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.

 

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

“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.”

First, as you pointed out the French forces in North Africa were under the control of Vichy France, that was technically a neutral country, but Marshal Petan was subject to manipulation by the Germany.

Second, after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the USA. FDR and Churchill agreed that UK-US forces would focus on defeating Germany first. The reason being that Germany dominated Europe and in 1941 had come very close to Moscow. Should the SU have lost European Russia, Germany could turn its attention back to Great Britain. Even though GB had survived Germany’s air attacks and won “The Battle of Britain,” Germany was a huge threat to GB with its U-Boats and another assault on GB. Should GB have fallen, the Allies would had a very hard time setting up the Western front.

Third, the North African campaign took some pressure off the Eastern front, as did the eventual Italian campaign, which put Italy out of the war.

[acsrp38]

If Kasserine had happened today, what would the left say?

One of the first major battles of WWII was a debacle, and a slaughter of young, green, American troops. It was frankly a defeat and an embarrassment.

The MSM today would be shouting, Bring them home, the war is lost.

Back then it brought in Patton, and spurred on Americans to push even harder for the Victory.

[wtc911]

So our first land attack came in North Africa, not the Pacific.

__________________________________________

Did the writer ever hear of guadalcanal? Geez, basic WW2 History 101. Get it right.

[jamaksin]

But, then, FDR, Churchill, and others - via reading the Japanese diplomatic traffic, knew that Germany would declare war on the United States if Japan went to war with the US.

Why? (And, it had nothing to do with the Tri-Partite agreement)

Because of a certain PURPLE message, from Berlin to Toyko, of 29Nov41 ..." ... He (Ribbentrop) also said that if Japan were to go to war with America, Germany would, of course, join in immediately, and Hitler's intention was that there should be absolutely no question of Germany making a separate peace with England. ..."

So it goes ...

[jamaksin]

... or was it that pesky "undeclared war" in the Atlantic - the US a neutral country at the time?

[jamaksin]

USSR ... e.g., what countries and peoples were "free" before WWII and then ended behind the "Iron Curtain" ...? Poland is a good instance. The Baltic states are another.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Please. Tell. Me. That. You. Don’t. Give. 9/11. Conspiracy. Theories. Any. Credence. Please.

[jamaksin]

Lest we forget ... FDR did NOT go to Potsdam ... Truman did.

[RexBeach]

Yeah, I spotted that immediately. Vichy was allied with the Nazis.

American landing forces, that were part of Operation Torch, were not certain if French forces in north Africa would fight or surrender, and come over to the Allied side.

Once securing that beach head in north Africa, the American Allied forces would then turn east to confront the Afrika Corps while the British 8th Army moved against the Nazis from the east.

The author makes a bad comparison here.

The comparison is not a good one.

[Tallguy]

Minor quibble. Marshall was in favor of landing troops in France in 1943. He was prevented from doing this by Churchill, who wanted to invade Sicily & Salerno (Italy) first, to secure the Mediterranean. Churchill knew from experience (Dieppe 1942) what a tough nut the French coastline would be without overwhelming numbers. Better to commit the resources available to a narrower theater (Italy) than to throw them in the deep end of the European pool & lose them.

Essentially Churchill prevented Marshall from making a mistake.

[CitizenM]

This just goes to show how confused facts become. As was the case with Viet Nam...as will be the case about 9/11, Iraq and this whole anti-terrorist initiative when George Bush is long out of office. Unfortunately most of the American public has a short memory about past wars and major, life-changing historical events. They really didn't understand all that was happening in the first place, and it is simply easier to condem the actions of their own country than try to research for the truth. Most fall victim to some short, well-written accounts of past wars, that have some aspects of truth but,in essence, are more inaccurate than fact-filled.

This is why we rarely agree on what really took place, when, how, and why. The scary thing is what is in today's "history" books in schools. So many things written in these classroom books about our nation's past are twisted, innacurate - or just blatent lies - and usually portray any American military action in a dark light. Try to tell today's youth the truth about something you remember clearly about WWII, the Korean war or Viet Nam...and they will argue the point because what they are learing in school is so opposite, at least when it comes to anything related to national defense.

How kids are being brainwashed by the liberals (who control education) in America to hate US agressive actions (based on emotionally charged writings geared to instill guilt, not patritosm and rather than present facts), is in some aspects, just like the children in the mid-East being spoonfed hatred of our culture in the clutch of Al Queda/terrorist leaders.

[Tallguy]

Interesting but the author’s grasp of history needs improvement. America’s first offensive was indeed against Japan. At a festering island called Guadalcanal in Aug 1942.

Correct. But Guadalcanal was really a defensive maneuver, strategically-speaking, in the sense that the airfield being built there by the Japanese would have allowed landbased aircraft to attack allied shipping & so isolate Australia. The 1st MarDiv was actually diverted to Guadalcanal (it was originally headed to Australia).

After clearing Japanese forces from Tulagi & Henderson Field (the former air base) the Japanese reacted quickly & re-inforced. What looked like an attack on a relatively isolated Japanese garrison became a grinding battle of attrition.

[Tallguy]

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.

Hardly. Hitler's response to the Torch Landings was to send another entire field army to Tunisia. There were 2 German Armies, not just the Afrika Korps, operating in North Africa.

There were as many Germans captured in Tunisia as were lost at Stalingrad. 1943 was a bad year for the Germans.

[wtc911]

Third, the North African campaign took some pressure off the Eastern front, as did the eventual Italian campaign, which put Italy out of the war.

_______________________________________________

Omar Bradley wrote in 1946 that FDR & Churchill did not even want to invade Italy, thought that they could let it wither on the vine. But, Overlord could not happen in 1943 and Stalin threatened a seperate peace with Hitler if we did not open a second (and in our mind, unnecessary) front.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

. Of course FDR lost the peace at Potsdam.

No, he didn't. America lost the peace at Potsdam - but FDR didn't, since he was on "Uncle Joe's" side.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I just finished reading “The Second World War” by Churchill, which does not support Bradley.

Check this out:

“Let us first look at the American position, ably set forth and argued vigorously by General Marshall and his aides and by Harry Hopkins. We Americans had a straightforward view of the war in Europe. The way to beat Hitler was the shortest way - go across the Channel and engage his armies as close to Germany as possible. All resources, all effort should be put to that end. Any other use of those forces was a diversion and might jeopardize the Main Event. This was argued back and forth in the winter and spring of 1943.

The British were against this plan. They argued: (1) a cross- Channel invasion would be a very dangerous undertaking - as indeed it proved to be - and probably could not be mounted until 1944; (2) meanwhile the cream of the British and American armies was in Africa and must be used. We had promised Stalin continued pressure in 1943. What better way than to knock Italy out of the war and move up through the “Soft Underbelly”?

This of course was Churchill’s view. He saw also that this would protect the oil supplies and the other British and Empire interests in the Middle East. Both Hitter and Churchill regarded the Balkans as critical to success.”

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=597

The Italian campaign received more support from Churchill during the war, and he was not happy when resources and troops were diverted for other campaigns.

[wtc911]

Try “A Soldier’s Story” by Bradley. It is illuminating.

[Ditto]

Of course FDR lost the peace at Potsdam.

FDR wasn't at Potsdam. He was dead by then. Harry Truman was at Potsdam.

Yalta was where FDR gave away the store.

[barb-tex]

I stand corrected. Right idea, wrong conference, Thanks,
barbra ann

[dfwgator]

Germany didn't attack Pearl Harbor...