No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought.
Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It's up to our leader to convince them. That's why we call the leader "Commander in Chief."
George W.'s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander in Chief had to lobby for legislative approval.
Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral suasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.
George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end, only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched.
After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort.
Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander in Chief of misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.
As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted. Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle.
Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat.
At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.
Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned.
Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts.
Then, in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the Commander in Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.
So on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown, a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT
bhubbell1 posted: "The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It's up to our leader to convince them. That's why we call the leader 'Commander in Chief.'"
America doesn't have a "leader". Nazi Germany had a leader, nations ruled by dictators have leaders, America has a President.
The President is called the Commander in Chief because that's one of the duties the Constitution grants the office:
Article II, section 2:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."
As for the President pushing the country to war, that was reconized as a liability of having a chief executive. The Constitution was written to prevent the President from taking the nation to war at his whim. The authors of the Constitution expected cooler heads to prevail in Congress and keep the nation out of war.
By the way, wasn't that a tad more than 200 words?
hell of a difference kid. Washington and company was considered rebels(pretty much like a Confederate),traitors against the King,trouble causers and such. Big difference too when you consider Washington and company was fighting for independence.so tell me ole son,how is that the same as Georgie-porgie dipsticks war.
We got the Constitution from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, not from G. Washington. Washington was the President of the Convention, but Madison's minutes and the diaries of various attendees have Washington contributing very little to the discussion.
The various plans presented to the Convention were not authored by Washington. I'm afraid that the Constitution isn't Washington's creation.
Just because you hold an office, doesn't mean that you are a leader. Look at Jimmy Carter as a perfect example of that. A leader is someone who gets people to follow them. You may not want to follow George W. Bush, but that doesn't mean that other people and countries feel the same way you do.
Part of being a leader is understanding that many times, you have to take unpopular positions. Washington understood that. George W. Bush knows that as well. Unlike most Democrats, who only do what pollsters tell them is popular and expedient, George W. Bush did what he (and some of other people) thought was right, even if it was unpopular. Anybody can do the easy thing. It doesn't take any leadership to do what everybody wants. That's called the herd mentality. Leadership is doing the right thing, especially if it's unpopular. While everybody in the press was vilifying President Bush for his position on the war in Iraq, he stuck to his position.
Washington did that. History proves that he did the right thing. Time will have to pass before we know if George W. Bush did the right thing or not.
As to the word count issue, your right. I figured it was a little over. Turns out it was a lot over. 502 to be exact (according to my word processor program. ) Please accept my apology. I'll be more careful in the future.
i don't have to wait for history to tell me about bush .. there were no wmd's .. none .. there were no iraqi's on the planes on 9/11 .. none .. iraq nor sadam hussain made no threats of war against the usa .. as a matter of fact sadam released all the papers that bush asked for pertaining to any weapons iraq had and now that we've been in there ain't it funny to find out that it was sadam and not bush who was tellin the truth .. and as for osama bin ladin and sadam there was no connection .. none other than they were both muslums .. but believe it or not sadam was the much more progressive of the two .. the one who probably could have been negotiated with .. we never would have had a great relationship with sadam because he would have never trusted us . but then who can blame him after the iran contra thing with ollie north .. reagan took care of that .. but as far as the fundamentalist muslum shit that osama is known for .. sadam would never have allowed that in iraq as long as he was in control .. so any terroism that was in iraq after we invaded we created by creating the political vacume ..don't get me wrong i'm not sayin sadam was a nice man .. i'm sure he did a lot of the things they say he did and maybe even some we don't know about .. and he probably didn't do a few of the things we said he did .. does it balance out ?? probably not .. but i don't need to wait for history to tell me .. i'm not a sheep i can see this for myself .. anyone with half a brain if they were payin attention can too .. bush killed a lot of our young boys and for what ?? don't you dare compare george washinton to george bush in the same breath . as an american i find it insulting and cold .. frenchy..
