thedrifter
01-21-05, 05:57 AM
01-18-2005
Taking the Threat Seriously
By William F. Sauerwein
When discussing the global war against terrorism, I often hear the phrase, “The 9/11 attacks changed everything.”
Many media accounts compare the ongoing war against terrorism with World War II, usually with hyperbole predicting dire consequences should we waver or fail. However, our current war effort pales in comparison with the national mobilization of the early 1940s that led to our victory in World War II.
So the question is valid: Do we really view this as a matter of national survival, or as an inconvenience in our quest for personal success and national prosperity?
This thought came to mind with one reader’s email response to my recent article on the Army’s size (“Urgent Need to Resize the Army,” DefenseWatch, Jan. 5, 2005). This patriotic American complained of his inability to enlist in the armed forces following 9/11. He is beyond the normal military service age, yet he wanted to serve. Furthermore, he went through great lengths to serve and was disappointed with the denial.
His message mentioned an American NCO who, at age 43, won the Medal of Honor in North Africa during World War II. I remembered my father speaking of a 38-year-old draftee in his basic training company in 1943. Older guys recalled to active duty were called “Retreads,” and included World War I veterans.
As a history major and longtime history buff, I could write volumes on the differences between then and now. However, I will focus on just a few issues, particularly the most important issue: our national will.
Following 9/11, the news media bombarded us with stories regarding the terrorist threat right on our doorstep. The Pentagon mobilized National Guard and Reserve units for airport security and other potential threats to homeland security. The subsequent anthrax letters, which killed at least five people, demonstrated a gross lack of preparedness at all government levels. In the fall of 2001, the imminent ground war in Afghanistan evoked tales of “doom and gloom,” courtesy of the bloody lessons learned by Britain and the Soviet Union.
Despite popular belief, it was not the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that “shocked” us into realizing our country’s gross unpreparedness for war. According to Army historian Charles B. MacDonald in his book, The Mighty Endeavor, that realization had emerged in September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall had warned more than two years before Pearl Harbor that the United States was a “third-rate power.”
That shock deepened in the spring of 1940 with the defeat of the two “superpowers” Britain and France, on the European continent. In June 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt mobilized National Guard and Reserve units for one year. That September, Congress passed the first peacetime draft (the draftees’ term of service was one year).
However, deteriorating global events and our military inadequacies prompted FDR and Congress to extend that mobilization in September 1941. This proved very unpopular, Congress received numerous complaints, and the news media sensationalized the controversy. Those of us remembering the acronym “FTA” could understand a cleaner 1941 version that decorated many barracks and latrine walls – “OHIO.” That stood for “Over the Hill In October,” implying draftees’ intentions to desert.
Of course, the Pearl Harbor attack on Dec. 7, 1941, abruptly ended all the controversy, and the term of service became the “duration plus six months.” One uncle of mine was drafted soon after Pearl Harbor and did not return home until after Japan’s surrender on Sept. 2, 1945. Ultimately, about 16 million Americans served in the armed forces during World War II.
The urgency of World War II forced us to make harsh sacrifices for ensuring our national survival. Almost everything on the home front was rationed and civilian industry was retooled for producing the “arsenal of democracy.” My mother remembers the absence of young men in our rural area, including her three brothers.
I empathize with the complaints of our troops facing prolonged duty in combat zones today. However, we must put it in full historical context. During World War II, once a unit deployed overseas it generally remained overseas until the war ended. Following the war, individuals returned home using a “point” system based on time in service, the number of campaigns in which they had fought and other factors.
One advantage with 16 million personnel serving in uniform was that our units were not “over-stretched” as they are today. Units in combat were relieved by other units, and rotated from the battlefront to rest areas. When the war ended in Europe, the United States alone had over one million troops in theater, about the same number we have on active duty worldwide today.
I certainly don’t discourage the redeployment of relieved units from combat zones to their home bases in today’s multiple campaigns. We have the transportation capabilities for this undertaking but, unfortunately, we do not have a sufficient number of units. As I have previously written, we must increase our active-duty strength, particularly in the Army, for meeting our global responsibilities.
Inadequate training and equipment is nothing new, yet that does not excuse those responsible for providing it. In 1940, the U.S. military was broken by twenty years of outright neglect, and lacked the necessary equipment for modern warfare. American soldiers drilled with “broomstick” rifles and stovepipes for machine guns and anti-tank weapons. Armored units trained using trucks with a “TANK” sign and our artillery was still primarily horse-drawn.
At this time, the government lacked the authority for ordering the retooling of our industries for war production. Furthermore, because of previous budget restrictions the Army initially lacked the prototypes for new equipment. We did not reach full wartime industrial capacity until late 1943 or early 1944, and our troops paid a high price for that unpreparedness.
Our early setbacks in the war made us realize that winning would require a maximum effort. German U-boats sank American ships right off the East Coast and Japanese submarines twice shelled our West Coast. Within six months of entering the war, we suffered defeats throughout the Pacific, including the loss of the Philippine Islands and 70,000 troops.
