McCain...What Has Happened to YOU????

I was watching "Meet the Press" last night, simply to break the monotony, and Johnnie said something, really, really, TRULY stupid and I had to chuckle until I realized the fact that this guy could possibly be President in just a short time. He actually says retreat/withdrawal/removal of troops has never worked as a successful strategy according to all his studies on military history. I am here to tell you, he hasn't studied very much (giving him the benefit of the doubt, he might not be a liar). I'm going to list a number of occasions where, not only has it worked, but in many cases it's actually brought about almost certain victory, not to mention survival.

1. 1812 Napoleon Bonaparte invades Russia. Napoleon's march to Moscow was brutal, not because of massive battles that cost the French their people, but because of unfavorable weather, and little supply and practically no winter gear. Ambushes were set by the enemy who retreated knowing full well that the savage winter was doing the work for them. When the armies both 120,000-130,000 strong, finally clashed the battle was horrific, even in terms of the tactics of the day. It was the Russians retreat that all but guarenteed victory, by forcing the French to retreat during winter (starting in early December if my memory serves) because of the lack of equipment. Only 20,000 French troops survived, most died from the extreme cold. Retreat on the part of the Russians, equals brilliance. It wasn't the first time it would work for them, and wouldn't be the last.

2. It can also be failure to retreat that causes a loss, in fact this typical blunder is repeated over and over throughout history. Many times when the Russians were advancing on Berlin during World War 2, Adolf Hitler (who for some reason was actually commanding the frontline troops personally at the time, imagine that) set about the course of fight to the last man, for strategically unimportant ground, while the ground behind the line was far more defendable, (open fields vs. forests, cities, mountains, and rivers). The point is, in the end, when armies stand for glory and honor, they tend to get neither. We're making this mistake in Iraq, as we had for years in Viet Nam. There is no shame in withdrawal. When the ground or circumstances aren't proper for a fight, the shame lies in the failure to recognize that fact, and immediately order a life saving retreat. I guess Patraeus, Dubya, and Mccain, haven't read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", if they had they might know a little something.

3. Simply so I can get off of the Russians backs--- Hitler/Stalin. Operation Barbarosa, launched on June 22nd 1940, was a shock to Stalin, who had little or even no forces on the border with Poland. It is said, Stalin spend 2 weeks in bed after the invasion. (A case for not announcing the invasion of Iraq months beforehand) The Russians fought hard when they did get forces to the front, but only hard enough as to lure German troops deeper into the Motherland, and to the trap that awaited them. By feigning retreat, the Russians were able to keep German morale high (an asset in such circumstances) and this overconfidence eventually helped in leading to German defeat inside Russia. German troops were promised winter attire, which, of course never came and in fact was never intended in the first place due to the fact that Hitler actually believed he could defeat the Soviets before the dreaded winter arrived. As the German troops dug deeper into Russia the resistance to their aggression gradually became stronger. Then Hitler, in his infinite military wisdom set aside his northern army corps in favor of taking the Ukraine, instead of continuing his generals plan to march all 3 armies to Moscow. After much success the German troops were finally burnt out, however the Russians were not. As the bitter cold set in, the Russians were well equipped, the German forces were not. The lack of food, petrol, oil for their weapons, proper clothing, etc. hit the German troops hard, meanwhile the dogs of war were all warm in their beds. Before the German retreat, which to their credit was years after the initial invasion, there were the great tank battles and those of encirclement. Lenningrad, Stalingrad, Minsk, and Kursk all come to mind. By January 27th of 1944, the siege at Lenningrad had been lifted and the final nail was set in place. The German retreat was very much comparable to that of Napoleon, in the sense that it was slow, bloody, and cannibalistic at times. Even this retreat in some ways was successful as it bought time, and delayed the fall of Berlin. If Hitler had failed to order the retreat out of Russia and fought to the last man the Russian troops more than likely would've been in Berlin months earlier. However it is important to note, the most successful war strategy is to not fight at all. Oh, and the northern corps? They were all but wiped out.

The Russian campaigns are the most pressing of the topic. Retreat can be successful if ordered at the proper times and under the proper circumstance. No general worth his rank would deny that. You can't keep taking the same cities over and over and expect to win the war. Our leaders today must've read some strange fairy tales and adventure story books that must've glorified fighting to the last man. Or they see Hitler and Napoleon as more wise than rational thinkers such as Sun Tzu. I don't know.

I'm not saying if we retreat from Iraq everything will be lollypops and blowjobs. I'm saying from a strictly military history point of view (very little politics) retreat is the wise thing to do at this point. It's a lot better than staying and creating even more enemies who will want to kill us here at home. What makes our so called leaders think that by killing civilians we aren't turning brothers and sisters and sometimes mothers of those civilians against us? Is our "freedom" so great that it is more important than an individual? Isn't our freedom based on the individual? Then again, we're there for better things than freedom. Since this war is so politicized, and we want our politicians to have humility, shouldn't the political point of view be that which makes things right to the American people? Since we're so much greater than the Iraqi people (and we have little or no problem telling them that, not only with out political speeches, but with our bombs and bullets) shouldn't we do what's right for us, and forget about them? (Sidenote: I don't necessarily agree with the last question, but it's interesting enough to be asked) If we were to retreat, wouldn't it be easier to catch Al Qaida, when they follow us to America? It seems to me that if you're looking for someone it would be easier to find them in your own home than in someone else's. "We fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here" is by far the most arrogant piece of bullshit I've ever heard. Much more so than "bring it on". Believe me it takes one to know one, and I am extremely arrogant at times, as I'm sure you know. I digress. Anyway, I love a good rant.