Tuesday, December 8, 2009

The Sleeping Giant Sleeps Again

I got caught up in schoolwork and missed posting on Pearl Harbor Day, but I'm going to post anyway a few hours late. I only have a couple quick thoughts, but highly encourage you to re-visit my post from last year, in remembrance of December 7th, and if nothing else just look at the photos and remember (you don't have to have been alive for the bombing to "remember" it... I wasn't, certainly).

On Friday, November 27th, I attended my grandmother's funeral in Riverside, California. I won't write about that in this post other than to mention that my grandfather who survives her is one of the few remaining WWII veterans, having served in the Marine Corps on Guam, Guadalcanal, Okinawa and Iwo Jima and received four Purple Hearts during the war. It is said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and I'm afraid it is true. The press tries hard to downplay and forget 9/11, and soon I fear that December 7th and September 11th will both just be dates in books that students memorize for a test and don't learn from.

The famous line from Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve" may or may not ever really have been uttered, but its truth was apparent in the complete and total defeat of Japan in World War II. We were filled with resolve, and did all that was necessary to bring a stop to the ability of Imperial Japan to wage oppressive war on the world, and succeeded in spite of their attempt to take us out of the war before we had even joined it. We brought them down completely, and in its place today we have a strong friend and ally, who never again will be a force of evil in the world.

The sleeping giant was again awakened on September 11th, 2001, when terrorists waged war against a completely civilian target and killed thousands of innocent Americans. This time Americas resolve was brief, and if not for strong and determined leadership at the very top, the attack would have carried no consequences for the enemy. However, with a more difficult to define enemy, this war could not be fought on the same terms as World War II. But we have fought it successfully for nearly eight years anyway. Until now.

I won't go into any specifics on Obama's Afghanistan speech, because it has been hashed to death already everywhere, and I don't have the patience to address anything this man is doing to this country. Just think about this: What would the world be like today if, after a wearying and costly campaign of island-hopping in the Pacific, America's leaders had decided that their political careers would be more secure if they had suddenly announced that all troops would be coming home in the next year or two, leaving Japan's war machine wounded but intact? Is there any chance Japan would suddenly have implemented a timetable for withdrawal of their troops in China, who every month of the war killed 100,000 to 200,000 Chinese civilians? Will Al-Qaeda at some point resolve by vote that the war against western civilization is unjust and illegal?

If we don't fight this war completely and totally, it will only result in a less stable middle-east than we began with, and one with greater resolve to destroy America. Is it any wonder Iraqi civilians weren't happy to see us come to liberate them, when the job wasn't finished the last time? The only major drawback to term limits is that it makes other countries justifiably wary to conduct foreign relations with us. How would you feel making a controversial treaty with a country that might change its mind in four years? And if that treaty meant committing military troops to a risky theater of war?

The American giant has decided it's time to go back to sleep, while his enemies are being filled with resolve and courage that if they just wait long enough, their foes will give up. Thank you, Obama, for ending George Bush's "illegal" war, and making the world a safer place for everyone. Also, that last bit was sarcasm.

2 comments:

David Little said...

Great post, Dan. I just disagree with one thing. Sure, the current enemy is harder to find and define, but the tactics for fighting don't necessarily need to change from WWII. The problem from the beginning with this war was that we tried to wage a "clean" one, with success determined by low civilian casualties. No war was won just off of tactical victories, and that's why, with the most skilled military ever, we haven't won this yet. WW I was won when the German people tore down the Kaiser so they would stop dying. The Civil War was largely won by the burning of the South. WW II was won after constant bombing of urban areas. Even in the Old Testament, God ordered Joshua to wage this kind of war. You have to defeat a people, not just a military. Japan is our ally because we destroyed the military and the people. We tried to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan without destroying them first. When the people are so sick of dying that they become the major force in destroying the terrorists without us having to ask or train them, then we know we've won and it's time to rebuild. For a "clean" war, they did remarkably well in waging it, but "clean" wars can never lead to true victory.

Professor Chaos said...

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, in this case, I think had Bush tried to fight that way he wouldn't have been allowed to fight at all. He handled the delicate balance between the ground war in the Middle East, the PR war with the American people, and the political war against our idiotic Congress very well. This balance wasn't as difficult before now, with the internet, etc., and a Congress that is more concerned with re-election than American victory. I think if he'd gone in there and fought total war, he would have been quickly removed as President, and no good would have come of it.

The other problem is that we aren't fighting entire countries this time. The reason the Iraqis didn't welcome us with open arms as much as they would have is that they're used to us pulling out with a job half done. In WWII we fought a government and indoctrinated people on both fronts; in this war we fight a government and a discontent, oppressed people. While we've been way too concerned with "civilian" deaths (I doubt most of those "civilians" really were that), total war would be a bit counter-productive this time.

I think we achieved true victory in Iraq with Bush's strategy. Bush clearly defined a goal of toppling Saddam's government and handing the country over to its people if they establish a democratic government, and that has been done. Iran and Afghanistan are a bit different, but the Bush strategy of sitting still and letting the terrorists come to us worked very well in Fallujah. The only problem now is that if Iran and Afghanistan are left to themselves, they might go in and undo our progress in Iraq. Now that we've run out of time (i.e., we're stuck with Obama now), haphazard total war may be all that's left as a viable option for Iran. I'm not terribly worried about Afghanistan, but at the very least anything that looks remotely suspicious in Iran needs about 30,000 tons of explosive dropped on it without hesitation.