Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The heart of the problem is that you cannot impose a form of government on any nation and expect long-term stability. Don't forget that this country had inherited a 700 year history of movement towards democracy from England going back to the Magna Carta, so for us the move to representative democracy was the next logical step. The Middle East has never had anything remotely resembling democracy. So, while we can help move them along the road to democracy we cannot force them to become democratic. We must be willing to accept the fact that stability in the Middle East might best be accomplished, for now, with some form of theocratic government. Just remember that stability is a necessary prerequisite for growth and progress because, without it, people will be too busy trying to survive to worry about what particular form of government is going to keep them and their children alive. As for Iran, don't forget that Iran was on its way to developing a more democratic form of government when the U.S. helped the Shah eliminate the elected head of government – because he was a socialist – and install himself as supreme ruler and it was his misrule that eventually resulted in the revolt and establishment of the current band of lunatics that are in charge. Don't forget that it was U.S. backing of the mujahaddin – precursors of the Taliban – who overthrew the government of Afghanistan because it was socialist and allied with the Soviet Union that eventually resulted in that group of lunatics that provided shelter to el Queda. Don't forget that it was U.S. support of a military coup that overthrew the elected government of Salvadore Allende in Chile that gave us the 20+ year abomination of the Pinochet regime. The moral of the story is that interfering in the internal workings of another country can too often have unintended consequences that may end up biting you in your proverbial ass. So while Bush's motives may have been pure, which I personally don't believe, his actions were misguided to the point of stupidity and evidence, yet again, of America's ongoing short-sightedness.
George W. Bush, hands down. He invaded a sovereign country (Iraq) under false pretenses. He deliberately avoided any legitimate attempt at using the existing system for settling international disputes. Once he conquered his enemy, something that was never in question, he failed to install anything approaching a stable government, and in fact had no plan for doing so. In the process he severely damaged an international coalition that had been formed to fight the threat, international terrorism, that the coalition had been formed to combat. He also created a perfect training ground for a whole new generation of terrorists as well has providing a perfect recruiting tool – the crusaders yet again destroyed an Arab government, something they have been doing since the First Crusade. He is an incompetent leader and and incompetent leader of the world's only superpower is, by default, the greatest threat to peace.
Reagan was a twit who happened to be in office at the right time. Kennedy was well-intentioned but he inherited a lot of politicalbaggage from Eisenhower, especially the Bay of Pigs. He also had won by an extremely narrow margin and had nothing remotely resembling a mandate. And there was this little thing called the Civil Rights Movement that was occupying a fair amount of attention. FDR may very well have saved this country from revolution because of Hoover's refusal to do ANYTHING to help those whose lives had been devastated by the Great Depression. If you ever see unretouched photographs of his first inaugural you'll see machine guns on the roof of the White House because there was a real fear of an outbreak of violence. There had been an ongoing series of violent outbreaks all across the nation that seemed to be building. Read about the Bonus Army. What FDR did was SOMETHING which gave the people hope that their government gave a rat's behind about them as something other than throw-away parts for the industrial machine. My father used to tell stories of going to a local auto plant at 5AM and joining a large throng of men and the plant manager would come out and say “Who'll work for …” some ridiculously low amount and then keep uping the amount by a few cents until he got enough warm bodies for that day. Needless to say this type of treatment generated a lot of anger. By the way, my father's family had been in this country since before there was a country and his ancestors had served in the Revolutionary, Civil, Spanish-American, and First World wars and he would serve in the Second, leaving behind a wife and three kids, so it is safe to say that he, and the rest of the men out there, deserved far better treatment. Lincoln saved the country, pure and simple. If any of the other candidates running in 1860 had been elected, there would have been two countries and God only knows what the situation would be now, and even He isn't too sure what it would be. So my vote for most overrated goes to Thomas Jefferson. Yes, he wrote the Declaration of Independence, one of the great political documents in history. Yes, he acquired the Louisiana Territory, violating his own principles in the process but then politicians do that on a regular basis, but beyond that he was a disruptive influence in the country. His election in 1800 came very close to splitting the country. His doctrine of nullfication as espoused in the Kentucky Resolution was a precursor to the secessionist movement that brought about the Civil War, even though it was in a good cause (oppositon to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798). He introduced the party system to American government, something the Founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to. He also preached against slavery but could never find it in his heart to free any of his own slaves. In short, he talked a better game than he played.
