by George F. Smith
from the Laissez-Faire Times[/I}
There’s an argument that claims Operation Iraqi Freedom is really Operation American Freedom. The fewer tyrants we have in the world, the safer we are; and the safer we are, the freer we are to go about our business.
The reality as I see it is a bit different. A tyranny is a government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. We call such rulers tyrants. But notice: most people hold Hussein in contempt not because he’s a bad tyrant, but because he’s bad. Tyranny per se is not unpopular. Many people have wanted a stronger presidency following 9-11, no matter what the cost. And we’re getting it. Indeed, if Bush has continued success with his bum-of-the-month tour of Third World tyrannies, the election of 2004 could turn out to be a coronation.
According to Newsweek, Bush thinks he’s on a mission from God. The Almighty has chosen this humble Texan to lead a global housecleaning operation, sort of a Christian jihad. It will require tremendous sacrifices but no price is too much to pay — never mind that others will do the sacrificing. A man who convinces others that God supports him is forever insulated from moral condemnation. He might commit blunders, but he can never be bad.
Bush’s military invasion of Iraq has a devious name. It is not Operation Defending America or even Operation Get Saddam. The name instead refers to vague benefits promised to Iraq’s residents — those that survive. Hussein had little if anything to do with 9-11 directly and poses less of a threat than other despots, but since the military can’t find bin Laden, Bush decided to go after the Iraqi leader and figure out why later. If he wants to retain power during a poor economy, he has to come up with a head, even if it’s the wrong head. But to coat it with moral dignity, his operation is staged as a crusade for freeing Iraqis.
Bush is not the first George in American history to undertake a military campaign to free a people. Washington got caught up in that, as well.
For those who attended government schools, Washington was the white aristocratic slaveholder who led American troops to victory over England, with an awful lot of help from Fr—. Never mind. His victory at Yorktown and the subsequent peace treaty meant the United States was a country with a very weak central government. But as soon as Washington freed people from the tyrannical rule of King George III, several influential individuals had a question for him: Will you be our king?
How soon people forget. What were the patriots fighting for, if not the principles of the Declaration of Independence? Here’s a possibility: the American revolutionaries who wanted to crown Washington didn’t forget the Declaration, they remembered it as a litany of abuses by King George III. Jefferson’s opening lines about all men possessing inalienable rights was simply inspirational boilerplate for the naive masses. The real meat was to be found in all the king’s outrages. George III was the Saddam Hussein of his day. He was a Very Bad King. Since we have a good man in George Washington, let’s make him our king instead.
But Washington's friends included people like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry — all liberty advocates. When asked to be king, he said something like, “I did not fight George III to become George I.” Then later, after serving as first president, he advised future administrations to stay clear of entangling foreign alliances, that such involvement would be injurious to most Americans.
No wonder Washington’s popularity is so low today. He alienates the left and their race-baiting supporters by having slaves, shocks the left and right by declining the position of tyrant, and commits the mortal sin of recommending we mind our own business.
Cynics could point out that the country then was no big prize for an aspiring tyrant. The government didn’t have a military that could wipe out humanity a thousand times over with plenty to spare. The government hadn’t expropriated enough wealth to give away countless billions to other regimes in exchange for their promise to like us. But still, a kingship would have counted for something, especially since he would’ve been tyrant number one in American history.
We see, then, that the first president named George turned down power. The current one tells us God wants him to seize more of it. Which one is the friend of freedom?
Washington and Bush both went to Princeton, though for different reasons. Bush showed up for Yale football games, while Washington went there to shell the British and preserve the fragile cause for independence. Bush sends men into battle, as did Washington, but Washington sometimes went with them. One well-placed musket ball would’ve changed American history. He is not regarded as a great military strategist, but he was second to none in personal bravery. That’s one reason his men were willing to fight for him.
Princeton perhaps was his finest hour. It was a battle the Americans had to win if they had any chance of keeping their cause alive. In the fall of 1776, the British had inflicted heavy losses on them in New York and chased them across New Jersey into Pennsylvania. Then for various reasons, the British decided to hibernate for the winter. Washington took it as an invitation to attack. After whipping the hung-over Hessians at Trenton on the morning after Christmas, he retreated to Pennsylvania, allowed his men to recover, then crossed back into New Jersey, slipped around Cornwallis’s army at Trenton during the night, and headed for Princeton to surprise the enemy.
