Who’s getting us in all these wars?
July, 2007 by Mitch Anderson
White House, Washington, 2006 The hawks and the Neocons of the White House of course. At this time, more than ever before, the general consensus is that the Republicans are nothing but bloodthirsty warmongers while the democrats are the peaceful “doves”.
President Theodore Roosevelt sitting on a steam shovel at the Panama Canal, 1906.Is that so? Lets have a look at our history. Teddy Roosevelt, a democrat, famously “Took Panama” and we enjoyed only a few years of peace until, another democrat, Woodrow Wilson got us in the very unpopular World War One. Twenty years later, F D Roosevelt, went to the edge of the presidential power and risked impeachment to get us in World War Two. Some say “Thanks God for that”, but again, a democrat.
1953: Henry Truman, former Vice president of the now deceased FDR, orders General McArthur to liberate the Korean peninsula leading to three years of war and 30,000 American casualties. Again, a democrat.
Gerald R. Ford - Official White House photograph, 1974.Vietnam: President Kennedy, of the Democratic party, sends a few thousand military “advisors” to Vietnam. Linden Johnson continues the war, and so does Nixon, until Gerald Ford, a republican, faces the facts and tosses the towel. In 1973 he orders the complete US withdrawal from South Vietnam. He goes in history as the first US president to loose a war.
And then there was the first Gulf war, in all fairness an intervention led by President George Bush senior. This was the first expeditionary war in the last hundred years to be led by a Republican.
And there is Iraq now, grossly mishandled, opposed and sabotaged tooth and nail by the Democratic Party.
Is this a reversal of policy and thinking? Will we see an isolationist “trade but don’t interfere” solution from the Party that traditionally was always ready to save the world for democracy?
Would FDR, called by some, the savior of civilization, approve of Hillary’s Clinton plan to unconditionally withdraw from Iraq? How would he make sense from a plan that would leave the most oil rich subcontinent in terrible turmoil, at the potential mercy of “leaders” like Ahmadinejad and Komeiny?
President Harry Truman playing piano, 1959What would Harry Truman, who saved twenty five million Koreans from Communism, reconcile with Obama’s plan to just quit a region that is by far more essential to the global security than the tip of the Korean peninsula? The truth is that the new Democrats are not having a plan or a vision for the Middle East. One that wouldn’t involve war. I personally think that they simply want to quit out of tremendous naiveté and the egotistic desire to turn what W. Bush started into a failure.
What could be next? How about a complete withdrawal of all our military from around the world? If we cant finish the job in Iraq, what’s the point of keeping bases in almost 100 countries? For our defense? No country in their right mind would ever attack us for the foreseeable future anyway.
2008 © Mitch Anderson.
Mitch Anderson is the producer of the film "The World Without US" . This feature-length documentary debates the implications and consequences of US military involvement in the world today. Future scenarios in the absence of the US intervention are well debated and substantiated by experts and ordinary citizens whose lives have been affected by the American presence in different regions. World renowned author Niall Ferguson PHD brings his insights along side James Lilley (Former US Ambassador to China) and many others. For more information and trailers please see http://www.theworldwithoutus.com