"What is happening in the republic of Georgia is all too reminiscent of what happened back in 1956, when Russian tanks rolled into Hungary-- and the West did nothing.
An argument might well be made that, realistically, there was nothing the West could have done-- then or now-- that would have forced the Russians out.
But there was bitterness, then as now, that the West may have encouraged people to risk their lives, relying on us, when we knew from the outset that we were not about to risk armed conflict with a nuclear superpower over Hungary then or Georgia now."
Read more here
As a staunch defender of Eisenhower's legacy, this made me dig a little deeper. I found a paper by Thomas Torda, writing for the American Hungarian Foundation. Mr Torda says:
Years later, in his memoir In Review, Gen. Eisenhower helped explain his government’s caution in light of the sobering reality of Hungary’s geography: ". . . I still wonder what would have been my recommendation to the Congress and the American people had Hungary been accessible by sea or through the territory of allies who might
have agreed to react positively to any attempt to help prevent the tragic fate of the Hungarian people. . . . Sending United States troops alone into Hungary through hostile or neutral territory would have involved us in general
war. . . . [I]t was obvious that no mandate for military action could or would be forthcoming. I realized that there was no use going further into this possibility" [italics added].
...the U.S. Government, by failing to live up to its "liberation"
philosophy as promoted by Radio Free Europe broadcasts in the years leading up to the Revolution, tragically misled millions of hopeful and desperate Hungarians. I am a firm believer in UN debate and action, but when Eisenhower chose to rely on the UN—perhaps due to his preoccupation with the simultaneous Suez Crisis and America’s grim experience in the Korean War that had ended only 3 years before—he was choosing to ignore the grim reality of the power of the Soviet votes in the UN and of the Red Army on the ground. Today, when the U.S. Government places so much emphasis on spreading democracy and liberation from tyranny throughout the world, U.S. leaders should give serious consideration to the effects their statements on promoting democracy and liberation have in the world community, and to the ultimate price that may have to be paid.
Read more here
I have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Sowell and Mr. Torda. Freedom and liberation is the personal responsibility of each of every one of us, not just American soldiers. The American soldier knows the price of freedom all too well. America should always do everything we can to support the cause of freedom and democracy but we can not and should not commit our soldiers to every cause. It is not unreasonable to expect people to liberate themselves with the help of neighboring nations, including America to the extent we can. We must weigh carefully the strategic interests of the United States and the consequences of our actions. Eisenhower weighed this choice very carefully and in the end decided committing American troops would have been unwise and many more lives would have been lost than would have been saved. In the end, Hungarians freed themselves and what they have achieved is that much sweeter because they secured their own freedom.
I believe McCain displayed a very Eisenhower-like mindset in the Saddleback Forum on Saturday night. He will never take the decision to commit "our most precious resource -- American blood" lightly. But if our troops are committed to battle, McCain will see to it that they have everything they need to be victorious and return home triumphantly. General Eisenhower was a great Commander in Chief and we have been sorely lacking a man of his caliber in the Oval Office ever since. I firmly believe that Eisenhower never would have escalated the Vietnam War and committed our soldiers to a war they weren't allowed to win. Johnson was reckless and naive. Eisenhower was pragmatic, realistic and cared deeply about the men whose lives he felt personally responsible for. When it comes to our nation's military, McCain is a carbon copy of Eisenhower.
Liberals are trying to cast McCain as a neocon warmonger, despite the fact that in 1983 McCain went against Reagan and voted against deploying troops to Lebanon. Both McCain and Eisenhower are on record as publicly professing "I hate war" and could hardly be characterized as reckless cowboys when it comes to the military.
In closing, there will be attacks from the right saying we haven't done enough to support Georgia (using Hungary, Poland and Prague as evidence) and there will be attacks from the left saying we created this situation by encouraging Georgia. Then there will the middle way, the Eisenhower/McCain way. Encourage freedom, support it however we can, but never commit our most precious resource, "American blood", except as a last resort and after careful consideration of the consequences.
McCain is the citizen soldier that our nation has been waiting for since Eisenhower left office. That's why "I Back Mac" and we should all like Ike.
0 comments:
Post a Comment