By Lance Thompson

In the coming week, General David Petraeus will present his report on progress in the Iraq war to Congress. It is widely viewed as a pivotal point in political support for the war. A positive report will give supporters reason to continue their support; a negative assessment will encourage the cutters and runners to furnish victory to the enemy.

Since the war began in March 2003, there have always been political opponents. Now, three and a half years later, those opponents see voters tiring of the fighting, supporters of the war wavering, victories seldom reported in the media (although many have been won). Now they sense an opportunity to cherry-pick the most dismal news from a military commander’s report from the field.

Three and a half years is a long time, and no one knows how long this war will last. Are we in the final stages? The early rounds? Somewhere in the nebulous middle? It made me wonder how American commanders in previous wars would have been treated by a modern Congressional majority hostile to their missions.

American Revolution

October 1778–Three and a half years after Lexington and Concord

General George Washington commanding

Washington’s Continental Army has British troops surrounded in New York, but Washington’s forces are not strong enough to retake the city. The British are supported by a powerful fleet which the Americans can not hope to match, and which has already intimidated the navy of America’s new ally, France. In northern New York and western Pennsylvania, Americans loyal to the Crown and Iroquois allies ravage American civilian settlements, taking cattle, burning homes and collecting scalps. Washington can do nothing to counter these terrorist attacks. The British navy raids unprotected towns up and down the coast. In Georgia, 3500 British troops capture Savannah, fan out from the important port city, and recruit so many loyalists from outlying areas that the British commander declares the colony "pacified." Winter approaches, and the harrowing months at Valley Forge from the previous winter are still much in everyone’s mind. The value of Continental currency is plummeting and no end of the war is in sight.

This report merely confirms what opponents of the war have said all along. Washington is obviously not the right man for the job, and should be replaced. Three and a half years, and the British still hold New York, after chasing Washington’s forces out with a series of embarrassing defeats in the earliest days of the war. There is still no compromise between the two factions of Americans–those fighting for independence, and those still loyal to King George. These two obviously irreconcilable groups will never be able to form a coalition government. Americans are dying every day in this war. Weren’t we a happy, prosperous, contented country before all this revolution business? Vote for me, the Congressional opponents promise, and we will stop all this senseless violence and go back to the peaceful days of yore.

American Civil War

October 1864–Three and a half years after Fort Sumter

General Ulysses S. Grant commanding

Grant has taken command of Northern forces at the beginning of 1864, but by autumn, there is little to rejoice about. Grant’s 1864 campaign to capture Richmond and force General Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia into a decisive battle began with a horrendous clash in the Wilderness, where northern forces lost 17, 500 men–double the Southern casualties. It was a victory for Lee, but Grant did not retreat. With his bloodied army, he continued to push toward Richmond, forcing Lee into battle at Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor and Petersburg. Each battle was a bloodbath. The first month of Grant’s campaign cost the North 60,000 casualties. Now, in the fall of 1864, Lee’s army still survives. Petersburg holds firm, despite many costly attempts to capture the town. The city is ringed with trenches, under siege from a northern army that seems destined to live in those trenches through the winter, and no end of the war is in sight.

This report merely confirms what opponents of the war have said all along. President Lincoln is destroying the country. After choosing a series of incompetent generals, he has now appointed Grant, who is not only unable to comprehend when he has lost a battle, but seems unperturbed by the staggering loss of each defeat. Four years a ago, we were a happy, prosperous, contented country, with regional differences on the issue of slavery. But surely this isn’t cause for war–it’s a question that should be settled by political discussion and compromise. Instead, Lincoln rushed to war, favoring his Northern industrialist supporters with a conflict that demanded the creation of profitable machines of war–ships, wagons, cannons, rifles. Vote for me, the Congressional opponents promise, and we can stop this senseless violence and go back to the peaceful days of yore.

