Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

You might want to revise term "slam dunk". I don't beleive it was in common use in the 1940s.

Posted by mystk at December 16, 2004 08:28 PM

Technically it would have been ex Morgan Bank(the Carlyle Group of its day)attorney,Skull& Bonesman Henry Stimson, who spared the city of Kyoto, from bombing for sentimental reasons (he had his
honeymoon there) not George Marshall,who had just failed upwards from his peace mission in China;
trying to bridge the differences between the Coms
and the Nationalists (the Palestinian conflict of the day,) and his Army Staff Planning job at the time of Pearl Harbor, to Secretary of State; Another figure would have been War UnderSecretary John McCloy, who had ties to Germany going back to the 1920s, through his international law practice, James Forrestal,the former Dillon &
Read partner;& ARAMCO facilitator;(his firm
helped forge the primary American concession in
Saudi)also Navy Secretary and paranoid future Defense Secretary, would have been the people most likely to have been awarded the Presidential
Medal for their post war planning, in this analogy.

Posted by narciso at December 16, 2004 09:02 PM

Let's not forget that in order to defeat Germany we had to ally ourselves with the murderous Stalin regime, with some US propaganda films referring to the peaceful Russian peoples.

And of course, the Japanese only attacked because of the insensitivity of the US to the Japanese peaceful expansion in China -- which however undesirable was inevitable given the disarray of the Chinese.

And the Manhattan project was conducted under the false premises that the Germans had secret weapons of mass destruction under development and we had to get there first.

Posted by cynic at December 16, 2004 09:37 PM

1944: Battle of the Bulge; 2004: Battle of the Bilge

The folks at POWERLINE posted a link to a GREAT column by Paul Greenberg - a column written on this, the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge.

Greenberg wrote:

"Instead of sheltering behind the Siegfried Line, the "retreating" Germans were advancing. Through an only lightly defended 50-mile stretch of the Ardennes. Allied intelligence had collected reports of a transfer of German troops from the Eastern to the Western front in the fall of 1944, and there was ample evidence that they were being reassembled in the Ardennes, but word never filtered up to headquarters. No one had connected the dots. (Sound familiar?) [...] In the heat of battle, confusion reigned. Disguised as American MPs, English-speaking, American-accented Germans were sending relief convoys down the wrong roads, or into murderous ambushes. Just liberated French cities were exposed again, and Paris was jittery. The British press demanded that Eisenhower turn command of the land forces over to Montgomery - or anyone else competent. [...] In the heat of battle, confusion reigned. Disguised as American MPs, English-speaking, American-accented Germans were sending relief convoys down the wrong roads, or into murderous ambushes. Just liberated French cities were exposed again, and Paris was jittery. The British press demanded that Eisenhower turn command of the land forces over to Montgomery - or anyone else competent."

But that was then.

Your BRILLIANT SATIRE IS SO NOW!

Then, only the infamous yellow press of Fleet Street carped a negative line. NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT called for the Secretary of War to resign - (he was Henry L. Stimson, a secretary of huge import, and like Rumsfeld an enourmously talented and committed man on his 2nd tour of duty as leader of the department).

McCain and Kristol should be ashamed of themselves for caving into the negativists and defeatists who always seem to seek to scapegoat someone whenever there's a setback in this war. Well: setbacks are a part of war; the enemy is flexible, cunning and committed and they're bound to do things which will upset our plans. So, we must be cunning, too. Not defeatist.

I'd rather the McCains and the Kristols of the world - on the Right and on the Left - all kept their mouths shut, instead of carping each time we hit an inevitable bump in the road to victory - a victory that can only be lost if we lose our resolve; a resolve that can only be undemined by their short-sighted carping.

So... HEY YO... MCCAIN & HAGEL & KRISTOL (and now LOTT): ENOUGH ALREADY! Your seemingly unending calls for Rumsfeld to resign are nothing more than BILGE!"*

Bush and Rumsfeld have (for all intents and purposes) answered your call by saying what General McAuliffe said to the NAZIS at the Battle of the Bulge - "NUTS!"

*[Bilge as defined by the Navy: "Spaces at the very bottom of a vessel in which water leaks are allowed to collect for evacuation by the ship's pumps. Thus, the expression, 'That's bilge!', meaning 'Nonsense'. "]

FOR MORE ON THE "LET'S GET RUMSFELD!" CROWD (FROM THE EDITORS OF NATIONAL REVIEW.

# posted by reliapundit :

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2004/12/1944-battle-of-bulge-2004-battle-of.html

Posted by reliapundit at December 16, 2004 10:43 PM

War Unwinnable...
Terrific! Funny, a little sad, but timely -- a great mix.

Posted by Curtis at December 16, 2004 11:56 PM

If anyone needs to go, it's Trent Lott.

