War!

This is coolbert:

In one of the most recent blog entries I mentioned the scurrilous comments by Chris Matthews regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Chris downright stated that the incident [Gulf of Tonkin incident] did NOT take place. This was in the context of further continuing suggestions by critics of President Bush that the President lied in taking us into the current war in Iraq.

Suggesting that the public has been lied to and led down the path to war, and unjustifiably so, has always been a phenomenon that is a more or less common feature of American life.

You could make a case that in ALL wars America has fought in, similar suggestions have been made. NOT just in Vietnam or in the case of the present Iraqi war.

The Mexican-American War of 1848 is said to have been instigated by an attack by Mexican soldier upon U.S. troops. And this is true. The Mexicans DID fire the first shots. But it is not so easy! American forces at the time were encamped and had raised the American flag over DISPUTED territory, claimed by both sides. It could be argued that the Mexicans, when they attacked, felt they were DEFENDING land that was rightfully theirs!!

The American Civil War was an undeclared war between the federal and secessionist forces of the south. War WAS NOT declared by Congress, as mandated. Lincoln FOUND what many call a ridiculous reason to quell the rebellious southern states, that reason being that the respective secessionist states had occupied and seized FEDERAL property without consent of the U.S. government!!

[it should be understood that NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state from seceding. Lincoln DID have to find a justification for waging war against the south, even a specious reason. This IS SO!!]

The Spanish-American War of 1898 was accompanied by controversy from the start. Allegations that the U.S.S. Maine was blown up by a Spanish mine while in harbor at Havana have NOT been ever resolved. Even critics of the time said that the evidence was inconclusive at best. This did NOT stop Congress from declaring war. Investigations and evidence EVEN UP TO THE PRESENT DAY HAVE NOT RESOLVED the issue of what exactly happened to the Maine!!

[There are four theories as to what happened to cause the explosion that sank the Maine. One is that it WAS the Spanish government that DID in a deliberate manner sink the Maine with a mine [often called a torpedo]. A second theory is that the deed was done by Spanish colonialists [quite distinct from the official Spanish government] who resented what they saw as American intrusion in what they considered to be "their" turf. A third theory is that the Cuban insurrectionists blew the ship up in an effort to bring American forces into the war on the side of Garcia [the insurrectionist Cuban General]. And yet a fourth theory holds that the ship blew up from internal detonation, dust exploding from within the ship's coal bunkers causing a sympathetic and highly destruction explosion of the ship's internal munition stores. ]

What is euphemistically called the Philippine Insurrection commenced with an unprovoked attack upon UNARMED American soldiers by Filipino nationalists.

And this is true!! UNARMED American troops were set upon by bolo wielding Filipino young men as they, the Americans, sat down to eat a meal. Those American troops were DELIBERATELY DISARMED by their commander so as "not to create an incident"!!

Those Filipinos that participated in the attack upon the unarmed American soldiers DID see themselves as patriots who had exchanged one set of colonists [Spanish] for another [American ]. They, the Filipinos, NOT want either as a colonial master.

I would have thought that the Filipinos would have at least given the Americans the value of the doubt, seeing that they [the American troops], were going around unarmed. But, when you are SEEN as an occupier, whether you are carry weapons or not seems to not make a difference. The perception for the beholder is what seems to count.

[in this case, the party that fired the first shot [actually used bolo knives], is seen as the culprit. I find it most interesting that the signal for the Filipino young men to attack the American soldiers was the ringing of a pair of church bells. These bells were later captured by American forces and taken to America as prizes of war. Today the bells are to be seen on display at an Air Force base. The Filipino government of the PRESENT time has made entreaties to have the bells returned, to no avail. Sometimes, old grudges die hard!!]

American entry into the First World War [WW1] was controversial from the start. Wildly exaggerated and erroneous allegations of German atrocities were used to stir up the American public to a fever pitch. Unrestricted submarine warfare on the part of the Germans, and the sinkings of non-combatant vessels such as the Lusitania created "controversy" that led to eventual American participation in the war. It is now believed [and was believed by many at the time of the sinking] that the Lusitania was armed and carrying war munitions, making it a justifiable target for German submarines. This may be true, but only to a limited extent!! The Lusitania was carrying a lot of passengers that were non-combatants. A small amount of munitions would have created a legal right for the Germans to torpedo the ship, but not necessarily a moral right.

[it is reputed that in the White House is a safe that CAN ONLY BE OPENED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!! This safe allegedly contains state secrets of such a nature that they CAN NEVER be seen by the general public at all. ARE SO CONTROVERSIAL . Supposedly one document contained within this safe is the actual shipping manifest of the Lusitania, which does CONFIRM that the vessel WAS carrying war munitions. This manifest was purportedly obtained and placed in the safe by President Wilson, Wilson of course realizing the stir that would be caused by the public exposure of the manifest!!]

