Posted on 11/18/2005 7:16:40 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
There was an appalling lack of historical perspective in the House debate Friday night on the Murtha Resolution. It called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq (to a safe haven from which they could return). What would have happened to the United States, had France held a similar debate in 1781?
Let’s set the stage. The American Revolution was then four years old. French officers and soldiers under the leadership of General Lafayette, had fought along side General Washington. The French fleet under Admiral de Grasse had recently entered the conflict, and blocking the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay.
General Washington cornered British General Cornwallis at the small Virginia town of Yorktown. But, if France had its Assembly then, how might the debate have gone? We take our script from the debate a small number of Americans just watched on C-SPAN.
(I summarize an hour of debate by scores of Members into just two statements. One is FOR the Resolution for immediate withdrawal of all French forces from the Americas to a safe haven, conveniently available in the French colony of Haiti. The other is AGAINST.)
Mr. Speaker: This military adventure in the Americas has gone on for four years, with no end in sight. Much French blood has been shed. Millions of francs have been spent. And yet the Crown has no plan to end this war, and save French blood, and French treasure. It is time to withdraw our forces, since they are only provoking the British to greater ferocity.
Mr. Speaker: There is a purpose in our participation in the American Revolution. If history teaches anything, it teaches that we will encounter the British on the field of battle. If we do not resist them by joining the American Revolution and fighting the British across the ocean, we will assuredly fight them on the outskirts of Paris. Besides, it is our national interest to have as a national trading partner, this new United States of America, free of British influence, troops, and ships. Not just France, but the entire civilized world, will benefit from that favorable outcome. The only strategy we can have, we should have, is to stay committed until that victory is won.
What would have happened if the French had voted to withdraw from their American adventure?
Without French soldiers under Lafayette, most importantly without the fleet under de Grasse, the Battle of Yorktown would have turned out differently. Without the French fleet at his back, General Cornwallis could have escaped the closing ring of American bombardment at Yorktown. Instead of being forced to surrender, Cornwallis and his army would have lived to fight again.
And there were still other British armies in the field in the Americas, though Cornwallis led the most formidable army at that time.
Without the surrender of Cornwallis and his entire army, not only would the American Revolution not have been won with that critical battle, it would have gone on, and might never have been won. The English Prime Minister, Lord North, resigned as a direct result of this battle, and British policy on the war abruptly changed as a result.
If the French had “cut and run” at the critical time in the American Revolution, the Americans might have lost their war for independence from Britain. All those Americans, beginning with John Hancock, who signed their names to the Declaration of Independence, would have been duly tried, and then hung by the neck until dead for their treason against King George III, as expressed in that document.
America would have remained a British colony, and would never have become a world power. It would never have written and established its Constitution. It would have served as an example, but a bad one, to those in any other nation who believed in freedom, self-determination, and government of the people, by the people, and for the people, to coin a phrase.
Oh, and we would have to play “God Save the Queen” before our NFL Games.
The consequences for the Iraqis, if the Americans retreat, will be far worse. Instead of dozens of their leaders being executed as traitors, millions of their citizens will be executed for participating in this folly of freedom and democracy. Given the kinds of weapons that the world possesses, and outlaw regimes can buy or develop if left to their own devices, the consequences for the rest of the world will be similarly disastrous, with deaths measured in the millions.
In this entire debate, there were only a few, minor references to American military history, other than references only to progress (or lack of progress) in Iraq itself. Rep Louie Gohmert, R, Tex.) made such a reference, quoting from a letter from John Adams to his wife Abigail, that “we have victory within our grasp.”
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
"He used fancy language to take the COWARD'S way out and quit. I don't know what Marine Corps this man was in but cowardice, cutting and running was NOT what I was taught at Parris Island. His lies about 80% of Iraqi's wanting us out were embarrassing to me as an American."
What happened to Murtha? Did Soros promise him campaign money if he took up this idiotic stand? He is so patently wrong that he looked ridiculous. I watched him on CNN and felt the same as you did: embarrassed.
You always appear at the right time and say the right thing - Thank You.
Ummmm...
If France had cut and run during the American Revolution, FRANCE would have been a LOT better off.
France spent a huge amount of money on that war (Which was a global war with Britain) and racked up huge debts.
These debts and financial collapse contributed greatly to the French Revolution, which resulted in the execution of the French King and Queen.
The argument this article makes is horrendously bad.
A "murtha" is now defined as to surrender, to cut and run.
5.56mm
Random thought. I wish I could win one of these multi-million dollar lotteries and become a new political force in North Carolina. I think the only way being a Senator or Congressman would be truly fun and rewarding would be if you got there without being obligated to anyone other than the voters. Of course, I would probably only last one term -- but, oh, what fun I would have.
We will stay steadfast, we will not falter, we will never murtha.
I want to Blame FDR. It took Churchill working on him for 2 or 3 years for FDR to see the light. Democrats have always had their hands tied by one thing or the other and go to war "too late." How many Democrat presidents have taken the US into war?
It is the strongest argument we have for being in Iraq. A little blood now to avert WW III.
I do not believe that isolation of the USA during pre WW II was valid, nor do I think the Wingnut Dem isolationists in Congess now are valid.
so if haapen to have an argument with my wife I'll pull a Murtha... yeah that's it. lmao
JOhn, the democrats have only their Vietnam playbook to
fall back on, declare "victory", withdraw, then withdraw
all support for the ally. It's what they did then and it's what they will do today, given the chance.
Today the people of Vietnam are happily living in 1980,
and the people of Cambodia are trying to recover from a
mass slaughter that would NOT have happened, had we stayed
to finish our duty.
If we repeat the stratagy of the democrat party, millions
will suffer and die, not only in Iraq but in surrounding
countries as the "califate" is spread.
As a Vietnam veteran, I have sworn that what happend to us
will NOT happen again, and certainly not by those who perpetrated our defeat then.
I am proud that FINALLY someone in the Republican party
has said, "It's time to put the soft ball away, and play
some real baseball!".
The democrats pathetic mewling when caught out was plain
to see last night, and when even though their final speaker
ran long with out a word of objection by the majority,
they objected to the final republican speaker when he "asked" for three additional minutes, but would not
go on record for it.
All those stem cells must be doing the Republican party some good.
The struggle in not in Iraq alone, we must stand up to
the political terrorists here at home.
The Dems also fail to recognize that the Iraqis are dying in far greater numbers in defense of their country and in terrorist attacks than Americans. They are the ones with the targets on their backs. The more than 8 million Iraqis who have voted in the past election and referendum are the true voice of the people, not a small number of insurgents and foreign fighters. Murtha's comments on the virtual eve of Iraq's December 15 election to select their new, permanent government are reprehensible.
>It is the strongest argument we have for being in Iraq. A little blood now to avert WW III.<
Do not think for one minute, that, should the USA abandon our allies in Iraq, that Iran and Syria would not immediately begin the process of assimilation. And, the leadership of Iran has been our blood enemy since Jimmy Carter set the wheels in motion that led to the Shah's overthrow.
"Blame Chamberlain and the French ruling class and military. Not FDR.
"
Blame the isolationists in the US congress too.
And that final speaker was Sam Johnson, a much more highly decorated veteran than Murtha and who spent 7 years in a North Vietnamese prison camp. The idea that anyone would even consider denying that brave old man's request for an additional three minutes to speak on an issue of war and peace reflects how low the Dem party has descended into the sewer of American politics. If anyone earned the right to speak, it was Sam Johnson.
You know, your definition really is toxic to Democrat strategies now, since this vote. I love it. How can we popularize your definition?
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.