Christmas 1777. General George Washington seeks refuge at Valley Forge. Men marched through snow, many barefoot, the rest with worn out boots. Men slept under roofless shelters, without blankets, with fire their sole source of warmth. Food was scarce. The dead and dying began to rapidly mount. Washington could offer the men nothing but hopeful words.

Years later, Lafayette would write of that winter: "The unfortunate soldiers were in want of everything. They had neither coats, hats, shirts, nor shoes, their feet and legs froze till they became black, and it was often necessary to amputate them."

Christmas 1944. General McAulliffe tells a German soldier "Nuts" in response to the German demand that the 101st airborne surrender. Hastily brought into battle, desperately in need of supplies, the sick and wounded without even the most basic medicine, they fought and Bastogne never fell. They would be forever known as the "Battered Bastards of Bastogne".

Both groups of soldiers gave the world a gift that would forver change history. For those troops at Valley Forge proved that a citizen army, an army of people fighting for freedom could prevail over the largest and best trained forces in the world. It meant that the words written a year and a half earlier actaulyl meant something.

The soldiers at Bastogne proved that boys raised in a depression, who, paraphrasing Stephen Ambrose, would rather have been home shooting rabbits with .22's than Germans with M1's, could defeat boys raised to fight and die for the fatherland.

In both instances, American soldiers stood the thin line between freedom and despotism. How different the world would look had the colonists been put in their place. Who would have spent the first half of the 20th century saving Europe from themselves? Who would have spent the latter half saving Europe from a fate worse than naziism, Stalinist communism?

Today, in Iraq, the faces of the men and women who stand that thin line are, as they always have been, American. Iraq is the border between two worlds, darkness and light, and once again, it is Americans that straddle that line, that defending latter from the former.

The west has not had such a threat since 1242 when Hulagi Khan stood outside the gates of Vienna. But for a chicken bone, there were none to stop the Mongol hordes. Think Baghdad is unsafe today, should have seen it in 1258, or at least what the Mongols left of it. And they'd have done the same to Europe.

Today, no such luck will befall Europe, or anyone else in the civilized world. Again, it is Christmas, and again, it is Americans who stand last watch in troubled lands far away from home, fighting in difficult environs. And again it is the American soldier, the minuteman, the militiaman, the marine, who leaves behind his land of comfort and plenty to do what he must.

The soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan today is the last line of defense of the Western world. Lovers of secular liberalism will find their tolerance is reciprocated with beheadings and bombings. The very liberalism that champions diversity and tolerance, is a perti dish for a most virulent strain that will kill the host.

Christmas is truly the time of giving. America is still doing what it does best, giving the world a chance at freedom and hope. And like the best gifts, they are given without reserve.

And so this Christmas, I will show my gratitude for that gift. I will thank those that serve by enjoying my life, enjoying their gift to the fullest. And I will say a prayer for them.

Nick Kristoff writes:
ne of the most conservative, religious, fascinating - and, in many ways, admirable - politicians in America today is Sam Brownback, the senator from Kansas who is a leader of the Christian right.

Sure, Mr. Brownback is to the right of Attila the Hun, and I disagree with him on just about every major issue. But 'tis the season for brotherly love, so let me point to reasons for hope.

Atilla the Hun? Howmany villages did Sam Brownback raze?

I'm embarrassed to say that Democrats have been so suspicious of Republicans that they haven't contributed much on those human rights issues where the Christian right has already staked out its ground.

Actually, the left has never had human rights as an issue. It as always been anti-capitalist.

Take sex trafficking...since Mr. Wellstone's death in 2002, the leadership on the issue has passed to the Christian right and to the Bush administration.
Or Darfur. Conservative Christians have been jumping up and down about Sudan for years because of its repression of Christians...

Then there's North Korea...it has been Mr. Brownback and other conservative Christians who have turned the heat on North Korea's human rights record and laid the groundwork for more radio broadcasts to undermine the regime there.

Perhaps Mr. Kristoff forget about other notable human rights fights led by Christian Conservatives. I think they were called abolition and civil rights.

So, all in all, I find Mr. Brownback perhaps the most intriguing man in Washington - so wrong on so much, and yet such a leader on humanitarian issues. He is also working with liberals like Ted Kennedy to press for immigration reform, prison reform, increased funds for AIDS and malaria, construction of an African-American history museum and even an apology to American Indians.

The other day, Mr. Brownback told me enthusiastically about his trip to northern Uganda and urged me to write about brutalities there. I was disoriented - I thought I was the one who tried to get people to pay attention to remote places.

