Why Did FDR Invade North Africa?

American Thinker ^ | September 17, 2007 | James Lewis

[OneHun]

Why Did FDR Invade North Africa?

By James Lewis
 

One of the clichéd questions of the Left is "Why did Bush invade Iraq? We were attacked by Saudi Arabians on 9/1 !" Or so goes the customary narrative.

 

This mantra is supposed to expose President Bush's stupidity. But in fact The Question reveals the asker's own clueless blunder about war and strategy. The proper answer is to point to other presidents and other wars. Like FDR after Pearl Harbor. 

 

After the "day that will live in infamy" FDR's first land attack took place in Morocco and Algeria, then French colonies, in alliance with the British. 

 

Why? Morocco is about as far from Pearl as you can get. Why punish the poor North Africans for what the Japanese did to us?  Well, FDR understood the enemy, and so did the American people.  It wasn't just Tojo who attacked the US on December 7, 1941. It was the Axis imperial alliance -- Germany, Japan and Italy. They were bent on world conquest, had already conquered most of Europe, and had to be stopped at a time and place of our choosing.

 

So our first land attack came in North Africa, not the Pacific. It was the other side of the world. We fought Rommel in the desert, along with the British Army and the Free French, cut off his supplies by sea, and step-by-step drove the Germans and Italians back across Sicily and Italy.

 

Meanwhile the US Navy and Marines beat the Japanese at sea in the Pacific, and started a heroic and bloody island-by-island conquest of the Philippines, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and all the rest.

 

In the upshot, the Allies invaded France before we finally reached Japan.  So by the "logic" of our friends on the Left, FDR attacked all the wrong places and all the wrong people -- the Germans and Italians (who only fought back once we attacked), not the Japanese who assaulted us at Pearl.

 

Our highbrow strategists on the Left must believe that FDR should have just done a tit-for-tat for the attack on Hawaii, avenged two thousand plus American lives, and the war would have been over in six months. Which is a load of nonsense, of course, because the Japanese, the Germans and Italians, were long-term, world-wide, imperialist fanatics.

 

So are the Islamic fascists.

 

(It may be true that the Italians did not generally fight fanatically in WWII, but in the previous world war their courage and sacrifices were awesome, just like the French in WW I. When FDR went to war two decades later, therefore, he could not know with certainty how the Italians would fight. He could not even know that Pétainist France would stay out of the battle against us. But there was no doubt that we were facing a fiercely dangerous enemy engaged in long-term world conquest -- just like the ones we face today.)

 

FDR understood that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not an isolated incident, just as President Bush understood that the attack on America on 9/11 was not an isolated event. The liberals still don't get that. They who woke up on the morning of September 11, 2001 -- and promptly went back to sleep the day after that. None so blind as will not see.

 

Al Quaida (and the Khomeini cult) are mujahedeen in the martyrdom tradition of Islamic conquest, willing to commit suicide to bring the world back to the "purity" of a 7th century desert patriarchy. It was violent jihad that spread Islam with amazing speed in the two centuries after Mohammed, racing from small towns in Arabia to conquer swaths of Byzantium, Persia, Afghanistan, the Caucasus, the Indian subcontinent,  North Africa and even the Iberian Peninsula.  The message to each new target was the same: submit or die. That is still the message of violent jihad today.

 

There is a reason for the US invasion of Iraq, just as the Left suspects --  but it's not what they think. And it's not a secret, but a strategy President Bush has spelled out many times. Since the media turns a blind eye to our strategic reasoning, it still bears repeating: Our forces overthrew Saddam in part to create a killing field to draw terrorists. We could not possibly invade every place where Al Qaida has converts -- they are in most countries in the world, including Britain and Pakistan. We did not want to wait for another attack in the United States, where every elementary school and corner gas station is a target.  So we took the next best option of attacking in their home territory, provoking tens of thousands of jihadis to flock to us.

 

Al Qaida is being systematically killed and humiliated even now, both by Coalition forces, by Sunni tribes who have finally revolted against them, and by the Shia-dominated elected government and its Iraqi Army. If we beat Al Qaida over there, they will have a bloody nose for a long, long time to come. And we will be setting back the Iranian looney tunes more than ever before. For human civilization, it would be a great win. If we can do it.

 

Both North Africa and Iraq were historic gambles. If we had lost in the desert against Rommel, Britain might now be a Nazi province. Europe might be governed by Hitlerites, perhaps in alliance with a Stalinist Russian Empire, and all the nukes over there would be pointing at us. China would be Japanese territory, along with Indonesia, Vietnam, Korea, the Philippines, and perhaps India -- the whole Japanese Imperial Co-Prosperity Sphere. And all their nukes would also be pointing our way. The Axis Powers came within half a decade of developing nukes, and they had also cruise missiles and long-range bombers. Allied victory was not a foreordained conclusion, any more than victory in Iraq is today.

 

Iraq has meant painful learning for Coalition forces. Lincoln had his learning curve, and so did FDR.

 

But our troops have shown that America isn't ready for the dust-bin yet. Without them other Americans could not live in safety; nor could the ingrate Europeans; nor would the Middle East escape unscathed. They all depend upon our emerging victorious. That's the result of being the major civilized power in the world. We either live with that or accept the alternative.

