[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
WORLD WAR III Title: Cruz - Lee ... Fabius - Doolittle --- Churchill - Sickles Cruz and Lee, Fabius and Doolittle 10/18/2013 LS One of the most common criticisms and complaints about the shutdown that followed Senator Ted Cruz's filibuster---especially from the RINO Right---was that there was no broader strategy to win. Cruz and his associate, Senator Mike Lee, had "blundered" into the shutdown and didn't have a way out. Thus, it was claimed, the Republicans "lost" because they, well, didn't "win." This view needs a serious history readjustment lesson. In many ways, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are the 2013 equivalent of Fabius Maximus and Jimmy Doolittle. Neither of those commanders "won" anything, yet each was responsible in large part for their societies' winning a war. Fabius, from whom we get the term "Fabian (creeping) Socialism," was a Roman general in the Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.). Aware from the get-go that the Roman forces were insufficient to deal with the army of Hannibal Barca, who had invaded Italy, Fabius refused to give direct battle but engaged in a brilliant strategy of scorched earth, delay, harassment, and overall distraction. He burned bridges, blocked roads, destroyed crops---anything and everything to slow Hannibal's potential march to the city of Rome and the defeat of the Republic. Many Romans---and all of Fabius's political enemies---thought this a futile strategy, a waste of time, a diversion from the real, sensible strategy (which none seemed really to have). But after the battle of Cannae (216), where the Roman legions under Varro were soundly thrashed, suddenly Fabius's approach took on new popularity. He sufficiently delayed and disrupted Hannibal again, until Rome's rebuilt legions could defeat him at Zama six years later. Fabius HAD NO strategy, except to slow, distract, irritate, and disrupt Hannibal until he made a fateful mistake, which he did. Now let's leap ahead to the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in April 1942. Accurately celebrated by (most) Americans as a great "victory," it really was nothing of the sort in the traditional sense. Jimmy Doolittle's force of was far too small to even exact a toll on ONE target, let alone the ten targets they hit. Moreover, what was the "strategy?" What was the way the Raid was going to result in a "victory?" No one knew, and most couldn't even come up with a guess. The intention wasn't to "win" but to demonstrate to the Japanese that in fact the U.S. was (to quote Monte Python) "not quite dead yet" and that Japan was about to find out how big a mistake she had made. Of course there was a war plan, and a strategy, but in the short run the Doolittle Raid was never even a part of that strategy---and yet it completely swung the war in America's favor, for the Imperial Japanese Navy was convinced that the Raiders came from Midway, or somehow used Midway for support. (Who knows, perhaps a few even believed Roosevelt when he said they came from "Shangri-La.") It was the obsession of Midway that in June 1942 led to the utter destruction of the flower of Japan's carrier forces. NONE OF THIS WAS PLANNED AS PART OF THE DOOLITTLE RAID. Hannibal's reaction to Fabius and his abrupt departure for Carthage to fight Scipio was not even remotely in Rome's plans when Fabius was staging his delay and distract assault. There are numerous examples in history where a well-timed (and often unfortunate or even "suicidal") stand results in a subsequent victory: the Alamo and Thermopylae are two that come to mind. Certainly neither the Texans nor the Spartans wanted to die when they took up their positions. The defenders of the Alamo thought help was on the way, the Spartans and their allies thought that they could hold the pass forever, until they were betrayed. Yet in those defeats crucial TIME was purchased. The slowing of Santa Anna's army (not to mention the destruction of more than 1/10 of his entire force at San Antonio) and the delays forced on the Persians (along with massive casualties) both produced major, even historically significant, victories in the long run. Great moments of courage usually do NOT come with a blueprint on "what comes next." They are seized upon with faith, the faith that others will join the cause and do the right thing. Had the perpetually lame John McCain and Mitch McConnell rallied ALL the Republicans in the Senate to support Cruz, would it have just been another 53-45 vote? Or would FOUR vulnerable Democrats have sensed that just perhaps they needed to "compromise" to keep their jobs? Certainly we won't know now. What would have happened if the US, after Doolittle's raid, said, "Gee, that didn't accomplish anything. It was suicidal"? Or if Sam Houston, after that Alamo said, "Those guys all lost. We need to compromise with Santa Anna?" History turns not just on the first action, but on the reaction, and the reaction after that. Donald Rumsfeld used to say "The enemy always gets a vote." That shouldn't surprise anyone. What you need to do is to stand firm after that "vote" is cast. The battle has only begun.
Poster Comment: Sickles on day 2 at Gettysburg ... went solely on his own on the offensive to better position his division --- then it threw off the whole southern flanking attack ! Churchill triggered off the blitz to save their air fields !
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|