Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

To Make War, Presidents Lie
LewRockwell.com ^ | 1 October 2002 | Robert Higgs

Posted on 10/01/2002 3:13:22 AM PDT by Greybird

When American presidents prepare for foreign wars, they lie. Surveying our history, we see a clear pattern. Since the end of the nineteenth century, if not earlier, presidents have misled the public about their motives and their intentions in going to war. The enormous losses of life, property, and liberty that Americans have sustained in wars have occurred in large part because of the public's unwarranted trust in what their leaders told them before leading them into war.

In 1898, President William McKinley, having been goaded by muscle-flexing advisers and jingoistic journalists to make war on Spain, sought divine guidance as to how he should deal with the Spanish possessions, especially the Philippines, that US forces had seized in what ambassador John Hay famously described as a "splendid little war."

Evidently, his prayer was answered, because the president later reported that he had heard "the voice of God," and "there was nothing left for us to do but take them all and educate the Filipinos, and uplift and Christianize them."

In truth, McKinley's motivations had little if anything to do with uplifting the people whom William H. Taft, the first Governor-General of the Philippines, called "our little brown brothers," but much to do with the political and commercial ambitions of influential expansionists such as Captain Alfred T. Mahan, Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and their ilk. In short, the official apology for the brutal and unnecessary Philippine-American War was a mendacious gloss.

The Catholic Filipinos evidently did not yearn to be "Christianized" in the American style, at the point of a Springfield rifle, and they resisted the US imperialists as they had previously resisted the Spanish imperialists. The Philippine-American War, which officially ended on July 4, 1902, but actually dragged on for many years in some islands, cost the lives of more than 4,000 US troops, more than 20,000 Filipino fighters, and more than 220,000 Filipino civilians, many of whom perished in concentration camps eerily similar to the relocation camps into which US forces herded Vietnamese peasants some sixty years later.

When World War I began in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson's sympathies clearly lay with the British. Nevertheless, he quickly proclaimed US neutrality and urged his fellow Americans to be impartial in both thought and deed. Wilson himself, however, leaned more and more toward the Allied side as the war proceeded. Still, he recognized that the great majority of Americans wanted no part of the fighting in Europe, and in 1916 he sought reelection successfully on the appealing slogan, "He Kept Us Out of War."

Soon after his second inauguration, however, he asked Congress for a declaration of war, which was approved, although six senators and fifty members of the House of Representatives had the wit or wisdom to vote against it. Wilson promised this war would be "the war to end all wars," but wars aplenty have taken place since the guns fell silent in 1918, leaving their unprecedented carnage -- nearly nine million dead and more than twenty million wounded, many of them hideously disfigured or crippled for life, as well as perhaps ten million civilians who died of starvation or disease as a result of the war's destruction of resources and its interruption of commerce.

And what did the United States or the world gain? Only a twenty-year reprieve before the war's smoldering embers burst into flame again.

After World War I, Americans felt betrayed, and they resolved never to make the same mistake again. Yet, just two decades later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt began the maneuvers by which he hoped to plunge the nation once again into the European cauldron. Unsuccessful in his naval provocations of the Germans in the Atlantic, he eventually pushed the Japanese to the wall by a series of hostile economic-warfare measures, issued clearly unacceptable ultimatums, and induced them to mount a desperate military attack, most devastatingly on the US forces he concentrated at Pearl Harbor.

Campaigning for reelection in Boston on October 30, 1940, FDR had sworn: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." Well, Peleliu ain't Peoria. Roosevelt was lying when he made his declaration, just as he had lied repeatedly before and would lie repeatedly for the remainder of his life. (Stanford historian David M. Kennedy, careful not to speak too stridently, refers to FDR's "frequently cagey misrepresentations to the American public.")

Yet many, many Americans trusted this inveterate liar, sad to say, with their lives, and during the war more than 400,000 of them paid the ultimate price.

Among FDR's many political acolytes was a young congressman, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who eventually and, for the world, unfortunately, clawed his way to the presidency. As chief executive, he had to deal with vital questions of war and peace, and like his beloved mentor, he relied heavily on lying to the public. In October 1964, seeking to gain election by portraying himself as the peace candidate (in contrast to the alleged mad bomber Barry Goldwater), LBJ told a crowd at Akron University: "We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."

In 1965, however, shortly after the start of his elected term in office, Johnson exploited the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, itself based on a fictitious account of an attack on US naval forces off Vietnam, and initiated a huge buildup of US forces in Southeast Asia that would eventually commit more than 500,000 American "boys" to fight an "Asian boy's" war.

Some 58,000 US military personnel would lose their lives in the service of LBJ's vanity and political ambitions, not to speak of the millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians killed and wounded in the melee. Chalk up another catastrophe to a lying American president.

Now President George W. Bush is telling the American people that we stand in mortal peril of imminent attack by Iraqis or their agents armed with weapons of mass destruction. Having presented no credible evidence or compelling argument for his characterization of the alleged threat, he simply invites us to trust him, and therefore to support him as he undertakes what once would have been called naked aggression.

Well, David Hume long ago argued that just because every swan we've seen was white, we cannot be certain that no black swan exists. So Bush may be telling the truth. In the light of history, however, we would be making a long-odds bet to believe him.

