Liberal Rant – Conservatives are Pro-War, a Response

Editor’s Note – In a recent Facebook discussion on the Cowboy Logic page, several people posited that Republicans are pro-war and therefore are responsible for many of today’s ills across the globe, and most notably Iraq. As usual, the discussion devolved into a typical morass due to the application of common liberal tactics by more than a few people.

Since there was an argument about the facts, Don Neuen (SUA/Cowboy Logic Radio Co-Host) decided to stop the conversation and do some research. He did so and re-initiated the discussion after posting the following. We encourage anyone to respond as a few did after the initial posting of Don’s research. Please read:

By Don Neuen

Conservatives are pro DEFENSE… pro MILITARY… we are not pro WAR as ‘you’ [referring to a liberal respondent] have repeatedly stated incorrectly…

  • World War I – Woodrow Wilson – Democrat

    Join us on Facebook to participate in similar discussions.
    Join us on Facebook to participate in similar discussions.
  • World War II – FDR – Democrat
  • Korean War – Truman – Democrat
  • Bay of Pigs – Kennedy – Democrat
  • Vietnam War – LBJ – Democrat
  • Grenada – Reagan – Republican
  • Persian Gulf War – Bush – Republican
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina – Clinton – Democrat
  • War on Terror – Bush – Republican
  • War on Terror – Obama – Democrat

But let us look deeper…

Under Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat (Progressive), the Democrats held control of both the Senate and the House from 1913-1917… From 1917-1921, The Democrats continued to control the Senate…

WilsonFDRWar

Under FDR, a Democrat (Progressive), the Democrats held control of both the Senate and the House from 1933-1945…

Under Truman, a Democrat, the Democrats held control of both the Senate and the House from 1945-1953, with the exception of 1947-1949 when the Republicans took control of the House…

Let’s pause here and reflect: During WWI, WWII and the Korean War, the Democrats held control of the Senate exclusively… And with the exception of 1917-1921, and 1947-1949, the Democrats also held control of the House…

I’d also like to note that WWI ended in 1918, while the Republicans held the House… And WWII ended in 1945 when the Republicans closed the gap in the House to its most narrow margin during FDR’s reign…

I’ll continue…

Under JFK, a Democrat, both the Senate and House were controlled by Democrats…

Under LBJ, a Democrat, both the Senate and the House were under the control of… you guessed it: the Democrats…

Under Reagan, a Republican, The Senate was under the control of Republicans for his first 6 years, from 1981-1987… Reagan had two years of a Democrat held Senate: 1987-1989… During Reagan’s entire term, Democrats held control of the House – from 1981-1989…

Under a Conservative failure: Bush 41, a Republican, both the Senate and the House were under the control of the Democrats during his term from 1989-1993…

Under Clinton, a Democrat, the Senate and House were under the control of the Democrats (1993-1995)… From that point forth, both the Senate and the House were under the control of the Republicans (1995-2001)…LBJ.JFK

Now we get to the next Conservative failure: Bush 43, a Republican… The Senate was barely held, but held nonetheless, under the control of the Republicans for half of his term… From 2001-2003, and again from 2007-2009, neither party held control of the Senate… As far as the House goes, Republicans held the purse strings for the first 6 years (2001-2007), but from 2007-2009, the Democrats gained control of the spending…

Now we get to Obama, a Progressive… The Senate has been under the control of the Democrats from 2009-today… The House was under the control of the Democrats from 2009-2011 and has been under the control of the Republicans from 2011-today…

“What’s your point Don???”

