This is an intentional paraphrase of Winston Churchill, known affectionately to his supporters by the nick-name Winnie.

It is not my purpose here to suggest that George W. Bush is another Winston Churchill. They differ (among many other things) in nationality, personality, oratory skills, and their careers are separated by almost a human lifespan. But there are informative lessons to be drawn -- for today and tomorrow -- by looking at the two men and their times. The value of this comparison comes in part from the fact that Churchill died some forty years ago, a nice long interval for professional historians to assess him, and the results of World War Two and its immediate aftermath are well known. This can provide us some clarity to penetrate the fog of war which swirls now, as George W. Bush leads the ongoing fight against terrorism, while political opponents both foreign and domestic question his every move and resist his every decision.

We sometimes forget that for many frightening, tumultuous months the citizens of Great Britain, under the leadership of a prime minister who certainly knew his mind and knew what it meant to stay the course, had to struggle on, virtually alone. Their determination and fortitude helped them stand -- until assistance came -- as the sole engaged bulwark against the seemingly irresistible onslaught of ruthless, murderous Nazism.

Before World War II broke out, though, appeasement, isolationism, and apathy reigned very strongly, both in the UK and in the United States. The image of Churchill’s predecessor Chamberlain waving a paper signed by Hitler and declaring “Peace in our time” should burn itself into our brains as a reminder to avoid the same trap of pacifist self-delusion in the midst of a world that remains always violent. For perspective we need to understand that the Brits were haunted by their own horrendous losses in World War I. This might have fueled a collective unconscious wishful thinking. But such war denial feels too similar for comfort to how the lingering specter of Vietnam can -- if allowed to -- undermine America’s security a generation after we withdrew from that conflict.

Before Hitler invaded Poland, Winston Churchill was widely condemned for what we might label his “right-wing, hawkish, hard-line, preemptive and expeditionary” stance on what he knew was the rising threat presented by fascists in Europe. Then, almost too late for Western civilization to have survived, Churchill was vindicated and swept into office.

Henry Kissinger once wrote “We assume that peace is the ‘normal’ pattern of relations among states. ... No idea could be more dangerous.” Carl von Clausewitz said that war is at best a terrible, bloody, chaotic, and unpredictable process. Napoleon claimed that victory goes to the general who makes the fewest mistakes as both sides are busy making many mistakes. Others with hands-on combat experience have commented that a battle is often lost by the first commander who thinks he has lost. Churchill himself said that war is at best rather squalid.

The example of Winston Churchill, a now legendary statesman once derided as a failure and a butcher (over the disaster at Gallipoli in the First World War), proves several pivotal things: A people’s choice between resolve and defeatism in times of strife often teeters on a knife edge. The ability to see ahead keenly and know the true threat posed by emerging aggressors is rare -- but is absolutely vital to preserving a country’s way of life. And successful “good” wars, with the passage of the decades, become glamorized and romanticized, while the gut-wrenching uncertainties and ambiguities faced each day when the war still raged are too soon overlooked by many.

Which brings us back to the subject of the leadership of George W. Bush, known either affectionately or derisively as “Dubya” -- depending it seems on your party affiliation, and especially on whether you want his job or voted nay at the U.N. Like it or not, Mr. Bush is -- according to the U.S. Constitution -- America’s commander-in-chief in what is now (and has been for more than two years) a very real, very dangerous, and most unglamorous war.

The Axis of Evil is also real: Direct connivance between aggressor states isn’t needed for them to constitute an Axis. Tyrannies of different types ruling simultaneously in different places, with ambitions to foment terror beyond their own borders, egg each other on by sheer example. If one pulls off a Big Lie, or wins concessions through blackmail or by playing third-party nations against each other -- or proves the impotence of an international organization’s attempts at policing WMDs -- then the other totalitarian or fundamentalist regimes are also emboldened, encouraged, empowered. Dictators have grandiose egos. Their advisors all read the same newspapers. Jealousy alone can be enough to motivate imitative one-upmanship behavior. The net effect is to cause those varied aggressors to act like a unified Axis.

And the Axis which Churchill confronted, and helped to decisively defeat, was not nearly as close-knit or solid as the word might imply. Hitler’s forces repeatedly had to bail out Mussolini from his own military incompetence, everywhere from North Africa to Greece. Germany and Japan never liked or trusted each other; sharing of technical know-how and raw materials came too little and too late. Hitler was appalled when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor without telling him first -- it brought the U.S. into World War II, arrayed against Germany. There was no meaningful strategic cooperation between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan after that, either. The most they ever had in common was that the Allies beat and occupied them both.

So much for today’s Axis of Evil being a fiction of Dubya’s mind.

Another analogy can be found between Churchill and Bush in the adaptability of their warfighters. Churchill’s Second World War had an important Fourth Generation component. Many commando units were formed to operate behind enemy lines, often in concert with local partisans and resistance fighters. Intelligence breakthroughs, both electronic and human, played a critical role in bringing down the common enemy. The botched British-Canadian raid at Dieppe showed how to definitely not perform an amphibious landing across the English Channel. The resulting improvements in equipment and tactics saved countless lives on D-Day.

Returning our focus to Iraq, the capture -- without one shot fired -- of Saddam Hussein shows that American troops can also adapt from experience. Greatly enhanced human intelligence gathering and analysis, special forces commandos doing what they do best, and infantrymen of the U.S. Army soldiering in a nimble new counter-insurgency way, together accomplished a Fourth Generation-style victory -- one for the history books.

There is an ironic connection between Churchill and Bush on the matter of Iraq. Winnie played a key role in drawing the map which created that country after the First World War. Some say his inclusion there of three antagonistic groups, Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, was intended to assure ongoing disorder, to strengthen UK control. Now, Dubya and the U.S. must help restore order and guarantee lasting freedom for all peace loving Iraqis, by turning modern Iraq into a melting-pot of mutual toleration and opportunity. The task is not impossible. Our own society is proof of that.

JoeBuff.Com / Joe Buff Inc. Joe Buff, President Dutchess County, New York E-Mail readermail@JoeBuff.Com