At Kasserine Pass, Tunisia, we suffered a humiliating defeat in our first engagement with the German Army. We lost about 6,000 personnel, including 3,000 captured, and our British allies questioned our fighting ability. Plans for the “second front” in Europe were subsequently postponed from 1943 to 1944, angering our Soviet ally.
In the current war against al Qaeda and its supporters, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan rapidly fell to the Northern Alliance, bolstered by American air power and special operations forces. The “hand-wringers” breathed a sigh of relief, and soon began the campaign for fixing blame, or butt-covering for avoiding it. Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden escaped because of the difficult terrain, tribal rivalries and the lack of sufficient numbers of American ground troops.
Just a year later, we fought Operation Iraqi Freedom with about 250,000 troops and Baghdad fell within a month. Since then, our forces have been forced to wage a shadowy, but bloody, guerrilla war against Saddam loyalists and foreign fighters. In Afghanistan, our troops also wage a similar war, with the elusive foe often escaping across the Pakistan border.
Though not mentioned in the news, our troops are actually waging the war against terror from Morocco to the Philippines. Meanwhile, other units are positioned for deterring war in Korea while others are engaged in homeland security duties. This gives our current war the same scope as World War II, but without the national focus.
Were Americans more dedicated during World War II and willing to overcome their obstacles than the “me first” generation fighting today? Why did American journalists 60 years ago accept wartime censorship, while their modern counterparts see themselves as “neutral,” or even hostile to U.S. national interests? Did American leaders then have a better grasp of world events and the threats than today’s partisan opportunists? Did we just become complacent with our superpower strength, like the British and French in the 1930s?
We made a number of serious mistakes prior to Pearl Harbor. America virtually ignored the Axis threat until France’s defeat and Britain’s struggle for survival. We lagged on gearing up a military force capable of victory, and our servicemen suffered and died in greater numbers as a result. We learned from mistakes that could have been avoided in the first place.
In that vein, history seems to have repeated itself. If we lose this war, no friendly “sleeping giant” lies in the wings for rescuing us. If we fail to mobilize to meet today’s terrorist threat in all of its implications, we will likely see an onslaught of new attacks. And if al Qaeda succeeds in obtaining weapons of mass destruction, our national survival will be at risk.
It seems that the only thing different from 60 years ago is that our nation is still asleep.
Retired Army First Sergeant William F. Sauerwein is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at mono@gtec.com.
Ellie
Taking the Threat Seriously
By William F. Sauerwein
When discussing the global war against terrorism, I often hear the phrase, “The 9/11 attacks changed everything.”
Many media accounts compare the ongoing war against terrorism with World War II, usually with hyperbole predicting dire consequences should we waver or fail. However, our current war effort pales in comparison with the national mobilization of the early 1940s that led to our victory in World War II.
So the question is valid: Do we really view this as a matter of national survival, or as an inconvenience in our quest for personal success and national prosperity?
This thought came to mind with one reader’s email response to my recent article on the Army’s size (“Urgent Need to Resize the Army,” DefenseWatch, Jan. 5, 2005). This patriotic American complained of his inability to enlist in the armed forces following 9/11. He is beyond the normal military service age, yet he wanted to serve. Furthermore, he went through great lengths to serve and was disappointed with the denial.
His message mentioned an American NCO who, at age 43, won the Medal of Honor in North Africa during World War II. I remembered my father speaking of a 38-year-old draftee in his basic training company in 1943. Older guys recalled to active duty were called “Retreads,” and included World War I veterans.
As a history major and longtime history buff, I could write volumes on the differences between then and now. However, I will focus on just a few issues, particularly the most important issue: our national will.
Following 9/11, the news media bombarded us with stories regarding the terrorist threat right on our doorstep. The Pentagon mobilized National Guard and Reserve units for airport security and other potential threats to homeland security. The subsequent anthrax letters, which killed at least five people, demonstrated a gross lack of preparedness at all government levels. In the fall of 2001, the imminent ground war in Afghanistan evoked tales of “doom and gloom,” courtesy of the bloody lessons learned by Britain and the Soviet Union.
Despite popular belief, it was not the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that “shocked” us into realizing our country’s gross unpreparedness for war. According to Army historian Charles B. MacDonald in his book, The Mighty Endeavor, that realization had emerged in September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall had warned more than two years before Pearl Harbor that the United States was a “third-rate power.”
That shock deepened in the spring of 1940 with the defeat of the two “superpowers” Britain and France, on the European continent. In June 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt mobilized National Guard and Reserve units for one year. That September, Congress passed the first peacetime draft (the draftees’ term of service was one year).
However, deteriorating global events and our military inadequacies prompted FDR and Congress to extend that mobilization in September 1941. This proved very unpopular, Congress received numerous complaints, and the news media sensationalized the controversy. Those of us remembering the acronym “FTA” could understand a cleaner 1941 version that decorated many barracks and latrine walls – “OHIO.” That stood for “Over the Hill In October,” implying draftees’ intentions to desert.
Of course, the Pearl Harbor attack on Dec. 7, 1941, abruptly ended all the controversy, and the term of service became the “duration plus six months.” One uncle of mine was drafted soon after Pearl Harbor and did not return home until after Japan’s surrender on Sept. 2, 1945. Ultimately, about 16 million Americans served in the armed forces during World War II.
The urgency of World War II forced us to make harsh sacrifices for ensuring our national survival. Almost everything on the home front was rationed and civilian industry was retooled for producing the “arsenal of democracy.” My mother remembers the absence of young men in our rural area, including her three brothers.
I empathize with the complaints of our troops facing prolonged duty in combat zones today. However, we must put it in full historical context. During World War II, once a unit deployed overseas it generally remained overseas until the war ended. Following the war, individuals returned home using a “point” system based on time in service, the number of campaigns in which they had fought and other factors.
One advantage with 16 million personnel serving in uniform was that our units were not “over-stretched” as they are today. Units in combat were relieved by other units, and rotated from the battlefront to rest areas. When the war ended in Europe, the United States alone had over one million troops in theater, about the same number we have on active duty worldwide today.
I certainly don’t discourage the redeployment of relieved units from combat zones to their home bases in today’s multiple campaigns. We have the transportation capabilities for this undertaking but, unfortunately, we do not have a sufficient number of units. As I have previously written, we must increase our active-duty strength, particularly in the Army, for meeting our global responsibilities.
Inadequate training and equipment is nothing new, yet that does not excuse those responsible for providing it. In 1940, the U.S. military was broken by twenty years of outright neglect, and lacked the necessary equipment for modern warfare. American soldiers drilled with “broomstick” rifles and stovepipes for machine guns and anti-tank weapons. Armored units trained using trucks with a “TANK” sign and our artillery was still primarily horse-drawn.
At this time, the government lacked the authority for ordering the retooling of our industries for war production. Furthermore, because of previous budget restrictions the Army initially lacked the prototypes for new equipment. We did not reach full wartime industrial capacity until late 1943 or early 1944, and our troops paid a high price for that unpreparedness.
Our early setbacks in the war made us realize that winning would require a maximum effort. German U-boats sank American ships right off the East Coast and Japanese submarines twice shelled our West Coast. Within six months of entering the war, we suffered defeats throughout the Pacific, including the loss of the Philippine Islands and 70,000 troops.
At Kasserine Pass, Tunisia, we suffered a humiliating defeat in our first engagement with the German Army. We lost about 6,000 personnel, including 3,000 captured, and our British allies questioned our fighting ability. Plans for the “second front” in Europe were subsequently postponed from 1943 to 1944, angering our Soviet ally.
In the current war against al Qaeda and its supporters, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan rapidly fell to the Northern Alliance, bolstered by American air power and special operations forces. The “hand-wringers” breathed a sigh of relief, and soon began the campaign for fixing blame, or butt-covering for avoiding it. Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden escaped because of the difficult terrain, tribal rivalries and the lack of sufficient numbers of American ground troops.
Just a year later, we fought Operation Iraqi Freedom with about 250,000 troops and Baghdad fell within a month. Since then, our forces have been forced to wage a shadowy, but bloody, guerrilla war against Saddam loyalists and foreign fighters. In Afghanistan, our troops also wage a similar war, with the elusive foe often escaping across the Pakistan border.
Though not mentioned in the news, our troops are actually waging the war against terror from Morocco to the Philippines. Meanwhile, other units are positioned for deterring war in Korea while others are engaged in homeland security duties. This gives our current war the same scope as World War II, but without the national focus.
Were Americans more dedicated during World War II and willing to overcome their obstacles than the “me first” generation fighting today? Why did American journalists 60 years ago accept wartime censorship, while their modern counterparts see themselves as “neutral,” or even hostile to U.S. national interests? Did American leaders then have a better grasp of world events and the threats than today’s partisan opportunists? Did we just become complacent with our superpower strength, like the British and French in the 1930s?
We made a number of serious mistakes prior to Pearl Harbor. America virtually ignored the Axis threat until France’s defeat and Britain’s struggle for survival. We lagged on gearing up a military force capable of victory, and our servicemen suffered and died in greater numbers as a result. We learned from mistakes that could have been avoided in the first place.
In that vein, history seems to have repeated itself. If we lose this war, no friendly “sleeping giant” lies in the wings for rescuing us. If we fail to mobilize to meet today’s terrorist threat in all of its implications, we will likely see an onslaught of new attacks. And if al Qaeda succeeds in obtaining weapons of mass destruction, our national survival will be at risk.
It seems that the only thing different from 60 years ago is that our nation is still asleep.
Retired Army First Sergeant William F. Sauerwein is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at mono@gtec.com.
Ellie