Military History

Blogging about the Battlefield since 2005

D-DAY REMEMBERED?-Part III

Posted by William F. Sauerwein on July 11, 2008

Continued from Part II

The distorted rhetoric of the Left demonizes our soldiers, reminiscent of the Viet Nam era, yet claims that they support them. In the next sentence these “intellectually superior” leftists benevolently call our troops “victims” of military recruiters “exploiting” them. Acts considered treasonous during World War II the Left calls “patriotic,” and they call people who support their country “traitors.” Professor Ward Churchill called those people murdered on 9/11 “little Eichmanns,” and receives the treatment of a dignitary. Former Presidents Jimmie Carter and Bill Clinton, two presidents who helped create our current mess, travel the world demonizing their country. Gold Star mother, Cindy Sheehan, received icon status, while the media ignored other Gold Star mothers, who support the war. These represent merely a few examples of the distorted “pop culture” that thrives in our nation.

Unfortunately those with the opposing views, commonly called the “Extreme Right Wing,” remain silent, often afraid of receiving a personal attack. The Left, and their “fellow travelers,” only “tolerate” those who agree with them. However, the Left tells us that we must “respect” their views and never “question their patriotism.” Like trained seals, the so-called conservative “leaders” follow their instructions from the Left, and call them “patriots.”

One may ask how all of this ties in with remembering D-Day, and the sacrifices of World War II. We face a threat just as serious as that we faced during World War II, maybe worse. Immediately after Pearl Harbor most Americans understood the threat and “rolled up their sleeves” for victory. As America’s sons and daughters sacrificed so much overseas, Americans at home spared no effort at supporting them. After 9/11, that attitude lasted three weeks, as I stated previously, and our “leaders” did not generate a war effort. Instead of calling for victory today, many of our “leaders” call for our withdrawal and defeat.

In great detail I described the blood, sweat and sacrifice endured by all Americans between Pearl Harbor and D-Day. These hardships occurred in combat across the globe and on the home front by laboring in the war industries. I further revealed some of the problems encountered, both at home and abroad, that potentially threatened the final victory. However, these Americans overcame these problems, focused on the victory and defeated the most serious threat of their generation.

After the Allies secured the Normandy beachhead it took another eleven months of brutal combat for defeating Germany. With the secure beachhead, the Allies poured in men and materiel for winning the victory and occupying Germany. Victory in the Pacific required an additional three months of the most bloody combat faced by Americans since the Civil War.

Most Americans understood that liberating France, or occupied American territory in the Pacific, did not end the war. Victory meant invading the Axis nations, defeating their armed forces and changing their governments. Leaving the dictatorial regimes in power did not solve the problem, it merely postponed them.

When President Bush made his first post-9/11 State of the Union address he mentioned three nations as the “Axis of Evil.” He correctly called these nations, Iran, Iraq and North Korea threats for a variety of reasons. Almost immediately the Left around the world chastised him and called him a “cowboy.” The Democrat Party, looking for a political wedge for eroding Bush’s soaring popularity, joined this clamor. This clamor also included the left-leaning media and Hollywood elites, who immediately began a propaganda campaign against Bush.

The Islamofascists, and their “rogue nations” supporters, face no such internal dissensions, particularly since they embrace no democratic principles. Iran became our enemy in 1979 with the revolution that toppled Shah Reza Pahlavi, one of our best regional allies (thank you President Carter). Since that time Iran openly supported terrorist organizations that cause conflicts in the region, and killed over two hundred US Marines. Currently they arm, train and join the terrorists in Iraq, killing our soldiers. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, seeks nuclear power, threatens Israel and creates regional instability through his speeches and actions.

Since Bush named the “Axis of Evil” we must add another nation, Syria, which also threatens regional stability. It supports terrorist organizations, promotes instability in Lebanon, threatens Israel and, like Iran, supports our enemies in Iraq. Former Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada, in his book, Saddam’s Secrets, believes that Saddam Hussein sent his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria.

