Posted on 04/24/2011 3:03:57 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Political campaigns bear a striking resemblance to military campaigns. Both involve strategy, an awareness of the environment (a "grasp of the ground" in military parlance) and the concentration of forces and resources at the crucial point where the enemy is weak. Armies that are well led tend to win, while those who are poorly led tend to lose.
Since we entered the sesquicentennial of the Civil War on April 12, 2011, I was reflecting on some of the peculiar abilities and gifts of the great military leaders of the American Civil War compared to those so far displayed by Governor Sarah Palin as she begins her quest for the Presidency. I focused on three generals in particular, Stonewall Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forrest and U.S. Grant.
All three share the common characteristic with Palin that they were for a long time dismissed by the political and military Establishment of their day, even after smashing successes. Like Palin, none of them had an aristocratic pedigree, and this held them back as well. All three overcame the initial skepticism and cemented their place in the annals of military and political history. The way they achieved the respect of the Establishment was by winning victories. There was no other way for them to do it. There is no other way for Palin. And she wouldn't have it any other way. Don't kid yourself. This lady relishes a fight, and she doesn't want to be handed anything, including the GOP nomination or the Presidency.
Stonewall Jackson, an eccentric professor when the war began, was initially ridiculed as "Tom Fool", because of his fervent religious faith and his unwillingness to share overall battle plans with his subordinates. Like Palin he kept his cards close to the vest. Early in his famous Shenandoah Valley Campaign in the spring of 1862 he had opened his mind about his strategy in a particular battle (Kernstown)to his staff, and he proceeded to lose the battle, the only one of twelve he lost in the campaign. From then on, Jackson kept his own counsel, telling his subordinates only what they needed to know. One of his chief lieutenants, General Richard Ewell, on being ordered to take his Division off on what he thought was a wild goose chase, opined that Jackson was "mad as a march hare." At the end of the highly successful twelve battle campaign against four federal armies totaling 80,000 men (Jackson never had more than 17,000), it was evident that Jackson was moving his men in different directions to achieve the maximum force in each battle. Deftly using his smaller force, he achieved numerical superiority in every battle against the scattered Union forces that were chasing him.
In his epic battle Chancellorsville, Jackson took his entire Corps of 28,000 men on an extraordinary 14 mile march through dense wilderness to the extreme right flank of the Union Army. In spite of his reputation for aggressiveness and mobility both in the Valley and in subsequent battles, Union General Joseph Hooker actually convinced himself that JACKSON WAS RETREATING! When Jackson struck Hooker's right flank on the afternoon of May 2, 1863 like a whirlwind from the West, the Union troops were boiling coffee and playing cards, completely unprepared. It was a rout.
Fast forward to 2012. The parallels are amazing. Palin too holds her cards close to the vest, which frustrates many who would like to know what she is up to. The Establishment is effectively "chasing her" as well and she is flummoxing them at every turn, dashing off a Facebook post here or a tweet there that sends them into apoplexy. Like Jackson, Palin is focused on a goal: victory. When and if disclosure of her plans advances that goal, she will disclose them. Until that time, she will remain silent.
Palin already has a formidable reputation and her powerful endorsements and political success in 2010 were historic. Her aggressiveness and success as a campaigner both in 2010 and in toppling the corrupt Establishment in Alaska would put any rational observer on notice that she is aiming for 2012. Yet, like Hooker, the sleepy Establishment of 2011 has convinced itself--against all evidence--that Palin will not run, that PALIN IS ACTUALLY RETREATING. When she comes storming out of the West, as Jackson did 198 years ago, the Establishment will be just as discombobulated as Hooker's army was then, and it will crumble just as rapidly.
Like Jackson, Bedford Forrest--the untutored son of an illiterate blacksmith, had no pedigree, not even a West Point education. Enlisting as a private in the Confederate Army in 1861, by the end of the war he had risen further than any other soldier--to the rank of Lieutenant General. Forrest's Cavalry became a terror to the Union Army, and Grant, Sherman and Lee were all of the opinion that Forrest was the greatest general on either side of the war. Forrest was an untaught genius, who had an intuitive grasp of military strategy and troop movement even without a formal military education. He also had a natural gift for topography. He could look at a piece of ground and see how best to use it for attack and defense. And he was a born leader who led by example,fighting alongside his troops. (Forrest reputedly killed 31 man in hand to hand combat and had 30 horses shot out from under him.) Finally his tactics were WAY AHEAD of his time. In the 1860s, cavalry was used for raids and reconnaissance, but never to attack infantry whose rifled muskets could empty saddles at 200 yards. Forrest armed his troopers with rifled muskets (and at least two six shooters). Frequently outnumbered but rarely outgunned, he used them like mounted infantry and used his horse drawn artillery in similar fashion. They would ride to the enemy's weak point, dismount and fight on foot. His battles, particularly at Brices Crossroads, in which his 3000 man force completely crushed and routed a Union infantry Corps of over 9000 became a model for mechanized warfare in the 20th Century and has been studied and emulated by the likes of Rommel, Patton and Scwartzkopf.
