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.”
Yup. I think we can all agree that is unacceptable, beyond the pale, and part of why Sherman’s name is mud here in the South.
That said, the islamists don’t share this view. See http://sheikyermami.com/2010/03/08/todays-fartwa-the-rape-of-captured-womenslave-girls/
I don't disagree with what you say, but he did give Johnston the latter opportunity all the way from Chattanooga to Atlanta.
I have to agree w/this one also. I believe it actually saves lives in the end. It also prevents dehumanization of troops.
Personal anectdote - my father was a WWII vet. He was one of the vets that never spoke of the war, even w/other vets. He did share w/family, before he died, that Truman did what he had to do and it was the right thing. He is the one that made me realize what I stated above.
Great discussion!
anectdote = anecdote
Well I hoped that this article would not degenerate in to a debate on the Civil War, but I guess it was a foolish hope. Sherman was controversial in own time so why not now.
Speaking of controversy Fellman’s book is not with out controversy. From one review I found of this book
Fellman draws many a conclusion based upon his own reasoning after reading Sherman's letters and other documents. Psycho-analysis via papers well over a century old is dicey business to say the least
But I really did not come to defend Sherman. The article was more of an exercise for me and his quotes rang true to me. His quotes were handy and relevant.
Perhaps I could have chosen a better muse but this quote which I didn’t use also speaks to me of our present conflict.
This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.
When you think of war unrestrained by political correctness who can you think of but Sherman?
That is my argument; we are fighting a war but we don’t want to make a mess. But that is what armies do they kill people and break things. If you send an army to war and don’t let them do that you are setting them up to fail and you will get your young men killed in the process.
To paraphrase Master Yoda: Go to war or don’t. Do or do not do there is no try not to kill people or break things when you go to war.
Another (you may think equal to Sherman) general I think of when I think of unrestrained war is Genghis Khan and this quote:
The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.”
War is brutal, war is savage, and our enemy knows this. Our enemy our enemy is fine with this concept. They practice this philosophy on a daily bases. The enemy has no problem with killing the innocent, the helpless, women and children without hesitation.
I don’t intend to defend Sherman’s methods only his philosophy of fight the war to win. Lay waste your enemies land (in this case his source of funds or sustenance). Leave him no quarter. Seek him out wherever he hides and destroy him.
I think the quote you are looking for is:
Psalms 111:10
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.
I am pretty sure Sherman was paraphrasing this verse as well.
Tarleton's quarter?
Dishonorable, then and now.
Dishonorable, then and now.
Tarleton’s quarter is well known as a myth. Over two thirds of Buford’s forces survived.
The reason Tarleton did not give the order to hold fire was that his horse had been shot dead and he was pinned beneath the animal and could not see the course of the battle or issue orders from his vantage point.
But my intended meaning for give no quarter was the older (more obscure) meaning of giving the enemy no rest and no ground to which to retreat.
Dishonorable, then and now.
By the way a terrorist under the rules of war deserves no quarter. He is not a lawful combatant and does not fall under the rules of the Geneva Convention.
My latest effort at writing.
From the some the responses I think I hit a nerve.
But perhaps not the one I was aiming for.
Myth? There was more to that than just the Waxhaws, Pontiac. Look up John Stokes sometime, appointed first Federal Court judge in NC after the war, survived being run through multiple times with a sabre including his eye, hand chopped off, never completely recovered from his Revolutionary War run-in with Tarleton.
That so-called “myth” rallied Patriot forces in the south and won the war. It was instrumental in the arrival of the over-mountain-men from that part of NC that later became the great State of Tennessee at King’s Mountain.
It was a dishonorable thing. Revisionist history serving the desire of Tarleton’s descendants to rehabilitate his reputation do not alter that.
>>Meanwhile we in the West wallow in academic doctrines of “free trade.”
I would add “and multiculturalism” to that. It is at least as damaging as one-way free trade.
Speaking of controversy Fellman’s book is not with out controversy. From one review I found of this book
"Fellman draws many a conclusion based upon his own, reasoning after reading Sherman's letters and other documents. Psycho-analysis via papers well over a century old is dicey business to say the least."
May I ask your reference here?
I have listed a few favorable opinions of the book which had resulted in my notice of Fellman’s work. There are follows;
"A fascinating and readable book about a famous and furious man, brilliant, insightful, garrulous, complicated, tightly wound, energetic, aggressive, salty angry and racist." Wahington Post Book World
"Superb Biography" The New Yorker
"The definitive modern study of the Civil War" Chicago Tribune
"Lively, compelling and provocative" Journal of American History
"A vivid portrait of perhaps the most savage warrior of the Civil War" Wall Street Journal
If you would like more I will be glad to furnish them.
When you think of war unrestrained by political correctness who can you think of but Sherman?
Actually Sherman was very PC in his day. Lincoln loved him, wanted to publish some of his bloody politicide comments in the newpapers, but Sherman stopped him. That is from "Sherman's Memoirs".
There are many successful American Generals that are considered not PC today, Truman, Patton, even George Washington. These men successfully waged and won wars, but did alienate the conquered countries for generations.
The Japenese, as well as the Germans, even before the generation had passed, were working with us as we helped to reconstructed their countries. We did so in such a favorable manner, the Germans wanted on our side of the Berlin Wall. The Japenese, in turned, admired us, wanting to emulate our roads to prosperity.
Sherman's legacy is the South still spits when his name is mentioned. Plus we are still divided over a hundred years later, still reaping bad fruit, aka Obama and the racism tht put him into position.
I don’t intend to defend Sherman’s methods only his philosophy of fight the war to win. Lay waste your enemies land (in this case his source of funds or sustenance). Leave him no quarter. Seek him out wherever he hides and destroy him.
Sherman’s goal in his own words (see memoirs) was to destroy the planter class of the south, gain control of their sons such as Jackson and Forest, by putting them to work for himself. To to hell with the lower class, in fact he despised them. Sherman was committing politide, not against strong soldiers but helpless unarmed black and while children, women, the elderly. If you to go to war, then man up and fight other men with guns coming at you. BTW, Sherman said he will "make the WOMEN of the south howl". My parents taught me when a healthy man chooses to attack an unarmed woman, child, or the elderly, he is a coward. Cowards do not have wisdom.
The enemy has no problem with killing the innocent, the helpless, women and children without hesitation.
Then do as Truman did, nuke em. I sure would, less messy.
And don’t forget the 1200+ years of inertia in carrying out those scriptures and that doctrine.
Islam has never been “peaceful and friendly”, and Bush did us no favors in pushing that line.
Great web site. Bookmarked.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.
Yep, that's it! It was sooo late for me and I couldn't think of the verse:) I never took Sherman's quote to be paraphrasing it. Wow! Could be. Thanks for the insight.
No disrespect for your writing intended. I think you write very well and compliment your post:) Hope my suggestions were of some help to you.
Amigo, a direct one-on-one fight is the way of the loser.
bump
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.