Where do you start in a study of history. There have been literally thousands of books written over the years, some good, some bad, some dated, some incredibly one-sided, some just simple lies. Some have been written strictly for students, others for the general public, and many for the serious history nuts like myself. Some are small books with lots of pictures, others are huge volumes with absolutely no pictures but 50 pages of notes in back. And then there are collections of the writings of historical figures, not to mention the classics, the seminal works. How is any reasonably sane person supposed to know where to start on their personal journey of exploration of the Wonderful World of History?Sorry, I can?t tell you where to start, but I can give you some hints on how to pick what books to read, based on more than forty years of experience and spending hundreds, perhaps thousands, of hours slowly thumbing through catalogues, wandering aisles, pulling books off of shelves, trying to decide what books I could buy, which ones I should buy, and those gems that I absolutely must buy even if I have to sneak them in the house.What follows is my own method for identifying and classifying history books. Any resemblance to anybody else?s system is purely coincidental, or possibly serendipitous. First, all books on history can be broken down into four main classes: Source, Secondary, Biography, and Reference. Source books consist of the collected writings of historical figures; books written by observers of, participants in, or contemporary reporters of, historical events, as well as memoirs and autobiographies of historical figures. Be warned that starting one of these is very much like jumping into the deep end of the pool and I recommend at least a broad familiarity with the person, subject, or period. On the other hand, the rewards of reading them can be incredible because they can bring a person, event, or a time period alive like nothing else can. Secondary books are written after the fact by someone who has investigated the subject through both source and other secondary material. These books are typically about some specific topic or period in history. They have the greatest variety in type, quality, and topic and can run the gamut from very good to incredibly bad, both in content and writing. On the plus side, you can probably find a book somewhere that covers just about any topic in history that interests you.Secondary books can be further subdivided into popular or mass market, and academic. Popular history books can be found in most any general bookstore as well as some racks in general merchandise stores. Academic books are most often found in college bookstores although they will sometimes show up in regular bookstores, especially those that are fairly close to a college campus. They are usually published by a university press and often have a large section in back devoted to notes. One clue that a book is academic rather than popular is a title that is highly informative but not terribly exciting. The thing to be careful about with academic books is that they are often written to prove or support a very specialized argument or theory of the author?s and, unless you are very interested in the same thing, it could be a very difficult read. Also be warned that academicians are not always renowned for their creative writing skills because they are writing for other academics and their intent is to inform and not entertain. I consider Biography a separate classification of history books rather than being lumped in with Secondary books. My reason is that, because they focus on people rather than events, they have a different perspective on those events they discuss. Because of this, a well-written biography can often provide some interesting insights into specific events and people, in addition to the information and insights it gives you on the subject of the book. It can really get interesting when different biographies discuss the same event or person and give very different perspectives.And that is what makes the study of history so damned interesting. There are no absolute truths. There are specific facts that provide the framework but the interpretation of the stuff inside that framework is only as valid as the logic used to make the analysis of those facts. In many ways it is like science except that all scientists, regardless of how theoretical their work may be, can hope that their theory will one day be proved, even though they may be long dead. The student of history can only hope that further evidence will support their theory.The final classification is Reference works, those books that one never reads in their entirety but that can be worth their weight in gold when you?re reading something and one of those annoying little ?But I thought?? or ?Wait a minute?? or ?Who is this guy?? questions pop into your head.As to how to pick a book from the thousands available, the best way, or at least the way I developed, is to go to your local bookstore, then to the history section and start scanning the shelves. When you see a book with a title or sub-title that sounds interesting, check out the table of contents because that will give you some idea of how the author approached the subject, and then flip through the book, maybe read a paragraph or two on random pages. If you?re still interested, stick it under your arm and keep scanning the shelves. Once your have an armful, find some place to sit and, starting with the top book, read the introduction, at least the first few paragraphs. If it still sounds interesting, start reading the first chapter. If you keep reading and don?t want to stop, buy it. If it?s kind of interesting, put it in your ?maybe? pile. You?ll be able to tell the ?return to shelf? ones pretty quickly. After that, what you buy is a matter of budget and, for all you fellow married men, what you can get away with or sneak into the house. As you may have guessed, I am a huge fan of those bookstores that also include comfy chairs and coffee bars. I should warn you that this method of book selection is being recommended by someone who learned at his father?s knee that there is no such thing as too many books, only not enough time to read. My old library, of mostly military and world history books, and accumulated over 20 years was somewhere over 500 before my interests changed and I gave them away. My current one, accumulated over the last three years and devoted primarily to early American history, is slightly less than 150. My father had some 2000 when he died. I also buy books that I plan to read sometime in the future, so my library has some thirty books that I haven?t read, yet. That doesn?t stop me from buying more. My wife does however. Sometimes.