Posted by Leland at December 17, 2004 03:00 AM

IN fact, 'slam dunk' wasn't in use then, because Chick hearn came upo with the term. Not that it really matters.

Posted by John Cole at December 17, 2004 03:53 AM

While we now have the problem that the left is compulsively against ANY war, the analogy to the Battle of the Bulge is absurd. The context is completely different. I can understand why the folks that are compulsively FOR any war would try to find some parallel, but this one is ridiculous.
If, when we had finally defeated Germany and Japan, we had encountered the amount of resistance that we have met in Iraq, multiplied by the increased factor of the relative populations of both those countries, then you might have the beginning of a comparison.

Dwight

Posted by Dwight at December 17, 2004 04:38 AM

We had to invent the word Nazi, otherwise the left would be supporting National Soc1alism...

I've had to spell soc1alism 1ncorrectly, as apparently it contains the word c1al1s! The left really does stiff you!

Posted by Rob Read at December 17, 2004 04:51 AM

Funny, sad, good writing.

BTW, maybe "Lead pipe cinch" can replace "slam dunk"; the former would have been common then.

Posted by Pogo at December 17, 2004 05:22 AM

I'm pro-war and still generally pro-Rumsfeld, but I have to agree that this isn't necessarily a valid comparison. For one thing, in WW2 the entire national economy of the US was mobilized to the war effort. Over 14 million citizens were in uniform and entire industries had been converted to produce weapons that in some cases were completely unrelated to the products they made before the war (ex: Ford built one of the world's largest -at the time- plants in southern California to produce B-24 Liberators on an assembly line)

While Rumsfeld's answers to the Army were honest, fundamentally correct and (contrary to what some are saying) largely attitude-free, his management approach is much closer to McNamara than Marshall. He's trying to keep the costs and soforth under control during a large-scale shooting war, and the verdict is still out on whether he's trying too hard at the expense of the troops in harm's way.

Posted by Stacy at December 17, 2004 05:47 AM

Er, I'm not sure what a moderate Democrat was in the 1940s. I'm thinking Harry Truman here...he wasn't exactly the type not to screw with the Russians.

Posted by Mark at December 17, 2004 05:48 AM

I'm not sure what a moderate Democrat was in the 1940s

You know, what a modern Reuters reporter would consider a moderate Democrat. Like Henry Wallace--someone who understood what a wonderful experiment was going on in the Soviet Union under the enlightened Joe Stalin. Not a right-wing Democrat like that Harry Truman fellow...

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 17, 2004 06:04 AM

The reason Emperor Hirohito wasn't executed as a war criminal -- he richly deserved the fate -- was because his order caused seven million Japanese men under arms to lay down their weapons. Without him still on the throne, the Allies would have suffered tens of thousands of casualties subduing the fanatical military and civilian population. As for Rumsfeld, I think he's doing all right. We're in the midst of transforming the military -- remember how everybody thought it was a good idea not so long ago -- into a force more mobile and technology reliant. Americans are an impatient people, and now we suffer from attention deficit at all levels of life. It seems to them we've been in Iraq a long time already and the thought of another four or five years makes people restless.

Posted by Jerry at December 17, 2004 07:39 AM

You forget that the US military was sending its tanks into battle under armored. To the pooint where the tankers were scrounging for extra armor to put on their tanks, including tying sandbags to the front.

Posted by Anthony at December 17, 2004 07:45 AM

I'm still waiting for a Dem to suggest that we demonstrate how seriously we take the war by making a meaningful-to-them sacrifice, namely cutting spending somewhere else in govt and spending that money on the military.

Instead, the only "sacrifice" they can come up with is something they always push, raising taxes.

Posted by Andy Freeman at December 17, 2004 08:00 AM

Instead, the only "sacrifice" they can come up with is something they always push, raising taxes.

Posted by Andy Freeman at December 17, 2004 08:01 AM

Let's not forget the war crime committed by the US troops in leveling the monestary at Monte Cassino; even though the German troops weren't using it, the US leveled an historic religious site (no doubt angering many Catholics in an overwhelmingly Catholic country). The US should have immediately pulled all its troops out of Europe right then.

Posted by Robert at December 17, 2004 08:03 AM

It would be best for the Americans to make a quick surrender with the Germans and return to our side of the Atlantic and let the British continue their war mongering ways. What right do we have to impose our values on the Europeans, in particular on the Germans? Who do we think we are?

Posted by Peter Rice at December 17, 2004 08:43 AM

"...the US military was sending its tanks into battle under armored...scrounging for extra armor to put on their tanks, including tying sandbags to the front."

And good 'ol Yankee ingenuity + a welding torch converted Sherman tanks into hedgerow cutters, bulldozers, etc. Much like troops in Iraq taking a cue from "Monster Garage" and scrounging for scrap steel.
Logistical planners need to spend more time close to the action to really know what is needed, both then & now.

