Saturday, May 07, 2005
War analysis
By The Erudite Redneck
Which war?
"Then let us fight the war defensively, interpreting the defensive, if need be, as the right to chase (the enemy) all the way to their capital to prevent invasion, then later find that the majority (in Congress) had deceived us. It was a time-serving myopic policy, which offended even their supporters, who, though they were in no mood for analysis, were hardly to be seduced by legalities. The administration's case, however, was on no higher intellectual level: in May we were making war to repel invastion, but by August we were making war to obtain indemnity for claims and injuries and to overthrow a government whose despotism menaced free institutions."*
Iraq?
No. Mexico.
The Mexican was a war of expansion, led mostly by Southerners bent on expanding slavery, which held up the economy. The Iraq war is a war of expansion, in its own way, led mostly by Southerners bent on expanding our sources of oil, which holds up the economy.
Do not misunderstand me. ER is no peacenik. Great-great-grandpa ER fought in the Mexican War; I would've answered the call.
As for Iraq, I think we, as a people, were punch-drunk after 9/11 and that our leaders took advantage of that to expand from war in Afghanistan to conquest in Iraq. I was for it, based on the "information" we were given at the time.
I'm still generally for it. There is no shame is fighting wars for scarce resources, i.e., oil, in the global scheme of things. Sometimes. I just wish the administration would've shot straight with us.
The Mexican War, IMHO, is a close example in our history to what we're doing in Iraq. It's why I call today's Democratic Party modern "Whigs."
The Democratic party is on the wrong side of popular opinion on this war, like the Whigs were on the wrong side of popular opinion on the Mexican War.
Because of that and other reasons, I think the Democratic Party as we know it will go the way of the Whigs. Those in the current majority party, take note: The entire party structure was soon in upheaval back then, not just Whiggery. Beware your own current "success."
*Quote from Bernard DeVoto, The Year of Decision: 1846 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1943), 208.
###
Which war?
"Then let us fight the war defensively, interpreting the defensive, if need be, as the right to chase (the enemy) all the way to their capital to prevent invasion, then later find that the majority (in Congress) had deceived us. It was a time-serving myopic policy, which offended even their supporters, who, though they were in no mood for analysis, were hardly to be seduced by legalities. The administration's case, however, was on no higher intellectual level: in May we were making war to repel invastion, but by August we were making war to obtain indemnity for claims and injuries and to overthrow a government whose despotism menaced free institutions."*
Iraq?
No. Mexico.
The Mexican was a war of expansion, led mostly by Southerners bent on expanding slavery, which held up the economy. The Iraq war is a war of expansion, in its own way, led mostly by Southerners bent on expanding our sources of oil, which holds up the economy.
Do not misunderstand me. ER is no peacenik. Great-great-grandpa ER fought in the Mexican War; I would've answered the call.
As for Iraq, I think we, as a people, were punch-drunk after 9/11 and that our leaders took advantage of that to expand from war in Afghanistan to conquest in Iraq. I was for it, based on the "information" we were given at the time.
I'm still generally for it. There is no shame is fighting wars for scarce resources, i.e., oil, in the global scheme of things. Sometimes. I just wish the administration would've shot straight with us.
The Mexican War, IMHO, is a close example in our history to what we're doing in Iraq. It's why I call today's Democratic Party modern "Whigs."
The Democratic party is on the wrong side of popular opinion on this war, like the Whigs were on the wrong side of popular opinion on the Mexican War.
Because of that and other reasons, I think the Democratic Party as we know it will go the way of the Whigs. Those in the current majority party, take note: The entire party structure was soon in upheaval back then, not just Whiggery. Beware your own current "success."
*Quote from Bernard DeVoto, The Year of Decision: 1846 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1943), 208.
###