Actually I never worried about it too much. We lived within 10 miles of a couple of major defense contractors, a major airport, and a major crossing point of the Mississippi River, so I always figures that either the near misses or the radiation would get us in the first couple of hours. That was called the “bend over and kiss your ass goodbye” strategy.
Unfortunately you're right. The real tragedy is that the people responsible never seem to pay the price unless they're unlucky enough to lose a real war. It's the grunt's, the boots on the ground, the innocent bystanders, the poor civilians who get in the way of these grandiose ambition-fueled delusions, that do. The politicians retire and go on the lecture circuit and get multi-million dollar book deals. Sometimes life just ain't fair. Now there's a shocker.
The difference was in the clarity and legitimacy of the mission. World War II was easy. The threat was obvious. The enemy was easy to recognize. Everybody knew who the good guys were and who the bad guys were. The soldiers' mission was clear – defeat the enemy and free conquered peoples. There were definite objectives – North Africa, Italy, France, Holland, Germany. There was a moral and physical clarity. Vietnam was amorphous. The enemy was Communism with Russia and China being its home, but we were fighting in Vietnam. It became quickly obvious that the vast majority of the Vietnamese didn't really give a s–t and they just wanted to be left alone to raise their crops and their kids. The civilians in the big cities were far more interested in separating us from our money than they were in any fight. The whole concept of search and destroy was a joke because you ended up fighting over the same piece of turf over and over again. We ending up fighting and killing just because we had to. They were trying to kill us because we were trying to kill them because they were trying to kill us because we were trying to kill them because…………… Our commanders didn't seem to have a clue and seemed more interesting in doing their 6-months tour and getting their ticket punched (have coming commanded in combat was a prerequisite for getting promoted) rather than being your leader. So we ended up drinking and smoking dope and trying to stay alive and killing anything and anybody that threatened our survival. From what I've read it isn't a whole lot different for the troops in Iraq. Armies are trained to fight armies, not civilian insurgents. That's what cops due and cops from a different country are occupiers and occupiers can never defeat an insurgency unless they are willing to kill everybody. At times we tried in Vietnam, it seems that at times they are trying in Iraq. I saw a tee-shirt once that said “Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out” and at times that is the way it was then and seems to be now. It all comes down to a lack of clarity of mission and that failure must be placed directly and unequivocally on the civilian leadership – in our case the President and his administration.
They are both responses to the same stimuli – fear of the unknown, of the new, of a change to the status quo, mostly of losing what you have. The natural response is to try and either lock down what you have or to retreat to the “good old days”. The only time this doesn't apply is if things are so damned bad that you have nothing to lose by trying something new, but for most people maintaining the status quo or retrenchment is the safest option. Smart, and unscrupulous, people know how to exploit this. Joe McCarthy, Hitler, FDR, the current administration, all of them knew how to create a resonance between their policies and the fear of people, whether it was Communism or terrorists and WMD. The only difference between these individuals is their motive.
