The U.S. military has been

tremendously successful over the past 20 years in limiting its own casualties

while inflicting enormous losses on the enemy. The American public has

witnessed snippets of this capability through military footage made available

to television news. We seem to be on the verge of the bloodless (at least

on our side) war; the war Patton feared where the fighting is done by

machines and nothing is risked nor reaffirmed. The danger in this thinking

is that it is simply not true, and any military man will tell you it's

falsehood, and its concomitant danger to us as a nation.

History is replete with examples

of the uncertainty of war. Men make plans, and train, and equip, and assemble

forces for the conduct of war. Once those forces are unleashed, all bets

are off.

The Persians, with their overwhelming

numerical superiority, were certain of victory, but became the vanquished

at the hands of the Spartans at Thermopylae. The Romans sent three magnificent

legions of 30,000 men against Hannibal at Cannae, only to have them completely

enveloped and slaughtered. The battles of Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt

should all have been walkovers for the massed French cavalry, who were

outranged by the English longbow and outfought with the English battle-ax.

Guderian's and Rommel's massed armor overran the low countries and the

numerically and technologically superior French forces in 40 days as they

waited behind the Maginot line for the attack that never came.

History also shows the influence

one surprise genius can exert in an armed conflict. At Gallipoli, it was

Mustafa Kemal (later known as Attaturk) who tied down the British forces

and inflicted 250,000 casualties. At Dien Bien Phu that genius was Vo

Nguyen Giap who defied his Chinese "advisors" and their advice

for a frontal assault, opting for a siege, and driving the French from

Indochina. In the American Civil War, it was Grant who separated his army

from its supply lines, lived off the country, marched around Vicksburg,

and set the example for Sherman.

The list is long, and the examples

are there to follow. Instead we get "conservative" talk show

hosts who have never been near the military who, in their frenzy to support

the policies of George Bush, lead an ignorant and willing public down

a path that exists only in their imagination. They're all yelling: "All

unto the breach," from the safety of the rear. The danger in such

ignorance is the public disbelief and disenchantment when the first major

military setback occurs. How could this happen? Why are we even there,

and what do we do now?

In the case of Iraq, the President

has still produced no tangible evidence that the former policy of containment

necessitated a new policy of confrontation. He has shown us no instance

where Iraq presents, or will present a direct threat to the United States

or its interests. All threats are perceived by extension of a radical

Islamic attack on the World Trade Center. He has also shown us no link

between Iraq and radical Islam.

Meanwhile, the North Koreans,

a far more unstable bunch, have used the Iraqi crisis to generate their

own pressure, to what end I still haven't figured out. With an army of

over 1 million, and the presence of 36,000 U.S. troops in South Korea,

the forces of Kim Jong Il do represent a direct threat to U.S. citizens

and our interests. At the same time, we have fired our first shots in

anger at our alleged allies, the Pakistanis. Nobody knows where that relationship

is going, but it doesn't bode well.

What this all adds up to is

a U.S. public unprepared for the sacrifices that may be necessary. The

executive branch, which consists of many chicken hawks and few veterans,

won't do the politically unpalatable, and military men, by statute, are

not allowed to speak out. At the same time, we may be about to attack

the wrong people for the wrong reason.

The conservative press in its

slavish attachment to the Republican President continues to mislead the

public into believing this whole thing will be simple and practically

bloodless. For the sake of my former brothers in arms, I truly hope it

all transpires as these Republican draft dodgers tell us it will. I hope

the Iraqi Mustafa Kemal, the Mao Tse Tung, the Arabic Nathan Bedford Forrest

stays repressed by the madman.

On our part, we are committed

now to this action and must be willing to stay the course, destroy Saddam

and all his minions and if necessary, any part of the Islamic world that

opposes us. We actually do have a very capable, well trained, well disciplined

and equipped fighting force that will prevail no matter what setbacks

it encounters.

But America must be made to

realize there is no such thing as certainty in war. Unfortunately for

us, the hard questions that should have been asked before Bush committed

us to this course of action will only be asked if there is some major

setback. For the sake of those risking their lives for our Constitution

and ourselves, we can only hope that those questions never need be asked.

"O God of battles, steel

my soldiers' hearts, Possess them not with fear! Take from them now the

sense of reck'ning, or th' opposed numbers. Pluck their hearts from them."

Timothy J. Parker

Peachtree City

LTC, CTANG (Ret)