June 6, 2007
The race doesn’t always go to the swift, or the battle to the strong—as the old saying goes—but that’s how we will always bet. But as any sports fan knows, there is an important place for “motivation” in the outcome of sports contests.
Anyone remember the underdog 2006 University of Florida Gators football team? The 1969 New York Mets? If the exploits of these teams don’t inspire you, plug in your own.
In a few weeks, communities all over America will gather on courthouse lawns, at fairgrounds and in ballparks to celebrate another Fourth of July, the 231st anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
In the weeks ahead, the History Channel and other venues will give us a star-spangled retelling of the familiar story of the rag-tag, poorly fed, poorly equipped rabble of an armed mob led by heroic Gen. George Washington, ultimately defeating the high-and-mighty British Redcoats, the best-trained, best-fed and best-armed force in the world.
But Washington’s ragged, starving Continental Army and similar forces under other American generals, barefooted most of the time, actually lost more battles than they won! Washington knew the only commodity he had more of than the British was the motivation beating in the hearts of his soldiers who wanted to live free.
Our government’s system of checks and balances, the bicameral Congress and the whole American “federal system” came out of the vow of our Founders never to allow “too much” political power to rest again in any one individual—who might turn out to be another tyrant like King George III. Franklin D. Roosevelt came as close as anyone, resulting in a constitutional amendment limiting presidents to two terms.
All of our civil liberties, most notably our Freedom of Speech, were born of the same philosophy that the government “derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Today, American armed forces are universally regarded as the best-trained, best-fed and best-equipped military in the world, and they’re fighting what most people regard as a rag-tag rabble called Al Qaeda. Just as the British looked down their noses at American colonists, are we guilty of holding our enemy in similar contempt?
Do we high and mighty Americans—as a people—make the mistake of underestimating our enemy? We have all kinds of names we use to make fun of Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda, which I won’t enumerate here. We talk about their barbaric terrorist tactics, but are they really better motivated?
Like Washington’s forces, how many battles does Al Qaeda and Company really have to win? How many dead Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan would it really take to finally make Congress and the
President put all our troops on the ships to bring them home?
Was Sept. 11, 2001, the military equivalent for Al Qaeda of Gens. Washington and Rochambeau backing up Cornwallis’ army against the sea at Yorktown, with the French fleet behind them? How many 9-11s would Al Qaeda have to pull off to show the world that they can win this “War on Terror”?
Does our own Freedom of Speech, directed too often at our President and our military leaders, weaken the motivation of our forces in the field and even the resolve of ordinary citizens? Can a rag-tag rabble really defeat the American military? If it does, can America ever expect to win another war? Is that what happened to us in Vietnam?
I don’t pretend to have the answers, but I do think it’s time to ask the questions. It’s a lot to think about as we head toward another carefree Fourth of July of picnics and fireworks.
.jpg)
Posts