My vote would be for James McPherson who was Grant's #2 favorite, right behind Sherman. Kirby Smith is another viable candidate. There's also the ones who showed great promise but died early in the war, men like Phil Kearney. The list is so long that you could spend days, months, even years debating the subject, but I would go with McPherson because of Grant's opinion and the more I study the man the more I trust his judgement, in military matters. As President he showed the judgement of a distractred gerbil as all the men he trusted pretty much robbed the country blind.
The goal in war is ALWAYS to undermine your opponent any way you can. That is why Bush I encouraged the Shiites to revolt against Saddam at the end of the Gulf War even though he had no intention of helping them and the result was thousands of dead civilians. At least Lincoln never encouraged a slave revolt which was the one overriding fear of the South and had been for virtually the entire existence of the country.
Okay, maybe arrogance is a bit harsh, and there is some speculation that he was also suffering symptoms of the heart problems that eventually killed him, but failure to fully recce your enemy's position before launching a major attack is a cardinal sin, and Stuart had arrived by then. And while his cavalry was not in the best of shape because of Stuart's ill-advised attempt to repeat his glorious ride on the Peninsula, it was still in better shape than the Union cavalry which had take the brunt of the fighting on the 1st. All things considered Gettysburg was a disaster for the Confederacy because it violated the basic premise of a force-in-being – it let itself get pinned down in a battle where numbers ruled instead of remaining a significant threat. All-in-all, it was not a good performance by Lee.
My father had 6 months from his last time in combat until he was back in a civilian environment and he was welcomed as a hero and the government treated him with respect. It was 3 DAYS from my last firefight until I got off a plane in Oakland and I was greeted with fear and suspicion and the government ignored me. Add that to a war that was a FUBAR from start to finish, micromanaged by idiot politicians for political purposes and directed by far too many officers that were more interested in punching their ticket where it said “Commanded in combat” so they could get promoted or that were simply incompetent (remember Rusty Calley of My Lai infamy?) and a war for which we were not trained, and you have a recipe for disaster. That is why I feel sorry for the people coming back from Iraq. A war that has been described as “Driving around waiting to get blown up”), a SecD that is an idiot, a President and VP that managed to keep their own butt off the firing line during my war but are now gung-ho for the enemey to “Bring it on”, politicians that seem more intent on lining the pockets of private contracters than in devising an actual exit strategy. At least they are getting the welcome home that all soldiers in all wars deserve. Remember that it isn't the soldiers who start wars or determine how to fight them or decide who is the real enemy, it is the idiot politicians. I would love to see a new draft law that everybody aged 18-35 was draft eligible and that no one got a deferment unless you were absolutely physically unable to perform ANY duty, including answering phones in the PX. Maybe if the costs of war were spread out to ALL segments of our society, especially the wealthy and those with political influence, we as a nation wouldn't be so gung-ho to try and force other nations to do what we tell them to do.
His goal was to re-unite the country, that was his goal from the moment they seceded. Everything he did was for that, and only that, purpose. He offered the Confederate states a number of opportunities to rejoin the union that would have allowed them to retain slavery because he believed that slavery would eventually die a natural death. In fact, if the Confederate states not yet conquered, by far the vast majority of the southern states, had ceased fighting between the publishing of the preliminary Proclamation on Sept. 17th I believe and January 1st, they would have kept all their slaves. It was their stubborn, and ultimately stupid, refusal to make any sort of compromise that condemned them.
I would agree that Lee did more than Grant could have in a similar situation. I think Lee was more an intuitive tactician while Grant was a learner. Read his memoirs. It is an interesting trip as he learns lesson after lesson, starting with Belmont where he learns the first lesson in combat command 101 – your opponent is probably just as scared as you are. Grant also seemed to be more detached than Lee, never getting upset or excited. He was stolid while Lee was emotional. Grant would never have done what Lee did after Pickett's Charge and greet the returning survivors by asking their forgiveness and accepting all the blame. That may explain why Lee's subordinates seemed to either love or hate him (Pickett never spoke to him after the war if I remember correctly) while Grant's respected him.
