What would Churchill do?

[Bravus]

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/our-little-churchills.html

[Dr. Shane]

In the US, President Franklin D. Roosevelt passed laws forbidding descent of the war effort. Newspaper articles had to be reviewed by the War Department before they could be published. Speaking against the war was punishable by inprisonment. I suspect Great Brittian had simular laws but with the Nazis barking at their back door, perhaps such laws were not necesarry.

[David Koot]

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/our-little-churchills.html

Oh, come now, Bravus . . . Winston faced a quite different situation. The issue before the Commons was not whether or not to prosecute the war against the Gerries. The issue was on HOW the war was being prosecuted. Not the case here.

[Bravus]

Surely the troop escalation is a matter of 'how'?

[David Koot]

True enough, B. But in this case, the opposition to the war itself is a huge factor, underlying the objection to troop escalation. For Winston, the Commons were not opposed to the War. They were not satified that it was being won--which it wasn't, in 1942.

Which still beggars the question--in the case of weakened public support for a war effort, does the fact of such weakening support justify draconian measures to suppress dissent? Or any measures? Where there is strong support for a war, it would not seem to be problematic. Dissent on HOW the war is being waged would not weaken support for the war itself. But where there is weak support for the war itself, then vigorous dissent could further weaken public support, to the point of bring an end to the war effort.

Yet, to attempt to control or squelch the expression of dissent could certainly seem to be oppressive and dictatorial. In a democracy, government does not always get what it wants.

D

[there buster]

It's astonishing. There's all this silly whining about 'free speech.' What the critics of the President want is not 'free speech,' since they already have it. No one has been threatened with jail.

They criticized the President's policy. He -- or someone-- replied that this encouraged the enemy. both parties exercised free speech.

What the critics want is to speak freely and not have anyone disagree with them.

Since Churchill has been brought up--

Imagine that Parliament had passed a 'non-binging' resolution that Churchill withdraw all British troops from N.Africa at a certain date-- Churchill would have replied with a rhetorical fire that would have withered his opponents, and no one would have whined about 'free speech.'

"But North Africa has nothing to do with Nazis," they might have said. "Why aren't we fighting in Germany? That's where the Nazis are."

Or how about troops in the Far East. "If only the Americans hadn't embargoed scrap iron. It's the Americans fault."

Or maybe "The planning for this war has been a disaster. Look at Dunkirque. The Prime Minister should leave the planning to the generals. The Prime Minister should leave the planning to retired generals. The Prime Minister should resign if the war isn't over by a date certain."

Or, here's a beauty: "Where is the exit plan for this war?"

Of course, that would have been ridiculous, but that's pretty much the stance of the President's critics today.

Every death is a tragedy. But 3000 deaths in this cause are not wasted-- unless we waste their effort by giving up.

We suffered more deaths at Normandy in a day than we have in all the time in Iraq.

Churchill would snarl with contempt at the defeatist Democrats, who are willing to sell out civilization for political power.

[Dr. Shane]

Indeed, each death in Iraq should steel our resolve, not lessen it.

[lazarus]

I think one thing Churchill would have done would have been to invite some democrats into his "war" cabinet. I believe 2 out of the 5 of Churchills war cabinet members were from the Labour party.

Take a look at the composition of Bush's "war" cabinet.

[Dr. Shane]

I think Bush has turned loyalty into a charachter defect. He should have dumped many in his cabinet before he did. WAr is a performance business and when the results desired are not realized, heads should roll. Bush just seems so loyal to those around him, he is not quick to make changes.