So why is a conservative Kansas senator traveling to the wilds of Uganda?

ut the biggest obstacle to American engagement on international issues has been a lack of constituency for them, and that may be changing - if both sides can hold their noses and cooperate. Frankly, Democrats aren't going to accomplish much on their own over the next four years, but by working with the likes of Mr. Brownback they might register real progress on sex trafficking, an African-American history museum, malaria and immigration reform. That would be a much better use of the next four years than sulking.

Let me answer this one for yo Mr. Kristoff. Liberalism, the modern version anyways is about selfishness and nihilism. If you want to do it, if it feels good, then do it. If anyone questions you, then they are a racist, bigot, homophobe, hate-mongering Christian.

Everything the left does to advance a cause requires a celebration, a telethon, a mass marketing effort. That is why actors and actresses make a big show of going to TIbet, to Africa, to Mars if needed, to show how caring they are. Care about the 9/11 victims? Then simply hold a telethon, raise billions, and then never ask to see where the money went.

Starving people in Ethiopia? Hold a threecontinent Live-Aid concert. Where'd the money go? Did anyone get fed? Who cares? "We care!!" How many times did Mother Theresa call a press conference?

For liberals, benevolence is a self-serving, self-affirming assuagement of guilt. THey help because it makes them feel good, it makes them feel worthy, it makes them important.

No greater cause celeb exists then the environment. Of course, liberalism is about moral relativism, thus a tree and a person are equal. Decry the lackof affordable housing in Los Angeles, but Rob Reiner and his cohorts hold a big press shidig to announce how they stopped Ahmonson Ranch construction. Decry the overcrowded schools, but challenege every new school construction site in my school district with enivronmental lawsuits which add millions of dollars in extra costs and delays new schools be several years.

Of course Mr. Kristoff can't understand the nature of Christian concern for the downtrodden. Surely there must be some ulterior motive. However, when you see yourself a servant of God, not of your personal whims and desires, you understand the value of life. You understand that all men and women are God's creatures, equally deserving of respect and dignity. Slavery, discrimination, genocide, all the sundry human rights injustices are crimes against the God. As Jefferson wrote, "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights".

Which is why it is more important for the left to save spotted owls than unborn children. This also explains why the left can complain that Afghanistan women were persecuted, but as soon as President Bush acted, they opposed him. More important Bush fail than Afghan women be free. This is the selfishness and hubris of the left.

Mr. Kristoff, and his fellow liberals don't get it. His friends will never "hold their noses and cooperate" because selfless work is not in their nature, it contradicts everything they believe.

posted by Robert Mandel

12/23/2004 08:59:13 AM

link | |

Julius Caesar, finished in Gaul, looking for more triumph in Rome, brought his troops to the edge of the Rubicon river. On his horse at the front of the line, he entered the river and proclaimed, "alea jacta est", "The die is cast." This did not mean a die as in a metal template, but rather a casting dice as in gambling.

The Sunni have crossed the Rubicon, there is no going back. Thus, events in Iraq the past several days and weeks, culminating in the attack in Mosul, have been the ultimate gamble. The insurgents, if you will, have cast the ultimate die. The solution to Iraq is simple, it is to leave. But before we do so, we have to finish a few things.

Before the exit strategy, a little history. What makes history so compelling and why I teach it, is that completely unrelated events can come together over the course of generations and create great change. And they need not be great events either.

(For example: Let's take one completely distant event, Cortes landing in Mexico, and extrapolate the unfortunate series of events differently. Assume that he's either killed or not aided by the locals. Had he failed to conquer the Aztecs it is quite conceivable that a powerful and militaristic empire would have straddled a nascent America at a time of her greatest vulnerability. What would have a vast Mesoamerican empire have done to "manifest destiny?"

And will the same fate befall us in Iraq, a small band of brigands destroying the mighty American empire?)

What also makes history so compelling is that we can always look back and find examples. And they need not be complete stories, only pieces to the puzzle. To complete our exit strategy, let's put three pieces of the puzzle together, from very diverse sources.

We find the three pieces to the puzzle in Vietnam circa '73-74, Nicaragua circa 1984-86, and the West Bank circa 2003-4.

First Vietnam: In December 1972 Linebacker II was launched. The massive bombing campaign against North Vietnam brought the leaders in the North to the bargaining table. Our bombing brought them to the peace talks. They offered to stop fighting and return our prisoners of war. They realized the war was unwinnable for their side. In the greatest strategic move of the war, Douhet and Lemay were finally vindicated.

But what happened? We accepted their offer, and like the good communists that they were, they lied. We promised to arm and fund the government in the South, and like the good communist sympathizers, the anti-war left in Congress lied. When funding was cut off in 1974, the North invaded the South in Vietnam, and killed hudreds of thousands, maybe millions. Lesson one, provide funding.

