Perhaps the 350,000 American dead of WW II escape your characterization as having died in vain because they won their war? That is strategic thinking of the silliest order. We may have lost Indo-China, but the subsequent prosperity and relative freedom enjoyed by the rest of SE Asia is testament to our long-term strategic victory. Moreover, the prolonged war in SE Asia helped exacerbate tensions among the Communist world. It was no accident that there was a Sino-Soviet war in 1969, and a Sino-Vietnamese war in 1979.
Frankly, to label the deaths of combat soldiers as being in vain because of subsequent domestic political developments is pretty low.
And yes, American casualties, as tragic as each one always is, are a good thing. They send a powerful message, opposite of that sent by Bubba after Mogadishu, that we are willing to make the sacrifices necssary to destroy our enemies. Ergo, to become our enemy is an act of self-destruction.
Ever wonder why battles like the Alamo and Bunker Hill stand out in our national consciousness? Because of our willingness to stand and fight to the last (literally, in the case of the Alamo). It is a powerful statement of will. Similar examples include Mexico's Cinco de Mayo, or the French Foreign Legion's adulation of their defeat at Camerone.
Finally, on the simple elevl of military history, one measure of an elite force is its abilities to endure casaulties and continue to fight. Lesser soldiers run when the blood flows, but history's great units, like the magnificent US Marines, notorious Waffen-SS or Napoleon's Imperial Guard, take a lickin' and keep on tickin'.
I don't see this connection at all. "The New Deal" began many years previous to the U.S. involvement in WWII. It was in response to the Depression and the people's cry for the government to "do something."
Much as we might despise the New Deal and see in it the seeds of the bitter harvest we are reaping today in terms of increasing socialism, it had nothing to do with our war effort (unless you agree with the cynical view that FDR had us enter the war to divert attention from the economy which despite years of New Deal policies was still in the doldrums).
The debate was never over the war effort. It was a time of great national unity.
Consider this: Even though our war effort today is the result of an attack that exceeeds that of Pearl Harbor in treachery, and even though most people should be able to plainly see why we are in this, two months hadn't gone by before you had the "nattering nabobs of negativity" yammering on about "mission drift" and "quagmire," even though the war was in its first WEEKS.
And now, barely six months later, and for purely partisan polical reasons, the Democrats are making the same kinds of noises now under guise of Savile Row suits that they did when they were attired in denim with red headband.
Again, I submit: They would NEVER be so bold had We The People not allowed them to "win" the Vietnam War debate and thus cast the United States as the Great Satan, even among those who are in elected office.
Consider the case of Rep. Barbara Lee of California who voted "no" on the resolution to authorize expenditures for the war on terrorism.
In justifying her dissenting vote Lee made it clear she was defending what she understood to be the national interest of capitalist America. She objected to the "open-ended" nature of the use of force resolution, because it “significantly reduces Congress’s authority,” and she worried that things could “spiral out of control.”
You would NEVER have had such rhetoric in World War II. In her vote against the declaration of war on Japan in December 1941, Rep. Jeannette Rankin declared, “I want to stand by my country, but I cannot vote for war. I vote no.” In other words, unlike Barbara Lee who thinks everything the United States ever does is in the name of "white privilege" and "subjugation of the poor and downtrodden," Rankin simply said "I don't believe in war and I can't vote for it."
As a result of her vote she was booted out of office in the 1942 elections.
Lee will probably be elected again and again as is the case with tenured Leftists in the Democrat party.
That's the difference between "now" and "then" that we need to understand.