What is the fascination with war the Democrats seem to have? President* Biden has deployed 3000 troops to Eastern Europe as a ‘deterrent to Russian aggression against Ukraine,’ and has a total of 8500 American soldiers on ‘high alert’ as that crisis evolves.
For now, we shall lay aside the question of whether the U. S. has any strategic interest in this country, and securing its borders against the Russian bear, as we concede that Ukraine has long been part of the old Russian Empire and also its successor state, the Soviet Union.
What we will consider is the Democratic Party’s obsession with war, as seen in their history. As a starting point, we posit that the oldest American political party sees their antecedents in two Presidents, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. In fact, to this day, the Dems have what they call the Jefferson/Jackson Day celebrations as a sop to their political forebears. Down through American history, what has been the (sorry) record of war and the Democratic Party?
Beginning with Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), marines and naval forces were sent to the Mediterranean in what has been dubbed the Barbary Coast Wars. In retaliation against the Barbary Coast pirates, our forces engaged in conflict from 1801-1805. A second ‘war’ lasted three days in 1815. Was this conflict needed? Probably, but it was not the last war instigated by or engaged in by Democratic leaders.
Jefferson’s successor, James Madison (1809-1817) managed to get us into what became known as the War of 1812 against Great Britain. Most historians believe he bungled his way into that war because of impressment of our sailors and incursion on the Western frontier. Was it necessary? Perhaps that was answered by the Treaty of Ghent which ended the fighting, simply saying that neither side won, and that everything went back to the situation before the fighting began.
After years of relative peace, the next ‘war’ was instigated by another Democrat, Andrew Jackson (1829-1837). This ‘war’ would last many years, but in Jackson’s day, it included the infamous Trail of Tears, where thousands of Indians died on a forced march from the southeastern United States to what is now Oklahoma. The Indian Wars were a legacy of Jackson’s policies. Ironically, Indians had been part of Jackson’s forces that won the Battle of New Orleans in 1815 during the War of 1812 against Great Britain.
The 1840s witnessed one of the shortest wars in our history, and was begun because of the President’s campaign slogan of Manifest Destiny. James Knox Polk, 1845-1849, sent soldiers to the Texas-Mexico border, triggering the Mexican War (1846-1848). This conflict was probably not necessary, but did yield vast stretches of territory to the U. S.
Democrats forced the next war in which the U. S. engaged. The President in 1860, when many southern states seceded was James Buchanan (1857-1861) a Democrat, and the Civil War ensued. Democrats began the Civil War on January 9, 1861 as Citadel Cadets fired on a Northern ship carrying supplies and troops to Fort Sumpter, causing it to turn around and abandon its mission. Then General P. T. Beauregard attacked Fort Sumpter on April 12 of the same year and the war was on. Needed or not, the Civil War was a watershed for the American republic. Some might argue that the Republican, Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) was leader of the Union during the fighting, but the problem was handed to him by his Democratic predecessor, Buchanan.
Indian Wars dominated the Army in the years following the Civil War, until 1898. Here was an anomaly — a Republican, William McKinley (1897-1901) who maneuvered us into the Spanish-American War, fought over a few short months of 1898. Dubbed a ‘splendid little war’ by an American diplomat, it gained Puerto Rico and Guam for us.
Another Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) was our leader during the next conflict, World War 1. Fought from 1914-1918, Wilson called for our participation in April 1917. Was that justified? Some historians would argue that the U. S. had no pressing issues with a European War, but the answer is probably yes by 1917.
Many Americans are still alive and remember the beginning of the next war, World War II (1939-1945). For us, the bombing of Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, brought us into the War, perhaps the most ‘popular’ war in our history. Many forget that the Democrat in the White House had long been in favor of our entering the war on the Allied side, as Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945) was an ardent interventionist.
