Before we move on to focusing on to Major General John Buford, I will note that it is interesting to read this book as a post-Vietnam War book (technically, I suppose the book was being written even while that conflict was still raging). Gettysburg has become such a pivotal and mythical battle in the American psyche and this book in particular has shaped our modern understanding of the battle and the men who fought it. But Shaara seems very much to be making a point about how we understand war, those who fight in it, those who lead us to it.
In Chapter 4, which I will be posting about some time soon, he has an exchange between Longstreet and Lewis Armistead, and Armistead has bought into the idea that the South cannot be beaten because there is a Cause and because their boys are special. After comparing this conflict to the Crusades, Longstreet's response is "they never took Jerusalem" and "it takes a bit more than morale."
There were so many who believed that sheer force of will would bring us victory in Vietnam. And, obviously, there are those who believe the same about victory in Iraq. It is striking to compare these observations with those who believe that a cause and mission is all that is needed to win armed conflicts. Of course it is important to impart a sense of mission to soldiers, to make sure they know that they are fighting for something worthwhile. But that sense of mission needs to coupled with competence and strategy - and I think we failed in Vietnam in doing that and we are failing to do so in Iraq.
In Chapter 4, which I will be posting about some time soon, he has an exchange between Longstreet and Lewis Armistead, and Armistead has bought into the idea that the South cannot be beaten because there is a Cause and because their boys are special. After comparing this conflict to the Crusades, Longstreet's response is "they never took Jerusalem" and "it takes a bit more than morale."
There were so many who believed that sheer force of will would bring us victory in Vietnam. And, obviously, there are those who believe the same about victory in Iraq. It is striking to compare these observations with those who believe that a cause and mission is all that is needed to win armed conflicts. Of course it is important to impart a sense of mission to soldiers, to make sure they know that they are fighting for something worthwhile. But that sense of mission needs to coupled with competence and strategy - and I think we failed in Vietnam in doing that and we are failing to do so in Iraq.
No comments:
Post a Comment