World War II

June 1944–Three and a half years after FDR proposes Lend-Lease to arm Britain

General Dwight D. Eisenhower commanding

On the day after the Allied invasion of Normandy, General Eisenhower reports a successful amphibious landing. However, Allied losses for the day of June 6th are heavy–12,000 casualties, including 6600 Americans, with nearly 1000 dead on Omaha Beach alone. Over 150,000 troops and their equipment are ashore, but the Allies have not captured a port, all their supplies must come over the beach, and German panzer forces are closing in from all sides. The first German V-1 buzz bombs (precursors to the cruise missile) strike London, proving that the Germans not only remain a formidable enemy, but are also able to develop weapons of superior technology. There is no guarantee that the Allied beachhead in Normandy can be maintained and defended, and much costly fighting is sure to come.

This report merely confirms what opponents of the war have said all along, they will say. The tragic losses in this invasion are just the latest bill for a war trumped up by President Roosevelt. Wasn’t FDR supplying guns, ships and aircraft to his pal Churchill before the United States was even involved in the war? Hasn’t the vast industrial production demanded by the war aided Roosevelt’s rich industrialist friends, building the profitable machines of war like tanks, airplanes and ships? We were attacked at Pearl Harbor by Japan, not Germany. We have no business in this European conflict. Under Eisenhower, American troops were thrown unprepared into the teeth of Rommel’s Afrika Korps, and suffered devastating losses. Now Eisenhower has attacked Fortress Europe with our brave boys, and the result is 12,000 American, British and Canadian casualties. Roosevelt should be impeached, and Eisenhower fired, perhaps even brought up on criminal charges. Weren’t we a happy, prosperous, contented country before the war? Vote for me, Congressional opponents promise, and we can stop this senseless violence and go back to the peaceful days of yore.

These speculations are obviously exaggerated. But during the Revolution, Washington had to plead with Congress to appropriate funds for food, clothing and arms–not to mention the basic principle that soldiers ought to be paid. Many in Congress thought that volunteers should do the fighting, though none suggested that volunteers should do the legislating.

During the Civil War, members of Lincoln’s own cabinet disparaged him, undermined him, plotted against him . General MacClellan, an officer Lincoln had appointed commander of Union forces, actually ran against Lincoln in the 1864 presidential election. This was over a century before General Wesley Clark figured the only way to get a promotion was to resign from the army and run for commander-in-chief.

In World War II, FDR’s aid to Britain before the Nazi onslaught was unpopular with much of the country. He fought Republicans in Congress to furnish Britain with 50 old destroyers for convoy duty, to supply war materiel in the Lend Lease Program, and to ship thousands of surplus rifles and ammunition to Britain in the days after Dunkirk. Still, many Americans called it "Mr. Roosevelt’ War."

War is a bitter and horrific experience that all people wish to avoid. However, some realize that war is a necessary last resort when one is attacked or menaced by an implacable foe. Others, however, will curry favor with gullible voters by spinning nonsense and palliatives. All we have to do, they will claim, is stop fighting and there will be peace. It is tempting to believe, but it isn’t true. Our enemies seek our destruction, just as enemies did in previous wars. The only way to have peace is to win it by prevailing on the battlefield.

In each of the wars mentioned above, at the three and a half year mark, good news always mixed with the bad. There were wins, there were losses, there was no guarantee of ultimate victory. But in each of those wars, victory was coming. In each of those wars, the tide had already turned, even if it wasn’t apparent. In each of those wars, the costs were high, but Americans felt they were justified by what was at stake. And, incidentally, in each of those wars, the commanders in chief went on to become presidents.

General Petraeus is an honorable officer who will give an accurate report before Congress, as is his duty. He will tell the good and the bad, and give his honest assessment. The reaction to his report will reveal much about our prospects in Iraq. It will reveal even more about opponents of the war, who will trumpet every bit of bad news as proof that they were right all along. But we have heard such voices before, and they have never contributed to victory.

-=-=-

Lance Thompson lives in Idaho with his wife and daughter.