North Korea remains at a disadvantage, despite its possession of nuclear weapons and the means for delivering them. Geographically situated on a peninsula, with a hostile relationship with its neighbor, South Korea, it possesses little room for expansion. However, as long as it continues developing WMD’s, and the means for delivering them, it increases its threat level. As long as it exports these weapons and other technology, it increases the threat posed by these “rogue nations.”

However, in the Middle East, the US possesses no useful alternative except eliminating the threats posed by Iran and Syria. Both export terror through organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah that attack Israel, giving Israel a 9/11 equivalent almost daily. Diplomacy continues failing regarding these nations, as our European “allies” openly trade with them. The UN balks at any serious actions, and our “partners,” Russia and China, veto any strong resolution.

The US, as the “lone superpower,” faces the threat almost alone, yet ignores it. Even the surviving members of the “Greatest Generation,” whose experiences offer so much, do not acknowledge the threat. History teaches us that America, however reluctantly, began preparing for war in June, 1940, eighteen months before Pearl Harbor. Today, almost seven years after 9/11, we barely acknowledge that a war exists.

We stood almost alone in 1940, with a poorly prepared military force, and prepared for the worst. Part of this military preparation included the first peacetime draft in our nation’s history. Many pundits today call peacetime draftees “reluctant soldiers at best,” and that situation prevailed in 1940. MacDonald reveals one of the restrictions on draftees included one year’s service, ending their service in September, 1941. The world situation, and military organizational problems, prompted legislation for extending that service by one year. This deeply angered the drafted men, and the acronym OHIO (Over the Hill In October) became prominently displayed on military property. For the unknowing, “over the hill” means Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL), and I found no figures revealing AWOL statistics for this time. However, after Pearl Harbor, these “reluctant soldiers” became the force that immediately confronted the Axis armies.

Following 9/11 America faced a similar military situation as it did following the Allied defeat in June, 1940. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 America began demobilizing the superb military force that guaranteed that collapse. For the next ten years the US “downsized” about forty per cent of its personnel strength. Meanwhile the world situation required the increase of deployments by about three hundred per cent. These forces proved inadequate for these “peacetime” requirements, despite the unprecedented mobilization of reserve components. We began the war against terrorism with this worn down force, and did not increase the number of personnel. Today we hear stories of the “over extending” of these forces, yet no one advocates increasing the number of troops.

At several times during this piece I mentioned casualties from certain campaigns of the war. I further mentioned that on one day, June 6, 1944, the Allies suffered almost 10,000 casualties. At least 2,500 of these occurred among the American forces involved in the Omaha Beach landings. Today the Left and the media maintains a “casualty watch,” almost gleefully reporting every American casualty. As a combat veteran I understand the value of everyone killed or wounded, and the gash it tears in the families effected. However, the casualties we suffered in almost seven years of combat, pale when considered against those suffered during World War II.

American families then mourned their losses and continued on for victory, much like the Sullivan Family. The Sullivan Family of Waterloo, Iowa lost all five of their sons during one naval battle near Guadalcanal in November, 1942. Thomas and Alleta Sullivan received an outpouring of condolences from the American public, and Americans honored their sons as the “Fighting Sullivan Brothers.” Despite the sorrow from their loss, Thomas and Alleta made several appearances at war plants and shipyards for supporting the war effort. Unfortunately I experienced a difficult time finding a website, www.arlingtoncemetery.net/sullivan-brothers.html, that told their story. As stated previously, today the media honors Cindy Sheehan, and I found her website at the top of my search.

The beachhead at D-Day represented a significant strategic advantage for the Allies; however German counterattacks tried breaching it. Victory remained elusive even following this invasion as Allied forces in Europe entered the bloody hedgerow campaign. In Italy the Allied troops continued the costly campaign in the mountains. The Soviets suffered horrendous casualties as they advanced on the Eastern Front, finally ejecting the enemy from Soviet territory.

