And The Stupid Boilerplate Of The Week Award Goes To…
By tristero
To read about Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton today is to imagine how dismayed and angry they would be to see small packets of American troops spread out over a hostile landscape, defending themselves against endless attacks by an enemy that vanishes when pursued, in a war in which American speed, mobility and firepower count for nothing, and where nobody has as yet defined what “victory” would look like. In World War II, the generals understood what victory would look like, and knew how to achieve it. It’s almost enough to make one nostalgic for that war, as opposed to the mess we’re in now.
Yes, I’m definitely “almost nostalgic” for World War II. Sure, it was a war in which over 60 million people were killed but at least the meaning of “victory” was clear.
Jeebus, what a stupid thing to type.
…adding… It’s not that the wars the US is fighting today are somehow “better” because the casualty rates are “quite low in comparison to the Big One.” It’s that the notion that war – any war – could be an occasion for nostalgia is simply obscene. War is systematic, organized mass murder. Wars may be necessary (although I’ve said many times, I don’t know of a single “necessary” war that the US has been involved in during my lifetime) but they are never an occasion for nostalgia, or “almost nostalgia.” Whether or not a war is for a “good cause,” or the “military goals are clear,” wars are never the halcyon days, except, of course, for scoundrels who profit from war.