To totally twist one of the quotes from World War II, "Never have so many been so wrong about so many things." I'm referring to the negative predictions that dominated the news media prior to the war in Iraq. It is nothing short of amazing to think of the amount of pressure that President George W. Bush had to deal with when he announced his administration was going to use our military forces to bring about a regime change in Iraq.
Let's take a look at what seems to be an overwhelming list of opposition from huge segments of leftist groups in this country. In spite of the initial upwelling of patriotism in response to 9/11, here is a list of antiwar factions in the U. S. that Bush had to face:
The mainstream networks of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN AND PBS.
The entertainment industry led by Hollywood radicals.
The editorial staffs and political cartoonists of the largest newspapers, such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and yes, even The Oregonian.
The intellectual elite professors and deans of our major universities.
The poison pens of many syndicated columnists such as Maureen Dowd and Molly Ivins.
The list of American-bashers from abroad is even more depressing:
Almost the entire United Nations led by Kofi Annan. Most of our former allies in Europe led by France and Germany, including Belgium and Russia. And even our next door neighbors, Canada and Mexico. Almost our only friend was Tony Blair from Britain and he didn't have the backing of his parliament until after the war began.
The only way our president could succeed and stand up under this kind of opposition was by his determination and support of a cabinet made up of such stalwart patriots as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Condoleezza Rice. These civilians also had the respect and cooperation of our military leaders at the Pentagon.
When you think about the amount of deadly military power Bush was assembling to take out the Iraqi regime, one wonders why Saddam didn't realize there was no way he could win a war against the U. S. and Britain. This was his reasoning:
1. When he turned on his television he saw the multitudes of protesters in cities all over the world. 2. He remembered Mogadishu "Black Hawk Down" where we pulled out after taking casualties. 3. He believed that American soldiers were too soft and their parents wouldn't accept their kids coming home in body bags. 4. He had the mistaken assumption that with almost all of Europe and the UN on his side, and the "Arab Street" ready to rebel, the U. S. would back down, so he could have the entertainment of watching Hans Blix spend the next 10 years searching for weapons of mass destruction.
So what happened when the shooting began? Our forces deposed Saddam, wiped out his Republican Guards and captured Baghdad in three weeks. And in doing so they rewrote military history. But not necessarily without precision weapons, although they are so incredibly accurate that if they could have caught Saddam in the open they could have hit him right in his mustache. Nor did they bomb for 40 days and 40 nights before sending our troops in as was done in Gulf War I.
The U. S. armed forces has a new "secret weapon" which surprised the entire world. It is completely home grown and most of us were not even aware of it. This secret weapon is our all volunteer Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine personnel. The highly trained and motivated special forces and mobile infantry divisions didn't stay back and wait for the bombers to clear a path. They led the attack straight up the middle. Yeah, a ground war that the world didn't think we had the stomach for.
When they ran into opposition they took them out decisively and professionally and kept on going, while taking great pains to avoid civilian casualties and unnecessary collateral damage. Not only did they get the job done with a minimum of U. S. casualties, but when they got to Baghdad where the doom sayers said we would lose hundreds of troops in house to house fighting, they cruised defiantly up and down the streets in their tanks and Bradleys inviting any of Saddam's sons of Allah to engage them in fire fights.
Much has been written about "The Greatest Generation" of WWII. Perhaps they were from top to bottom, given their total dedication to winning WWII. But if we're talking about just the fighting men who carried the war to our enemies, this present generation has no equal in military history. And these were supposed to be the pampered kids of the baby boomers in our decadent society. I'm not sure where they got their patriotic motivation, but it bodes well for the future leaders of this nation.
So now the Left is saying, "Okay, Bush won the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but he's losing the peace." They were wrong about everything else, so why should we believe them now?