Reflections on American Wars: Revolutionary to Iraq

"War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means."
- Karl von Clausewitz

Well hell DC Guy, I think that's the first intelligent post I've read from you. Kudos for it in all seriousness. It was neither glib nor snarky, and I appreciate the change in tone.

You are correct that war is always decisive, especially in the US. What drives me crazy is that knowing this, and looking back on history, that Republicans would say that people who don't support the war in Iraq and the President are helping the enemy.

That attitude is crap. Not supporting war doesn't automatically become "aid and comfort to the enemies". It really is an extension of our inalienable right to think and speak for ourselves.

Good writing sir.

Great choice of an angle to view it from, I hadn't thought of it that way. Well written too, though you should have mentioned the American-Philippine War too (even if you don't consider it a war, heh).

I agree that not supporting the war in Iraq and supporting the President are legitimate opinions - but I would disagree with you that Republicans would say that by doing that you're supporting the enemy.

Disagreeing with the President is a time honored tradition - calling him a liar and saying he should be impeached, however, goes beyond mere disagreement.

Saying that going to Iraq was a mistake is a legitimate opinion - saying that we deserve to lose or that we should pull out immediately again takes it a step too far.

There are degrees of what I consider to be reasonable and responsible disagreement. But with the media hyping whatever conflict they can, its hard for those who disagree with Bush and are reasonable and responsible with their arguments to break through the noise of those who are screaming for impeachment and worse.

Excellent thoughts on a very important subject. The great thing about America is that we can disagree, and that there is legitimate dissent. There is also, as you have pointed out, a line that can be crossed of irresponsibility in our debates and criticism of the government.

fascinating piece of work, DC Guy. the quote by Lincoln is an eye-opener to say the least. I thought it was a recent quote at first and was wondering why you've put it under the Mexican War until I saw its author.

curious, why didn't you include the Gulf war? I would definitely be interested in your take on that one.

Congratulationa DC, that's a great article and probably sums up how robust and 'normal democracy is in America today when many people believe otherwise.

I was not surprised about WWI as we had similar problems here, mainly due to a devisive conscription debate. What did surprise me was the level of dissent over the American Revolution. I think part of that is caused by the fact, the supporters of the British virtually regarded themselves as British subjects, thereby blurring the issue.

Well done.

Regards Bob.

It was honestly more of an oversight than anything else. The Gulf war was probably the smallest of those that I went over, but there were some of the same arguments made against the current war in Iraq back then. Not as many, but they were out there. And there was considerable consternation when we didn't remove Saddam.

It continually amazes me the amount of diverse content found on this site. it's like the total guy's site for guys.

Great article!! I'm forwarding this to a bunch of friends of mine.

Brian, why was Lincoln saying that stuff about the president at the time? Was Polk a southerner?

Nice overview. I have actually made this arguement myself in one of my humanities classes. Obviously it wasn't nearly as detailed an explanation. Though I may have to rip this idea for a paper, though I'll do all my own research and such.

This is a superb piece of work, DC Guy!

I would like to add the following - I believe that if the war had dragged on a few more years, that America would not have been able to maintain the public support it celebrated the majority of the war. This is part of what prompted Truman to drop the bomb when he did. The war needed to end and end soon.

John brings up a great point. Even when the battle in Europe was over, there were people around to criticize the victory.

While World War II had strong public support, it was not always the case in the beginning.

FDR would secretly offer his support to Churchill while publically stating that America did not need to be involved in "Europe's war".

There were many reasons FDR was playing a two-faced game with England. One of them being public opinion. Those close to the president complained that he dictated his actions by public opinion as opposed to trying to lead it.

Even though FDR was haunted by nightmares of the "Luftwaffe bombing New York", he would not commit the US to war. It wasn't until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany subsequently declared war that FDR was fully committed.

Source for Churchill/FDR Interactions: Berthon, Simon and Potts, Joanna (2006). Warlords: an extraordinary re-creation of World War II through the eyes and minds of Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. United Kingdom: Da Capo Press.

Worse - he was a Democrat. It was political. Lincoln came from the rough and tumble politics of the frontier out in Illinois, and that was their typical style back then. It took him a while to realize that wasn't how things work in DC, and he didn't end up staying very long there.

And the funny thing is, the next job he got was President. Go figure.