In the Pacific Allied forces continued their bloody island-hopping campaign, drawing the noose tighter around Japan. Allied troops on the Asian mainland struggled against stiff Japanese resistance, slowly gaining ground. Achieving these gains caused severe strains on the Allied resources, and deepened strains within the alliance as well.

Despite all of the public relations efforts and “photo-ops” at the various conferences, deep divisions threatened the Allies. Most people know of the distrust between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. Almost everyone knows of the rivalry between the British and Americans, particularly between the British senior field commander, General Bernard Montgomery, and Patton. De Gaulle and his Free French often proved more of a hindrance, particularly when the “Big Three,” FDR, Churchill and Stalin, snubbed him. The Chinese Nationalists and Communists continued fighting each other, which hindered operations against the Japanese. However, this “coalition of the willing” continued and ultimately defeated their enemies and brought down the enemy governments.

My fellow Americans, we faced our D-Day when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and secured our “beachheads.” Unfortunately victory remains elusive as we seem stalemated by the irresponsible internal squabbles of our “leaders.” No easy answers exist for solving the problem of victory in this war against terrorism, despite our politicians’ rhetoric. Retreat and withdrawal, as envisioned by the Democrats, turns our D-Day into our Dunkirk, when British troops evacuated continental Europe. However, “staying the course” invokes images of the Viet Nam War and “quagmire,” and the political divisions we currently face.

In either case we appear weak and indecisive, a superpower paralyzed by a seemingly small number of people. We further enshrined this paralysis from our internal problems as well, comfortable in our arrogance and complacency. This attitude makes us believe ourselves invincible because of our limitless power versus the limitations of our enemies. We possess all of the technological advantages; therefore these enemies, lacking in modern amenities, cannot overcome this power.

Furthermore, we do not believe that our “political discourse” affects the tenacity of our enemy on the battlefield. Politics no longer stops “at the water’s edge” as it did during World War II. Thomas Fleming, in his book, The New Dealers’ War, describes the internal struggles FDR faced during the war. During the first few months of the war many Republicans criticized FDR regarding how we entered the war. However, none of them called for impeachment, accused him of treason or directly challenged his role as commander-in-chief. Nor did any “shadow government” of angry Republicans exist in our government agencies, disrupting the President’s policies.

Fleming further describes the “dark side” of FDR, who ruthlessly stifled his opposition, sometimes using questionable authority. Unlike FDR, Bush embraced his opposition with his “new tone,” and neither he nor other Republicans respond when attacked. FDR paid a price for his ruthlessness; the Democrats suffered losses in the 1942 mid-term election. Although Democrats still controlled both houses of Congress, they lacked veto-proof majorities. Unlike the Democrats today, no Republicans challenged FDR as commander-in-chief, or undermined the war effort.

Fleming mentions a good example of not undermining the commander-in-chief occurred during the 1944 presidential election cycle. The Republican candidate, New York Governor Thomas Dewey, learned that the US broke the Japanese codes before Pearl Harbor. Angry at the destruction at Pearl Harbor given this knowledge, Dewey threatened disclosing it. However, General Marshall informed Dewey of the American victories because of this, and urged his silence. Dewey placed national security and soldiers’ lives above politics and remained silent on this issue.

Instead the 1944 presidential election cycle centered on FDR’s declining health and ability for continuing his leadership of the war. I found no evidence of highlighting “war weariness,” continuing casualties or blunders concerning military operations. Nor did Dewey state his willingness in meeting enemy leaders for negotiating an end of hostilities.

Today the “loyal opposition” discloses everything they know, and their media accomplices report it. It does not matter how it affects the war effort, or the safety of our military personnel. They only care about how this information damages Bush and their other political opponents. Tragically, when these “leaks” happen neither Bush nor other Republicans express outrage at these breaches of national security.

FDR further tried building support for the war before the US entered it, warning of the dangers of the Axis Powers. Fleming cites the creation of the Office of War Information (OWI) in June, 1942 (what is it with these June anniversaries?) for managing public support of the war. Today we call these people “spin meisters,” for their ability at twisting facts for meeting their agendas.

Unfortunately agencies like the OWI prove necessary, particularly during wartime as we faced enemy propaganda masters. The most famous, Joseph Goebbels of Germany, successfully “spun” battlefield defeats into propaganda victory for maintaining public support. Such programs work best in totalitarian nations, such as the Axis nations and the Soviet Union, with no freedom of the press. In democratic societies one might liken the OWI with the commercials aired by private companies selling their products.

Our Constitution outlines the necessity of freedom of the press in our society for informing the public. The censorship of World War II did not drastically affect First Amendment rights, particularly since we still enjoy these rights today. However, the “free and independent press” today often acts as a propaganda organ for our enemies. While they routinely discredit all information from our government, they faithfully accept every word uttered by our enemies. Before the invasion of Iraq, journalist Dan Rather interviewed Saddam Hussein, treating him with more deference than his own president. Unfortunately nothing like the OWI exists today for even balancing out this negative reporting, let alone promoting “our side.”

Although I often ponder over how I would do things since 9/11, we cannot go back in time. For transforming our D-Day into victory we can only discuss where we go from our present place in time. Primarily, we need national leadership, from the President, the Congress and in those federal agencies involved in national security. Currently it seems that Bush lacks the fortitude for bringing this leadership about, even in his Cabinet. Particularly during this time of war, we cannot tolerate any “shadow government,” and the President must fire them.

The President runs the Executive Branch of government through his Cabinet and other advisors, meaning all the federal agencies. Besides the “shadow government” these federal agencies seem overflowing with those concerned mainly with their advancement. Those agencies concerned with our national security must employ only the best of people, and those with the most experience. The stakes prove too high for tolerating gross mistakes, incompetence and the bane of all government employees, careerism. Regarding the war against terrorism I believe Bush received some bad advice from complacent advisors, partly from “Clinton hold-overs.”

A good example, when the Soviet Union collapsed Iraq became the primary threat for which the Army trained. I know; I participated in this training from 1992 until I retired from active duty in 1994. Every time Saddam “rattled his sabers” we deployed a combat brigade immediately into Kuwait. Despite this fact, and our control over northern Iraq, we did not aggressively execute human intelligence missions inside Iraq. For eleven years our intelligence agencies did not emplace agents inside Iraq, or recruit sources inside Saddam’s regime.

Likewise in Afghanistan after we learned that Usama bin Laden executed his attacks against us from there during the 1990’s. The Northern Alliance, under the legendary Ahmad Shah Massoud, fought the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Richard Miniter, in his book, Losing Bin Laden, describes the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) incompetent use of Massoud. Infiltrating al Qaeda required money and other assistance; the CIA did not provide it. The Northern Alliance provided regular information regarding bin Laden’s movements; the CIA did not act. Massoud determined that the CIA possessed “no interest” in getting bin Laden. Al Qaeda assassinated Massoud on September 9, 2001.

Before D-Day the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), forerunner of the CIA, emplaced agents throughout France. These agents worked with the Maquis, and waged an active campaign gathering intelligence and disrupting German defenses. Despite their best efforts accurate intelligence still proved a challenge, such as the German 352nd Infantry Division at Omaha Beach. We often forget that the enemy works just as hard at deceiving us as we do at deceiving them.

By the time of D-Day the Armed Forces purged themselves of most of their incompetent field commanders, often after costly disasters. Patton, arguably our best field commander in Europe, almost purged himself from command. Eisenhower gave him his assignment in England as “probation,” however it proved its worth against the Germans. Unfortunately, during the 1990’s we purged the Armed Forces of anyone remotely resembling Patton, creating a “politically correct” Army.

Even if we possess the best warriors as our field commanders, our military still operates under civilian control. Our military strategy originates in the White House, the Pentagon advises, and then carries out this strategy. A trend began under Defense Secretary Robert McNamara when he employed legions of computer analysts, statisticians and business managers. Most of these men lacked military experience, and even thought military experience a “disadvantage” in determining strategy. H.R. McMaster, in his book, Dereliction of Duty, describes the condescending attitude these “experts” displayed toward professional military officers. They further believed that their “superior education” made them better decision-makers than professional officers with combat experience. We lost the war managed by these people, and micro-managed by the ultimate statistician, McNamara.

Unfortunately such trends continue today regarding the civilians that run the Pentagon. I researched the Defense Department’s websites and found of the thirteen highest civilians only six mentioned military experience in their biographies. Historically many of our service secretaries lacked military experience such as President Abraham Lincoln’s two secretaries of war, Simon Cameron and Edwin Stanton. However, I believe military experience proves essential for someone serving as a service secretary, given the serious nature of the job. Would a president appoint a federal judge with no legal experience, or a surgeon general with no medical experience?

I hoped for the appointment of former General H. Norman Schwarzkopf as Secretary of Defense, the commander of Operation Desert Storm. Maybe Bush offered him the job and he declined it, I do not know. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did not impress me, nor did he when he served in the position previously. He seemed more interested in his “transformation” program than with winning the war, proposing more cuts for a drastically reduced military force.

Of course I do not know what advice Rumsfeld received from the bureaucrats who really run the Pentagon. Bureaucrats often do things based on how it affects their careers, and improves their “power base.” If someone changes the plans it might reduce their influence, or even eliminate their job. Besides, with all of the statistics and “Power Point” briefings, their plans seem infallible.

Certainly even someone with no military experience realizes we need a dramatic increase in our personnel strength. This proves particularly true for the Army, which suffered the most under “downsizing,” losing about 286,000 personnel. The Army primarily wages the nation’s ground wars, which requires the largest number of people, for both combat and support troops. Despite today’s rhetoric the war against terrorism remains primarily a ground war, where our forces engage the terrorists in ground combat.

When the Allies defeated Germany the US alone possessed over one million troops in Europe. Today the US possesses 1.4 million personnel on active duty and 1.3 million in the reserve components. While this seems a large number it proved insufficient for meeting all of its global missions. Current military doctrine states that victory requires a three-to-one ratio of attacker-to-defender, at the front line. Defeating a guerrilla force, such as terrorists, requires a ten-to-one ratio of us-to-them. Sustained warfare requires a substantial depth of operations that extend far behind the battlefront.

During World War II the records reveal that it took seven support soldiers for supporting every combat soldier. MacDonald states that this proved one of the flaws in pre-war planning, under estimating the number of support units needed. This support begins stateside with the recruiting and training base for producing qualified and trained personnel. It then extends across the globe in lines of communication for providing a steady supply of men and materiel. Defending this line of communication requires significant numbers of troops, particularly air and naval forces.

Traditionally, once soldiers deployed overseas during World War II they remained overseas for the “duration plus six months.” This did not mean that the troops remained in constant combat operations; everyone understood that they needed periodic rest. Particularly after a bloody operation like D-Day, the assault units needed time for rest and refit.

The Allies assaulted the beaches of Normandy with about 170,000 troops; however, this represented just the “tip” of the “spearhead.” As stated previously, follow-on forces began landing once the assault units secured the beaches. These fresh troops “relieved in place” the troops on the front and continued the momentum of operations. Unlike today, no D-Day planners believed these 170,000 troops capable of securing the beachhead and liberating France. When the D-Day plan went awry Eisenhower did not appear before a partisan congressional committee in Washington, DC.

During World War II Republicans in Congress did criticize FDR’s “home front” policies regarding the war. This involved the growing bureaucracies for managing the war, graft and corruption within these agencies and the political use of the OWI. However, I found no evidence of delaying war funding, partisan electioneering in foreign countries or “shadow governments.”

Congress, as the representatives of the people, plays a vital role in the military operations of the country. This includes authorizing operations, such as formal declaration of war, or “conditional” declarations, such as the resolutions since World War II. In the aftermath of 9/11 Congress overwhelmingly passed a joint resolution (S.J. Res. 23) authorizing the use of force:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determined planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

While most members of Congress supported this effort at defeating those who attacked us, others cynically postured for political gain. Following the unanticipated victory in Afghanistan some of this “war fever” died out as the Democrats lamented the rising popularity of Bush. Many of them, responsible for the “downsizing” of our military and intelligence capabilities in the 1990’s, tried blaming Bush for military shortfalls.

The Congress further approved military action against the continuing threat of Iraq with S.J. Res. 45, on October 2, 2002. This document cited Saddam’s violations of UN resolutions beginning with the first Gulf War in 1990-1. It further stipulated the violations of seventeen separate resolutions since the first war ended, including continuing Iraqi hostility. Cynically, many Democrats tried delaying the vote until after the mid-term elections that November. I believe they hoped that the security of employment for another two years allowed them a “safety net” for criticizing Bush. For once the Republicans stood up and demanded a vote, forcing a hard choice for the Democrats, and the resolution passed.

Congress further possesses the constitutional power for raising and supporting our armed forces and appropriating the necessary funding. Since the war against terrorism began Democrats in Congress almost continuously berate Bush for military shortages. Ironically, they initiated most of those shortages through the irresponsible “downsizing” of the 1990’s, and offer no solutions. Tragically, the “Bush Administration” does very little for reversing these shortages and maintains the inadequate structures of the 1990’s.

Since Congress controls the military “purse strings” why not increase the funding if they feel the current amount inadequate. Divert funding from their “earmarks,” or their “pet” domestic programs for ensuring that our troops receive the proper support. Truthfully, Congress does not take money from these programs because that does not translate into constituent votes, and ensure reelection.

The Republican leaders in Congress do not confront their Democrat “colleagues” regarding their demagoguery, particularly regarding military funding. Neither does Bush “hold their feet to the fire,” making them perform their duty of providing for the common defense.” Our Constitution tasks the federal government with the primary responsibility for providing for the nation’s defense. However, the federal government seems more interested in prioritizing health care, education and other things not mentioned in the Constitution.

Congress maintains oversight of the Armed Forces through the armed services committees of both houses. However, the majority of the people on these committees lack military experience themselves, and use it as a political “stepping stone.” I researched the websites of all members of Congress sitting on these committees and grew disappointed with the results. Of 62 members on the House committee only 15 mentioned military service in their biographies. Two others mentioned spouses with military experience and one member posted no biography on his site. The Senate committee boasted 25 members with only 9 mentioning military service in their biographies and one mentioned a spouse with military experience.

Neither committee chairman mentioned military service, while both ranking members served during the Viet Nam War. While military service does not guarantee expertise in military affairs, neither does serving as a “political hack.” When I watch these “distinguished members” grilling military commanders I grow increasingly agitated. These “hacks” sit in judgment of these officers with smug looks on their faces and condescending words spoken from their mouths. Maybe if more of these people served in the military, and experienced the hardships, they might better execute their responsibilities.

Political ramifications dominate so much of today’s society that it often paralyzes our nation. No one ever mentions that D-Day occurred in a presidential election year, nor did the “loyal opposition” use it for seeking advantage. Many opportunities existed for using it, if any candidate proved eager for exploiting it, and possibly affecting public morale. The blunders, the high casualties and the irresponsibility of launching it under marginal weather conditions provided ample “political fodder.”

As stated previously, in World War II politics stopped “at the water’s edge,” and FDR won an unprecedented fourth term. While Democrats and Republicans bickered over domestic issues, they differed very little regarding foreign policy and conduct of the war. Individual Americans vehemently differed over many issues, such as racial policies, but they united for defeating the enemy. No sacrifice proved too great for supporting “our boys,” who gave their lives in defense of their country.

Today it seems that nothing transcends politics, personal aggrandizement or takes priority over our creature comforts. We further sacrifice our history, revising it for fitting in with our “politically correct” society. As June turned into July, and we celebrate our independence as a nation, must we also sacrifice that history? Past generations paid a high price for the freedoms and opportunities we take for granted today. None of them sought these hardships, however they met the challenges of their generation, and we must meet ours today.

