Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggght 
In recent years, Republicans have been considerably more militaristic than Democrats, haven’t they?
I suspect the US would have been dragged into the European war even if Japan was completely out of the picture.
Lend Lease, and the USN’s “shoot on sight” orders vis-a-vis Uboats (with a US neutrality patrol line that went as far east as Iceland) are not the actions of a strictly neutral President. (W. Wilson had far less provocation to DOW Germany in 1917.)
The “man on the street” in America was isolationist (mostly), but FDR was not. He was concerned that if Germany had been able to force Great Britain (and it’s Commonwealth allies) to surrender (or sign some armistice), that the resultant German hegemony over Europe would be even harder to oppose, peacefully or not.
From State of the Union speech, 6 Jan '41:
This speech was not unusual for him, in the sense of his warnings of the dangers he perceived developing overseas.
In direct answer to your question, the way things worked out, “yes”. Japan’s attack was in response to our (the US’s) embargos and diplomatic demands, (which were of course in response to some of Japan’s actions in China, Indochina, and Manchuria).
Are you asking if the US military is/was more active in the last 8 years?
The troop levels required for Iraq are definately a stand-out point, but otherwise, no, the US is not more “adventure-some” than usual.
If your asking about the “hot air” coming out of Washington (especially around election times), that’s a tougher question, I think, to answer objectively.
Than what? Than the Democrats during the same period? Well…that would be because the Republicans were in charge during some of that period. I note that we haven’t become noticably less ‘militaristic’ since the Dems won control of the legislature.
The thing is, you could skew the answer to this toward whatever partisan position you wanted, depending on which time period you chose to compare and contrast it to. You could show that either Dems or 'Pubs were ‘more militaristic’ by simply shifting your 8 year window. Even comparing death tolls (either civilian or US military loses) you could show whatever you WANTED to show.
In the end though it’s kind of a silly question.
-XT
In recent years, Republicans have had more power. You don’t think the Republicans would be gung-ho about this war had it been a Democrat idea, do you?
Talk about selective portrayal of the past! Let’s go deeper, to see if the “Dems start wars” trend holds.
War of 1812: Democrat-Republican
(general in this war won election as a Democrat; rise of populist Democrats)
Mexican War: Democrat
(general in this war won election as a Whig)
American Civil War: Republican
(massive internal upheaval, long succession of GOP Presidents)
Spanish-American War: Republican
(T. Roosevelt’s progressives lose control of GOP to Taft’s fat cats.)
WWI: Democrat
(Great Depression, collapse of GOP rise of new “Roosevelt Coalition” Democrats)
WWII: Democrat
(general in this war won election as GOP)
Korea: Democrat
Viet Nam: Democrat
(Partial collapse of the Roosevelt Coalition; rise of McGovernite peacenik Dems; the hawkish wing that included JFK & LBJ defect to GOP as “neo-conservatives”.)
Iraq 1: Republican
Afghanistan: Republican
Iraq 2: Republican
Suddenly the “Dems start wars” pattern doesn’t exist–what a shock.
What’s new about that situation? Up until WWII, I believe, we always had a small, careerist, all-volunteer army in peacetime, and when war broke out its ranks were swelled by fresh recruits and, in some wars, conscripts. Then when the war ended the ranks would be thinned out again, the conscripts discharged. Officers already serving when the war started would be promoted and set over newly-minted junior officers – and then, likely as not, demoted to prewar rank after the war, not for any incompetence but just because a peacetime army’s table of organization didn’t need so many senior officers.
Of course, all that dates from the days when there was a clear distinction between wartime and peacetime.
Well, I’ve known a lot of conservatives to decry Clinton’s military interventions in Yugoslavia and Somalia. (Conflicts in which, be it noted, the U.S. had nothing material to gain by victory, and intervention really was based mostly on humanitarian motives, and mostly for the sake of Muslims, at that; and I’ve heard Clinton felt regret over not intervening in Rwanda.)
Not that I don’t agree that the whole “GOP starts wars” thing is silly, but…that bit I pulled from your quote right there is kind of the main point. The Dems as we know them now didn’t really exist Pre-JFK and by the time LBJ was out of office those Dems had all turned Neo-Con. If you are going to do that kind of comparison then it’s really only fair to say that the modern Democratic party hasn’t started any wars, as it didn’t exist prior to 1968 or so (in a really fuzzy sort of general way), well after the party got us involved in Vietnam. And everything since then (unless you want to count Somalia and Bosnia, and I don’t since it weakens my argument :p) has been Republican driven.
