You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, by the original compact of government, the United States had certain rights in Iraq, which have been relinquished; that the insurgents began the war by seizing of funds, persons, etc., etc., long before Mr. Maliki was installed, and before the insurgents had one jot or title of provocation.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, we fed thousands and thousands of the families of insurgents left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes to you, you feel very different.
You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, tanks and planes, to carry war into Afghanistan, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance.
But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success. But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may agree or disagree with me on any thing. Then, will I share with you the last tidbit of thought, and stand with you to shield your rights and privileges against danger from every quarter.
Now the troops must fight, never forgetting the old and feeble, feeding and nursing them, and rebuilding for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over their old homes in Iraq.
Yours in haste,
W.T. Sherman, Major-General commanding (The Griper)
Footnote:
This is my rendition of General Sherman's response to those who would pull our troops out of Iraq now.
WELCOMES YOU to his little home in cyberspace.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I really like this, Griper.
Really, really do.
I've heard so many arguments for pulling out of Iraq, from thoughtful conservatives, even.
Thank you for posting this.
Oh, and the music...swoon...
My dad used to let me listen to his albums after school my favs were the 50's and 60's. *sigh*
just lowered my blood pressure...thanks, Griper. I needed that. :-)
"In our Country... one class of men makes war and leaves another to fight it out."
WT Sherman
Griper, was this actually written by General Sherman, and you just inserted "Iraq" instead of "The South"?
Very, very good!
karen,
it was an actual letter of Sherman to the Atlanta city counsil. i just changed a few words to make it applicable. i tried to remain true to the intent of his letter.
here is a link to the actual letter.
http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty/Willis/Civil_War/documents/ShermanMayor.html
bb,
that statement can be said as true for any war anywheres by anyone.
the "rulers" make war, the "ruled" fight them
pinky,
glad you enjoyed the music. come back again, i usually change them every couple of days. and i accept requests also on music selection.
"the "rulers" make war, the "ruled" fight them"
..which Sherman understood so well
he said, "If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve." He was a soldier's soldier
and the epitome of combat leadership: complete the mission & take care of your men. Such is the brotherhood of arms that his opponent, General Joseph E. Johnston, CSA was a pallbearer at
Sherman's funeral. Like most military leaders, he was torn between the will to win and the methodology: "it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated ... that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation."
A great soldier, and a conflicted
soul.....
yes, bb, i agree. war is by its own nature a conflict of the souls of men.
a soldier may see the need but within him arises a conflict of its costs. which is why i said in an earlier post that the costs of war is to be determined by the men who fight and lose their lives, not the dollars spent.
bb,
and those costs should always be considered by those who authorize it, Congress.
and this is emphasized by the fact that the declaration of war is the only foreign policy decision that the House is allowed to directly participate in.
Griper,
You are right, declaration of war
(formal) is reserved for the Congress. Many presidents have found a way around this, as any
middle school student [http://www.teachablemoment.org/high/warpowers.html] should know. I guess the rationale is 'defending
ourselves' 'over there', 'domino
theory' 'spreading democracy'.
You refer to the founding fathers
frequently, and I suspect they
would be stunned. Now Sherman,
he would be intrigued with cluster bombs, napalm and missile cruisers...gotta give old WT credit though, as much damamge as he did between Chatanooga and Savannah, he was mindful of civilian lives, currently termed
as 'collateral damage'. I agree
with both Sherman and Petreaus:
you don't spread democracy by killing the father and mother...
bb,
never thought much on the use of the word "democracy" in terms of a form of government as you hear so many do. it creates the illusionary idea that the "ruled are the rulers and the "rulers" are the ruled.
i've always seen democracy as a process used to make decisions and that can be used in many forms of government. it also creates the illusionary idea that all nations who are considered as democracies as having a single form of government.
both the U.S. and Canada are democracies yet both have different forms of governments.
"You refer to the founding fathers
frequently, and I suspect they
would be stunned."
yes, i do and that leads us to a question i asked in an another post. if they had the foresight to see what we are now and the shift of power what changes would they have made in the formation of the federal government, if any?
:+: to Steel!
A brillant twist on a time tested truth, Griper. Great post!
Angel
Post a Comment