Posted on 12/22/2018 5:10:53 AM PST by reaganaut1
Coulter retweeted a quote, sorry I don’t know who it was: “How is Mattis going to look those families in the eye and tell them “your son/daughter is coming home?” lolol
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Will the military send officers to the parents homes and say.....We are sorry to inform you that your son/daughter will be coming home, unharmed and safe.
You wrote ... “The liberals loved it when Truman fired McArthur. In hind sight, ... McArthur was correct, Korea was a stalemate, either destroy the enemy or stop the war, but Truman was the boss.”
I have been reading a lot lately on FDR, WW2, Truman ... which of course links one back to WW1, Wilson et al. The GOP then could be described as the anti-war party, not because the democraps were for war, but rather the American sentiment (their constituents) were against sending men to far away places to fight someone else’s battle with no US interests at stake. The democraps believed the US could not afford to sit out but needed to take a bigger role in the world in order to avoid future wars (hence the League of nations / UN). It is interesting that some of the key democraps back then would not fit in their own party today. For example, in the internal debates ... Japan attacked US, so why are we going to go and fight a war in Europe? .... about is whether our “good friends” the Brits who needed financial and material support were more interested in restoring their empire.
I give some of this as backdrop because I used to share your view of McCarthur, but I am going to be validating my opinion with further study. He was a very political general, a media general. With the debacle in North Korea, it is fair to say that he was given ambiguous orders by the Truman administration which he interpreted as to continue the attack northward to China instead of stopping at the previous boundary between north and south. At the end of the day, the President is the boss, not the Secretary of Defense. Truman also had some issues with the 1st Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal, who was not kept on after Trumans election in ‘48. Forrestal, like George Marshall (also in the Truman administration) did not endorse the creation of a Jewish state. While they both were attacked publicly by certain political groups as being anti-Semitic, their reasons were not such, but rather what was best for the US given US strategic interest with Arab nations (e.g. oil for the navy). Our “good friends” the Brits made a decision that they were leaving Palestine without caring what would happen afterwards. Truman, playing chess with the Soviets and political lobbies in the US, made the decision contrary to two well-respected cabinet members.
Today, the 2-party system has morphed into “if-the-other-side-is-for-it-then-we-are-against-it” and more recently. “if-Trump-is-for-it-we-won’t-support-it-even-if-we-used-to-support-such-ideas”. Trump is the only one who speaks about doing things for the American people, not doing things for a political party. He grew up at a time when such a mind set existed - when parties pulled together on key American beliefs.
Trump has not been shy about his intent to leave Syria as soon as he could.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Everyone seems to be shocked that President Trump did exactly what candidate Trump said he would do. I say impeach now.
This is stupid. France, UAE and SA are replacing our troops, what’s the problem??
All this criticism is nothing but Trump hate.
The endless, futile war in Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviets. We should have learned that lesson long ago.
The same Pentagon that trains officers at the lesbian dominated Air Force Academy in how to create ‘fake hate’ and promotes communist Islamic militants who trained at West Point? The diversity loyalists of the senior staff?
And anyone is supposed to respect them?
Hmmm....New facts, important facts, on the table
Could you please cite a reference? I ask because this fact s important to understanding these very complex events
Congress could have solved this problem by declaring a formal war, which in turn would require a formal peace agreement. War’s over, our troops come home. No arbitrary decision by the President. That’s how stuff used to work in a country called America a long time ago.
Three strikes and you are out. MacArthur (note the 'a') got caught flatfooted and was beaten 3 times - Luzon by the Japs, the Korean invasion by the Norks, and the Korean invasion by the Chicoms.
He got promoted for the same actions that got Kimmel and Short pilloried.
“We were so superior to both China and Russia at that time, ...
The country was war weary and got no push from the pubbies.”
The GOP was the anti-war party back then. Both parties were war weary, and the American people had enough of fighting wars for others.
Almost immediately after WW2, the US demobilized significantly its military because of the weariness, believing that the threat of the atom bomb (”the gun behind the door”) was enough to secure our safety and not be attacked again. Also, we knew very little about what was going on inside of Russia (i.e. how weak and battered they really were) and hence began our intelligence agencies.
China was a mess, and the Kuomintang was described as undisciplined and corrupt, out of touch with the average person, and not really interested in fighting the Japanese who were occupying part of their country (the part where the Kuomintang was not really strong) during WW2. The Soviets taught Mao and team how to brutally take advantage. The US was looking to get out of China once the Japanese were ousted, never seeing them as a serious threat like they did Russia.
I am not surprised that things ended up like they did. Also, politicians seemed back then to be more connected to their voters, unlike today, where they can continue to say one thing and do another.
Typical WSJ drivel. Generals are good for one thing. War. They never want to disengage.
The Chinese Nationalists were willing to fight their communist cousins in Korea and might have turned the tide. Why they were turned down is anyone's guess.
McArthur lived far beyond his expiry date. His negligence in commanding his subordinates resulted in thousands of US Army troops being overwhelmed by Chinese forces that he would not admit existed. Even during the annilation of his troops, McArthur would not admit he was being defeated by a superior, overwhelmning Chinese force.
It can be argued that the total McArthur effort in World War II had no significant effect. The US Navy and the US Marines defeated the Japs until the Air Force operating out of the Marianas could bomb Japan into ashes.
Some criticized MacArthur’s being removed from the Philippines for safer Australia while those behind were left to fight / die. He, being a political/media-darling general, felt the sting of the criticism, and the “I shall return.” was all important for him to be able to achieve and get back his reputation.
When the war on Japan was being formulated, MacArthur strongly and consistently advocated that the success had to be first efforts through the Philippines. He battled with others, including the Navy, who saw the Philippines as less important.
“The Chinese Nationalists were willing to fight their communist cousins in Korea ...”
I am running out of time to comment here. Other than to say, study what General “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell thought about the Nationalists when he was trying to get them to fight the Japanese then occupying China. He was FDR’s appointed Chief of Staff to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. I understand that the Communist Chinese now have a museum honoring him... an American General being honored by the communists, and he was not for the communists.
The outrage is that we wage war for other countries while being invaded and destroyed at home.
Bring US troops home, put some on our borders!
Ron Paul has said that “the Pentagon’s lost trillions have nothing to do with defense, adding that the “money propping up the high lifestyles of those connected to the military-industrial complex.”
“It can be argued that the total McArthur effort in World War II had no significant effect. The US Navy and the US Marines defeated the Japs until the Air Force operating out of the Marianas could bomb Japan into ashes.”
True on the first part, that arguably MacArthur’s efforts while important were not significant. With regards to bombing Japan into ashes, yes that happened, but the US saw the Japanese tenacity to fight on despite the destruction. This was not going to be easy. The atom bomb drop and some quick thinking inside Japan after the 2nd one ended the path to extinction. The Navy’s role in the defeat of Japan probably bigger than any Army ground game. But I continue to study this period to verify.
You’re probably right on RIFing Italy forces, et al.
My thought is to tell each party in the Syria theater what we regard as civilized behavior, and what we regard as unwelcome, tyrannical behavior (this would include massing forces to intimidate or inflict inordinate casualties); kudos to those who do the former, woe to those who do the latter.
Array our naval vessels in the Black, Med, Red, and Arabian Seas in such a way as to convince all parties that tyrannical behavior would trigger swift and devastating response.
Encourage all parties in the area to back off and get busy with normal life and commerce. It may be too much to ask of muslims, if past is prologue.
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.