[some years ago, some SCUBA divers descended to the wreck of the Lusitania, and found an opening and mounts that seemed to suggest that the Lusitania WAS outfitted with some sort of small cannon. A cannon that had been removed after the fact!!]

[it could be argued that it would have to be demonstrated that the Germans DID KNOW about the gun and war munitions in advance for the sinking to be a justifiable act of war. If they DID KNOW and it can be demonstrated that they, the Germans, DID KNOW this, the sinking was justifiable, otherwise, NOT SO!!]

The American entry into World War Two [WW2] was of course mired with controversy from the start also.

It is without question that the attack upon Pearl Harbor left the U.S. no choice but to declare war and pursue that war to victory.

The argument most popular with the general public is that the U.S. "pushed" the Japs into attacking us by cutting off the supply of oil from the U.S. to Japan. This IS NOT TRUE!! The U.S. DID cut off supplies of refined aviation gasoline, but that is all. Oil shipments of unrefined crude oil proceeded normally even up to the time of actual hostilities!!

What is more controversial about American entry into WW2 is the extent to which President Roosevelt and his civilian and military advisors were aware that an attack was forthcoming, but did NOT take adequate measures. The implication is that Roosevelt WANTED the attack to occur and did not take proper measures to warn and alert the forces in Hawaii!! And the evidence is that Roosevelt and his closest advisors DID know more than what has generally been assumed. Knew more, but DID NOT take steps they could have taken.

American involvement in the Korean War is said to have all been the result of an accident. Korea WAS NOT mentioned in a speech by the then Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, as being within the vital sphere of American interests. Korea was NOT nmentioned as being a place the U.S. would "draw the line" against communist aggression. This omission was felt to a go-ahead signal for the communist North Koreans to launch their invasion of South Korea.

[this gaffe [if it was a gaffe??!!] on the part of Acheson in all probability had NOTHING to do with the North Korean attack. That attack was planned by Soviet staff officers well in advance of the speech of Acheson. Kim Il Sung asked permission from Stalin to attack, and did so regardless of what was stated in the speech by Acheson. Nonetheless, the perception that the ommission of Korea as being within the vital sphere of American interests leading to war is widely believed!!]

Large scale American involvement in the Vietnam War of course was dogged from the beginning by the misperceptions of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Widely believed EVEN AT THE TIME as merely a pretext to gain Congressional approval for much increased American participation.

Even during the various American Indian Wars, EVEN BACK TO 1703 [and perhaps even before that??], there has been controversy regarding the hostilities of the warring parties and the reasons for going to war. Of course in 1703, the United States did NOT exist. Nonetheless, even among the predecessors of the independent American states, it was not all black and white and white with regard to war. The DEERFIELD MASSACRE, mentioned in a previous blog entry, was precipitated by American English speaking colonists of the Massachusetts Bay colony occupying and building upon land that was disputed territory between the English speaking colonists, the French speaking colonists of Quebec, and the various Indian nations of the area!! Contention!! NOT black and white.

As for the War of 1812, well, I am just not conversant enough to be able to comment on the origins of that war. The press gang imposed on American sailors at high sea I believe was the stated main reason for the war. Perhaps not entirely?? I just cannot say.

Even such a clear-cut-case of aggression as the invasion of Kuwait by the forces of Saddam Hussein, is NOT necessarily seen as being justification as it was for the American response, resulting in the First Gulf War.

Critics of American intervention at the time [1991], suggested that the U.S. government gave the GO-AHEAD for Saddam to invade Kuwait in the first place.

[some still make this suggestion!!]

Such criticism is based upon the controversial meeting between Saddam Hussein and American Ambassador April Glaspie in the months prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. A meeting during which Glaspie supposedly told Hussein that any dispute between Iraq and Kuwait was to be resolved by the two nations themselves, without intervention by outside powers.

The particular dispute in question was the $70 billion dollar debt owed by Iraq to Kuwait. A debt that Hussein wished to renegotiate. A debt that Kuwait WOULD NOT renegotiate. This is what led to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.

[obstensibly this is the case. Saddam seems to have designs on Kuwait for some time. Border disputes between Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia have been common in the past. Historically, Saddam makes a point of saying that in the past, Kuwait did NOT exist as a sovereign entity, but WAS considered to be a province of Iraq!!]

To suggest that Glaspie's comments gave the GO-AHEAD for a military response on the part of Iraq is PREPOSTEROUS. A military solution to the debt problem was not even on the mind of Glaspie at the time. Such a suggestion that this comment of Glaspie constituted a GO-AHEAD for Saddam are ludicrous, and I think even the critics of the First President Bush would agree this is so also!!

Part of the problem seems to be with the American public itself. The desire is great to be able to point to one definite, tangible, OVER-RIDING REASON why the entry into war occurred in the first place. Such a REASON is not often so clear. Reasons for going to war at any time are often multiple, and even then are shaded with grey in many circumstances. It is NOT so easy to make a SIMPLE, UNCOMPLICATED argument for war. This just cannot be done!!

coolbert.