Robert Higgs is senior fellow in political economy at the Independent Institute, editor of The Independent Review, and author of Crisis and Leviathan and numerous scholarly and popular articles on Congress.

Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-233 next last
To: listenhillary
Saddam has and continues to commit horrors against his people, he continues to starve them for a source of media propaganda while he builds his palaces filled with who know what evil.

If this is the criteria for war ... when do we attack Mugabe? O wait a minit ...... does he have any oil?

181 posted on 10/02/2002 5:06:30 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: talk2farley
The .30 caliber carbine is a rifle, not a round, and would likewise deliver its lethal ammunition quite effectively.

Ahh...a debate on weapons details. I beg to disagree:

The .30 caliber carbine is a carbine, not a rifle.

The .30 caliber carbine is a round in addition to being a weapon.

=========================================================== Anytime a cartridge is adopted for use by the U.S. government, its chances of success among civilian shooters are quite good, regardless of its practical usefulness as a sporting cartridge. Such a cartridge is the .30 Carbine. Its too powerful for small game, not powerful enough for big game, and has never been available in an accurate rifle. And yet, this 1940's vintage military cartridge is still high up on the popularity chart among American shooters.

Introduced in 1940 in the M1 Carbine, this straight walled .30 caliber cartridge was loaded with a 110 grain round nose bullet at a muzzle velocity of 1975 fps. As the U.S. Army saw it, the short, lightweight rifle was far more effective in the hands of the average GI than a pistol and yet much more portable than the longer and heavier M1 Garand rifle.

Whether or not this proves to be true is debatable, but one thing is certain; The thousands of M1 Carbines sold to civilian shooters through the NRA assured this cartridge lasting popularity.

At best, the .30 Carbine is enough cartridge for javalina and varmints at close range. At worst, it is a fun cartridge for venting cans and paper targets. Probably the most accurate firearms ever available in this caliber are the Thompson/Center Contender and the Ruger Blackhawk. H110, W-296, and 2400 are excellent choices for all barrel lengths.

Source: Hodgdon Data Manual, 26th Edition =========================================================== Hmm..... not to nitpick details, but a .30 caliber ROUND can be quite potent indeed, to the point of putting a hole roughly the size of a baseball in the back of your head. Its all about velocity, my son.

The .30 caliber designation is generic. I favor the 7.62mm x 51 version myself and have gone thru as much as 3000 rounds per season. Velocity is only half of the equation...don't neglect bullet weight.

Bottom line is that the .30 caliber carbine is a pistol round designed for a short, light rifle.

Regards

J.R.

182 posted on 10/02/2002 5:14:07 AM PDT by NMC EXP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
Oooops. I mistook some of your earlier posts as being rational. My mistake. By all means, let's attack Iraq even though we cannot prove they were behind 9/11 and we cannot prove that they are going to hit us with WMD.

Would you be so willing to attaack Iraq if Clinton were the sitting Pres? Or would you suggest that Clinton was trying to change the headlines, or distract from something else?

183 posted on 10/02/2002 5:16:13 AM PDT by ET(end tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott
My tongue in cheek reaction was in response to those that bought into the line that Roosevelt lied to get us into WWII. If the attack on Pearl Harbor got us into the war as you said, then Roosevelt must have lied about it, ergo, Pearl Harbor never happened; it was a big lie.

Expecting really insightful comments or biting sarcasm from me in the middle of the night is probably not wise. I was just in the mood to string along the idiots who bought into this crack pot article.

184 posted on 10/02/2002 5:24:03 AM PDT by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Greybird

Graybird, the moral is simple. Never forget the pecking order's surprises. Today's superpower is tomorrow's conquered state. Yesterday's overlooked mob is often the ruler of tomorrow. Never underestimate the third world. And NEVER be complacent about barbarians !!!


185 posted on 10/02/2002 5:49:08 AM PDT by GeekDejure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ET(end tyranny)
Would you be so willing to attaack Iraq if Clinton were the sitting Pres? Or would you suggest that Clinton was trying to change the headlines, or distract from something else?

Actually ET, I wouldn't think Clinton was trying to distract, I would KNOW it.

I remember the "character doesn't matter" crowd and their chants for eight years that all that was important about a president was his job ability.

Now we see that character is really the only thing that matters...and Bush has it. Clinton doesn't.

186 posted on 10/02/2002 6:55:07 AM PDT by evad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
And being an apologist for the state puts us in diametrically opposed political camps.
187 posted on 10/02/2002 8:17:17 AM PDT by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Eew! I'm not apologising for the State. I'm stating that these particular individuals did not create that particular intelligence "failure". There's a BIG difference.
188 posted on 10/02/2002 8:41:32 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Ever read about the secondary explosions on the Lusitania? Our neutral country was shipping munitions to the English, risking innocent civilian lives....

The secondary explosions you were referring to came from the ship's boilers. When the cold seawater hit the hot boilers, they exploded. The section where the munitions were was not hit. Risking innocent English lives??? Are you kidding?? What about the English Admiralty who knew there was a hunter-killer in the path of the Lusitania and did not warn them. We put them at risk? Hardly.

while an inhumae blockade starved the German people.

