Will to Win

There is a great deal that is not understood about American fighting forces in Iraq. The essence of their spirit, however, was captured best by a serving British officer referring to the average U.S. combat soldier: "These chaps really want to win."

It's as simple as that. The American soldier, Marine, airman or sailor in a combat role in Iraq -- or Afghanistan -- has a burning desire to win, to beat the bad guys. It is easy to say that is what they are paid to do and what is expected of them. But the level of their desire is far beyond anything that the civilian world can comprehend -- certainly beyond the ken of most of the members of Congress, of both parties.

All American politicians pay lip service to "the heroic job done by our people in the military services" (a favorite phrase), but only the few who have served in combat theaters understand the fighting spirit that drives the volunteer armed forces of the United States. Unfortunately, even some veterans of earlier conflicts have made examples of themselves as political opportunists and chosen to ignore what they know, or should know, so well.

All professional soldiers have the same desire to win, but America's volunteers come from a culture that considers "winning" to be its reason to exist. Whether it is in business, sports, or the ordinary aspects of every day life, Americans strive to win. This is a characteristic that is often looked down upon, even condemned, as unsophisticated and rather base by what used to be known as the " Old World."

When the 5th and 6th Marines spearheaded the successful U.S. Army 2nd Division attack on their sector of St. Mihiel in 1918 against entrenched German machine guns, it surprised the veteran French command -- but not the Marine commanders.

When a worn down 101st Airborne heroically held off everything the besieging German Army could throw at them at Bastogne, George Patton wasn't surprised. He just turned his Third Army around and ramrodded the 4th Armored Division through the 1944 winter snow to relieve them.

And when elements of the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the 7th Cavalry fought to a standstill in 1965 an entire PAVN division in the Ia Drang Valley in Vietnam, they were honored, but no one other than the North Vietnamese was surprised. These were all American combat soldiers, and it has been so since 1775.

For some reason American politicians, perhaps reflecting the American public's appetite for instant gratification, have grown weary of the fight in Iraq. It's obvious from their public statements which ones among them still carry the fighting spirit of the men and women they so frequently laud, but whom, for the most part, they just do not understand.

One thing should never occur: The issue of remaining in a foreign country to fight and die for whatever reason should never be a matter debated by catch phrases. Policy on war may be complicated, but the military men and women who actually fight it can fully understand complex issues and the civilian public certainly must learn to.

The fact is that the American citizenry and its political representatives all the way up to whoever is president should always be aware that when they order our warriors into battle, these magnificent men and women will continue on fighting the enemy with which they are faced until they win. And if Congress and any White House wants our military to win, the politicians must make it clear from the beginning the militarily attainable objectives and what they define as victory.

Vince Lombardi, who once coached at West Point, would later say his professional teams never lost, but some just ran out of time. For strictly political reasons the American military may be running out of time in Iraq, but they will not have lost, no matter what happens. Our politicians will have lost, and most likely the American public also.

There is one thing that all Americans can find solace in without regard to their political leanings. When the time comes again -- and it surely will -- for the U.S. armed forces to protect our shores wherever necessary, they will make proud General George Washington and all who have followed him through the years.

__________________
"The most important and most connected man on this forum."
"As per the Forums leftist who insist I am associated with the upper echelons of our government, corporate America and the world’s power class.
Every moon bat conspiracy leads to me. "

I agree and thank you for this beautiful post Gix.

I agree, as a proud american who 's family has proudly served this country for generations.

I agree as the friend and mother of those who have served in Iraq.

I agree as I watch a beloved friend who lost a leg in Iraq doing so well on his new one the army issued him, he is not too shabby on a basketball court for a one legged guy.

I agree as I try to talk another friend of my son who is filled with shrapnel into trying to wean himself off morphine. Yet I am proud of his service.

Beautiful post........ And because I agree that American soldiers are the best and honorable young men and women, we owe them better than this false war on terror.

because I agree, I think we need to clean up the mess we made in Iraq and do so without risking the lives of anymore american soldiers. It could be done.

Because I agree i want to see these wonderful soldiers come home to their family and country where they belong.

Because I agree I do not want to see this country start any more wars over oil and money. I do not want to see one more american soldier die under the command of a president that was too chicken or lazy or both to serve his country when it was his turn.

because I agree american soldiers are the best. I know a bunch of them, i assure you they are the best!

Thanks, this is a great tribute to the American soldier.

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

US Army 1977-2007

Go Sooners

More reality checks for those living in 1941

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/s...155699,00.html

James Sturcke and Peter Walker
Friday August 24, 2007
Guardian Unlimited


Lance corporal Matty Hull, a victim of friendly fire in Iraq. Photograph: Bruce Adams/Daily Mail/PA Wire

US forces have repeatedly been criticised for friendly fire incidents and for killing innocent civilians in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The mistakes - scores of civilians have been killed this year, according to human rights groups - have threatened Afghan support for allied operations and infuriated the country's president, Hamid Karzai.

US offensive tactics have also caused tensions with British commanders in the area.

An incident in June in Nangarhar, bordering Pakistan, illustrated how friendly fire mistakes can happen and that a breakdown in communication is usually to blame. Local police, unaware of a nearby US patrol, opened fire on American forces, who returned fire and called in an air attack, killing seven Afghans

Friendly fire incidents are not new. According to Geoffrey Regan, the British author of Backfire, which chronicles the history of friendly fire, it was first recorded as long ago as the Peloponnesian war in the fourth century BC.
Estimates of friendly fire losses are hard to assess. In both world wars countless incidents were recorded of soldiers firing on their comrades or other allies in the confusion of battle.

One study surmises that around 75,000 French troops in the second world war were killed or seriously injured in this way. Just over 15% of all US deaths in the war were thought to have come about through friendly fire, with a similar figure for Vietnam.

Since the first Gulf war in 1991, deaths through what the US and British militaries now call "blue on blue" incidents have been far more widely reported.

In the Gulf war, nine out of the 47 British combat deaths were due to friendly fire, with the corresponding figure for US forces being 35 out of 148 deaths.

The proportion for UK troops in the current Iraq conflict is lower, although the true story of their deaths is sometimes not known until an inquest is held.

The most high-profile friendly fire incident of recent years was the killing of Lance Corporal Matty Hull by a US A10 air attack in the first days of the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Hull was among a convoy of British troops in southern Iraq which was mistaken for enemy troops, despite displaying orange signals to identify themselves. A video of the incident as seen from the cockpit of one of the attacking aircraft was obtained by the Sun newspaper.

The coroner at the inquest, which took place earlier this year, found that the killing amounted to "a criminal act" that was tantamount to manslaughter.

Five days before Hull died, the pilot and navigator of a British Tornado GR4 were killed when their plane was shot down close to the Kuwaiti border by an American Patriot missile.

The next day, a British tank commander, Sergeant Steve Roberts, was shot dead by a colleague trying to protect him as he struggled with an Iraqi protester near Basra. A day later, two crew members in a British Challenger 2 died near Basra when they were mistakenly fired on by comrades in another tank.

Then, five days afterwards, the Royal Marine commando Christopher Maddison was killed when his river launch was hit by gunfire south of Basra. At an inquest in November last year, the coroner criticised communication failures that led to him being shot at by Royal Engineers who thought his boat was an enemy craft.

In May this year a Commons report found that British troops did not have viable combat identification kits to help them avoid the risk of friendly fire.

The latest killings come despite attempts by Nato forces in Afghanistan to reduce the risk of friendly fire and civilian casualties.

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.