Of course, this would never work, but I can speculate. Aside from the scientific and ethical barriers to cloning and the changes in warfare since each man last donned a uniform, it's unlikely that Grant, Sherman, and Patton would be able to use their expertise in dealing with terrorism.
Grant would be in charge of all forces in Iraq. Patton would be in command of the Third U.S. Army and Sherman would be in command of the Army of the Tigris. Each man would report directly to Grant. Sherman's command would include Baghdad and the eastern and northeastern theatres. Patton's would handle the western and northwestern theatres. The tanks of the Third Army could control the wider area while Sherman's infantry could handle Baghdad and secure all paths of entry from Iran.
First, let's talk about Grant. To be blunt, Grant was a failure in both civilian and his first stint in the army. Any talk of giving a major command to someone like Grant nowadays would be met with major resistance. Grant's strategy was basically to deprive the enemy of the resources needed to fight. Today, we cannot do that. Instead, we are supposed to negotiate with those whom provide the resources. Aside from calls to negotiate with Syria and Iran, we would have to negotiate with our own media who just loves to fan the flames, just as they did in 1864. Grant often complained about how the Northern press downplayed any Union accomplishment while exaggerating and extolling any Union setback or Confederate action. Not much has changed.
Then there's Sherman. He also fought to deprive the enemy of their resources and will to fight. Sherman was a master of intelligence and preparation. Before he began his march through Georgia, he had gathered all the information about each county in Georgia - what each grows and how much - in order to maximize his living off the land and depriving the enemy of that. He also utilized all trains and wagons that supported his march solely for transport of anything that could not transport itself, in other words, if it had feet, it walked. Sherman would quickly put a barrier between Iraq and Iran with an attempt to halt the flow of arms and personnel. Any intelligence gathered by Sherman would be called fabricated by the media and they would certainly whine and howl if Sherman didn't tell them anything.
Patton would use all resources available to him to inflict harm on the enemy. However, in the 1940's, when the media was a more patriotic, he still fell under a lot of criticism and calls to Marshall to remove him. Today, he'd be castigated almost as much as Dubya. Letting loose with everything we have is discouraged and Patton would not be able to fight a politically correct war.
For better or for worse, the nature of warfare has changed. The great generals of yesteryear would not be able to function and do what they were trained to do. Today's microwave society views every setback as utter failure and it demands instant gratification. Both the Civil War and WWII were fraught with setbacks and events really didn't go our way until the very end. However, there was a desire to win at any cost and that desire has disappeared. Terrorism isn't going to go away if we decide to stop fighting it. Nazism didn't disappear until it was defeated. The Confederacy did not disappear until it was defeated. We need to stop defeating ourselves and look at the long-term possibilities if we disengage from our current fight. We could use any one of these three men today. Let the military do what it's trained to do and they'll succeed.
If there's anyone I'd put in charge of the Iraq War, it'd be Harry S (no period) Truman.
He cracked down on profiteering during the Second World War, so I'm sure he wouldn't let profiteering run rampant like it is now. *ahem* Halliburton
If it is possible to 'win' the Iraq War at this stage, then we could at least shed some light on all the incompetence and corruption going on. Or would that be unpatriotic? Sun Tzu wrote that the only way to win a battle is by entering with enough soldiers to win it the first time---and only the first time. So I guess 40,000 wasn't enough...and it certainly doesn't help when Iraqi hospitals can't even combat their ant infestations while bricks of Benjamins leave vaults, completely unaccounted for.
Never mind that Iraq never had any WMD and the hold pretense for the war was a lie.
<b>However, there was a desire to win at any cost and that desire has disappeared. Terrorism isn't going to go away if we decide to stop fighting it.</b>
There's a huge difference between a Herculean and a Sisyphan task. Is it more likely that lightning will kill you than Sisyphus' boulder rolling back down the hill again?
Never mind that Iraq never had any WMD and the hold pretense for the war was a lie.
Well, that's not quite true. They did have WMD at one point in time---where they got most of them will be left as an exercise for the reader. However, use of these weapons, natural degradation and a number of successful surgical bombing campaigns reduced their military capacity to about '().
Re: "Today's microwave society views every setback as utter failure and it demands instant gratification. Both the Civil War and WWII were fraught with setbacks and events really didn't go our way until the very end."
Both the Civil war and WWII were done in four years. After four years in Iraq, we're nowhere, and losing ground each day.
Re: "However, there was a desire to win at any cost and that desire has disappeared."
Both Civil War and WWII were fundamental threats to our nation. Iraq was never any threat to us, never did anything to us. Little George dreamed all that up (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01326.html). I guarantee you that if Iraq had attacked us, the voters would demand that Iraq be leveled if it took a million troops to do it.
Both the Civil war and WWII were done in four years. After four years in Iraq, we're nowhere, and losing ground each day
Part 1 of the Iraq War lasted about five weeks. Rebuilding is about to begin its fifth year. The rebuilding after the Civil War took about 20 years (and some may say 100) and the rebuilding of Europe and Japan took about 15 years.
If you're talking about nowhere meaning deaths of American troops, the DoD has a published PDF out that details US military deaths from 1980-2004. From 1993-2000 inclusive, there were exactly 7,500 deaths of US military personnel. From the way the MSM address this matter, one would almost think that number should be zero.
If you're talking about losing ground, how much would be lost if we packed up and left? Are free elections and new schools not indicative of progress? If anything, we are losing more ground at home then we are in Iraq. Think of the quagmire of the war on poverty. Think of the kids who manage to go to public schools for twelve years and yet barely be able to read and write. Attempts at progress are often met with more violent resistance than something like the unwillingness to address the real social problems that we have here. Here, we avoid conflicts because we don't want to hurt someone's feelings if they are lazy or stupid. If anything causes losing ground, it's acceptance of indolence and feeblemindedness.
We are sorry. New comments are not allowed after 21 days.
Archives