Posted by M Rad at December 17, 2004 09:31 AM

I read somewhere that the military has only 2 sizes. Too small and too big. I don't think that's accurate. But I do think that the boys on the front lines are in a better position to adapt their tools to the task at hand then the Pentatgon is, and using scrap metal and welding torches isn't a bad way to go about it.
Weren't some people complaining about giving the military a blank check for the war? This is what happens when you don't give them a blank check.

Posted by Geoff Matthews at December 17, 2004 10:48 AM

Don't forget the other criticism of the invasion of europe... Germany did not attack us on December 7, Japan did. And don't tell me they are allies. Allies have to agree on everything. The Nazis, they want to kill all non-Germans, so the Japanese would NEVER ally with them. I mean if the Germans got their way there would be no Japanese; that is called an irreconcilable difference.

So here is Roosevelt going after Hitler, who never did anything to harm us, while Tojo, the man who did attack us, is still at large. And all this because Roosevelt believes that in the future Hitler will be a threat to the US--a preemptive strike. Shameful, simply shameful.

On a serious note, i am an independant, but this year i voted straight republican. I never, EVER, did that before in my life. Before now splitting my ticket was almost a religion with me, but not this year. Why? Two things. One, the democratic party was silent in the face of behavior that crept up to the line of treason. They should have gone on TV and called Moore scum, for instance. Instead they quietly embraced him. Of course i will defend Moore's quasi-treasonous behavior as a matter of his rights, but as a matter of morality, he was clearly in the wrong to make that movie.

Second, when i learned that the Dems were planning to make an election controversy even if there was no evidence of shenanigans, it cinched it for me. Under normal conditions this is despicable. In a war, it itself borders on treasonous. Vodkapundit nailed it when he said that the Democrats were determined to make america into a banana republic. I decided that day that the Democrats should be punished, as a collective group. Slap them in the face hard enough that either 1) they will come to their senses, or 2) retreat snivelilng to a leftward corner and die of irrelevance. I don't know if the other americans who gave bush and his republicans the decisive victory they wanted for the same reason, but it is having the effect i was hoping for. We will see if the Democrats return to sanity, or marginalize themselves even more.

Posted by A.W. of Freespeech.com at December 17, 2004 10:53 AM

Bastogne could be the Green Zone.

Posted by Puredata at December 17, 2004 11:09 AM

Seems like a poor takeoff of a piece I wrote over two years ago. This piece has been reprinted in numerous internet locations and approximately twenty hard copy publications, hope you enjoy the original. - W

Tragic French Offensive Stalled On Beaches

By William A. Mayer, Editor & Publisher - PipeLineNews.org

Normandy, France - June 6, 1944 - Pandemonium, shock and sheer terror predominate today’s events in Europe.

In an as yet unfolding apparent fiasco, Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight David Eisenhower’s troops got a rude awakening this morning at Omaha Beach here in Normandy.

Due to insufficient planning and lack of a workable entrance strategy soldiers of the 1st and 29th Infantry as well as Army Rangers are now bogged down and sustaining heavy casualties inflicted on them by dug-in insurgent positions located 170 feet above them on cliffs overlooking the beaches which now resemble blood soaked killing fields at the time of this mid-morning filing.

Bodies, parts of bodies and blood are the order of the day here, the screams of the dying and the stillness of the dead mingle in testament to this terrible event.

Morale can only be described as extremely poor - in some companies all the officers have been either killed or incapacitated, leaving only poorly trained privates to fend for themselves.

Things appear to be going so poorly that Lt. General Omar Bradley has been rumored to be considering breaking off the attack entirely. As we go to press embattled U.S. president Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s spokesman has not made himself available for comment at all, fueling fires that something has gone disastrously awry.

The government at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is in a distinct lock-down mode and the Vice President’s location is presently and officially undisclosed.

Whether the second in command should have gone into hiding during such a crisis will have to be answered at some future time, but many agree it does not send a good signal.

Miles behind the beaches and adding to the chaos, U.S. Naval gunships have inflicted many friendly fire casualties, as huge high explosive projectiles rain death and destruction on unsuspecting Allied positions. The lack of training of Naval gunners has been called into question numerous times before and today’s demonstration seems to underlie those concerns.

At Utah Beach the situation is also grim, elements of the 82nd and 101st Airborne seemed to be in disarray as they missed their primary drop zones behind the area believed to comprise the militant’s front lines. Errant paratroopers have been hung up in trees, breaking arms and legs, rendering themselves easy targets for those defending this territory.

On the beach front itself the landing area was missed, catapulting US forces nearly 2,000 yards South of the intended coordinates, thus placing them that much farther away from the German insurgents and unable to direct covering fire or materially add to the operation.