But the surprise turned out to be mutual. A contingent of redcoats were leaving Princeton to assist Cornwallis at Trenton when they met up with the invading American force. Fierce fighting broke out, and many of the American troops started to retreat. The last flicker of hope for the American cause was running away. Operation American Freedom was at stake.
Washington did what any brave soldier would do — he saw his men headed the wrong way, rode after them and turned them around.
As historian Richard M. Ketchum narrates the scene, after Washington intervened, the “men were moving forward with guns at the ready, following their commander into battle . . . When they were about thirty yards from the redcoats, he reined up, turned in the saddle, and shouted ‘Halt!’ and then ‘Fire!’ Almost immediately there were thundering volleys from the opposing armies.” John Fitzgerald, an American officer, saw the General in direct line of fire and covered his eyes so he wouldn’t see Washington fall. But when the smoke cleared, he saw his “commander in chief still in the saddle, calm and unharmed, waving the troops forward.” [1]
Washington, you will recall, was commanding the underdog in this fight. The arrogant superpower was the enemy. Great Britain, like today’s U.S., was a mercantilist economy, characterized by corruption, privilege and waste. But Washington defeated the British at Princeton, escaped the forces closing in from Trenton, and renewed the hope for American liberty.
When the war was over, Washington surrendered his commission to a feeble Congress and retired for a short while to private life. A different man would have taken over the government. While we listen to the Iraq war reports and hear the word “freedom” spilled forth, let’s remember that we once knew that freedom begins at home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
1. Richard M. Ketchum, The Winter Soldiers: The Battles for Trenton and Princeton, Owl Books, 1999, p. 308.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Smith is a freelance writer and public speaker. He's currently finishing a screenplay about Thomas Paine and the American Revolution. He can be reached at gfs543@bellsouth.net.
from the Laissez-Faire Times[/I}
There’s an argument that claims Operation Iraqi Freedom is really Operation American Freedom. The fewer tyrants we have in the world, the safer we are; and the safer we are, the freer we are to go about our business.
The reality as I see it is a bit different. A tyranny is a government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. We call such rulers tyrants. But notice: most people hold Hussein in contempt not because he’s a bad tyrant, but because he’s bad. Tyranny per se is not unpopular. Many people have wanted a stronger presidency following 9-11, no matter what the cost. And we’re getting it. Indeed, if Bush has continued success with his bum-of-the-month tour of Third World tyrannies, the election of 2004 could turn out to be a coronation.
According to Newsweek, Bush thinks he’s on a mission from God. The Almighty has chosen this humble Texan to lead a global housecleaning operation, sort of a Christian jihad. It will require tremendous sacrifices but no price is too much to pay — never mind that others will do the sacrificing. A man who convinces others that God supports him is forever insulated from moral condemnation. He might commit blunders, but he can never be bad.
Bush’s military invasion of Iraq has a devious name. It is not Operation Defending America or even Operation Get Saddam. The name instead refers to vague benefits promised to Iraq’s residents — those that survive. Hussein had little if anything to do with 9-11 directly and poses less of a threat than other despots, but since the military can’t find bin Laden, Bush decided to go after the Iraqi leader and figure out why later. If he wants to retain power during a poor economy, he has to come up with a head, even if it’s the wrong head. But to coat it with moral dignity, his operation is staged as a crusade for freeing Iraqis.
Bush is not the first George in American history to undertake a military campaign to free a people. Washington got caught up in that, as well.
For those who attended government schools, Washington was the white aristocratic slaveholder who led American troops to victory over England, with an awful lot of help from Fr—. Never mind. His victory at Yorktown and the subsequent peace treaty meant the United States was a country with a very weak central government. But as soon as Washington freed people from the tyrannical rule of King George III, several influential individuals had a question for him: Will you be our king?
