Undermining the war by dismissing history

The cacophony of woe and doom against the war in Iraq has continued unabated since before it started. Predictions that more than 10,000 Americans would die; predictions that this would be another Viet Nam; predictions that there wouldn't be enough supplies, that they [the Iraqi people] wouldn't like us, ad nauseam.

Deliberate lies and misrepresentations are told the public by those calling on us to trust them – principally politicians, the media and educators – at the same time they are calling our president a liar.

With every setback or tragedy, one hears the chorus of "the war is a failure and the president lied" by those who want the war to fail so they can succeed. But "Setbacks and tragedy are part and parcel of war and must be accepted on the battlefield." (Major Ben Connable, 1st Marine Division, Iraq)

TRENDING: 'Dementia thing': DNC cut out anti-Trump mental joke for fear it would remind viewers of Biden

During the Revolutionary War, Gen. Washington was outflanked by his British counterpart Gen. Howe at the Battle of Brandywine. The British triumphed that day, but Washington – with bruised and battered troops – saw ultimate victory.

From the Revolutionary Battle of Germantown, American Col. Timothy Pickering wrote: "I am persuaded [we] ... fired on each other [as we retreated] ... our disaster was imputed chiefly to the fog and the smoke ... which hung low and undissipated." (Oct. 3, 1777)

I would submit such events meet the requirements for "setback and tragedy."

The Marquis de Lafayette, upon his arrival at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78 wrote: "The unfortunate soldiers were in want of everything – they had neither coats nor hats, nor shirts, nor shoes. Their feet and legs froze until they were black, and it was necessary to amputate them." I would argue this is what constitutes a shortage of supplies.

Yet out of those hardships and sufferings, Washington led America to victory over a better-trained, infinitely better-supplied, better-educated British army. Am I now to believe the greatest, most powerful fighting force in the history of the world will somehow not triumph with the Battles of Concord, Germantown and Chadsford as their legacy?

Men who never served, women who cannot pump their own gas, actors who cannot tell you their zip codes, now claim to know best how not [sic] to wage war. The daily drone by the media of the number of casualties suffered and the running tally of same is a loathsome practice that serves no purpose except to undermine the war effort.

The mindless pabulum that the president was wrong to go into Iraq because Saddam Hussein hadn't attacked us is an insult to all with a sense of historical perspective.

History shows us that while Germany and Italy had declared war on the United States, they had not actually crossed the ocean to attack us – Japan had. Yet on June 6, 1944, 100,000 fighting men "swept ashore" at Normandy – as President Franklin D. Roosevelt told the American people – "To preserve ... our civilization and set free a suffering humanity." Because only in that way would the Allies be able to liberate northwestern Europe, and put an end to the Nazi regime.

America lost over 5,000 men that morning. She would go on to lose another 19,000 in the Battle of the Bulge. In all, America would suffer over 400,000 casualties out of her 16-plus million in action.

While life cannot be minimized (save by the abortion industry), in Iraq America has suffered fewer than 800 casualties, with the majority of them coming after the war ended. Any honest military person will tell you it is precisely at this time troops are most at risk. As I have noted before, Hitler's SS "Werewolves" continued to kill American occupation soldiers and those who cooperated with them for three years after the end of the war.

Yet the malevolent zeitgeist of today conspicuously dismisses factual history. We will lose more people to drunk-driving accidents in the Northeast alone this year than we will to murderous Muslims in Iraq.

Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., complains about the number of blacks killed in Iraq, but he is strangely silent on the number of blacks killed by other blacks every year vis-a-vis drugs and drug-related crimes.

Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., attacks the president for casualties in Iraq, but she is deadly silent about the number of living and viable babies murdered each year under the moniker of "choice." I find it patently offensive that she, and miserable people like her, decry protecting our country from evil terrorists, but champion the murder of unborn Mozarts, George Washington-Carvers and, yes, even Bill Clintons.

But, in the final analysis, those offering the greatest protestations to the war effort – those who are most committed to encouraging the enemy (who would kill us all) to stick it out long enough for them to erode the American effort – are not interested in safety or security. They are interested only in the soiled cigars of the past and the visceral partisanship of the present.

Well was it said by Wes Seeliger: "A blind man's days are as dark as his nights." Only that these so blinded would one day see.