American troops fought their way ashore on Omaha Beach at a very high price. Behind them millions of Americans, both military and civilian, applauded them and sustained them until they won victory. Today American forces toppled the oppressive regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, liberating millions of people. Behind them millions of Americans applaud them and support them, although you rarely hear of it.

The Islamofascists present a threat of at least equal proportions with the Axis nations of World War II. Almost every source that speaks of this threat states the goal of enforcing a caliphate on the Western democracies. One need only look at the media footage from Afghanistan where the Taliban publicly executed those who violated their Islamic laws. Look at the footage of terrorists detonating bombs against mostly innocent civilians as they seek dominance over these people.

The Americans today who feel their Constitutional rights violated by the “Patriot Act” do not understand true oppression. Those who denounce our soldiers for “atrocities” against the captured terrorists never witnessed true atrocity. Others who claim that the “Bush Administration” concocted the war against terrorism do not comprehend the threat. “Experts” who claim that we must appease the terrorists never faced the threat, or suffered at their hands. Unfortunately we give too many Americans with too little knowledge and experience too much power in our society.

That power immobilized our response against the enemies that threaten our existence as a nation. Transforming our D-Day into victory requires that we replace the current governments in Iran and Syria. How we accomplish this remains the problem, as our internal political squabbles effectively paralyzed our actions. We receive no leadership from Washington, DC, who we pay quite handsomely for leading us. Disturbingly, we seem rooted in a flawed plan for using “minimal force” and making the “smallest footprint” on our enemies.

As World War II confirmed, defeating our enemies requires the application of our full national effort. Victory requires that we “pay any price” and “bear any burden,” as President John F. Kennedy stated in his inaugural address. Unfortunately today, we face the real possibility of defeat and the demise of our civilization.

Waiting for permission from the UN and our European “allies” allows more time for Iran’s nuclear development. Not building sufficient military strength for this inevitable war demonstrates insanity on the part of the US and other Western democracies. The complacency of our leaders in ignoring the threat represents a total dereliction of duty. Their deliberate campaign in blaming their own nation and demonizing their soldiers borders on treason.

D-Day represents a significant victory for American and Allied troops during World War II. Remembering it, and the blood, sweat and sacrifice that made it possible remain important for today’s Americans. The Axis Powers did not make victory easy, they mobilized their nations’ resources as well. They employed every strategy for avoiding defeat, and discouraging the Allies into negotiations, such as the famed “Battle of the Bulge.” The Japanese employed kamikaze, or suicide pilots, against American forces beginning with the Philippine liberation in early 1945. However, nothing deterred those Americans from final victory, and the defeat of their enemies.

We proved many times since 9/11 that we forgot the sacrifices made by the “Greatest Generation,” and the lessons they learned. Those responsible for reminding us of those past lessons and enlightening us regarding today’s threat willfully shirk their responsibilities. Instead they support our defeat, champion our enemies and demonize those who defend us. I only hope that our mistakes today do not squander the freedoms and opportunities for future generations of Americans. Because if the Islamofascists defeat us, no benevolent nation awaits for rescuing us from their terror.

Advertisements

One Response to “D-DAY REMEMBERED?-Part III”

  1. […] D-DAY REMEMBERED?-Conclusion […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
CITY OF LIONS

A Journey through History in Search of a Vanished Family

Wayne's Journal

A life of a B-25 tail gunner with the 42nd Bombardment Group in the South Pacific

The ogre of the tale

“The historian is like the ogre of fairy tales:where he smells human flesh, there he finds his quarry.” / Marc Bloch

War and Security

History of war and current national security issues

Military History

Blogging about the Battlefield since 2005

The War Studies Group

Discussing war and peace throughout history

International History

Diplomatic and Military History since the Middle Ages

Skulking in Holes and Corners

Genteelly Observing the Enemy since 2011

Civil War History

The Blog Between the States.

Frontier Battles

Covering the wars for and against empire in America, 1607-1815

%d bloggers like this: