My opinion of President Eisenhower. After all, he is the last United States General to actually win a war! Yes, It's been almost sixty-two years now since the USA has come up a winner. We used to think it was easy; a cinch; with God On Our Side, how could we lose? Well, since 1945 we've lost a few and we've had a couple of stalemates. Zero wins. Unless you want to count Grenada - we sure whacked that teensy island! If you're counting that as a real war, I have to think you're one of those desperate alternate reality neo-con knuckle-draggers.
Right now, it's becoming pretty clear we're managing to lose two, count 'em two wars at the same time! Is this what the DOD meant when they said they had to plan to be able to fight two wars on two fronts simultaneously?
I think the problem might have begun when we started hiring out the actual fighting. Did you hear about the problem with the weapons we sent to Iraq disappearing? Losing track of guns,... Kind of reminds me of just after WW II, when we subbed out the war against Mao and his Communist Army; we kept giving Chiang Kai-Shek more guns, and his soldiers just kept selling them to Mao's army. I guess to get enough money to go home. So much for Unleashing Chiang! Now we're doing the same thing in Iraq. Only now we have troops in the way of the bullets being fired from the guns we've supplied.
Well, anyway, I'm re-evaluating my view of Ike. As the last winning U.S. General, perhaps he was smarter than he looked. Or sounded. Imagine, if you will, if we had generals like we have now back then. Or, if we had a President like we have now back then! Depressing thought huh? I donno if I'd be writing this in German or in Japanese. Probably there'd be fighting going on right now, between Eastern Japan and Western Germany, with the battle line somewhere along the Mississippi River.
As an actual winning General, and a President of some stature (a Plus: he appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court- a Minus: he said he thought integration should "go slower").
And, if we are going to say that maybe he knew whereof he spoke, as an actual fighting General, and an actual President, then maybe that last thing he said, you know, about the Military-Industrial Complex is something we should pay (should have paid) attention to. At 460 Billion and counting, it's hard to dispute that the M-I C pretty much gets its own way when it comes to congressional pork. It's probably late in the game to try to start the Pentagon on a diet. The last president tried it, and he had some success, but the dogs of war seem to have returned to feeding on the body politic.
1 comment:
Frank -
I like Ike. But let's remember that the USA did NOT win the war in Europe or the Pacific single handedly. Part of the reason for your discouragement is that you've been lied to (in a way), in my opinion.
Europe: Britain and the USSR played a huge role in defeating Germany. Additionally, it was Poland with help from Britain which broke the German Enigma code - not the USA. The Brits were the leaders in developing radar.
Pacific: Australia, New Zealand, India, Britain, China, also played major roles in defeating the Japanese. The Brits had also cracked the code used by the Germans, and we applied that knowledge to breaking the Japanese code. (Heck, I can't remember: The Brits might have even been the ones who cracked the Japanese code...).
Could we have won the war in the Pacific alone? Probably, with help from reading their code.
Could we have won the war in Europe alone? Doubtful. We depended heavily on reading the German's messages, and on the the Russian Army tying up 2/3 of the Wehrmacht.
Without the Russians, we would have faced the entire German Army. Casualties would have been horrendous, and we might never have defeated Germany.
The Russians laugh at the idea that the USA defeated Germany.
THe USA played a major role, but we did not defeat Germany alone. It's preposterous. The Brits, Russians, and Germans know it.
So, we haven't won any wars lately? We haven't won any since the Civil War.
Dave M
Post a Comment