While our armed forces return home from Afghanistan, we realize that there will be a lot of gnashing of teeth over what went wrong. For the answer to that we’ve turned to the pages of history. And no, not the usual boring stuff you’ll hear from the Mass Hysteria and the Cognoscenti of the Known World about the British or the Russians in Afghanistan. No, we’re talking about the battles of Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Belleau Wood, Chateau-Thierry, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, the Battle of Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge. Those, kind of battles. We won all those battles. And, in Afghanistan, there was the Battle of...
Yeah, we couldn’t remember one and there’s the problem. In order to win a war, you have to win a battle, at least one and probably a whole lot more than one. And, there didn’t seem to be any battles. We mean battles not little shootouts. When there are more casualties in a weekend in Chicago than a skirmish outside of Kabul, it's not a battle. And there doesn't seem to be any we could remember or find a reference to. If anyone out there knows, please let us know too. But that was the fly in the ointment, the monkey in the wrench. After all the analysis that we will all hear try to remember this one. To win a war you have to win battles. In fact, win or lose you have to have battles otherwise do you really have a war? We mean what would all those other wars the Greeks and the Persians, the Punic Wars, the Crimean War, the World Wars I and II all be, without the battles?
So going forward, all our experts both in the Mass Hysteria and the Cognoscenti of the Known World, should know that if, no when, we have our next war, we have to have battles. It’s important. Because even if we lose them, at least we’ll know what happened. Because right now I think a whole lot of people are sort of shaking their heads and wondering what the hell were we doing there?
Dicens simile factum est
Pro Bono Publco
dfabmd@aol.com
No comments:
Post a Comment