Have you forgotten about the blockade around England? What do you think the Germans were doing with their subs and unristricted warfare at sea?
189 posted on 10/02/2002 9:21:02 AM PDT by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: wasp69
Your first comment strengthen my position-- not sure if that was your intention. You concede that there were munitions on the Lisitania, correct?

Wilson was knowingly violating classical terms of neutrality by sending munitions to the English and Allies, while the English prevented food intended for Germany from landing in neutral Denmark, another violation of international law. The Germans had little choice strategically but to declare unrestricted targets because the Americans were breaking the terms of their neutrality.



190 posted on 10/02/2002 12:04:05 PM PDT by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Greybird
William McKinley would call this tripe balderdash.

So I'll do it for him.

191 posted on 10/02/2002 1:06:58 PM PDT by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
Bush may be a "man of character," but that hardly entails that all his foreign policies are above reproach. Launching a pre-emptive strike against another nation will have far-reaching consequences that I doubt you have even considered.

If/when India makes the case that Pakistan poses a far greater threat to them than Iraq does to the U.S., on what grounds will we dissuade them? "No, only WE may defend ourselves thus." Russia will try the same thing against Chechnya; China against Taiwan and God only knows who else; and on and on and on . . .

You see, this isn't simply a matter of "Iraq bad . . . we good . . . must bomb . . . live happily ever after."
If we are the example the world should emulate, what type of example does a pre-emptive strike send? Does anyone in his right mind want other nations following this example? Does anyone in his right mind think they won't?

This drastic shift in foreign policy is not one that should be undertaken lightly and Americans sure as hell should not accept it because, after all, Bush would never lie. I'm not calling him a liar, but I think he's nearsighted. This isn't a slippery slope we're walking down; we're walking over an abyss.

.30Carbine, let me write your reply for you (including my response):

"Yeah? What about 9-11-01 you America-hater?"

A: Iraq didn't do that; a bunch of guys from Saudie Arabia did that and a war against Iraq will not help our war on terrorism. I _LOVE_ this country. That's why I want to avoid a foreign policy boondoggle.

192 posted on 10/02/2002 2:07:48 PM PDT by Petronius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Petronius
You are free to make any assumption you wish about me, and post any response to me you deem appropriate, but you are not free to put words in my mouth. That is my freedom.

You reveal only your own thinking when you do so; not mine.

193 posted on 10/03/2002 2:07:36 AM PDT by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth
Unfortunately I check out the Republic after breakfast in the morning.
I’ve had breakfast, my first cup of coffee and a cigarette. The dog has been feed and is curled up sleeping once again.
I then tend to take things at face value, forgetting that some post late night.
194 posted on 10/03/2002 3:56:54 AM PDT by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: CFW
Saddam has and continues to commit horrors against his people, he continues to starve them for a source of media propaganda while he builds his palaces filled with who know what evil.

If this is the criteria for war ... when do we attack Mugabe? O wait a minit ...... does he have any oil?

Sounds like a wonderful idea(attacking Mugabe) Wouldn't the liberals just croak. Declaring war on a black dictatorship.

195 posted on 10/03/2002 5:52:49 PM PDT by listenhillary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Not meant to strengthen but I will agree that Wilson was an idiot and a liar. And yes I do concede that there were munitions on the Lusitania; I would be a dishonest student of history if I discounted that. However, I will not say that intentionally he sent those people to their deaths as I believe you implied. I place a lions share of the blame on Churchill and the Admiralty for allowing the Lusitania to sail into the path of a U-boat that was blockading the UK. I have a book written in 1919 about the history of the Naval side of WWI. I will share some things with you that you may find interesting and pertain to the discussion on Monday. Until then, here's hoping you have a good weekend.
196 posted on 10/04/2002 7:38:22 AM PDT by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: wasp69
It was not my intention to imply a Wilson conspiracy; it was my intention to point out that Wilson was actively involved in violating the terms of American neutrality and understood that the Germans were liable to strike back. I look forward to your comments on Monday and, glimpsing into the future, we will have much common ground RE: Churchill.
197 posted on 10/04/2002 8:29:16 AM PDT by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Yes, I saw a special on the History Channel regarding whether or not their were weapons on board the Lucitania. The verdict? Inconclusive.

Moreover, this incident represents one of numerous attacks on American shipping by the Germ,an armed forces. If thats not provocation for a war, what is?
198 posted on 10/07/2002 4:15:16 AM PDT by talk2farley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
"All the evidence and fore-warning in the world will not prevent a missile attack or another 9-11-01. Only destroying those who would consider such actions will. Saddam openly and happily admits that he wants weapons that will accomplish that kind of destruction."

Exactly! Very well said. Every time the American people have demanded proper "provocation" before going to war (WW1, WW2, War on Terror), they have gotten it. In spades. And vowed never to repeat it.

Its time we take our vows seriously.
199 posted on 10/07/2002 4:19:38 AM PDT by talk2farley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: NMC EXP
Well done! :)
200 posted on 10/07/2002 4:24:13 AM PDT by talk2farley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-233 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson