Read to the tune of 'Happiness is a Warm Gun.'
I wrote not so long ago about how people send you emails that 'you gotta read.' The ones I find most annoying are those that contain history as a subject. There's always some person flipping emails tagged as 'uncovering the truth' and 'what they don't want you to know.'
The most recent email forwarded to me was about how 'Republicans have started all the wars in the 20th century.' Aside from the fact one needs simply to raise an eyebrow and research this easily refutable charge, it frightens to think how pathetic and selective we really are when it comes to history.
Here's a quick snapshot I put together - off the top of my head so if there are any errors please point them out.
America partook in 12 wars since 1776. In other words, in 230 years they have been at war 5% of the time. Of course, this does not include the proxy wars of the Cold War and other clandestine operations. The guiding principle used was as Teddy Roosevelt put it, 'speak softly and carry big stick.' Not to mention the bricks and mortars of enlightened philosophy built by Jackson, Madison, Jefferson and Wilson.
Wars that were internally fought:
1) American Revolutionary War
2) War of 1812 (more like a misunderstanding and I place it under the Revolutionary War banner)
3) Civil War
America's early international Wars:
4) Spanish-American War (includes War of the Philippine's)
5) Mexican-American War (first war under the Age of Jacksonian politics)
External battles in the 20th century not directly started by U.S.:
6) World War I
7) World War II
8) Korean War (A UN initiative, 17 countries including Canada took part. Canada sent 26 000 soldiers)
America's first direct engagement:
9) Vietnam (origins far more complex for some to grasp)
Post-Soviet Cold War:
10) Gulf War I (with international community)
11) Gulf War II (controversial continuation of GW1 - with some support)
12) Afghanistan (with world support)
Given this history, is there ample and sufficient evidence to conclude that America is a war-making machine (Eisenhower's concern for the growing industrial military complex notwithstanding. But this is another matter) as oft depicted? Never mind about the GOP. Regardless, of their role behind the scenes - all nations engage in some form of covert operations - America does not wield a huge stick like Rome or London before them - both of whom were endowed with a fraction that blesses American might.
As for which party took the initiatives:
1) Mexican- American War: James Polk (Democrat)
2) Spanish-American War: William McKinley (Republican)
3) Korean War: Dean Acheson was the key man. President at the time was Truman (Democrat)
4) Vietnam: Process of events began with Truman (Dem), Eisenhower (Rep.), Kennedy (Dem.) and finally Nixon (Rep.)
5) Gulf War I: Bush Sr. (Rep.)
6) Gulf War II and Afghanistan: Bush Jr. (Rep.)
So much for the 'fascist' GOP starting all wars. Seems pretty even to me. As you can plainly see, wars transcend party lines.
It's a strange bit of history that Kennedy and other revered Democrats started their own wars, committed adultery while in office and made shambles of domestic policy too. Did it ever occur to anyone that America is not a fascist state?
I must disagree with your analysis.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, the US invasion, repression, and subsequent occupation of the Philippines (until they were spanked by the Japanese)should be counted as apart from the Spanish-American War.
Next you leave out the twenty or so acts of aggression in the early years of the last century against small latin american countries.
The invasion of Nicaragua (1910) might not have counted as a war to the US congress, but I bet it felt like one to Nicaraguans. (Ah, yes, those civilisers, the United Fruit Company.)
Also, I note your list for internal wars leaves out the subjugation and genocide of Amerindians.
I guess they don't count?
My dear Pags, recall,"Of course, this does not include the proxy wars of the Cold War and other clandestine operations." In any event, I do not hold the tired old liberal position - which was never accurate to begin with - about the Cold War. But that's another matter. The point here was to dismiss the notion that 'Republicans stared all wars in the 20TH CENTURY.' Unless of course baby-boomer revisionists have come up with a theory positing that the Democrats who led wars were brainwashed by the Republicans. Technically, the War of the Phillipine's is a consequence and therefore derivative of the Spanish American war. Most important history books classify at it as such. In my case here, I refer to Nash, Jefrrey 'The American People Vol. 2' and the bible of them all 'The Pocket History of the United States' by Nevins, Commager and Morris. The roots and results of that war are very interesting. Ah, the 'g' word! In today's lexicon it has a broad meaning. Again, the Indian Wars were a tragic event to be sure but it went beyond the scope of this post. It wasn't about ALL AMERICAN wars. The internal ones deserve independent special considerations. Still the word genocide, like 'bigot', 'racist' and 'homophobe' is a word we have accorded a little too much flexibility. Everybody is something to someone now given the cult of political correctness. Was it 'genocide' when rival tribes fought vicious wars before Europeans arrived? When the Goths wreaked havoc in Italy to the point of blurring Roman identity, was that genocide? Indeed, the clash of the German and Roman worlds had ever-lasting implications for world history. Here in North America, we're very good at pointing out European aggression but very bad at understanding that many cultures in many parts of this grand big world - black, brown, yellow whatever - have committed acts of atrocity or aggression at some point. There are no pure races. An ironic and perverted example of this was when marcher's took to the streets to irrationally demand the legalization of illegal immigrants. Mexican-Americans held up signs along the lines of 'stealing America from natives since 1492.' One had nothing to do with the other. It was the Europeans and Spanish in particular who orignally made a mess of South America and Mexico - not America. It was a stupid assertion. In any event, it's the way of the world. Europe - is it stands - is one big blanket of multiple 'genocides.' Same with Asia. China is an amalgamation of many cultures. We're all products of a genocide somewhere down the lines of history. Again, genocide is a big word used by the media to which a) they have little understanding of and b) they reveal an incredible abmount of hypocrisy as we have turned a blind eye to many REAL ACTS OF GENOCIDE. For matters on military interpretations of war in contomeporary times I strongly suggest readers to consider John Keegan, National Review and Weekly Standard. Yes, they are conservative but a) they offer interesting ideas and b) it's clever writing. The problem with liberal thinking can be summarized in a philosophical discussion about Sophists. According to Bertrand Russell, sophists 'were prepared to follow an argument where ever it might lead them.' Which he asserts led to skepticism. He continues, "One of the defects of all philosophers since Plato is that their inquiries into ethics proceed on the assumption that they already know the conclusions to be reached." Think about this one and the intellectually dishonesty of our times. Is it fair to submit that liberals in the media use this logic? They report only what fits their preconceived notions of what is right and wrong. Of course, they do not believe there is right and wrong anymore. Just grey colours. If so, this is not journalism. Modern pseudo-Liberals (we need to make a distinction here) twist facts, from what I observe anyway, to reach a virtuous result that is not always there. Which, in turn, turns them into corrosive cynics. I'm just typing here. I should think about this last bit further. I'm not much of a philosopher myself. Enough of me.
ReplyDelete