, something that the Democrats do not have either in Obama or his running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden.
A new political ad backed by the Obama campaign criticizes Palin for being inexperienced, a charge often leveled at Obama, the junior senator from Illinois. Frankly, I don’t begrudge Obama for his lack of political experience. Sometimes a lack thereof can be a good thing, and often is the difference between somebody who really wants to make a positive difference for his or her country and someone who is simply looking to move up the proverbial career ladder. I personally have little use for career-minded politicians, whose primary objective, it seems, is to win re-election so they can continue feeding out of the generous public trough.
The Obama campaign can decry Gov. Palin all it wants to about the experience factor. But the fact of the matter is Palin has done more for her state as a first-term governor than Obama has done for his state as a first-term senator. She has the executive experience that neither McCain nor Obama nor Biden have. These guys are just senators, after all, who spend much of their time voting on and proposing bills, entertaining and hob-knobbing with lobbyists, and sitting on sub-committees pouring over legal documents or delighting in the interrogation of some new presidential appointee. This is what lawyers do. Executives lead and manage, which is exactly what Gov. Palin has done in Alaska.
Compare Palin’s resume to that of Biden, an old Beltway bird who has feathered his nest on the backs of taxpayers for more than three decades. Biden has a great deal more political experience than Palin, but that experience has turned him into a career politician less concerned about leading and more concerned about his fat federal pension.
Palin represents change in Washington, D.C., more so than Obama, who has built an entire presidential campaign around that verbiage. While Obama talks eloquently about change, Palin is walking proof of it. Her fiscal conservatism is just the kind of change that America needs in Washington, rather than more of the same gratuitous spending habits that politicians from both parties have grown accustomed to.
If Sen. Barack Obama is really the agent of change that his campaign claims him to be, then why in the world would he have picked a long-time Beltway player like Biden, who, near as I can tell, has no intention of changing the way Washington does its business as usual? Biden has benefited greatly from his senatorial service simply by playing the game the way it has always been played. If Obama is change, then his pick of someone who represents the status quo in Washington is the antithesis of his message and an anomaly to the campaign. Obama himself once said that the ways of Washington must change. Well, they haven’t yet and won’t because of people like Biden, who have stayed in power because they kept things the way they were.
What’s more, this is the same Joe Biden, who just months before, went on record as criticizing Barack Obama for his lack of political experience. The Democrat nominee’s own running mate charged him with inexperience. Furthermore, Biden last year made a prejudicial comment about Obama’s race, saying that the Illinois junior senator was a breath of fresh air from the black community because he was bright, clean and articulate.
Unfortunately for Obama, his running mate has already damaged the campaign simply by opening his mouth. If the Democrats hope to win in November, they will have to find a way to keep Biden’s mouth shut—no easy task given the latter’s track record of reckless, half-witted remarks. Anyone familiar with Biden knows that the senior senator from Delaware has a history of putting his foot in his mouth. He talks too much, and that’s a liability for any political campaign.
Where Palin may be a stroke of brilliance for McCain, Biden is likely to be the biggest political gaffe of Obama’s career.
The old senator will probably commandeer and dominate the vice-presidential debates, simply because he’s used to talking over people on sub-committees and at hearings. But Palin should steal the show with her poise, visible inner strength, quiet confidence and a way of personally connecting to the common man that she comes by naturally—something Biden boasts of doing, but his actions and words have betrayed him over the years. It was Sen. Joseph Biden, after all, who smugly and arrogantly remarked to a reporter that his intelligence quotient was considerably higher than that of the journalist interviewing him; not exactly making a connection with the common man there.
Nevertheless, Gov. Palin is likely to upstage the crotchety old lawmaker who has spent way too long in the Beltway for his own or anyone else’s good. And she has to say very little to do so. Her quiet confidence alone puts her head and shoulders above Biden.
This can only prove to make McCain look good and Obama appear as though he made a grievous error in judgment.
The Maverick pulled a five-card ace to claim the first hand of the world’s largest poker game. Obama “The Changer,” on the other hand, stumbled with a deuce.
One day after Sen. Obama delivered an historic acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colo., Sen. McCain rained on his opponent’s parade by making history for his party. The Maverick named Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate for the 2008 election, marking the first time that a woman has appeared on a Republican presidential ticket.
The night before, Barack Obama accepted his party’s nomination, becoming the first black American to head a major party ticket in a presidential election. The event had been carefully planned and choreographed to correspond with the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous “I have a dream” speech, something the mainstream press called “ironic" and was anything but.
McCain’s selection, though, couldn’t have been timed better or more brilliantly. The morning after Obama’s night on stage, the media swarmed and swooned over his acceptance speech like bees to honey. That’s when The Maverick lowered the boom.
Suddenly, the press was torn between continued “in-depth” analysis of Obama and McCain’s historic pick for a running mate.
And while McCain gave Obama his moment in the spotlight, he didn’t let him enjoy it for very long. The Maverick’s choice for vice-president sent the “O-camp” a message that he is capable of running stride-for-stride with The Changer, in spite of the latter’s younger, fresher legs.
But McCain’s veep choice is far more than an historic first. It’s good, smart political strategy and also a wise move by the moderate Arizona Senator to shore up the Republican Party’s conservative base. McCain risks losing a significant chunk of conservative voters, who have grown discontented with the senior senator’s rather “progressive” voting record on such issues as illegal immigration, the environment, and big government. Putting traditionally conservative Palin on the ticket as the vice-presidential running mate, though, has effectively reinvigorated what was becoming a very disappointed conservative voting block.
