Setting The World Stage For War
As the Biden administration executes every diplomatic blunder to inch the world closer to global conflict, it would serve us well to recall the history of the major conflicts of the United States and who was at the helm at the genesis of each. An accurate reading of history dispenses with the media-anointed narrative that it is Republicans and Conservatives who are those most prone to war.
The idea that the world has ever, at any given time, been completely at peace is to believe in a lie. Throughout history there has always been conflict; between nations, between tribes, between races, religions, etc. This exposes a naked truth that those who believe in the attainment of a Utopia simply don’t understand. The human race is a violent race born out of the very nature of the wilds. We may have the gift of being able to reason, but it makes us no less violent and conquest-oriented.
While an “enlightened” society has created competitive outlets that allow us to exercise our base aggressions (read: sports and other non-lethal competitions), those creations have simply transformed the basic human need to conquer. Regardless of these creations, lethal conflicts still exist in a consistent way somewhere in the world every day.
The Media’s Politically Motivated False Narrative
During my lifetime, which spans over sixty years, the commonly held idea is that Republicans are “hawks” and Democrats are “doves,” meaning that Republicans and Conservatives are more prone to using the military as a tool of conflict resolution than Democrats.
But a cursory examination of US military conflicts – especially the major conflicts – and who was Commander in Chief at the time, tells a dramatically different story than the one the media and the political class like to tell the American people.
For instance, after the American Revolutionary War, the next three notable foreign wars were the Barbary Wars (1801-1805), the War of 1812 (1812-1815), and the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). The presidents in office at those moments in time were Jefferson, Madison, and Polk, all Democrats or affiliated with parties that would evolve into today’s Democrat Party.
Now, I am not saying that these men were looking for a fight. In the post-Revolutionary War days the United States was a target for both foes and declared allies alike. Britain was still set on putting our cocky new country in its place after a humiliating defeat and France and Spain, the two other “superpowers” of the day, kept a wary eye for our vulnerabilities. Throw in the Islamist pirates and privateers – the Barbary corsairs – and the fledgling United States had its share of predators for which he had to keep a watchful eye; fending them off with force when need be.
The Native Americans Know All Too Well
Two more presidents affiliated with today’s Democrat Party served to be the most damaging to the Native American population in the United States: Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison.
Where history concerning Jackson’s treatment of the Native American tribes is well known. Harrison is less talked about due to the fact that he died shortly after winning office. His actions came prior to his presidency.
Jackson was, of course, the facilitator of the Trail of Tears. According to History.com:
“In 1830, [Jackson] signed the Indian Removal Act…[T]he law required the government to negotiate removal treaties…[forcing] Native Americans to vacate lands they had lived on for generations.
“In the winter of 1831, under threat of invasion by the US Army, the Choctaw became the first nation to be expelled from its land altogether. They made the journey to Indian Territory on foot…and without any food, supplies or other help from the government.
“Thousands of people died along the way. It was, one Choctaw leader told an Alabama newspaper, a ‘trail of tears and death.’”
Jackson is quoted as saying of the Native Americans:
“They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear.”
According to Todd Price, a historian who posts over at Quora.com:
“Henry Harrison was a mirror image of Jackson, yet his limited time in office…prevented him from pursuing any administrative and legislative initiatives related to Native American relations. Harrison did his damage as the territorial governor of Indiana, and his actions during that time proved that his beliefs were in lock step with those of Jackson. There really wasn’t a single US president until Ulysses Grant (R), that demonstrated any concern for the plight of Native American people.”
Which Established The Mindset
The aggression against the Native Americans continued for decades, extending into the 20th Century with enough blame to spread around. But it was the presidents who resided in what today is the Democrat Party that established the conquest-oriented relationship toward the Native American tribes.
But the more blood-thirsty history of the “enlightened” Democrats didn’t come to pass until Woodrow Wilson, the president who established his own brand of fascism and, arguably, caused the most damage to both the Great American Experiment and our nation.
During Wilson’s time in office he not only ushered in the era of Progressivism, a political movement responsible for more totalitarian-advancing damage done to both the United States and the world than almost any other, but he was also responsible for engaging the United States in the following military conflicts:
Occupation of Veracruz (1914)
Mexican Border War (1910-1919)
Occupation of Haiti (1915-1934)
Occupation of the Dominican Republic (1916-1924)
World War I (1917-1918)
And The Parade Of Death Is Launched
And although Franklin D. Roosevelt should be remembered for his continuation of Wilsonian fascism, he is best remembered for being forced into responding to the provocations of Japan in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war by Nazi Germany. Roosevelt did preside over the bulk of World War II (1941-1945).
Roosevelt's death in 1945 saw Harry S. Truman come to power. And while he reaped the popularity of being the President who saw the end of World War II, he too both ushered in an era of heavy-handed government and again, introduced our nation to a prolonged and bloody global conflict.
Truman presided over both our entrance into the Korean War (1950-1953) and the initiation of the Cold War, which would officially rage on until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Korean War became a proxy war between Soviet and Chinese supported North Korea and the US-backed South, the superpowers clashing over communism and democracy.
Between 2 and 4 million people died, 70 percent of them civilians.
And while John F. Kennedy is lionized by many on the Right today as someone who would be a Republican – and to his credit one Democrat who actually executed diplomacy to avoid a nuclear escalation in the Cuban Missile Crisis, he did exercise military aggression in the failed Bay of Pigs operation (1961).
