This is an archive of the old Stones Cry Out site. For the current site, click here.
« Another Letter from the Front | Main | The Latest Leaks »
December 16, 2005
Putting the War on Terror In Perspective
There's been a great deal of attention paid in the media lately to the cut-and-run crowd, particularly Democrats John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. The media has played up any negative news about the war on terror that they can to try to shore up opposition for the war. So-called "milestones" such as the 2000th casualty in combat have received excessive news coverage. But when we reflect on history, we discover that the losses we have incurred in Iraq and Afghanistan pale in comparison to our losses in previous wars.
Today marks the anniversary of the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge which was the last great Nazi offensive of World War II. Fought in the dense forests of the Ardennes in Belgium, the Germans put 14 divisions including five Panzer divisions (approximately 250,000 troops) up against 80,000 Allied troops. The Americans had thought the Ardennes were too difficult to cross and thus did not have adequate numbers of troops in place at the start of the battle. To make matters worse, dense fog prevented Allied bombers from being able to provide air support.
Six days into the battle the Allies were surrounded by the Germans. General Heinrich von Luettwitz of the XLVIIth Armored Corps sent a message to General Anthony C. McAuliffe, commander of the 101st Airborne and acting commander of the Allied troops at Bastogne demanding that the Allies surrender. General McAuliffe's reply was succinct: NUTS! Although the Germans had a little difficulty understanding exactly what the General meant (it is rumored that the actual reply used much stronger language), the message was clear: we will not surrender. The Allies held on until reinforcements could arrive from the Fourth Armored Division. They eventaully turned the tide and by January 7, 1945, Adolf Hitler ordered the German troops to withdraw from the Ardennes.
The battle would last until January 15, 1945 and would result in at least 80,000 American troops killed and at least as many German troops killed. But if the Americans had surrendered, it would have completely changed the course of the war.
This war is a difficult war. The enemy we fight does not wear a uniform, does not use standard military tactics, and does not even use conventional weaponry. Yet our enemy is determined to defeat us no matter what the cost to them.
The next time you hear someone say we should withdraw from Iraq because the cost has been too great, simply remind them of the sacrifices we have made in the past to maintain our freedom. Surrender was not an option when the situation was far worse for our armed forces that it is now. Surrender is not an option now, either.
Posted by Tom at December 16, 2005 10:28 AM
Trackback Pings
Comments
We were attacked in WWII and there was a demonstrated aggression to ourselves and world peace.
Hussain posed no such threat. The "war" in Iraq had no justification. And the "war on terror" is really a sophisticated police/intelligence action that has no need for the massive troop deployments that are in Iraq.
The invasion of Iraq was a fraud, allowed to happen by the American people to satisfy a bloodlust in response to their fear of an unseen enemy.
Only the blind and the jingoistic think otherwise.
Posted by: You've Got at December 16, 2005 06:07 PM
Tom,
I understand that you feel strongly. But just because people are critical of the Iraq war does not mean they are advocating surrender. While some critics of the war believe we should withdraw immediately, many others, including myself, feel torn. It is very possible that Iraq is a lost cause (recall that violence has not diminished since the first Iraqi election). If so, then the longer we stay, the weaker we look and the more American troops will die senselessly. Furthermore, our presence is creating a terrorist training ground and recruitment opportunity where none existed previously. Shouldn't that be considered? Couldn't some of the resources being devoted to Iraq instead be spent protecting our vulnerable ports (a problem that has been ignored for 4 years)?
At the same time, like many other liberals, I don't want Iraq to fail. I want the troops to stay if it seems that Iraq can be stabilized. But like most people I know, I am deeply distrustful of the Bush administration, which got us into this mess by misrepresenting the need to invade Iraq and then bungling the aftermath. There should be accountability for these mistakes, but there has been none.
Furthermore, this administration claims the Iraq war is being waged to protect our way of life, yet it continues to undercut the values that define us. Torture, indefinite incarceration without legal counsel, spying on American citizens' phone and email conversations, keeping secret information on Americans' library and financial transactions - these are what you find in authoritarian regimes. There is no evidence that loss of liberties has protected us. These un-American activities must not be allowed to continue or this country will cease to be the America we admire.
Lastly, your conclusion that troop loss is lower now than in previous wars is simply irrelevant. And the sacrifices that were made in the noblest war of the 20th century, WWII, are very different than the sacrifices being made by most Americans today. Besides your civil liberties, what have you sacrificed lately? Have you encouraged your children to enlist?
Posted by: dem at December 18, 2005 08:33 PM
I would like to respectively remind the last person who posted that the "Noblest war of the 20th century, WWII" was fought and won in part by violating the civil liberties of the american japanesse that were relocated to secured communities and the German spies that were tried and executed by military trial within weeks of landing on our shores.
If you honestly believe that the Iraq war was a mistake, and I believe you do, then you more anyone else should want the US to stay until Iraq is stabalized. Don't you think we owe it to the Iraq people?
Do you remember what happened in South Vietnam when congress cut off funds? The number of south vietnamese people who were killed was in access of 100,000. Scores more were forced into re-education camps and not to mention the million plus that tried to leave by boats.
Next door in cambodia millions were killed.
Tell me what do we owe these innocent civilians?
If you beleive we made a mistake we at least owe it to them to stay until they can defend themselves.
Posted by: Rob Young at December 19, 2006 11:01 AM