Posted on 07/26/2010 8:04:25 PM PDT by Pontiac
William Tecumseh Sherman is either a hated war criminal or a honored war hero in the United States in this article I do not debate this point but only draw upon his wisdom as it applies to war. In what follows I will apply this wisdom to our present long and destined to be longer war against the World Islamic Terrorist Organizations.
The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan have been the subject of a great deal of controversy in the last decade. The words “Bush’s war” and the questions of the Iraq war’s legality have been the subject of many a written word in our national press. This is however not the subject of this piece. Today I will expound upon the wisdom of these wars and wars yet to begin.
The war in Afghanistan is the result of an act of war perpetrated by Islamic extremist terrorist on our nation. This is an indisputable fact. The active participants in this act were from various Middle Eastern Muslim nations primarily Saudi Arabia but also Yemini and Egyptian. The stated grievances of these men were the United States support of Israel and the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
There are other unstated but strong motives that these men had. These motives have been expressed by like minded supporters of these terrorist actions. These motives are the spread of Western culture to the Muslim countries. In the minds of the fundamentalist Muslim the worst of the West influences is on women. That a woman can show bare skin let alone her face in public is to the Arab Muslim unacceptable and an affront to Allah. To the Taliban (the ruling power in Afghanistan at the time of the September 11, 2001 attack on this country) television, music, make up, dancing, soccer, kite flying and much more were forbidden as un-Islamic Western practices. To these people everything Western was evil. Another fundamental tenet of Islam is that all the world must be brought under the control of Islam, by sword if necessary.
For these reasons the Islamic terrorist brought war to our country. Our support of Israel may have been the precipitating act in their minds for the attack but their desire to humble the preeminent non-Islamic country in the world was large in their minds.
I will not discuss the legality of the Iraq war more than to state that congress voted on and passed a resolution authorizing the war and had available to them all of the intelligence documents concerning weapons of mass destruction that was available to the Bush administration.
The need for the war is however in my opinion undeniable. Saddam Hussein was a financial supporter of world wide Islamic terror. He had used chemical weapons on his own citizens he at the very least was gathering material to produce a nuclear weapon. Although we did not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq there is evidence that he moved the weapons and the factories to Syria during the period before the war when the Bush administration was trying to negotiate Saddam’s peaceful surrender.
The point I wish to make about the Iraq war is that although direct ties between Al Qaida and Iraq are few Saddam had numerous ties with other terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the IRA. After the Iraq war a terrorist training camp was found there that had a Boeing 727 fuselage used for training terrorist hi-jackers.
Political correctness and multiculturalism has been much used in the arguments against these wars; either explicitly or in couched phrases; the failure of the government or the press to use the word terrorist or to openly name the people we are fighting as Muslim or Islamist is simply foolish political correctness. The first rule in war is to know your enemy. If you can not name your enemy, if you can not allow yourself to express anger and hatred at your enemy you will not defeat that enemy.
The press has spent a great deal of ink saying how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has harmed the reputation of the US and made us a pariah in international affairs. William Tecumseh Sherman arguably the most effective Union General of the Civil War had this to say about war and popularity:
“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking.”
The United States is at war with people who choose to be at war with us and drew first blood. We do not have a choice of whether to go to war or not. This war is also not only a war of Islam against the United State. Islam is at war around the world. It is at war in Indonesia, the Philippines Islands, several African Countries, Europe, and even the Middle East itself. These Islamist are not simply trying to convert the world to Islam by the sword they also seek to purify Islam were it already exist. This is literally a world war. We are at war and we do not have the luxury of being kind and gentile with those who wish to kill us. I again turn to the wisdom of William Tecumseh Sherman:
“War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy.”
The United States has made more effort than any nation at war ever has to limit the number of civilian casualties and yet the international press continues to excoriate the US for the incredibly few civilian dead in these wars. William Tecumseh Sherman had this to say:
“Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.”
