Why Did FDR Invade North Africa?

American Thinker ^ | September 17, 2007 | James Lewis

[jonrick46]

Bingo! Notice this article did not say one peep about the strategy to cut off Germany and Japan from their energy supplies. The parallel of the race to control the energy supply during World War II and today is a history lesson we have not heard. It is as if we have an elephant in the room and the focus is on the peripherals like Halliburton and the “greedy” oil industry.

[Snickersnee]

There are people on this thread who seem to be very confused about WW2. Granted, it was a titanic struggle, but it is far more understandable if you break it into its five constituent theaters. These were not totally separate from one another, but may be considered by themselves for purposes of a better understanding of the whole. If you study WW2 from this perspective, you will come to see that each theater had a life of its own.

They are:

1. North Atlantic and NW Europe

2. North Africa, the Mediterranean and Italy

3. The Eastern Front

4. China-Burma-India

5. The Pacific.

[R. Scott]

Yep - pick and choose what supports their position.

[Just mythoughts]

Here I thought the UN resolved time and time again that Saddam had to keep his word. I guess it depends on what agenda the world has depends on whether their resolutions have teeth.

[Nat Turner]

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.

and don't forget his military counterpart GEN WESLEY CLARK

[George W. Bush]

A gross misuse of history.

Comparing the present police action against terrorism to a world war among alliances of nations bent on empire-building across regions of the world are simply not comparable.

Just because you can write such an article doesn't mean it makes any sense or has any merit.

[OESY]

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.

This insight deserves repetition. It may not been one of the announced (read, marketable) reasons, like regime change, destroy WMD, stabilize Mideast, etc., but it clearly was a resultant benefit, and probably the genesis of the "Bring 'em on" remark. Hardly a mistake.

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

As Clausewitz wrote, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. In more modern parlance, war is a series of trials and errors. The nation who's military is more adaptable and more mobile, and has superior communications, has a decided advantage.

.

[chilepepper]

For the oil, of course...

actually, it *WAS* for the oil - indirectly. Unstopped, Rommel would have eventually gotten to Saudi Arabia and Persia.

However, one should never take action for a single reason, and North Africa was a fairly easy way to get into the troop-landing business which would be so important in Italy, Normandy and of course the Pacific.

A similar (if somewhat lame) modern analog is that Reagan moving into Grenada and Panama was a crucial event in having a well-tuned armed forces that could counter Iraq after it siezed Kuwait.

[xkaydet65]

Next time you visit his grave, tell him thanks from me as well.( I’d say Semper Fi, but not being a Marine I don’t have the right)