How soon people forget. What were the patriots fighting for, if not the principles of the Declaration of Independence? Here’s a possibility: the American revolutionaries who wanted to crown Washington didn’t forget the Declaration, they remembered it as a litany of abuses by King George III. Jefferson’s opening lines about all men possessing inalienable rights was simply inspirational boilerplate for the naive masses. The real meat was to be found in all the king’s outrages. George III was the Saddam Hussein of his day. He was a Very Bad King. Since we have a good man in George Washington, let’s make him our king instead.
But Washington's friends included people like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry — all liberty advocates. When asked to be king, he said something like, “I did not fight George III to become George I.” Then later, after serving as first president, he advised future administrations to stay clear of entangling foreign alliances, that such involvement would be injurious to most Americans.
No wonder Washington’s popularity is so low today. He alienates the left and their race-baiting supporters by having slaves, shocks the left and right by declining the position of tyrant, and commits the mortal sin of recommending we mind our own business.
Cynics could point out that the country then was no big prize for an aspiring tyrant. The government didn’t have a military that could wipe out humanity a thousand times over with plenty to spare. The government hadn’t expropriated enough wealth to give away countless billions to other regimes in exchange for their promise to like us. But still, a kingship would have counted for something, especially since he would’ve been tyrant number one in American history.
We see, then, that the first president named George turned down power. The current one tells us God wants him to seize more of it. Which one is the friend of freedom?
Washington and Bush both went to Princeton, though for different reasons. Bush showed up for Yale football games, while Washington went there to shell the British and preserve the fragile cause for independence. Bush sends men into battle, as did Washington, but Washington sometimes went with them. One well-placed musket ball would’ve changed American history. He is not regarded as a great military strategist, but he was second to none in personal bravery. That’s one reason his men were willing to fight for him.
Princeton perhaps was his finest hour. It was a battle the Americans had to win if they had any chance of keeping their cause alive. In the fall of 1776, the British had inflicted heavy losses on them in New York and chased them across New Jersey into Pennsylvania. Then for various reasons, the British decided to hibernate for the winter. Washington took it as an invitation to attack. After whipping the hung-over Hessians at Trenton on the morning after Christmas, he retreated to Pennsylvania, allowed his men to recover, then crossed back into New Jersey, slipped around Cornwallis’s army at Trenton during the night, and headed for Princeton to surprise the enemy.
But the surprise turned out to be mutual. A contingent of redcoats were leaving Princeton to assist Cornwallis at Trenton when they met up with the invading American force. Fierce fighting broke out, and many of the American troops started to retreat. The last flicker of hope for the American cause was running away. Operation American Freedom was at stake.
Washington did what any brave soldier would do — he saw his men headed the wrong way, rode after them and turned them around.
As historian Richard M. Ketchum narrates the scene, after Washington intervened, the “men were moving forward with guns at the ready, following their commander into battle . . . When they were about thirty yards from the redcoats, he reined up, turned in the saddle, and shouted ‘Halt!’ and then ‘Fire!’ Almost immediately there were thundering volleys from the opposing armies.” John Fitzgerald, an American officer, saw the General in direct line of fire and covered his eyes so he wouldn’t see Washington fall. But when the smoke cleared, he saw his “commander in chief still in the saddle, calm and unharmed, waving the troops forward.” [1]
Washington, you will recall, was commanding the underdog in this fight. The arrogant superpower was the enemy. Great Britain, like today’s U.S., was a mercantilist economy, characterized by corruption, privilege and waste. But Washington defeated the British at Princeton, escaped the forces closing in from Trenton, and renewed the hope for American liberty.
When the war was over, Washington surrendered his commission to a feeble Congress and retired for a short while to private life. A different man would have taken over the government. While we listen to the Iraq war reports and hear the word “freedom” spilled forth, let’s remember that we once knew that freedom begins at home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
1. Richard M. Ketchum, The Winter Soldiers: The Battles for Trenton and Princeton, Owl Books, 1999, p. 308.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Smith is a freelance writer and public speaker. He's currently finishing a screenplay about Thomas Paine and the American Revolution. He can be reached at gfs543@bellsouth.net.