Nicaragua 1980's: Sandinistas, supported by the Soviets and Castro were establishing a marxist haven where communist guerillas came to train. Nicaragua was to be the nerve center whereby commnuist revolutions spread through Latin America. However, Ronald Reagan would have none of that.

Oddly enough, the same anti-war crowd in 1972 was equally opposed to our support of the Contras. (Funny, I think one ran for president recently.) Funding and arms did make their way to the contras, forcing the Sandinistas to hold free elections, in which anti-commnist Violeta Chimora won. Danny Ortega, and his supporters in the Senate (Kerry) learned a valuable lesson. Lesson two, proivide arms.

West Bank, present: Israel has acted with great restraint and caution in the West Bank and Gaza, which has only increased the number of dead and wounded by Palestinian homicide bombers. However, the longer term goal, isolation and emasculation has succeeded.

Israel has taken a multi-pronged appraoch to the problem. They have assassinated leaders of Hamas, cutting off the head of the snake. They have built a wall and cut off Palestinians from the only source of jobs and income available. They have reduced them to the realization that the state they get will be the one Israel gives them, outside the walls. They are cut off from the rest of the Arab world, isolated and destitute. Elections now are about who can best work with the Israelis and end the bombings fastest. Lesson three: reduce the opposition to despair, they'll take anything.

I wrote a while ago, that it was time to pick sides. For success in Iraq, the president simply needs to pick sides, and he needs to take these three lesson into account. First, announce that the winners in the January 30th elections will be the legitimate leaders of Iraq. Thus, we will support them in whatever measures they feel necessary to ensure security.

We announce that most US troops will be leaving by June 28, 2005, the one year anniversary of the transfer of authority. We will leave behind a small contingent to train Iraqi forces, and we will leave behind armor and artillery. Most importantly though, we leave behind air power.

We announce that we will provide funding and support for the new Iraqi government, and we will continue to provide arms and equipment. So, lessons one and two, funding and arming are well taken care of. Lesson three is more difficult, but easily achievable by Iraqi forces.

I wrote a while ago that Allawi must destroy Fallujah, that only an Iraqi could order it destroyed, and only Iraqis could carry out the order. Likewise, this is a mission for the Iraqis.

When we announce Iraqi forces will take over for US troops, the hue and cry, especially from the left will be that they aren't ready. This much is true. They aren't ready to carry out precise, well coordinated assaults like Fallujah. But, they will be well prepared to do what we can't: kill Sunnis in masse.

The Iraqi forces, comprised of predominantly Shia and Kurd, will undoubtedly have no problem crushing the Sunnis. They can turn the Sunni triangle into an Iraqi version of the West Bank. They can isolate and attrit the Sunni until they come crawling to the table for whatever scraps are left.

For over two years now, the left has been claiming that Iraq will break out into sectarian civil war. And up until now, they have been completely wrong. But what hasn't been thought out is this: wouldn't that be a possibly desirous situation? The difference is this: we provide the arms and the funds which keeps the Iranians and others at bay. In doing so, we know who'll win.

Iraqi Shia have always been skeptical of their Persian counterparts. They well remember the Iran-Iraq war, and they well remember the Iranians sitting on the sidelines as Saddam killed tens of thousands of Iraqi Shia. And they have no desire to live under a theocratic mullahcracy. As it stands right now, the regime in Tehran is having trouble keeping a hold on power, with Iran currently ripe for revolution. Getting involved in an Iraqi civil war would be regime-icide. And the ever present US air power will serve as further check on Iranian ambitions.

The Iraqi Sunni will find no help to the south in Saudi Arabia nor will they find much help west in Syria, where the former has no love lost for them, and the latter knowing aid is a invitation to US retaliation. Boxed in like an animal, they will soon see their bombs yield only more pain and misery, and their struggle becomes futile. All the while, more and more Shia and Kurd come on line ready to kill more Sunni.

A sectarian civil war succeeding a US withdrawal sounds like an historic disaster. However, we have accomplished what we set out to do. Without question, the greatest threat facing America today is rogue states developing weapons of mass destruction, then passing them off to terrorists. Is there any doubt that Saddam had this as part of his post inspection agenda?

We have already affected great change in both Kabul and Baghdad. We take time then to evaluate our successes and failures in Iraq. We have time for the military to retool and retrain. Wars and warfare change and no army changes better than democratic ones.

Even if fighting continues, the Sunni, able to replenish neither men nor materiel will lose the war of attrition. It is as if General Grant himself planned out the strategy. Along the way, we ensure a representative government in Iraq.

The Sunni have chosen not to participate, thus, they cast their die.

I teach history because Santyana was right. George Orwell said it even better: "Those who control the past, control the future; Those who control the future, control the present; Those who control the present, control the past."