We now have the technology to minimize civilian casualties but they can not be eliminated and we can not allow fear of civilian casualties to prevent us from pursuing the enemy where ever he may hide. Our enemy knows of our reluctance to harm civilians and uses this against us. He has used civilian villages a refuge and taken up human shields as a tactic of defense. This is a war crime and we must not permit it to deter us. To do so will encourage its continued use and lead to further civilian deaths or our ultimate defeat because we become unwilling to kill the enemy. We must adopt William Tecumseh Sherman’s stated goal:
“My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.”
We can not fight a war with half measures. It will only prolong the war and multiply the casualties. This should be the lesson of the Viet Nam war. A limited war is an endless war and can not be won.
I will end by again quoting the wisdom of William Tecumseh Sherman:
“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.”
William Tecumseh Sherman was NOT wise — he was a mean, bloodthirsty, evil SOB!
That said, he’s the kind a General we need to beat the Al-Queda’s and Hezbollah’s, the Iran’s and Syria’s of this world.... On second thought, leave Sherman in hell — I’ll take Patton and MacArthur please :-D
There is no possibility for "moderate" Islam, because the basic scriptures and doctine of Islam are inherently intolerant and imperialistic.
We can not fight a war with half measures. It will only prolong the war and multiply the casualties. This should be the lesson of the Viet Nam war. A limited war is an endless war and can not be won.
I would word it: We can not fight a war with half measures as this serves only to prolong the war and multiplies casualties exponentially. This should be the lesson of the Viet Nam war: limited warfare leads to an endless war in which we can never be victorious.
I will end by again quoting the wisdom of William Tecumseh Sherman
I would word it: In closing, let us again turn to the wisdom of William Tecumseh Sherman:
I know you aren't debating Sherman, but may I please (pretty please!) say this:
Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
He's wrong. A relationship with God is the beginning of wisdom.
Great read!
We might, but only after several US cities are smoking craters.
Well if I were a Liberal writer I could of claimed his words as my own;)
This is the horrible truth that western society has avoided. It seems to me we have two choices - defeat islam or be defeated by it. The situation is not too different from that leading up to WWII. Having just been bled white by WWI, the allies could not face up to what bloodshed lay just ahead, so they opted for a policy of appeasement and kicking the can down the road. In the end the choice was made for them. Hitler on the other hand, knew the death and destruction of WWI but did not shy away from more of the same. That gave him an advantage - and had he not attacked the USSR, it might have been a decisive advantage.
There will never be a “war to end all wars” not then and not now. You might say that warfare is the natural state of existence for human beings and that peace is the aberration.
You’re right that the normal state of affairs for man is war. Our ancestors were the ones who won the wars. The losers often got exterminated (at least the males). This nonsense that most people just want to live in peace and enjoy their video games and Hollywood movies is dangerously delusional. The Chinese are doing exactly what the Japanese tried to do before them: lock up access to the critical raw materials for industrial production. The Arabs are using their oil wealth to spread their particular imperial doctrine, which is Islam. Meanwhile we in the West wallow in academic doctrines of “free trade.”
“You might say that warfare is the natural state of existence for human beings and that peace is the aberration.”
You might, and you’d be right.
You might also say that oppression is the natural state of existence for human beings and that freedom is the aberration.
You’d be right again. Sadly, most Americans (let alone Europeans) don’t understand that, so they are watching our freedom disappear with barely a whimper, or are unwittingly helping that happen.
What a world, eh?
BTW, you inspired my new tag...
Sherman was a racist.
Micheal Fellman in his book "Citizen Sherman" pp. 71 wrote;
"He did not see Negroes as human."
Sherman was also antisemitic. This is also documented in Fellman's book.
Sherman blamed the burning of Orangeburg, SC, "on some Jew" pp.231
His attempts to cover his deeds in South Carolina upon his entrance into a more accountable North Carolina, screamed his guilt to his more moral fellow commanders. This officers had been in vain attempting to rein in their men's criminal behavior. Sherman defense of his men's autocracies in Columbia, SC was that "No white women were raped". The records are filled with horrible abuses infected on former slaves, black and white children, defenseless women, and the elderly.