My point is this: When you look at the Commander-in-Chief during times of War, you also must look at which party controls the House and the Senate… It is undeniable that more wars have started under Democrat/Progressive Presidents… That cannot be argued…

Furthermore, More wars have been started and perpetuated during times when the Democrats held control of the House and the Senate… That cannot be argued…

If Democrats don’t like war: Don’t fund war… Don’t preside over war… Don’t authorize war…

You statement that “Conservatives are “pro war” is clearly incorrect…

Now let’s take a look at US casualties from war…

Clearly, WWI & WWII fall under Democrat Presidents as well as an exclusive Democrat Senate and with the exception of 1917-1919, an exclusive Democrat House of Representatives…

Not a good way to start the argument that “Conservatives are pro war”, but I digress…

During WWI & WWII, we lost 116,000 and 405,399 soldiers respectively…

The Korean War cost us 36,516 soldiers… Again, Democrat President… Democrat Senate, and a Democrat House, with the exception of 1947-1949… I’d like to note that the Korean War was not taking place during the time in which Republicans held control of the House during Truman’s term, so the Korean War belongs to the Democrat Party…

Bay of Pigs/Vietnam… While some may consider the loss of 4 US lives inconsequential, Conservatives do NOT… I’ll drop Benghazi into the mix briefly… Back to the Bay of Pigs… we lost 4… During a period in which the President was a Democrat, and both the Senate and the House were under control of the Democrats…

Are we staring to see a pattern here?

Now for LBJ and Vietnam… I can’t blame LBJ entirely for the Vietnam War, in which we lost 58,209 US soldiers… But I can pin him for his term as President, as I can Nixon… But I can, and will blame the Senate and House, both controlled by the Democrats during the entire Vietnam War… And if you are a stickler for details, let’s go back to the start of the Vietnam War, and much to my surprise, who controlled Congress, both chambers? Bingo, the Democrats… moving on…

TrumanReaganUnder Reagan, a Conservative, we have a few military conflicts to discuss… First, Iran… clearly, history has shown that Iran mocks Democrats and is afraid of Conservatives…

Then we have El Salvador, Beirut, and Grenada… US deaths: 322… It should be noted that all three of these conflicts, or wars took place under a Republican Senate and a Democrat House…

Now we get to Conservative failure #1: Bush 41… Total loss of life: 353 (Panama, Gulf War and Operation Provide Comfort)…

Please note that during these conflicts, the Democrats held complete control of both the Senate and the House…

During Clinton’s terms… Somalia was the biggest loss of life… 43… Next was Bosnia: 32… But let’s also note that the House and the Senate were controlled by the Republicans from 1995-2001… Democrats held control of both the House and Senate from 1993-1995…

And now for Conservative failure #2: Bush 43… Clearly, this man, to a Conservative, was an abysmal failure… During his terms, an accurate loss of life count is varying… But I’ll use the estimate of 4,539 (Iraq) and 1,049 (Afghanistan)… During the Bush 43 debacle, Republicans held the purse strings from 2001-2007… For the most part, the Republicans also controlled the Senate during that same time period…

For the record… In the opinion of this Conservative, the Bush administration/Congress was a complete failure of true Conservative values…

Now, for Obama… Again, statistics are clearly inaccurate… But according to what I know, during Obama’s time at quarterback (2009-2014), we’ve lost 265 in Iraq and 2,416 in Afghanistan… oh… and 4 in Benghazi…

So again you ask “What’s your point Don????”

My point is simple… The party of War is clearly the Democrats… Historical facts prove that…

Quite possibly, Sir… you are confusing “Conservative Democrats” with “Conservatives”…

Hagel Cuts Pentagon Back to Pre-WWII Levels

Editor’s Note – Prior to World War II, despite FDR’s desires, the nation preferred to stay out of the war raging in Europe, for right or wrong. What we did not know was that Japan was about to make us enter, and FDR had already been supplying England through the Lend/Lease Act to avoid ceding so-called neutrality.

A portion of every purchse from our partners at Lear Capital will be donated to the Scott Vallely Soldiers Memorial Fund
A portion of every purchase from our partners at Lear Capital will be donated to the Scott Vallely Soldiers Memorial Fund – Click Here.

No matter what the tenor of the nation, the war was about to pull us in, and we were not prepared. The signs were there, in broad colors, and in large measure, the signs of World War are present today, some say in starker terms. Fortunately, when Japan unleashed the ‘sleeping giant’, we quickly turned the foremost industrial engine on the Earth into overdrive and we eventually overwhelmed our enemies and saved our allies.

