Bush Visits Military Battlefields

What would Bush do?

* * *

Bush Re-enacts Battles

The President has a curious fascination with history.

We discuss the possibility: What if the President were to apply his method of war in Iraq to other battles.

* * *

As you review the possibilities, it may be useful to consider the Bush Defeat Doctrine.

We discuss the application of the Bush defeat doctrine to:

- The American Revolution
- The American Civil War
- American Westward Expansion
- World War II

* * *

Summary of Bush Principles: The Defeat Doctrine

Obtain resources and land, not victory over the enemy.

Fail to destroy enemy

Move directly, without regard to the flanks.

Ignore negative information.

Oppose the locals.

Squander the gains.

* * *

American Revolutionary War

Mission: Drive deep into Indian lands to capture valuable beavers.

Bush, whether he was George Washington’s replacement or the leader of the British Army, would well serve the interests of the opponent.

Bush would drive at the perceived centers of power: Non-concurrent attacks on the colonial capitals, never venturing too far into American Indian-held territory to the west, reluctant to stop attacks from the Indian territory.

Alternate Scenario: If Bush had been the leader of the British Empire, would the results have been different? No. Just as the British attacked remote outposts in a largely uncoordinated manner, so too would Bush have repeated the British error, permitting the American colonists to create an alliance with the American Indians.

* * *

US Westward Expansion

Mission Move quickly from the East Coast to secure the gold in San Francisco.

Imagine a line connecting Washington DC to San Francisco. Bush would not provide enough troops to defend the northern and southern flanks; merely provide enough to enter San Francisco, without sufficient defenses to protect the troops from bows and arrows.

Shields would be up to the troops to procure or make, not something the mighty American government would spend valuable resources providing. “If you put Americans in harms way, its amazing what they’ll make out of a pile of dirt.”

Bush would do nothing about the American Indian resistance to having their lands taken, complaining when bad things happened along the trail from Washington DC to the port of San Francisco. Bush would only supply enough troops to appease them with promises of trade, but never delivering the goods. [Isn’t this what happened?]

Bush would lie about the Canadian and Mexican threats on the flanks, never bothering to secure support from the French, Spanish, or anyone else. The Gold and anything that got in the way would be dealt with later.

Alternate Scenario: If Bush had been the leader of the American Indians.

Bush would have asserted his right to hunting grounds, not realizing that there were larger Naval guns offshore ready to lay waste to the deer.

* * *

Civil War

Mission Drive deep into Georgia to capture valuable cotton supplies.

Slogan: “He who gets to Georgia’s coast with a bale of cotton gets a ride in the White House buggy.”

Sherman would not survive. In simple terms, the Civil War was Sherman’s broad, westward sweep into Kentucky, sweeping south of the Appalachians into Georgia. Bush would have fired Sherman, and instructed the NAVY to ignore the Appalachians, taking the Marines directly to the Port of Savannah.

Unlike Sherman’s successful engagements to the west of the Appalachians, Bush would have, as he has done in Afghanistan, largely let the Confederates remain untouched as they launched raids from the Appalachian outposts into the Eastern Ports.

At the first sign of Confederate resistance, Bush would have appealed to the slaves to attack those who provided their shelter; never considering the possibility some slaves might join the Confederacy.

Driving from the North, Bush would call reserves from around the globe, launching strikes from Pennsylvania without considering the Confederate Forces in Ohio, Tennessee, and poised on the New York Border. Bush would have ignored the plantations in Maryland and Virginia, believing their cotton quality was inferior, if not irrelevant, to the primary objective: Getting the Georgia cotton.

Bush would ignore the Confederate Resistance in Kentucky, Alabama, Maryland, and West Virginia. After getting one bale of Georgia Cotton, Bush would instruct the Marines to load his favorite horse into a small boat, and as George Washington did, stand tall as the boat with him mounted on his horse, was pulled by an underwater cable into the port of Savannah.

Dismounting, he would secure the bale of cotton, proclaiming, “We got it,” giving a wink to his favorite secretary in the audience.

Bush would continue the blockade of the south, not realizing that the Confederates in the mountains had enough wild game to keep them fed and clothed. There would be little attention given to the American Indians who continued to wander in and out of Georgia looking for food, chasing both the Confederates and Yankees from the highly prized game trails.

* * *

World War II

Mission Drive deep into Berlin to capture the valuable German beer gardens.

World War II offers the most interesting set of variables. It depends on when we start with the analysis.

___ Do we assume World War II is the extension of World War I, and that like the Gulf War, the Bush 43 attack into Baghdad would resolve the mess of WWI.