 

Our domestic politics has been a kindergarten game by comparison to the work the military have done, day in and out. The little kids are constantly yelling "Are we there yet?" with all the shrill self-centered ignorance of the Boomer Left.

 

We are now seeing progress. We also have the historic privilege of watching Americans and allies of great character, strength, intelligence and courage, doing the toughest job in the world, in a way that is as civilized as humanly possible. But we will never see our fighters through our twisted media culture  -- only by the good fortune of embedded combat reporters, all volunteers, and without the support of the big media.

 

So the next time somebody asks you why we are in Iraq, you might want to ask what FDR would have done. Don't expect a thoughtful answer. Yet FDR is still a Hero of the Left, and that question bears repeating until they start to think.

 

Six years after 9/11, half the country still can't figure out what all the fuss is about. It's important to remind them.

 

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com.

 

[barb-tex]

Of course I mentioned Potsdam. Since the Clintons, I am not too sure. Invading Morocco gave the Axis powers no chance to throw Japan under the bus and remain neutral which would have been a good move. There was strong anti British and pro German sentiment in the US. Not to mention anti FDR since the 4th term
barbra ann

[Vaquero]

now if on 9/12/01, Bush would have rounded up all known foreign Islamics, and put them in detention camps as a prelude to deportation, and then locked down the borders, then I may have the respect for him that is generally given to the socialist FDR.

The time was right for this and he could have done it then. But this one-world globalist president of ours had other fish to fry so as to cement his legacy. He is his fathers son.

[Vaquero]

America’s first offensive was indeed against Japan. At a festering island called Guadalcanal in Aug 1942.

Dad, passed away last September....and he was there in Aug '42 to help de-fester that Soloman Island. Semper Fi Pop.

[Dixie Yooper]

This article makes FDR sound like a military genius. I didn’t know FDR planned the whole WWII by himself.

He had Eleanor doing most of the leg work for him.

[GAB-1955]

FDR, if not a military genius, was a very astute observer of humanity and knew to pick good men to do the job for him, such as Harry Hopkins as personal envoy, George Marshall as Chief of Staff, and Eisenhower as SACEUR.

Meanwhile, Stalin, the leftist’s hero, was demanding a sanguinary and sacrificial landing on the French coast to relieve pressure on the Red Army, and his flunkies demanded “SECOND FRONT NOW!” in New York and Los Angeles.

Let us let the military men fight the military battles and the politicians to fight the political battles and let us not let the roles cross. Unfortunately, the Clintons don’t see the difference between the two roles; thus we have a Richard Clark.

[fredhead]

The real winners of WWII? Germany and especially Japan. look at their economies.

[caver]

“He had Eleanor doing most of the leg work for him.”

That’s bad!

[caver]

“FDR, if not a military genius, was a very astute observer of humanity and knew to pick good men to do the job for him, such as Harry Hopkins as personal envoy, George Marshall as Chief of Staff, and Eisenhower as SACEUR.”

Good point!

[agere_contra]

If we had lost in the desert against Rommel, Britain might now be a Nazi province.

Well hardly. The Battle of El Alamein was the descisive victory against Rommel. Operation Torch was an attempt to stop the Afrika Corps from escaping in good order. It was a good try, but the Germans got away anyway.

[bert]

What about Guadalcanal....it was in August...... is an Island not land?

[libertylover]

For human civilization, it would be a great win. If we can do it.

If we can WILL do it.

Africa or Guadalcanal first? How about Tokyo and the Doolittle raid? Regardless, Roosevelt always understood that Germany was the greater threat.

[USS Alaska]

Anyone above idiot who can read a map knows why we invaded Iraq.

Very true, but how many people can read and understand a map?

[metesky]

Hitler had already declared war on the US on 12/11/41.

[Dixie Yooper]

To a staunch Republican, Eleanor must have been more sickening than Hillary back then.

[LZ_Bayonet]

Consider last week’s disclosure of Syria’s purchase of nuclear materials from North Korea, and negotiations for the purchase of missles from the same source. Now consider that Saddam was in negotiations with North Korea for missles for Iraq at the time of our invasion and that North Korea was ramping up production of nuclear materials at the time. - A good case, standing on it’s own, for pre-emptive action against Iraq.

[Dixie Yooper]

Very true, but how many people can read and understand a map?

There are many Americans who do not have maps...

[snoringbear]

“We fought Rommel in the desert, along with the British Army and the Free French”

While an interesting article by James Lewis, and one that I do not take any major exception to; I do grind my teeth whenever I see the French characterized as our Allies during WWII. The fact is, when given a choice before we made the beachhead in North Africa (btw, our first, sort of OJT so to speak for later events), some French units chose to fight along-side the Germans. It is also humorous and ironic that today, over sixty years after the war, virtually every French person’s grandpa was a Freedom Fighter. Now there is some revisionist history for you....

[jmaroneps37]

Liberals go to pubik schoolz so them don’t know no history. Besides history would challenge their “beliefs.” Remember what Ronald Reagan said, “It isn’t that they (democrats, liberals etc.)don’t know anything. It’s that so much of what they ‘know’ is not so.”

[barb-tex]

And to most Democrats. Don’t forget in 1941 The Dems still held the “solid South” which is maybe why we were able to win the war. Today’s Blue Staters whold have sued for peace in the dark days of ‘42.
barbra ann

[toddlintown]

“This article makes FDR sound like a military genius.”

It was the Dirty Martinis.