Kennedy’s assassination – a terrible day for every American citizen – gave way to the presidency of Lyndon Johnson who presided over both the Vietnam War (1964-1975) and Cambodian War (1967-1975). This continuation of the proxy Cold War not only served as the United States' longest running war until the Afghan War, but saw the genocide of over 2.2 million Cambodians at the hand of Pol Pot after the disastrous US withdrawal from that theater.
US casualties in the Vietnam/Cambodian conflict topped 58,000. By contrast, 2,448 US service personnel were killed in Afghanistan.
Contemporary History Of
Democrat Presidential ‘Hawkishness’
Of the sixteen military engagements and conflicts since the Vietnam War, ten have been initiated under Democrat presidents and lasted longer than a year:
Multilateral Intervention in Lebanon (1982-1984) – Jimmy Carter
Iraqi No-Fly Zone Enforcement (1991-2003) – Bill Clinton
Somalia (1992-1995) – Bill Clinton
Bosnia (1992-1995) – Bill Clinton
Intervention in Haiti (1994-1995) – Bill Clinton
Kosovo (1998-1999) – Bill Clinton
Libya/Benghazi (2011-2012) – Barack Obama
Operation Observant Compass in Uganda (2011-2017) – Barack Obama
Iraq (2014-2021) – Barack Obama
Syria (2014-Present) – Barack Obama
Biden’s Buffoon Diplomacy
Which brings us to the present day and the buffoonish ineptitude of President Biden with regard to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
It goes without saying that Vladimir Putin is a pretty aggressive guy and one with designs of putting the Soviet Union back together to reclaim the mantle of potent superpower on the world stage. His aggression toward Ukraine and the total of the breakaway republics – as well as free countries from the Soviet-era “Eastern Bloc,” illustrates his intentions without fail.
So, is Biden’s overt militaristic saber-rattling playing into his hands so as to deliver global conflict as a transformative event? Are Biden’s handlers using him as a dupe to use global conflict as a transformative event for the realignment to a New World Order?
I have an ongoing dialogue with a dear friend of mine from Belgium; an intellect of the highest order who held official positions in the EU parliament with a specialized understanding of the Russian people.
In our conversations he makes it clear that he believes the Russian people are solidly conquest-oriented people and that the Russia-Ukraine conflict is “another forever war” but “only if the US fails to do anything, as has been the case with Biden so far.”
That Biden and his handlers see entering into a global conflict as a transformative event (remember Rahm Emanuel saying “Never let a good crisis go to waste”) is a given. Just like the COVID event, they always use chaos to reposition to their advantage. But we – the United States – are today not in a position to enter into a global conflict and survive as a free nation existing as a superpower.
I responded to my friend’s thoughts thusly:
“The problem here is not that the US citizenry doesn’t want to support Ukraine or that it doesn’t understand Putin to be a bloodthirsty pig. It is that we do not trust our government not to turn this conflict into another Vietnam or Afghanistan with American troops on the ground.
“We have already delivered $100-plus billion in unaccounted for aid to Ukraine, even as our treasury exists on the brink of inflationary ruin. Our missile arsenals, from the Biden administration’s lack of attention to our own military readiness, leaves us vulnerable to the Chinese, who have all but bought air time on US television to state that they see themselves already in a declared war with the US.
“If the situation was that India would counter China on the world stage militarily to keep them in check, I would say let’s throttle-up. But because we have a wholly political and power-hungry Commander in Chief who is literally run by a cadre of Democratic Socialists who actually celebrate the old style Soviet mindset, even as they openly disparage the United States as an imperialistic colonizer (Read: Valerie Jarrett, Susan Power, Susan Rice, Eric Holder, Hillary & Bill Clinton, etal.), we – the people – have no confidence that they wouldn’t mind losing the conflict to facilitate ‘change.’
“So we have:
The very real possibility that we cannot defend ourselves in a one-theater war due to lack of military personnel numbers and necessary armaments
A fragile - very fragile, economy with a spendthrift government
Federal leadership that is more symbiotic with Mao and Stalin in their philosophies than Jefferson or von Mises or Hayek
Military leadership that believes the exit from Afghanistan was a success.
“So, I ask you in all honesty. If you were an American would you want to throttle-up to war right now?
“In my heart of hearts I understand that a world without the looming shadow of a never-ending Russian threat or a patient China waiting for vulnerabilities is a good world. But the United States is not in a position to take on that burden without an equal amount of commitment from the rest of the world. It’s not that we don’t want to. We can’t.
“So, this time around, the well is dry even as our leaders continue to make commitments that require water. We are writing checks that we cannot cover and the ramification is just one. When the United States is destroyed for being depleted into non-existence, what is to come of freedom around the world?”
In The End
My overarching point in this article is this. At every turn in our nation’s history it has been a Democrat President that has presided over the United States going into major military conflicts, not the Republicans.
Yes, Republicans believe in a strong military and, as Reagan said, “peace through strength.” That’s how we joined with other free nations to lead the way for the fall of the Soviet Union and the freeing of people from the totalitarian Soviet sphere of influence.
But Republicans are not the warmongers here. That title has been rightly earned by Democrats and those who support them. In fact, it can be argued that true conservative Republicans have been the ones who have always been left to extract us from the wars that Democrats have started.
So, as Biden employs his diplomatic buffoonery and missteps his way ever closer to joining his Democrat presidential brethren in engaging us into yet another military conflict that will see American Mothers and Father, Brothers and Sisters burying their loved ones for someone else’s security, we have to make sure two questions are answered before we allow our fellow Americans to be sent to die on foreign soil once again.
Will our country survive the conflict? Will how we survive it be worth the price.
Meanwhile, as my friend so eloquently put it, “the troyka of the noxious is buying time.”
