Like millions of others, I was mesmerized by this year’s Fiesta Bowl between Oklahoma and Boise State.  Just when you thought the game was over, the other team came roaring back.  First, there was Oklahoma, who spotted Boise State a 28-10 lead only to find themselves with a 35-28 lead with a minute to go.  Second, there was Boise State, who facing an impossible fourth-and-eighteen with only seconds to go on the game clock, went for broke and tied the game, sending it into overtime.  What really separated the men from the boys was the overtime, where Oklahoma’s Bob Stoops played it safe and played not to lose by going for the easy PAT, whereas Boise State’s Chris Petersen went for the victory by attempting a two-point conversion, knowing full well that if he failed, he lost.  Of course, his gamble paid off, and Boise State went on to win a place in our hearts.  If only Chris Petersen were a general.

If you look at the American Civil War, it is a testament to the likes of Bobby Lee, Stonewall Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart, and Nathan Bedford Forrest that it lasted as long as it did.  The North had many more men and material than the Confederacy did, and yet, despite these great advantages, damn near lost the war.  The difference was in the generals.  The northern generals played not to lose, whereas the southern generals, like Boise State’s Petersen, knowing full well that the odds were overwhelming, went for broke, risked everything, and played to win.  It was only after the emergence of Grant and Sherman, generals who fought to win and not to not lose, did the tide turn in favor of the Union.

McDowell, McClellan, Pope, and Hooker all fought to not lose, and turned tail and ran whenever things got a little tough, with the result being that the Civil War dragged on a few years longer than it should have. Grant, who did not run from fights, accomplished more in the less than two years at the helm of the Army of the Potomac than the other four did in the preceding two-and-a-half. Grant believed that a stalemate was the same as a loss, and was willing to do whatever it took to achieve victory and defeat Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. He understood that to achieve total victory would be bloody and unpopular, but was willing to take the risk, anyway. The numbers are mind-numbing. On June 3, 1864, at the Battle of Cold Harbor, Virginia, the Union Army suffered over 7,000 casualties – in eight minutes. And we are complaining about 3000 deaths in almost four years? In the forty days from the Wilderness until the Union army crossed the James, Grant’s Army of the Potomac suffered a staggering 54,000 casualties. And what, pray tell, did Grant do after suffering such a huge loss? He requested more troops and vowed to fight on.

What would have happened if our current attitude about the Iraq war had existed in 1864? Grant would have been told to withdraw, and the North would have lost the war, because the Confederate armies, and thus the Confederacy, would still be intact. Interestingly enough, that is exactly what Jefferson Davis and the leaders of the Confederacy hoped would happen, as they knew that the numbers were against them in a prolonged war. The only way that the North could reunite the country was through the total defeat of the armies of the Confederacy, without which the Confederacy would cease to exist.

As long time readers of this column know, I am not a fan of George W. Bush; I think he will go down as one of the worst and most incompetent Presidents in the history of the American republic. As long time readers also know, I was against this war before any military personnel were sent to Iraq. Whether or not I thought it was a good idea, the fact of the matter is that we are there now, and we must deal with the present situation, and not what might of or what should have been. I agree with Bush on this one – the appropriate course of action is to increase the troop strength in Iraq to ensure victory. Yes, you read that right – I agree with Bush. Hell has indeed frozen over. To settle for a stalemate is to settle for a defeat.

Lincoln knew that in 1864, despite the fact that it might cost him re-election. While the slaughter of tens of thousands of Union soldiers in Virginia in 1864 might have seemed crazy to the average citizen at the time, in retrospect it was the correct course of action. I think history will be kinder to Bush’s "troop surge" then contemporaries are, as history will show it was the right thing to do. That being said, I do not think what Bush is proposing will be enough. We need to send as many additional troops as is needed to win for as long as it takes. If that requires reinstituting the draft, so be it. We must do what it takes to win.

Part of the price of being an empire is that it requires a large number of military personnel for a long period of time. The British have experience in the drawbacks of being an empire. Like it or not, we are an empire, and with it comes long term military commitment. We need to suck it up and make that commitment.