Casualties at day’s end are nothing short of horrific; at least 8,000 and possibly as many as 9,000 were wounded in the haphazardly coordinated attack, which seems to have no unifying purpose or intent. Of this number at least 3,000 have been estimated as having been killed, making June 6th by far, the worst single day of the war which has dragged on now - with no exit strategy in sight - as the American economy still struggles to recover from Herbert Hoover’s depression and its 25% unemployment.

Military spending has skyrocketed the national debt into uncharted regions, lending another cause for concern. When and if the current hostilities finally end it may take generations for the huge debt to be repaid.

On the planning end of things, experts wonder privately if enough troops were committed to the initial offensive and whether at least another 100,000 troops should have been added to the force structure before such an audacious undertaking. Communication problems also have made their presence felt making that an area for further investigation by the appropriate governmental committees.

On the home front, questions and concern have been voiced. A telephone poll has shown dwindling support for the wheel-chair bound Commander In Chief, which might indicate a further erosion of support for his now three year-old global war.

Of course the President’s precarious health has always been a question. He has just recently recovered from pneumonia and speculation persists whether or not he has sufficient stamina to properly sustain the war effort. This remains a topic of furious discussion among those questioning his competency.

Today’s costly and chaotic landing compounds the President’s already large credibility problem.

More darkly, this phase of the war, commencing less than six months before the next general election, gives some the impression that Roosevelt may be using this offensive simply as a means to secure re-election in the fall.

Underlining the less than effective Ally attack, German casualties - most of them innocent and hapless conscripts - seem not to be as severe as would be imagined. A German minister who requested anonymity stated categorically that “the aggressors were being driven back into the sea amidst heavy casualties, the German people seek no wider war.”

"The news couldn't be better," Adolph Hitler said when he was first informed of the D-Day assault earlier this afternoon. "As long as they were in Britain we couldn't get at them. Now we have them where we can destroy them."

German minister Goebbels had been told of the Allied airborne landings at 0400 hours.

"Thank God, at last," he said. "This is the final round."

Posted by William at December 17, 2004 11:23 AM

Within 18 months of a surprise aerial attack that kills over 2000 Americans, the US President has rounded up hundreds of people who have the racial makeup of the alledged "attackers" and invaded several Muslim countries and some Pacific islands that had absolutely nothing to do with the attack. His actions provoked widespread domestic and international outrage... Oh wait, check that. That was FDR, a Democrat who did that, and we all know they mean well!

Posted by John at December 17, 2004 11:25 AM

William, I liked his better than yours.

Posted by Frank Myers at December 17, 2004 12:14 PM

William, seems like Zell Miller's piece in the Washington Times on the taking of Iowa Jima was similar to yours also. Is any kind of fictional reporting of past events that deal with the way today's defeatist media would cover it a 'poor takeoff' of your piece?

Posted by Steve at December 17, 2004 12:42 PM

Is any kind of fictional reporting of past events that deal with the way today's defeatist media would cover it a 'poor takeoff' of your piece?

Yes, particularly ones that were written before his, like this, and this?

I've been writing these pieces for over three years now, but it wouldn't occur to me to go to someone else's website who was doing something similar in order to denigrate them and complain that I was being ripped off (while stealing their bandwidth and disk space for my own material). William seems a little full of himself.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 17, 2004 12:58 PM

In some ways, the Germany-Japan contrast is even more compelling. Not only did the Japanese, not the Germans, attack first, but the US decided to abandon the Philippines to its fate until more of a Navy could be scrounged up while US went to Europe first.

For those who have forgotten their history -- the Philippines was a US controlled commonwealth, hence American territory. Going Europe-first was/would be only marginally worse than having Hawaii invaded and then ignoring it to fight in Europe. Oh, and the Philippines were misleadingly told that the US was sending support immediately, hence causing the local forces to continue fighting, when surrendering might have spared many Filipino and American lives. We can argue over whether that makes sense in hindsight, but you can imagine what today's hostile press would have done with that scenario.

Posted by jn at December 17, 2004 01:56 PM

We can argue over whether that makes sense in hindsight, but you can imagine what today's hostile press would have done with that scenario. jn

But the huge difference is that the press would NOT be so hostile if we were in a life and death struggle with major powers that could destroy our navy, even invade us. This is a two-bit war, (relatively speaking) one that is small enough to criticize and get away with it, and shakily-enough justified, so that some of the criticism seems to stick, at least to me.

The magnitude of the threat from the Axis after Pearl Harbor pretty much shut up the isolationists, who had been a lot more vocal, (than our current protestors) even violent at times in their earlier protests of getting involved in a European War.

It turns out that we had no such threat in Iraq. Would we have been in WWII to keep the Japanese out of Manchuria, to stop the atrocities? The large facts and forces of WWII are so different from those in Iraq that the analogy remains wierd.

Dwight

Posted by Dwight at December 17, 2004 02:31 PM

William, why not consider it homage, unless it was a clear rip-off. It's not like anyone owns a patent on the notion of satirical faux journalism.

