Churchill didn't have an 'exit strategy'

National Post ^ | 2006-09-09 | Father Raymond J. de Souza

[Clive]

Five years is not so very long in the life of nations, but there is a sense that the attacks of Sept. 11 and their aftermath have been too long with us. On Monday, as is right, there will be solemn commemorations and strong statements of resolve.

I was in New York for the first anniversary commemorations and, amidst the still raw emotions, the attitude was resolute. Neither in Canada nor the United States, nor in the West in general, is that the case today. It is an ominous development, because resolve on the home front is the indispensable requirement for vanquishing any enemy abroad. Martial victories are credited to brilliant generals, brave soldiers and advanced weaponry, but behind all that lies the spirit of the people. And the spirit is flagging.

Given the damage inflicted by Islamist terrorists in New York, Washington, Madrid and London -- to say nothing of the ongoing carnage inflicted in Muslim countries -- there is no denying that a serious and violent enemy is being faced. And while every life lost in battle is a cause for grieving, the casualties, measured against history, have not been overwhelming.

And yet, one increasingly hears the view, perhaps shared by majorities in both Canada and the United States, and certainly in Europe, that it would be better just to withdraw, sooner or later, from the whole affair: Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, wherever. Maybe the Islamists would then leave us alone; maybe they wouldn't. But there is a weariness in the air. The price is too high for us, the outcome not sufficiently clear.

It bears remembering that it was during the very bleak days of June, 1940, that Winston Churchill rallied the British people, pledging that "we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." And at the height of the Cold War, it was JFK who was able to promise "that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Any leader who tried that today would likely earn not admiration, but derisive laughter. Today commitments must come with conditions, modifications and exit strategies.

Or course it is possible to disagree about this or that policy, this or that war -- as was the case in the great wars of the past. Yet I fear that there is something more profound afoot, a desire simply not to remain in the fight any longer.

"Weariness, Bill -- you cannot yet know literally what it means. I wish no time would come when you do know, but the balance of experience is against it. One day, long hence, you will know true weariness," wrote the old anti-communist Whittaker Chambers, who died in 1961, in his final letter to the young anti-communist William F. Buckley, Jr.

"History hit us with a freight train," he wrote. "But we (my general breed) tried to put ourselves together again. Since this meant outwitting dismemberment, as well as resynthesizing a new lifeview, the sequel might seem rather remarkable, rather more remarkable than what went before. But at a price -- weariness."

Chambers, the communist defector who nailed Alger Hiss, had earned his weariness, though he never lost his resolve. Canada and her allies today appear weary, but it is not clear that we have earned it. The Nazis and the communists counted on the decadent democracies (in their view) proving irresolute and soft in the face of a long, sustained fight. They were wrong. The Islamist terrorists are surely making the same calculation; five years after 9/11, it is not obvious that they too will be wrong.

Chambers' freight train of history went airborne five years ago Monday, and its spectacular brutality requires, now as then, that we put ourselves back together again, outwit the enemy and resynthesize our own world-view. The price is the same -- the toil, and blood and sacrifice that makes men and nations weary.

Weariness is, one supposes, inevitable. The discomfort of the fifth anniversary of 9/11 is that is has come so soon.

[middie]

In the conntext of the time when the PM made that address on the floor of Parliament the Brits had their backs against a very ominous wall. Dunkerque had depleted the Royal Army of men and equipment, the RAF was hard pressed to launch enough fighters to keep the skies clear of German bombers, convoys were losing 30% of their ships and cargoes to the U-Boat menace, the Royal treasury was almost exhausted, the Empire in Asia, except India, was under seige and, save for 45 old WW I destroyers, the USA had not yet rendered any meaningful aid, even though the Reuben James and other ships had been sunk, in summary, the situation was more than bleak for the British.

His words were not intended to describe a victory in Europe, he knew that was not possible until the USA and its industrial might and manpower resources were brought to bear. Churchill's intent was to stir the British to an emotional high.

His first hint at impending victory on the continent was his comment on June 6, 1944 when he said: '' This is not the end. This not even the begining of the end; but it is the end of the begining.'' The magic Churchill displayed with language was unmatched in the 20th Century except by the ability of JFK to turn a phrase.

The speech was not an announcement of retreat, it was a declaration of steadfastness and determination to prevail or die in the attempt. If only we had a few like him in the U.S. today.

[Vision]

He's been on here since '99.

[Mark Felton]

When a war has started victory is the only exit strategy.

"By nature's law, man is at peace with man till some aggression is committed, which, by the same law, authorizes one to destroy another as his enemy." --Thomas Jefferson to Edmond C. Genet, 1793. ME 9:136

[CyberAnt]

And .. neither did FDR/Truman or Eisenhower!!

But .. I'm sure all the Champerlains were pushing for it.

[popdonnelly]

Given the nature of our enemy, I firmly believe that our exit strategy should be to beat the Hell out of them.

[samadams2000]

Exit strategies are always needed. An army is for destroying and leaving, conservatives know this deep down more than a 1000 liberals. I never signed on to this nation building bs. I wanted anihilation of the regime and thousands of koranimals stacked like cord wood. Then I wanted to go on the offensive. We cant even contain the damage of liberalism in our own country. The left has got us on this point. We lost 3000 American soldiers and are still exposed. I won't pretend this is a good situation and pray for a good ending. (rant out)

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[Clive]

It is best that the full paragraph be quoted. Churchill was reporting to parliament on the disaster at Dunkirk. He finished his speech with this passage:

I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

This was not defeatism as you imply. It was defiance.

[Old Student]

"If victory was Churchills strategy he would have said. 'We shall invade France and Belgium. We shall take Paris, then advance to the Rhine, and in the final battle we shall destroy Berlin.'"

When he made his declaration, he didn't expect to be able to win, because he wasn't getting much in the way of help. He expected to die on his feet, trying to save his people, and expected them to die with him. That speech, in great measure, won his country some of the aid they needed to stay in the war. Eventually, with quite a lot of help, they DID take the offensive, and did invade France, Belgium, and Germany.

Your view of history is curiously limited.

[Churchillspirit]

Why do you consider the consequence of repelling invaders from your country is defeat?

[alfa6]

Sorry ol chap but while I usually find your comments most worthy of reading I fear that you've come off the mark on this one.

The quoted remarks of Churchill were made after the diaster in France when England stood virtually alone against the Nazis in the Summer of 1940. Just what the English needed to hear with the specter of the until then unstoppable hordes of Nazis just 21 miles away from the coast of England.

Regards

alfa6 ;>}

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

We did not start this war the Islamo Facist did

I know a lot FReepers don't want to believe it, but there seems to be an awful lot of evidence that Saddam was not involved with the Islamofascists. Thus, the Iraq war (which the US did start) isn't really the same as Afghansistan.

Iraq certainly now is a front in the WOT, but I am less than convinced that it had to be. I know I am opening myself for a flaming, but it simply seems to me to be total propaganda. That much said, I supported the invasion and am not advocating pulling out.