To: mc5cents
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 Lincolns previously shaky credibility. But a year later, after the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Petersburg, and Cold Harbor battlesCold 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 posted on
09/01/2007 6:18:26 PM PDT by
mc5cents
(Show me just what Mohammd brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman)
To: mc5cents
7,000 in 20 minutesWith 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.
11 posted on
09/01/2007 7:00:08 PM PDT by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
To: mc5cents
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.
20 posted on
09/02/2007 5:14:23 AM PDT by
ReleaseTheHounds
("You ask, 'What is our aim?' I can answer in one word: VICTORY - victory - at all costs...")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson