George and Franklin

In today's USA Today, Peter Schweizer adds his two cents about strategy and diversion similarities in the Iraq war and WWII. He compares the protesters of today's mission in Iraq to those who dissented against FDR's choice to conquer Germany before Japan as it was "not Germany that had attacked us at Pear Harbor." Conspiracies then were rampant as well, claiming FDR had known of Japan's dooming attack of Pearl harbor just as Bush had of NYC, Pennsylvania, and DC.

Schweizer brushes off the critics of the current war. "Grand strategy is not only about defeating enemies, but also defeating them in a sequence and a manner that leads to a favorable post-war situation. ... Bush, as FDR did, understands that only with political transformation will the post-war prospects for peace improve." The critics "are flawed in their thinking because they lack a grand strategy."

He continues with thought on pursuing with a noble mission. "...we cannot let tragic, tactical setbacks, like the recent deaths of 20 Marines from one unit, lead us to abandon the grand strategy. ... By ousting both Saddam and the Taliban, he has removed two important components of the worldwide terrorist movement."

"Bush's strategy is one that FDR would understand well."
----------------
What I hear so often is a simple solution to a complex problem. Whether it be suggesting that we pull all forces out or nuking it all, suggestions made by both proponents of the two simple strategies are neither well thought out nor productive. Staying the course will be bloody. It will be difficult. Lives will be lost. This does not mean that we should abandon the big picture for the sake of a few pieces of the grand puzzle. Before coming to the table with a solution, some thought is advised for all proposers to an end the war. FDR didn't let the critics get to him and neither should GW.