Replies

t would be reassuring to think that the righteousness of a cause, or the bravery of an army, or the nobility of a sacrifice ensures public support for war. But military history shows that far more often the perception of winning is what matters. Citizens turn abruptly on any leaders deemed culpable for losing. “Public sentiment is everything,” wrote Abraham Lincoln. “With public sentiment nothing can fail. Without it nothing can succeed. He who molds opinion is greater than he who enacts laws.” Lincoln knew that lesson well. Gettysburg and Vicksburg were brilliant Union victories that by summer 1863 had restored Lincoln’s previously shaky credibility. But a year later, after the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Petersburg, and Cold Harbor battles—Cold Harbor claimed 7,000 Union lives in 20 minutes the public reviled him. Neither Lincoln nor his policies had changed, but the Confederate ability to kill large numbers of Union soldiers had.

7,000 in 20 minutes. Think about that. I know, that was then and this is now, but think how our perceptions have been changed by mass communication and repetition over and over and over again by the 24/7 instant news. We are becomming victims of our own technology. The 7th century warriors are unaffected by those things. Are we too weak and divided to win a war in this day and age? I wonder.

7,000 in 20 minutes

With single-shot rifles, muskets, and muzzle loading artillery.

Ultimately, in the study of war we find all that is strong, courageous, honorable and valorous in the human population--and all deciet, cowardice, and abominable brutality.

In the fires of conflict humanity is rendered to its most basic essences. The frivolities, panderings, and subterfuges of peacetime are stripped away to expose the character beneath, for ill or good.

7,000 in 20 minutes. Think about that. I know, that was then and this is now, but think how our perceptions have been changed by mass communication and repetition over and over and over again by the 24/7 instant news. We are becomming victims of our own technology.

Good points. I've felt for most of W's presidency it's been his failure to communicate effectively -- going to the people as Reagan did to explain his policies -- that has been his undoing. And this media has been relentless and way more biased than what Reagan had to deal with. But it shows how critical that communications ability is and it's why Hillary, if she wins, will be an awful President. Imagine listing to that shrew night after night... Lying and lying and lying.