Like Forrest, Palin has an intuitive grasp of the political lay of the land, and her many parries and thrusts against the statist agenda attest. She appears to be perpetually ahead of the curve, with the Establishment scrambling to catch up with her. Like Forrest and all great leaders, she is not using the tactics of the past. She is not fighting the LAST WAR, but is writing the blueprint for HER victory, one that many will try to copy in years to come. And like Forrest, she is personally fearless and unrattled by incoming fire, a born leader to whom people are naturally drawn.
The parallels between Palin and U.S. Grant are evident as well. Even after his great victories at Ft. Donelson and Shiloh--the only bright spots for the Union in 1862--Grant, who was never liked by the Establishment, was relieved of command because the Chief of Staff, Henry Halleck, was jealous of him. (Sound familiar? Palin, in spite of her great victories in 2010 and before, is similarly dismissed and derided by a jealous Establishment.) Rumors of his heavy drinking were leaked to the press, as well as nasty rumors about his wife. Grant was so dejected that he told his friend and fellow Ohioan William T. Sherman that he was going to resign and go back home to Ohio. Sherman, who understood Grant better than anyone, told him, "If you go home, you couldn't be still for a minute with armies marching." Palin must have considered this as well, given the horrific attacks delivered on her and her family Grant reconsidered, eventually won a new Command, saved the Army of the Cumberland after the defeat at Chickamauga and led it to smashing victories at Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge. Palin must have considered retreat as well, given the horrific attacks delivered on her and her family but like Grant, "She couldn't be still for a moment" if she simply retired to Alaska.
Up until the advent of Grant, the Union Army of the Potomac had the numbers and materiel to win, but lacked a Commander with the will to use them. Fading the heat of a hostile press, Grant set out in April 1864 and never looked back. His first encounter with Robert E. Lee at the Wilderness was a disaster that cost his army 17,000 men. Yet Grant knew he had the men and materiel to win. He paid no attention to the naysayers and pressed on, moving relentlessly by the left flank to Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and Petersburg, sustaining horrific casualties along the way and harping criticism from the McClellans and the Northern press who wanted to compromise and retreat. Meanwhile, his Confederate opponent was dropping back, losing men he couldn't replace.
Palin is the one candidate in the GOP who has the resolve and political skill to take similar political and rhetorical hits, because she understands one thing: We have the numbers. The other side knows what she is doing and they know the threat she poses for them. Her strategy is not complicated. Our side has the numbers, but has heretofore lacked the will to mobilize them. The left and its Establishment allies are going to try to destroy her and to demoralize her supporters. This was exactly the strategy employed by Lee in 1864. But Grant was a bulldog who simply would not be deterred. I think Grant and Palin share a characteristic that is sadly absent in politicians today: Sherman referred to it as "four o'clock in the morning courage" meaning that you could wake Grant up at four o'clock in the morning with the news that the enemy had turned his right flank and he would be cool as a cucumber. The fearless Palin too "doesn't scare worth a damn."
No. Sarah Palin is not Grant. Nor Forrest. Nor Jackson. But she does shares many of the qualities and gifts (originality, intuitive genius, coolness under fire, and perseverance) of these men of the 19th Century who made such an impact on the history of their day. She is a leader of the first magnitude. Among political figures of our era, she is an clearly an order apart.
I admire your perseverance. I shutter to think of all the ones you’ve faithfully visited so far. You have a far stronger stomach than I.
Forrest is my favorite General. What an awesome man.
Palin is an awesome woman!
That thought process is as rational as claiming that Mothers Against Drunk Driving spend so much time warning about the dangers of drunk driving because they secretly admire Colt 45 Malt Liquor.
Have you ever considered that the commitment might be to the survival of the United States of America?
Barack Hussein Obama is destroying the fabric of America and Palin Worshipers are dead set determined to nominate a woman, ..... (with, I will admit, great legs) ...... that SEVENTY TWO PERCENT (72%) of all voters believe would NOT make a good President.
