We're Not Leaving ( Michael Barone on Iraq )

realclearpolitics.com ^ | July 12, 2008 | Michael Barone

[kellynla]

Sixty years ago this month, the top story in campaign year 1948 was not the big poll lead of Republican nominee Thomas Dewey or the plight of President Harry Truman. It was the Berlin airlift.

Air Force generals said that there was no way planes could ferry the 8 million pounds of food and coal Berlin would need every day. Secretary of State George Marshall and Joint Chiefs Chairman Omar Bradley, two of America's most respected generals, felt Berlin was indefensible and we should withdraw. One man disagreed. President Harry Truman, in one crucial meeting after another, said, "We're not leaving Berlin."

And we didn't. Truman had no idea how Berlin could be supplied. But Clay persuaded him to order the Air Force to send more planes that it wanted to keep, pristine and at the ready for other missions, at home. Air Force Chief of Staff Hoyt Vandenberg, at the prompting of Gen. Albert Wedemeyer, appointed Gen. William Tunner, who had run the airlift "over the hump" from Burma to China, to run the airlift in Germany.

Tunner imposed brute efficiencies so that a plane landed and took off every 90 seconds, and the pilots working under him devised ingenious ways to increase payloads and gain favor from Berliners by dropping handkerchiefs full of candy to the children lining the runways at Tempelhof Airport.

This tale of American expertise, ingenuity and generosity is told vividly by Andrei Cherny in his wonderfully readable book "The Candy Bombers." Today, we know how it ended: how the airlift supplied West Berlin all winter until the Soviets opened up land access in May and how Truman was re-elected to almost everyone's surprise in November. But Truman couldn't know those things in those first days in June and July.

[kellynla]

"The lessons are clear. Stand fast. Put the right men in charge. And never doubt the capacity of the men and women of the American military, when given the right orders, to perform far better than the experts predict."

[chopperman]

There are parallels here between Truman and W.

[Tribune7]

ping

[bray]

Great Leaders are rarely popular during their reign. Tough decisions are usually disliked by most which is why they are tough. In W’s case he has to fight the opposition Party who is in control to the Establishment media.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[richardtavor]

Speaking of which, the more I read about George Marshall, the less I like him. Although a great General, his world views permeated the State Department.

[Eagle Eye]

Considering that some of the bases are already designated as “enduring bases”, I’d guess we might be there a while.

[neverdem]

BTTT!

[BatGuano]

Read “At Dawn We Slept” and you won’t like him at all. Gen. Marshall and FDR were certainly aware of an impending attack by the Japanese, we had broken their Purple Code. Marshall was riding his horse that Sunday morning probably to keep his mind off the imminent slaughter. FDR was truly angry after the attack on Pearl Harbor..he did not expect the Japanese to sink as many ships as they did. THEY KNEW!

[SevenMinusOne]

Great post -

[SevenMinusOne]

Reality is those who understand this WOT....have always known (and many have said) President GWB will be treated very kindly by history.......

[RED SOUTH]

Bush doesn’t qualify to be a bump on truman’s a$$.
I give him the surge but...

#Enforcing North American Union without a vote from congress
#Approved selling U.S. ports to a Muslim nation
#Pissing away civil liberties in the name of the war on
terror
#growth of the federal government that would make Lyndon
Johnson blush
#expanding entitlements
#no child left behind
#4.00 gas
#the economy
#selling out Israel
#destroyed the republican party

Hell , where do you stop. The list can go on and on

History was kind to Truman but as we get further away
from the Bush adm , history will show what a turd he was.

I hope he goes broke in retirement.

[Stonewall Jackson]

I read an after action report about Pearl Harbor from the US Navy that was written in early 1943. Their intelligence indicated that the Japanese only used two carriers, instead of the six that actually attacked. They thought the Kaga and Akagi were too old and obsolete to make the dangerous Pacific crossing, and that the Shokaku and Zuikaku were not yet ready for service. If the US thought that the Japanese only had two carriers capable of this attack, they indeed might have risked allowing the attack to take place.

Indeed look at the damage inflicted and divide it by one-third. The Arizona probably still would have been lost, since she was hit by a horizontal bomber off the Soryu, but the damage to the other battleships wouldn't have been as devastating, with some likely managing to escape the attack with little or no damage. The destruction of the airfields would not have so complete, which would have allowed US fighters to get airborne and engage the Japanese planes, while US bombers would have headed out after the Japanese carriers in force.

This report was in a book on the early days of the naval combat in World War Two, with the last event being the sinking of the heavy cruiser Chicago by Japanese torpedo bombers off Rennell Island on January 30, 1943. I found the book at Fort Knox's Barr Library several years ago, but I cannot remember the name.

[KantianBurke]

And if the Iraqis tell us to go?

[rdb3]

There are parallels here between Truman and W.

Right. Norman Podhoretz wrote about that is his book World War IV. It's a very good read.

[BatGuano]

Hey Red, why are you so nasty? How did my post concerning Gen Geo. Marshall and FDR's actions encourage you to vent on President George W. Bush? Calm down, remember to take your meds, and go hang out on Daily Kos.

[Osage Orange]

How is Bush responsible for $4 gas?

How is Bush responsible for the economy?

GWB didn't destroy the GOP...he's helped, but there's been lot's of previous help.

[Eagle Eye]

12 months written notice.