A short five years later, another Democrat, Harry Truman (1945-1953) thrust us into a conflict in the far east, a ‘police action’ that has been called the Korean War (1950-1953). Was this needed and was this war a success for America? To this day, the U. S. has about 28,000- 30,000 troops stationed in South Korea to ensure the North Koreans stay on their side of the border on that peninsula.
I, along with many of my fellow countrymen, remember well the next conflict we were engaged in, the Vietnam War (1961-1973). Two Democratic Presidents, John Kennedy (1961-1963) sent troops to South Vietnam to stop the Communists in the North from overrunning the democratic South. Kennedy’s involvement consisted mainly of a few ‘advisors’ to the South Vietnamese Army, but Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969) eventually would station more than half a million of our servicemen in that Southeastern country, to keep the whole region from falling into the Communist camp. How did that turn out? The North took over all of what was known as Indo-China in 1975 and made it communist. Not another country fell lost to that ideology, and now the U. S. has full diplomatic relations with Vietnam. And over 58,000 American lives had been lost for nothing.
Although the next Democratic President, Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) had no wars, he did preside over the Iranian Hostage Crisis and sent a doomed rescue effort to that country.
A Republican, Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) only sent a few soldiers to the island nation of Grenada to rescue Americans there from a takeover by communists inspired by Cuba. It was not really a war, so maybe shouldn’t count.
However, his successor, George H. W. Bush (1989-1993) spearheaded what he called the ‘coalition of the willing’, to the Middle East, to free Kuwait from Iraq’s aggression there. This has been called the First Iraq War, 1990-1991.
Following H. W. Bush to the Oval Office was the Arkansas Democrat, Bill Clinton (1993-2001). His warlike legacy was cemented by our participation in the Balkans, spurred on by the Bosnian Serbs trying to wipe out the Muslims in that country. We committed about 20,000 soldiers to the NATO effort to stop the genocide, and kept thousands there throughout the 1990s. One quote about the Democrat, Clinton, was: . “He didn’t blink,” National Security Coordinator Richard Clarke said. “We knew that day that we had a commander-in-chief who was rational and comfortable with the use of force.”
Next came two wars, disastrous in their ultimate consequences, both begun by the Republican George W. Bush (2001-2009). These wars, first in Afghanistan (2002-2021) and then in Iraq (2002-2011), both ended poorly for the U. S. Iraq was based on some faulty intelligence; Afghanistan was mounted to punish those who protected the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack on New York’s World Trade Center. Thousands of American lives were lost, billions of dollars were spent and we have not seen the end of the damage done to our national interests.
A quick word about Donald Trump, (2017-2021), who did not begin nor exacerbate any foreign conflicts, but began the pullout from Afghanistan. This was an anomaly, for Trump built up the military and followed Reagan’s dictum of peace through strength. He managed to blunt the North Koreans’ attempts to project nuclear power, and brokered the Abraham Accords in the Middle East, which did much to lessen the tension in that area.
But that brings us to the Democrat, Joe Biden, the twelfth president out of fifteen who have gotten us into wars, and who seems to be following in his Democratic political forebearers footsteps in the militaristic syndrome since only three war presidents were Republicans. With the belligerence shown by previous Democratic administrations, he has threatened Russia with tough sanctions, and the movement of our troops to the area, we wonder whether a conflict over Ukrainian borders will call our armed services into battle once again. Is there something in the Democratic blood that seems to want to project American strength through battle? To the leader of the Dems, is this the only path to world leadership and prestige? And an aftethought — with the disastrous bungling of our departure from Afghanistan, does Biden* even have clue as to how to effectively lead the military as the supposed Commander-in-Chief?
American voters would do well to hold those who aspire to power in our system to the idea of America first, ready to defend our republic against any incursion on our sovereignty, but making sure that any deployment of troops was in protection of our way of life, of our freedoms, of our institutions and of our citizens’ welfare. Anything more is too much, and those who advocate for unlimited use of our military (like the Democrats?) must be rejected. Not only do Democrats not know how to run a country, they don’t know how to keep us out of war!