Gov. Palin may also prove to be an Achilles Heel for the Democrats, who have always claimed to be the party of women, minorities and the working class. Palin’s husband is an active member of the Steelworkers Union and a working class guy. Prior to her election as governor, Palin and her family lived as ordinary blue-collar, middle-class people. Her presence on the Republican ticket has the potential to take away some blue-collar labor votes that the Democrats have traditionally counted on. Furthermore, Palin as a woman is one Tuesday away from doing what Sen. Hillary Clinton has only dreamed about her entire adult life: Getting elected to the executive branch of the United States government. Female voters who otherwise wanted to vote for Hillary because she is a woman may, in fact, be inclined to cast their ballots for McCain-Palin because of the Alaska governor. However shallow it may seem to vote for somebody based on their gender, the fact of the matter is that people do and votes that may have gone to Hillary could wind up in McCain’s bag.
But I don’t think Palin’s candidacy for vice-president will be lauded, praised or celebrated the same way Clinton’s presidential campaign was. This is because the former is an economic and social conservative with pro-life, anti-abortion views. So it is unlikely she will garner much of the feminist vote despite her gender.
Another favorable attribute in Palin’s court is her youth. She is a young, attractive 44 years old. Obama is two years her senior at 46. So, Obamanation can no longer use youth as an advantage for its candidate, since the Republican ticket proves to be even younger.
Moreover, the Democrats cannot claim to be the minority ticket, either, in this election, because Palin, by virtue of her gender, is a political minority.
What Palin’s placement on the Republican ticket has done, ultimately, is steal the thunder from the Democratic Party by taking away its uniqueness and neutralizing its historical significance for voters who shallowly vote on such trivial matters as race and gender. If McCain wins in November, then Palin will be the first woman vice-president in U.S. history. Not at all unlike the prospect of Obama becoming the first black president in American history.
Perhaps more than any other advantage, though, Gov. Palin adds executive experience to the Republican ticket, something that the Democrats do not have either in Obama or his running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden.
A new political ad backed by the Obama campaign criticizes Palin for being inexperienced, a charge often leveled at Obama, the junior senator from Illinois. Frankly, I don’t begrudge Obama for his lack of political experience. Sometimes a lack thereof can be a good thing, and often is the difference between somebody who really wants to make a positive difference for his or her country and someone who is simply looking to move up the proverbial career ladder. I personally have little use for career-minded politicians, whose primary objective, it seems, is to win re-election so they can continue feeding out of the generous public trough.
The Obama campaign can decry Gov. Palin all it wants to about the experience factor. But the fact of the matter is Palin has done more for her state as a first-term governor than Obama has done for his state as a first-term senator. She has the executive experience that neither McCain nor Obama nor Biden have. These guys are just senators, after all, who spend much of their time voting on and proposing bills, entertaining and hob-knobbing with lobbyists, and sitting on sub-committees pouring over legal documents or delighting in the interrogation of some new presidential appointee. This is what lawyers do. Executives lead and manage, which is exactly what Gov. Palin has done in Alaska.
Compare Palin’s resume to that of Biden, an old Beltway bird who has feathered his nest on the backs of taxpayers for more than three decades. Biden has a great deal more political experience than Palin, but that experience has turned him into a career politician less concerned about leading and more concerned about his fat federal pension.
Palin represents change in Washington, D.C., more so than Obama, who has built an entire presidential campaign around that verbiage. While Obama talks eloquently about change, Palin is walking proof of it. Her fiscal conservatism is just the kind of change that America needs in Washington, rather than more of the same gratuitous spending habits that politicians from both parties have grown accustomed to.
If Sen. Barack Obama is really the agent of change that his campaign claims him to be, then why in the world would he have picked a long-time Beltway player like Biden, who, near as I can tell, has no intention of changing the way Washington does its business as usual? Biden has benefited greatly from his senatorial service simply by playing the game the way it has always been played. If Obama is change, then his pick of someone who represents the status quo in Washington is the antithesis of his message and an anomaly to the campaign. Obama himself once said that the ways of Washington must change. Well, they haven’t yet and won’t because of people like Biden, who have stayed in power because they kept things the way they were.
What’s more, this is the same Joe Biden, who just months before, went on record as criticizing Barack Obama for his lack of political experience. The Democrat nominee’s own running mate charged him with inexperience. Furthermore, Biden last year made a prejudicial comment about Obama’s race, saying that the Illinois junior senator was a breath of fresh air from the black community because he was bright, clean and articulate.
Unfortunately for Obama, his running mate has already damaged the campaign simply by opening his mouth. If the Democrats hope to win in November, they will have to find a way to keep Biden’s mouth shut—no easy task given the latter’s track record of reckless, half-witted remarks. Anyone familiar with Biden knows that the senior senator from Delaware has a history of putting his foot in his mouth. He talks too much, and that’s a liability for any political campaign.
Where Palin may be a stroke of brilliance for McCain, Biden is likely to be the biggest political gaffe of Obama’s career.
The old senator will probably commandeer and dominate the vice-presidential debates, simply because he’s used to talking over people on sub-committees and at hearings. But Palin should steal the show with her poise, visible inner strength, quiet confidence and a way of personally connecting to the common man that she comes by naturally—something Biden boasts of doing, but his actions and words have betrayed him over the years. It was Sen. Joseph Biden, after all, who smugly and arrogantly remarked to a reporter that his intelligence quotient was considerably higher than that of the journalist interviewing him; not exactly making a connection with the common man there.
Nevertheless, Gov. Palin is likely to upstage the crotchety old lawmaker who has spent way too long in the Beltway for his own or anyone else’s good. And she has to say very little to do so. Her quiet confidence alone puts her head and shoulders above Biden.
This can only prove to make McCain look good and Obama appear as though he made a grievous error in judgment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