A few days ago, we observed the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler's Ardennes offensive. American forces, ill-equipped, unprepared, and under-manned, were surprised and overwhelmed by the Nazis in the winter of 1944. In one of the many intelligence failure of the war, the German strength was woefully under-estimated while their massive buildup was completely missed. Initial reports to Eisenhower of limited action turned into panic as any and all available units, ready or not, equipped or not, were rushed to the front.

The Germans, benefitting from the elements of surprise and superior arms, were stopped by determined troops unwilling to offer the same resistance encountered during their last Ardennes jaunt just 4 1/2 years earlier.

The goal of the the offensive? Split the alllied forces in the West, cause a fracture in Anglo-American relations, sue for peace, and turn his forces east to stem the tide of the Soviets. He made a fatal mistake however, as it was the American fighting man, willing to do what Hitler thought impossible. The inscription at the base on the memorial built by the Belgians in honor of the fighting at Bastogne includes this line:

“The Americans fought for this land as if it were their own.”

The similarities of a war 60 years ago to today are stunning. The only difference today is that the opposition is ignorant of the past. To them, WW2 was this noble venture, where we threw overwhelming forces and materiel at the Nazis and won. But that if anything tells the story.

Nobody seems to remember the bombing campaign, where thousands of palanes with tens of thousnads of men were lost futiley bombing German factories. Nobodt seems to remember the horrifici losses, especially October 1943 which included the infamous Schweinfurt raid. In one week 173 B-17's were lost, which doesn't include the hundreds of planes that returned damaged, airmen injured and killed, as well as the shock to the morale of the crews. They forget that we had to stop long range missions into Germany. We just couldn't sustain the losses despite the proclamations to the contrary of Hap Arnold.

The Bulge and the 8th air force represent only two of the multitude of problems we overcame. Either Napoleon or Clausewitz observed that no plan of battle survives after the first engagement with the enemy. But they never had to deal with a hostile media looking to pounce on any story that will undercut victory.

Many years ago, when I was in college, I worked at a sporting goods store. As a older gentleman was paying, I noticed he had a VFW membership card in his wallet. Seeing that he was obviously too old to have served in Vietnam, I asked him if he was a Korean or WW2 veteran. Upon learning he was a WW2 veteran, I asked him where he served. By now, he seemed rather shocked that a 21 year old would even know there was a WW2.

He informed me he was a bomber crewmen. I inquired if he flew with the 8th or 15th. Now his eyes got very wide, and siad he was with the 15th. So, I asked if he flew 24's or 26's, to which with amazement he said 24's. Then I asked him if he flew on the Ploesti raid. Looking as if he saw a ghost, he says yes, he did fly over Ploesti. Then he asks me, "How do you konw about that?" I reply simply, "Sir, if we ever forget, we'll have to fly that one again." I said thanks, and he left, knowing at least for another generation, his friends didn't die in vain.

So I teach history in the hope that we'll never have to make another raid over Ploesti or Schweinfurt.

Last year during the unit on WW2, one of my students told me she had an item I might be interested showing the class. So, she brings into class a necklace with a small oval shaped marble piece of jewelry attached. I read the letter inside, which was written by her grandfather to her great-grandmother. The marble was taken from inside the Berchtesgarden, specifically the fireplace from the room where Hitler entertained so many guests. He wrote on the note that he hopes she has less difficulty wearing it than he had acquiring it.

Her grandfather served with the 90th infantry division. I googled the 90th infantry division, and we discovered some interesting information.

The 90th had fought in every major engagement from Normandy to the Bulge, all the way into and through Germany. They remained on the line from June 6, 1944 until May 7, 1945. During combat operations, they suffered almost 20,000 casualties, including almost 4,000 killed. I informed the class that this represents over 150% casualty rate. A student asked me how this was poossible.

Simple, I answered. One possibility is that a soldier is killed or wounded and his replacement is killed or wounded. Or, a soldier was injured and returned to battle. Basically this didn't mean that everyone was killed or wounded, just that many many were. The looks in the classroom were a mix of shock and fright.

So I teach history so that we'll never have to wait to act until the threat becomes so large, divisions suffer 150% casualty rates.

I teach history so that students understand that what we face today is a threat equal to any in our nation's history. I teach history because we nee dto remember what fighting a long war is like. It is full of mistakes, adjustments, and obstacles to overcome. How we adapt is the measure of our progress, the indicator of our success.

Has anything in the last three years been as remotely as bad as it is reported? No. We've had two stunningly quick and overwhelming victories followed by post war difficulties. These difficulties have been magnified because they were not properly anticipated, and they've been magnified because of lack of historical knowledge.

Is ultimate victory assured? Hardly. But if we approach our analysis with proper perspective than we'd see we are doing better than reported. If we think that the war is going poorly now, imagine what would have been reported in December 1944.