My own "History of the English Language" has been posted elsewhere (including Oxford). I consider it a compliment. At one site I asked the owner to give me credit and a link back to the original; it was no big deal.

/shameless plug :-)

Posted by corrie at December 17, 2004 02:33 PM

Whatever.......thought it might be of interest...

Posted by at December 17, 2004 04:14 PM

Repost,for attributive purposes only....have no intention of descending into pointless debate on someone elses railroad, sheeeeeesh, it struck me as quite similar in tone, phrase and grammatical construction...if ye see it differently.......well that's what makes a horse race......the only reason it even came to my attention is that someone posted in on PipeLineNews.......carry on......

Posted by William at December 17, 2004 04:19 PM

William, perhaps you invented a time machine. Zipped forward to December 2004 and read Rand's piece, then zipped back and wrote your piece.

How would a copyright lawyer resolve that case?

Posted by H.G. Wells at December 17, 2004 04:22 PM

...it struck me as quite similar in tone, phrase and grammatical construction...

Gosh, what a shock. Two pieces attempting to replicate a certain tone, phrase and grammatical construction (that of a modern-day media hack reporting on WW II) end up being "quite similar in tone, phrase and grammatical construction."

William, today was the first time I've ever seen your piece. I won't render a judgement on its quality, but I can assure you that you had absolutely no role in inspiring any of mine, particularly the ones that I wrote prior to its publication. Your post came across to me (and apparently others) as a desperate attempt for recognition, and whining that people (like, apparently, me) were ripping you off. That's just silly.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 17, 2004 04:27 PM

Dwight, that your work would be totally ripped by some fools at Oxford is not surprising, seems that institution has never been the same since the architect of the "most ethical administration in history" semi-matriculated there.

ciao

Posted by William at December 17, 2004 04:29 PM

Rand, pardone me, who am I to argue with such a stellar talent?

Prosper and have a Merry Christmas.

Posted by William at December 17, 2004 04:36 PM

William, I wrote a similar piece for my local newspaper, which they wouldn't print. But the formula is so easy, about anyone can write such a parody.

Here's part of mine, dealing with the post-war occupation of Germany (it took about 5 minutes to write):

"Here in Commissioner's McCloy's palatial suite of offices in southern Germany, there is laughter and cheerfulness as the first full year of American Occupation comes to an end in Germany. The feeling of American triumphalism still lingers, oblivious to the all too obvious ugly realities in the street.

But doubts remain, especially among the soldiers, who must walk the streets of this defeated country and put into practice the oftentimes hated and resented policies of the Occupation forces.

And, not all are friendly among the German population. Nazi sympathizers, still eager to drive the Occupier out of thier homeland, organize armed bands -- called "werewolves" -- to attack and disrupt US forces, as well as other Occupation forces throughout Germany. The rest of the population, though not wholly supportive of the terroristic werewolves, is, a year after VE day, resentful and weary of the overbearing and ineffective Allied presence.

Two werewolves were summarily executed in Munich yesterday. News came in from Berlin of Russian mass reprisals against resisters in the eastern parts of Germany. The French continue to hold public hangings of resisters in Alsace. "Victory" seems an empty slogan these days.

No one had a plan to occupy this ancient and proud nation. There was only talk of "Unconditional Surrender" and Allied triumph. Now the extreme and misguided Unconditional Surrender policy can be seen for what it is: a recipe for disaster and a quagmire, the end of which is nowhere in sight.

We won the war, but can we win the peace? The Germans are restless, agitated, and mostly unemployed. They want essential services, food, and their own government. Yet, we persist in "de-Nazification," as if that would put food on the table for a hungry family.

The "Unconditional Surrender" extremists in Washington and London now have to face the inevitable consequences of thier policies. They failed to follow the obvious course, and negotiate a conditional and workable surrender of Germany with Himmler, Goering, and the Army, mediated by the Swiss and other well-intentioned players in the International Community of Nations. We know now that was a plain and obvious possibility, an option wasted, a better future for the German nation foregone.

Washington and London won the war, but now we live in the wake of the ugly weakness of their policies, a quagmire of "peace." I wish I had a solution, but quagmires are like that."

Posted by MD at December 17, 2004 04:43 PM

Hmmm, I don't think it is MY work that has been ripped at Oxford, but then, I suppose, I might be more famous than I think. I am saying a plague on both your houses because the comparison is ridiculous, but if if it sells, it sells. Obviously there are a lot of suckers out there.

Dwight

Posted by Dwight at December 17, 2004 05:38 PM

But the huge difference is that the press would NOT be so hostile if we were in a life and death struggle with major powers that could destroy our navy, even invade us.

-Dwight

In case you haven't noticed, Dwight, we *are* in a life-and-death struggle with an enemy that wishes to destroy us. (Jeeze, have you forgotton 9/11 already?) It remains to be seen whether we can win this war before the enemy obtains the means to do so, but I, for one, hope so. The analogy is apt.