If for no other reason, ask yourself what does this type of behavior do the spirit of a soldier encouraged to act like an animal by his commander? Will he be able to go home in peace to his family, then to face his maker with such deeds in his heart?
There are other great American war heroes that fought and won wars with honor and dignity, that would serve as better role models.
I totally agree and think Sherman was a despicable person, but the author addressed this in the opening. I think the author is just looking for editing suggestions. I could be wrong. I was just trying to be helpful, as are you:)
Good points. That said, which is preferable, Sherman’s brutality - and the resulting war crimes and dehumanization of even his own troops that inevitably resulted - or longer war with even more pain, suffering, and inevitably war crimes?
IMHO, there must be a middle ground, but we’re too far on the limited war equals endless war or defeat side right now. Just witness the insane ROE’s our brave service members fight under.
BTW, it is a testament to their skill and courage that they are STILL winning despite those ROE’s, but they are paying the price in their own blood, which is unacceptable. Sadly, I expect even worse ROE’s under the obamanation in the future.
There is no doubt that war is by its very nature cruel and brutal. Does the ends justify the means? Are there any moral limitations in warfare? If Sherman were fighting the Civil War today, would he use nuclear weapons? If you follow his logic, Sherman would turn the South into a nuclear wasteland. If there are no moral limitations in warfare, and the total destruction of the enemy as quickly as possible is the goal, it would be logical to nuke your enemies into oblivion. If fact, following Sherman’s ethics, it would be immoral not to use nuclear weapons or biological warfare against the South. Anything and everything is justified by victory.
History is full of successful American military commanders that kept God's guidelines as their priority. Sherman was an atheist and he acted like one.
“In reality Sherman fought war in a way that minimized loss of life, combined small scale violence that made the point that violence would be had with large scale yet bloodless campaigns that attacked the cultural heart of a people.”
Yeah, you know, it is much easier to terrorize regular people than fight the opposing army.
“Being a southerner I am not Sherman’s biggest fan but I sure do wish we fought wars now like he did then.”
We do, only moreso. It’s called aerial bombardment.
You raise an interesting point. Let’s run with it a little if you’re willing.
Say the Civil War is one year in. Several hundred thousand soldiers and civilians on both sides are going to die over the next 3 years. Many of them horribly.
You travel back in time to Gen. Grant or Gen. Lee (pick your side) with a pile of nukes at that point. You know what’s coming. You have the option of giving one or more nukes to the general of your choice. Do you?
After all, even the fanatics in Japan folded after two nukes. That’s a good measure of how many it would take to end the war. Cities were smaller then, so we’re probably looking at 100,000 deaths. Hundreds of thousands of lives saved.
So, which is the moral choice, given that you know how the war will go and what it will cost?
Frankly, I lean towards going nuclear. But I don’t know. Math is a copout to morality here.
How about if you could bring a medium sized force of modern marines with air and armor support? It wouldn’t be much of a fight. A few marines might - might - get killed, but they would own the air and the ground within a week. Would that be different?
Now shift the context to fighting Nazis instead of other Americans. That’s where we’re at now, but we (in the general sense) won’t even look the issue in the face.
Truman faced exactly this type of choice re Japan when he ordered the nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Thoughts?
PS Effective biologicals are insane. One person, for example a POW, soldier, or spy, returns to your side during the incubation period, and you suffer the same losses as the enemy. With the inevitable mutation factor, even if you have a “cure,” there’s a good chance it won’t work by the end. That’s why I limited this to nukes and marines.
Yup, it is, but it is also how you actually win wars. To win - really win - you must break the other side’s will to fight. See Sun Tzu.
The islamists know this, hence their use of terror. We have forgotten that, hence our endless entanglements. Only after you break their will to fight can you rebuild them. See WWII.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.