No, I'm Not Afraid to Say the Word

D-Day, June 6th, 1944, was clearly a huge, successful, turning point in WWII.  But that wasn't apparent on June 7th, 1944, or even months later.  In fact, the casualties on Omaha Beach (almost 2000) and from the inland airborne assault (almost 2500) were staggering, even to the planners of Operation Overlord.  The subsequent Battle for Normandy was even more brutal, with almost 126,000 casualties in the US forces alone.  It is widely recognized that the mistakes made during the planning and execution of Operation Overlord and the Battle of Normandy were many, and deadly to the forces fighting there.  From the failure of the aerial and naval bombardment to neutralize German artillery along the coast, to the scattering of airborne forces, to the complete lack of knowledge of Normandy's hedgerows (to name only the most well-known) cost the lives of hundreds, even thousands, of US and coalition soldiers.
And D-Day and the Battle of Normandy are only two examples of excessive loss of life in WWII due to improper, or poor, planning.  Kasserine Pass, the Battle of the Bulge, Anzio Beach, Tarawa....all battles that were bravely fought, but as history would show, fraught with poor planning, bad intelligence, questionable leadership, or a combination of them all. 
During the presidential campaign of 1944, neither Wendall Willkie nor Thomas Dewey (the eventual Republican Party candidate) campaigned on the promise to end America's involvement in WWII due to the Roosevelt War Department's mistakes in the war, including Operation Tiger.  In fact, they concentrated, and limited, their opposition to those New Deal policies that they disliked or disagreed with....a losing political strategy when the country was in the middle of a world war. 
Why did they do so, knowing perfectly well that they would lose?  The answer is simple; patriotism.  Wendall Willkie and Thomas Dewey were patriotic Americans first, and opposition candidates second.  They understood that the country was at war with an enemy that would destroy all that they hoped to support and defend as President.   In fact, Willkie (who lost to Roosevelt 4 years earlier in 1940), went on to support Roosevelt unconditionally as the Commander in Chief during the war, "call(ing) for greater national support for controversial Roosevelt initiatives such as the Lend-Lease Act and embarked on a new campaign against isolationism in America. On July 23, 1941, he urged unlimited aid to the United Kingdom in its struggle against Nazi Germany. That same year he traveled to Britain and the Middle East as Roosevelt's personal representative, and in 1942 visited the USSR and China in the same capacity. Also in 1943, Willkie helped to establish Freedom House together with Eleanor Roosevelt."  Shortly before the 1944 elections, Willkie suffered a heart attack, and knowing he was dying, stated that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.
Can you imagine any present day Democratic Candidate saying that?  Or doing what Willkie did in support of the President he lost an election to?  I can't.
I bring this up because it's apparent that there is a real disdain today in polite political circles to call someone unpatriotic.  When Senator Clinton stated: "If George Bush doesn't end this war before he leaves office, when I'm President, I will." she was unpatriotic.  In fact, I believe that such a statement is treasonous.  Giving an enemy a firm date on which to plan the surrender of US forces is treasonous.  If President Roosevelt had told the Japanese that he would ask US forces on Corregidor to hold out only so long as needed to safely extract General MacArthur, after which he would allow them, even direct them, to surrender; that would have been treasonous.   There is no difference between that statement, not made, and Senator Clinton's statement, made to a worldwide audience and sure to have reached al Queda in Iraq within hours of being made.  It's not good enough to say that such a statement was made in the heat of a presidential campaign.  Many presidential candidates have held their tongue to ensure the safety of American forces at war.  That Senator Clinton cannot, and will not, keep from issuing unpatriotic, even treasonous, statements in order to keep from providing aid and comfort to an enemy, is no surprise.  She believes such statements will provide her political advantage.  That it also provides advantage to an enemy of America, and will result in the deaths of American servicemen and women is hardly of concern for her or her supporters.  After all, they by and large loathe the military.  Not surprising, but it should be condemned.   
Maybe that condemnation needs to start here.   
And so it shall. 

Comments

[MissBirdlegs in AL]

There have been a lot of statements made by supposed "Statesmen/women" in the last few years that I've considered treasonous. Does anything go these days? Seems to me that only President Bush has to answer for anything said or done - nobody else, which is hardly fair. We have a country full of total hypocrites, to go along with a Congress full of not much else but BS!

[Linda Morgan]

Promising to end the war if elected is practically campaigning to the radical Islamists and their freedom-hating fellow travelers. Hell, it *is* campaigning to them, and without a shred of concern for the American servicemen and women whose lives she risks. She's attuned enough to the polls to know that not many of the people who want OIF to be a success would consider voting for her to begin with. Why worry about their lives when there's so many leftist terrorist sympathizers willing to vote for any pol who'll make life and conquest easier for their totalitarian pals?

[madconductor]

Thanks Diggs. You used a great comparison to point out the obvious lack of will that so many Americans seem to have. I think the weakness the Democrats (and some Repubs) are showing - commonly cited as a lack of will - comes from the ugliness that is naturally part of war. They want "antiseptic" war. Clean wars where no one on our side gets hurt and only the ugly bad guys on the other side get killed. WWII is only pictures now - no reality of it is left - except the old guard at the Veterans Hall.

One of our biggest problems in this country, I think, is that we aren't suffering in this war - as a country. Except for the military and their immediate families, no one has any hardship to bear related to the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other theater we are involved in. I played golf today. I never thought about the war per se - though I did think about my son about 40 times and wished he could be playing with me.
We aren't saving rubber, collecting scrap steel, or wishing women had nylons - and we still have the best equipped military in the world.
Oh the dumocrats will say the country is suffering but it's only thier mental angst that drives them to activism. It's the "I have a better way" attitude in dealing with jihadists - and Hillary's angst is driven by poll numbers. The dumocrats trump card? - negotiate. Catch air with a net.
I truly believe that until some other vicious, tragic attack happens to us by these jihadists that we will not understand - as a country - what we are attempting to do in the Mideast.
Thanks for your support.

[Diggs]

Though I won't be personally involved in the Iraq War anymore, I have a wife who could very easily be sent anytime now, so I'm still concerned about how this war is fought. It chills me to the bone that we might have another Clinton in the White House who believes that military forces should be sent worldwide at the whim of the UN, then withdrawn when the domestic support falls below 50% in the latest poll (see Mogadishu). If you loathe something as much as the Clintons loathe the military, there is no reason to ever understand how to use it correctly.