Mike

Posted by Michael Kent at December 17, 2004 06:45 PM

Outstanding, Mr. Simberg! It's a brilliant "what if" scenario; had the modern leftist "main stream media" existed during WWII, that is precisely the way it would have been reported.

SFC Cheryl McElroy
US ARMY
Washington, DC

Posted by SFC Cheryl McElroy at December 17, 2004 07:10 PM

How many Allied troops died in combat after the fall of Berlin?

How many times did the Nazi Insurgents take back Hamburg or any other city?

How many IEDs were planted along the road to the Berlin airport? Did the Allies ever lose control over that vital route? Did they ever have to stop using trucks and go with air alone?

How many Allies only gave small token forces and very little in reconstruction?

How many Allies pulled out before Germany was secured?

How many American citizens were against the invasion of Germany?

These WWII things get trotted out every other month and everyone gathers around them like hobos over a flaming garbage can rubbing their hands in the warmth of "It all turned out okay in that different war with that different people in that different time in a different country for different cause so this completely dissimilar conflict will end up just the same!"

So it’s about as original as it is insightful.

Now there’s nothing wrong with visiting fantasies of course. But when you’re done, here's the reality that Iraq lives in.

Now can anyone find me an equivalent Friday in Germany around 1947? Or any day in Germany after Hitler was greased?

It’s not to say America is going to lose or is losing but a democratic and stable Iraq is not “just around the corner” nor is it a certainty and trying to hypnotize yourself into thinking that it is doesn’t really help.

Posted by salvage at December 18, 2004 05:30 AM

Cheryl and Michael, First, we have to acknowledge that so many things have changed in the press and the culture since the 40's. We have a press that is eager to expose the personal and professional flaws of the "patriots" who lead our government and our military, whether they be right wing or left wing. Open criticism is part of the culture, except maybe for a few months after 9/11.

At 9/11, we took a grievous, but still limited blow, that in no way compromised our military power in the way that Pearl Harbor did. It was also much less clear what the proper response should be, whereas after PH it was clear that all-out conventional war against Japan...and then Germany (slightly less clear, but a lot clearer than Iraq) had already begun with Japan and essentially had begun with Germany in the North Atlantic.

After 9/11, it was much less clear what the proper response should be. The Administration in power decided that the response should be to invade first, Afghanistan...and then Iraq. To try to equate the clear necessity of fighting Japan and Germany with that of invading Afghanistan and then Iraq, is far-tetched. Either of the latter two MAY or MAY NOT turn out to be
good ideas, but if you cannot understand why more people, liberal or conservative would question the latter two moves, then you just don't understand the difference between the things on which America had/has a CLEAR consensus, and the things on which it didn't/doesn't.

To support or oppose the current efforts has a lot more of a POLITICAL agenda, that both sides try to align with a strategic agenda. The right wants to compare it to WWII, the left to Vietnam. Iraq may or may not turn out well, but you have to admit that it is at BEST a 50/50 chance and to expect that it would be treated by the press, or anyone else, except maybe the military, whose lives are on the line, as if it were WWII, is clearly a political, not an historical journey into the far-fetched.

Actually, at times the press was very critical during the Civil War and maybe you could get a better analogy there, except that would undermine your intended point that there is a NEW kind of disloyalty and pessimism in the media.

Dwight

Posted by Dwight at December 18, 2004 06:02 AM

How many Allied troops died in combat after the fall of Berlin?

How many times did the Nazi Insurgents take back Hamburg or any other city?

You're arguing with an analogy you don't even understand. We are in a global war, just as we were then. Removing Saddam from power was only victory in a single battle--the one to remove the Ba'athist regime from power, and that particular victory was what was being described when the president said that "major combat operations are over."

Saddam != Hitler in this formulation. The new hostilities in Iraq are a new battle in the overall war (though if we'd had a northern front, we might have been able to accomplish both at the same time).

The major point is that the press is indeed trying to make this into Vietnam (and every other modern war), in which any time the enemy actually fights back, it means that the cause is hopeless. I'm simply pointing out what reporting would have been like if the people who reported Tet (or Afghanistan, or Iraq today) had reported the Bulge, and to nitpick about imperfections of analogies that one doesn't even understand is beside the point.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 18, 2004 06:23 AM

So you're actual point is that the press is making Iraq into Vietnam by reporting the reality of the situation and you illustrate this by talking about WWII?

Ah.

You're right, I don't understand.

If Iraq is Vietnam (and it isn't) it's only because they were both unnecessary wars launched on lies, executed with breathtaking stupidity both politically and militarily and ended up creating more problems than solving killing thousands and costing billions.

The press reporting on this, both now and then, was and is not the problem. Shooting the messenger is fun and easy but is, in the end, flailing impotence.

Posted by salvage at December 18, 2004 10:18 AM

So you're actual point is that the press is making Iraq into Vietnam by reporting the reality of the situation and you illustrate this by talking about WWII?

No, my point is that today's press could have easily made WW II into Vietnam had they chosen to do so, and been as ignorant as many modern reporters, by emphasizing only the negative, ignoring the positive, and assuming that simply because we are engaged in battles, that we are losing the war and that defeat is inevitable (which was what happened at Tet, which was actually an overwhelming American victory that wiped out much of the Viet Cong in the Mekong Delta).

WW II was one military disaster after another, fortunately also with victories, but even those individual victories (e.g., Normandy, Iwo Jima) often came at a cost in blood and lives that dwarf the entire "War on Terror" so far, yet the press didn't wring their hands then about how all was lost. Fortunately, the press then had a better understanding of the situation, they often had military experience themselves, and they had a sense of history, unlike today's media, which tries to frame every war as Vietnam, in which they felt they were victorious.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 18, 2004 10:36 AM

Now can anyone find me an equivalent Friday in Germany around 1947? Or any day in Germany after Hitler was greased?
posted by salvage at December 18, 2004 05:30 AM

As I recall, the eastern part of Germany was still controlled by a murderous totalitarian regime for 45 years "after Hitler was greased."

In any case, many people can't grasp that analogies -- like the "today's-media-reports-WWII" satires -- are illustrations, and not necessarily arguments unto themselves.

Posted by Nobody Important at December 18, 2004 01:17 PM

"Bush = Hitler" is the only WWII analogy that is acceptable and unquestionable for some people.

Posted by Nobody Important at December 18, 2004 01:28 PM

Load of ignorance showing. The US didn't declare war on Germany, they declared war on you, first. The US didn't abandon the Philippines so you could concentrate on Europe, the Philippines were lost long before any naval units went anywhere near Europe, you didn't have the navy available anywhere. As for the Ardennes offensive, there were plenty of troops in Europe, Bradley in particular had concentrated his troops all wrong, leaving a huge ill defended gap, and was then too slow to react. On top of that, there were far too many troops and resources committed in the South under Patton when there was no convincing military reason for moving in that direction with that strength. The reasons were political.

And you could legitimately criticise the near disaster at Omaha beach on 6 June, many of the deaths were unnecessary, caused by a strange and unfortunate desire to land, unsupported by marinised Shermans, right under the strongest defences on the beach. Where (by accident) troops landed on the more weakly defended sections of the beach, casualties were far lower, and more progress was made. Omaha was, however, the only beach defended by high quality troops, unlike most beaches where the frontline was held by poor quality divisions, the regular German 352nd division was entrenched at Omaha.

Posted by Ed Snack at December 19, 2004 12:31 PM

modern reporters, by emphasizing only the negative, ignoring the positive

Right.

You're the editor, today's wave of violence comes across your desk. In case you don't know:

Car bombs kill at least 62 in attacks on Iraq cities

Militants in Iraq are threatening to kill 10 Iraqis holding hostage unless their US company leaves the country.

Iraq's oil infrastructure suffered five attacks in 24 hours after a voice identified as al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden ordered followers to sabotage the West's key supplies.

So these stories should be ignored in favor of a school getting new text books and a slap of paint?

Again all you're doing is bitchin' about the messenger while ignoring the reality that this war launched on lies has been mismanaged by buffoons.

As for WWII, Eisenhower had two speeches in his pocket on D-Day one that he read and one where he took full responsibility for the failed invasion. You didn’t need the press back then to talk about the negatives because the military and politicians of the time owed up to it rather than putting up banners and pretending everything was just fine.

Posted by salvage at December 19, 2004 03:21 PM

So these stories should be ignored in favor of a school getting new text books and a slap of paint?

No. They should be reported in context of history, along with the stories about children going to school, children no longer starving or suffering from lack of medicine, women no longer being systematically raped, new sewers, electrical service, increased oil production. They should not be used as an excuse to wring hands, and say "woe is us, the enemy is fighting us, all is lost. If only we didn't have an evil retarded monkey running the country."

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 19, 2004 03:35 PM

As for the US having been in a life and death struggle in WWII, I wonder how you can really make that claim about Germany? If you were really indifferent to Europe and only cared about the well-being of the US, it's not clear that Germany could have harmed the US in the medium run if we had stayed out of the war. Indeed, Stalin worried till almost the end that the US and Britain would make a separate peace. Not going to Europe would have probably meant that Germany and Russia would have bashed each other around with Russia probably still winnning in the end, or else neutralizing Germany. But hey, using the Iraq analogy, there was no short term likelihood that the Germans posed a direct threat to the US, and who cares how many people Hitler murdered? You don't care what Saddam did anyway.

So the only justification for attacking in Europe was either a) humanitarian or b) realpolitik: we couldn't tolerate a dominant Nazi Germany lording it over Western Europe. But I seriously doubt a strict interpretation of self-defense required either D-Day or the Bulge.

As for Manchuria, the world might well have been better off if the US had managed to stop the Japanese in China earlier. Would have avoided Pearl Harbor and the Communist takeover of China, not to mention the death of a few million people.

Posted by www at December 19, 2004 04:53 PM

Well while some of that happens it's over shadowed by the criminal rampage, women are being murdered, kidnapped and raped. Only it's the criminals that the Iraqi police can't chase because they're too busy being blown up.

Kids going to school? Two fully armed (and on occasion armored), trained U.S. soldiers are killed a day in Iraq, what chance has a school girl? Parents aren't sending their children to school in plenty of places in Iraq.

But to have a story of a new school beside the 60 people killed today is ludicrious. If it was your son/brother/father smouldering on the ground what would you care about?

"Oh so and so is dead but hey new school! Ooohhh shiny."

Electrity is down, and there are massive lines for fuel. Oil production is down as well, I guess you didn't notice the latest pipeline hits.

Posted by salvage at December 19, 2004 05:55 PM

Yes, that must all be why the polls indicate that the Iraqi people are now more hopeful about their future than they ever were under Saddam. What, you hadn't heard about that?

That's the point. Things haven't yet achieved nirvana and perfection (just as was the case in 1944 France), thus there's no hope. Right.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 19, 2004 06:00 PM

I should add that things are going to get worse in Iraq before they get better. The enemy is going to do everything he can to prevent the elections from occurring. I have confidence that he will fail, and that the Iraqi people, like the brave Afghans, will go to the polls in the face of the totalitarian monsters who wish to thwart their freedom.

I don't believe that just because the enemy fights that we will lose--he is desperate and on his last legs, just as Hitler was sixty years ago. Most thinking people understand that, as do the Iraqi people. If only our own media did, as well as anonymous trolls.

That remains the point.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 19, 2004 06:09 PM

I don't believe that just because the enemy fights that we will lose--he is desperate and on his last legs, just as Hitler was sixty years ago.

I'm adding you to my collection.

Posted by salvage at December 19, 2004 07:17 PM

> I should add that things are going to get worse in Iraq before they get better.

At what point are you going to get tired of this line. You've been using it for 2 years now.

Posted by Daveon at December 20, 2004 04:52 AM

At what point are you going to get tired of this line. You've been using it for 2 years now.

That's a silly question. I'll "tire" of it (well, actually, I'll simply stop using it, but not becauses I'm "tired") when I no longer believe it to be true. You're the one who seems to have set some kind of arbitrary time during which all problems must be solved, not I.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 20, 2004 05:22 AM

Yes, that must all be why the polls indicate that the Iraqi people are now more hopeful about their future than they ever were under Saddam. What, you hadn't heard about that?
That's the point. Things haven't yet achieved nirvana and perfection (just as was the case in 1944 France), thus there's no hope. Right.

Oops missed this bit…

Um no I haven’t, I know there were polls last year that said that, can you point me to a more recent one that says this? I know the latest polls have the majority of Iraqis calling the U.S. occupiers who should leave immediately.

No one’s asking for perfection, just some competence would be nice. Some actual, y’know planning? Rather than banners and speeches that seem to reflect the fantasy that you and others are trying to sell.

And so you’re going back to the war from a different time and place with different motivations, situations and players. Why? What the heck does France 1944 have to do with Iraq 2004? I thought that wasn’t the point you were making.

As for no hope, please show me where I said that? Was it when I said “It’s not to say America is going to lose or is losing”?

Posted by salvage at December 20, 2004 07:20 AM

Has anyone seen a good lampoon that compares Bush to Lincoln? After all, Lincoln's draconian acts make Ashcroft look like a charter ACLU loyalist, and Lincoln was far more hated (even in the North) for his "war of aggression" against OUR OWN PEOPLE. ;-)

Posted by rasqual at December 21, 2004 12:43 PM

I wanted you to know, in case you don't know, the flag that G.M.A. shows behind Charley & Diane is not the flag of the United States of America. It is a bad copy...
The flag on the G.M.A. program has a red stripe under the blue field of stars...The U.S.A. flag has a white spripe under the blue field of stars... The flag on G.M.A. has a white stripe at the bottom of their flag, where as the U.S.A. flag has a red stripe at the bottom of the flag...
Why do they dis-honor the U.S.A. by showing a phony U.S.A. flag? Are they all liberal demon-crats?

Posted by at November 24, 2005 02:32 PM

It's forgotten by most contemporary americans that in
1941, Germany did declare war on the US on Dec 11th 1941,
and that the US did in return declare war on germany and it's
possessions that afternoon.

Posted by pat bahn at December 16, 2005 10:08 AM

Post a comment