Not that the modern GOP resembles the party of Lincoln either.
Silly argument on all sides really.
The assumption that it would be any use – that a WWIII would remain strictly conventional-weapons-based long enough for a massive boost in boots-on-the-ground to make a difference.
foolsguinea, you can’t really go as far back even as Teddy Roosevelt in terms of parties, because the Democratic and Republican parties have both shifted a great deal over the last century. I think Lincoln and Roosevelt would both find some things they liked in the platforms of both parties, and some things they disliked. (Not necessarily the same things…)
WW1 and 2 were foisted upon us; we had no choice but to go in and threats were real. I’m a bit :dubious: re Korea and certainly Vietnam was useless. But for sure, the Gulf War, Iraq and were trumped up nonsense that solved nothing–thanks Papa and Son!
Afghanistan–was that a war? Seems more like a chronic ailment to me.
The point is not Dems did this or Reps did that to get us into war. IMO, you need to look at why we went to war, what were the consequences of that action and how did it effect us in later years. We don’t know the fallout of the Iraq war–but we will feel it for decades to come.
Jim: keep in mind that casualties are down because we now save so many horribly maimed soldiers that would have previously have died from their injuries. I’m not so sure that’s entirely all blessing (but that doesn’t mean I would want them to die. I mean that to live with VA “benefits” with such injuries is a terribly tough row to hoe).
Plus: Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo.
Well…by my count that would be:
Dems: War of 1812, Mexican American War (though I’d be more than willing to let you toss this one out), American Civil War (I would put this one more in the Dems camp than anything, though I’m going to count it for both), WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam…that’s 7, many of which were MAJOR conflicts.
'Pubs: American Civil War, Spanish-American War, Iraq 1, Afghanistan and Iraq 2…which is 5, 1 of which is the same conflict counted twice and the only one of which counts as major is really the American Civil War. The rest of these conflicts are really pretty small potatoes compared to conflicts like WWI, WWII, Korea or Vietnam, at least from the perspective of US casualties.
All of which is STILL stupid to compare since every one of these conflicts were complex and really it wasn’t one party or the other that got us into most of them. Hell, the Civil War had it’s roots all the way back to the revolution, and I think most historians would agree that the part played by the Republicans was pretty small and only when the conflict was inevitable. Most of those conflicts you listed (and several small ones on the same scale you notably didn’t) were small potatoes when looked at in perspective…which says that while the Dems and Pubs may slash at each other about all this, in reality the US (as a whole) has simply not been involved in all that many major conflicts, compared to most other world powers.
Still, by my count, and looked at in purely silly and simplistic terms, the Dems win the ‘which party has gotten us into more wars’ prize…
-XT
Which is odd, because the Republicans are always harping on how the Democrats can’t handle warfare.
A wild over-generalization which got stuck in my head a few weeks ago is that Republicans are okay with going to war if they have a plan and Democrats are okay with it if they have a reason. In Iraq, as it turns out, we had neither.
Can you actually name a war the Repubs started that had a ‘plan’? I can’t think of any. Maybe the Spanish-American, but I am not to familiar with the history of that conflict. The rest of the listed Repub conflicts did not have any plan.
I’m not for the draft for the conflicts we are currently fighting, nor for anything on their scale. If something on the scale of WWII cropped up though, yeah, I’d say a draft is warranted. I don’t think many people would be too against the draft in that case. WWIII implies a conflict that would be so large in scale that the very survival of our country and our families would be at stake…that’s worth instituting a draft for in my opinion. I have a feeling Obama would support a draft in that situation as well.
In the name of disclosure, I’m a quite liberal, Obama supporting, ex-Army officer (OIF Veteran).
To get this away from which party starts wars dick-measuring contests, the president doesn’t have the authority to institute a draft. Congress does.
Congress isn’t going to reinstate the draft any time soon, no matter what President Bush or President McCain might wish. So this entire thread is a silly waste of time, just like all the other “They’re planning a draft!” handwringing threads we’ve had over the last few years.