___ Do we assume that Britain, like Turkey, refuses to support the invasion of the enemy

___ Does Bush let the Germans invade Britain, as Bush 41 let Iraq invade Kuwait

___ Does Bush let the Germans invade Denmark in WWI, then ask his son Bush 43 to retake Denmark, and drive straight to Berlin, without regard to the Germans in France, Italy, Eastern Europe, or Southern Germany.

Scenario 1: Denmark 1944

Bush would sell ammunition to the Germans and Russians, believing that if they were occupied, they would not attack any other nation.

Bush would launch his raid from Denmark, driving deep into Berlin with only 50,000 troops, ignoring the Germans in Hungary, Russia, Italy, Asia, North Africa, Finland and Sweden. [Did we miss any?]

Scenario 2: Italy, June 1944

Unlike the invasion of Normandy where Eisenhower successfully worked with the French Resistance to cut German rail lines used to provide support to the beaches of Normandy, Bush would have no plan to shut down the French insurgency, nor cut the German rail lines in the South of France. Bush would continue his attacks from Italy despite the inability to cross the English Channel.

Bush would flog the American Generals to jump from Italy, over the Swiss Mountains, ignore the insurgency in southern German, and drive straight into Berlin, with Bush in the lead car, waving to the crowd, “Where’s the beer?”

Scenario 3: Post WWI

After the Peace of Versailles, Bush would have done nothing about the German preparations for war, rather bombing Germany, keeping it contained, but doing nothing to destroy the ground components. After ordering the attack on Berlin, Bush would squint, confused why the Germans were not laying down flowers for the invading Americans. Bush: “After Dresden, I thought they’d really soften up and smile more.”

Scenario 4: Bush on the German War Staff

For curiosity, let’s consider what would have happened if, instated of fighting on the side of the allies, Bush was the leader of the German war machine.

Stalin would have treated Bush the same: Taking advantage of Bush’s blundering advance into Russia in poor weather. If Bush were in charge of any campaign, he would most likely have done the opposite the successful Generals did, not provide enough support, continuing with plans despite inadequate support on his flanks, and ignoring the centers of gravity where the enemy launched raids.

* * *

Summary: Corporate Analogy

Mission: Capture land, resources, and cash. Ignore the disaffected.

Rumsfeld and Bush wage war as if engaging in a corporate takeover, never realizing those they fired might return from the unemployment lines with guns, intent to retake the factory. After taking over the target, Bush would assume the corporate restructuring would hide the mess, and he could withdraw before anyone realized he had been defeated.

Bush would pay the corporate media to spin the most favorable news, and withdraw his staff before the auditors arrived to learn the truth: Enron was a miracle compared to this disaster. Bush, if he had the means to lead other battles, would take the chance. Like any corporate takeover, Bush and his advisors would put resources ahead of all battle victories, hoping to rely on speed, giving little attention to problems.

Bush knows how to focus on a target; he doesn’t comprehend the larger strategy required to support that objective; nor the necessary details and planning required to defeat the enemy, who remains poised to stand between Bush and victory. Bush only focuses on the outcome, and does not give attention to those who report reality, bad news, or problems. If the minimal supplies are not good enough, he blames those who refuse to make do with the impossible situation.

For Bush, victory is achieved when the goal is imagined; all other realities are not relevant, even has the bodies return reminding the public that the price however high has not been high enough to claim victory.

Bush’s failing is his myopic focus on a narrow goal subset, without regard to the larger strategic plans, alliances, and supporting operations to sustain combat. Like a CEO who aims to win the big retirement check, Bush doesn’t have much interest in the collateral concerns related to problems, resistance, or opposition. CEOs don’t get paid, in Bush’s world, to play nice; they get paid to achieve victory, regardless whether they are or are not caught breaking the rules.

Bush assumes that the lawyers can craft a legal defense to keep him out of jail, free to engage in other illegal corporate takeovers. Bush’s flaw is that he does not comprehend that there are others, besides the SEC, which he must deal with. International players, more capable of playing but the rules, and securing victory, remain checks on the wayward CEO.

Conclusion

Bush and Rumsfeld appear to be avid students of famous military defeats. Where a General like Sherman moved to defeat the Enemy, Bush would ignore these lessons and drive straight toward the military objective, without regard to resistance.

Bush and Rumsfeld have secured in history a novel position: Despite the victories of WWII, Patton, and Normandy, the American President has done what few imagined possible: Secured defeat at the hands of poorly organized enemies, and asked the American public to reward him with without any prospect of punishment.

[ Discuss ]