How can Barack Hussein Obama, who approximately 55% of the voters believe is NOT a good President, get easily reelected?
You have him run against a candidate who 72% of the voters believe would NOT be a good President.
It's not Rocket Science.
What mind altering drug are you people on?
Look at this vanity. Can the Sarah Palin Cult of Personality and the Palin Worshiping get any more absurd? It comes within half an inch of violating the First Commandment.
Barack Hussein Obama is far too dangerous for the future of America for you people to be gushing over Sarah Palin as if you were 13 girls at a Justin Bieber concert.
Back on the Planet Earth, this is the reality of Sarah Palin:
FOX News Poll (February 7-9, 2011)
Question 3: I am going to read you a list of names. Tell me if you think that person would make a good President or not.
Sarah Palin:
.................YES.........NO.......DK.....Never heard of
ALL...........23%.......72%.........4%.......1%
Dem ...........7%........87%........5%.......1%
Rep ...........40%.......56%.......3%.......1%
Ind ...........25%........69%.......3%.......1%
Why am I so opposed to the Republican nomination of Sarah Palin?
Because I would bet my life that any Republican nominee with such toxic poll numbers absolutely GUARANTEES the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama and America simply cannot afford such a disaster.
If Sarah Palin were to be compared accurately to any Civil War era politician, on the core moral question of the day, it would have to be Democrat Stephen A. Douglas. He was pro-choice for states on slavery, and she is pro-choice for states on abortion.
Grant, Jackson, Forest, Palin....
Which one quit?
That's right.
Not worth a nickel to me. Lots of pundits will be eating their words and bowing before Palin power by the time she is elected president.
And I’d call at least some of her opponents an army of McClellans.
“And I’d call at least some of her opponents an army of McClellans.”
McClellan actually looks decisive compared to the seven (or so)dwarfs lined up against her.
The opponents I had in mind aren’t necessarily the ones running for office, but yeah, some of those guys have sat there and watched things happen, too.
Hey Poly!, you should not bet your life on “POLLS” at this point! Life is really good, take a walk, go fishing, whatever!
Let’s revisit this subject (Sarah’s polls) this coming January 1.............IF SHE RUNS!
For what it is worth, the forum your own is not impressed with your point! Try another one!
Four years ago, he/she was telling us that if Rudy were the nominee, we should support him.
Now, when Polubius is asked if he would support Palin if she were the nominee, he/she refuses to answer.
Go figure.
I am sick and tired of hearing the Mainstream Media meme repeated, over and over that Sarah Palin is stupid, unelectable, unqualified, a quitter, et al.
LISTEN to the woman, for God’s sake! Listen to the speech she just gave in Madison the other day and tell me again how badly she stinks. No, don’t just dismiss her out of hand like the media wants you to ... actually LISTEN to her damn speech first.
For my entire life (with few exceptions) I’ve been stuck voting for the lesser of two evils, where one candidate completely sucks and the other one ... uh ... doesn’t suck quite as much. Reagan was the only candidate for President that I actually WANTED to vote for, instead of voting AGAINST the other jerk.
Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air. Here we have someone with ACTUAL American values and an outspoken belief in God. I don’t CARE what faults you can find with her. She speaks and I hear what she’s saying and I like the message. The GOP hasn’t even produced a viable candidate yet, let alone a front-runner, yet here is someone who draws crowds without even making an announcement of candidacy!
Let the American public hear what she has to say ... not what the media wants us to think of her ... and she will go far and strong! The days of letting the big media tell us who our candidates should be is over! GO SARAH!
“that SEVENTY TWO PERCENT (72%) of all voters believe would NOT make a good President.”
I have not made a choice yet because I have not hears any positions other than generalities. No one has made a campaign speech. No one has had a debate. How can anyone have an opinion and call themselves a rational, thinking person. (OK, some who have followed Romney, or Huck might have enough info to make a fairly reasoned opinion!).
As to me, I will wait a year or so!
OK, what does this mean exactly 'the numbers', if it means anything.
Didn't she run as VP in 2008? Where were the 'numbers' then?
most excellent
You're such a phony, as is your list.
I saw how you added "terminator", watched as you did it.
Would you care to show us who posted that and why? I bet you won't because it would embarrass you to the heavens, and show what a crap, absolutely false pretense of a list you have made. It's a perfect example of why no one listens to you but a handful of PDSers.
The fact that you would make such a false list shows what you've become, and it ain't pretty. Congratulations, you make KOS proud of you.......
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.