Now, we are decreasing our military, at a time we should be modernizing it and insuring it fits the threat, not just a bottom line number, but we do not have the money allocated by threat priority in other budgets due to waste, fraud and abuse. At a time when our collective intelligence reports read that the threats are greater today than ever, supported by the Intelligence Community congressional testimony, what criteria did Hagel use?

It is also clear that our nation is considered weaker than ever, and now our enemies see us cut further. This emboldens the likes of Iran, Putin in Russia, China in the Pacific, and al Qaeda. Let us also not forget the Taliban threat once we leave Afghanistan.

Of course, past bad fiscal management by all parties has brought us to the brink of financial ruin, the Obama Administration has only deepened the abyss and now Secretary of Defense Hagel announced massive cuts; cuts that will place us right back in the pre-WWII levels. The question is, if World War comes again, we will be able to recover as quickly, and strike our enemies into total submission?

You be the judge, but you also need to ask why, that for at least three generations we have not reined in unreasonable spending in the Pentagon as well – a ‘perfect storm’ appears on the horizon, and we have a ‘paper tiger’ in the White House. Bad management has reduced our national security because of politics, not priorities.

perfectstorm

The Defense Budget vs. History

 – Commentary Magazine

Traditionally, military planners have operated under a worst-case scenario: i.e., what do we need to have in place to respond if nothing goes as planned? The Obama administration and Congress appear to be operating under a best-case scenario: i.e., what is the minimum force we can field on the assumption that nothing will go terribly wrong?

Thus the new defense budget, being unveiled today, which cuts the army’s active-duty force size to the smallest level since before World War II–just 440,000 to 450,000 soldiers. That’s down from a wartime high of 570,000, although even that figure was painfully inadequate to allow the U.S. to respond to two unforeseen wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

defense-budgetAs critics of the Bush administration–including Senator Barack Obama–were once fond of pointing out, Bush never sent enough troops to stabilize Iraq until 2007 and that commitment was only made possible by keeping a ludicrously small force in Afghanistan, once known as the “necessary” war.

The failure to send more troops early on allowed the Taliban to rebound from near-defeat in 2001 and allowed various insurgent groups to sprout all over Iraq.

So if 570,000 troops were not enough to handle such relatively weak foes as al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Taliban, how on earth would 440,000 troops be able to handle more robust contingencies–unlikely but not impossible–such as simultaneous wars with Iran and North Korea and a stabilization mission in, say, Yemen? The answer is that they couldn’t.

Actually the situation is even worse than the news would have you believe. Because the army’s plan to cut down to 440,000 to 450,000 is premised on the assumption that Congress will continue to provide relief from half a trillion dollars in sequestration cuts.

But the budget deal reached by Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray only provides sequestration relief in 2014 and 2015; unless Congress is willing to turn off sequestration in future years, the army will have to go even lower in end-strength.

Moreover, the defense budget includes modest cuts in personnel spending–spending on pay, pensions, and health care–which are long overdue but which are likely to be blocked by Congress, as was the case with a recent attempt to cut cost-of-living adjustments for military retirees by a measly one percent.

"Peace for Our Time" was spoken on 30 September 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration
“Peace for Our Time” was spoken on 30 September 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration

Unless Congress goes along with cuts to personnel costs, which now constitute half of the defense budget, other parts of the budget–including, no doubt, the army’s end-strength–will have to endure further scaling back.

That is a responsible decline in military strength only if you assume that we will never fight another major land war, or engage in simultaneous stabilization and counterinsurgency operations. And that, in turn, is a tenable assumption only if you assume that the laws of history have been repealed and a new era is dawning in which the U.S. will be able to protect all of its vital interests through drone strikes and commando raids.

We all hope that’s the case but, as the saying has it, hope isn’t a strategy. Except, it seems, in Washington defense circles today.

If history teaches anything, it is that the era of land wars is not over and that we will pay a heavy price in the future for our unpreparedness–as we have paid in blood at the beginning of every major war in American history.

Our failure to learn from history is stunning and (from a historian’s standpoint) disheartening but not, alas, terribly surprising: Throughout history, supposedly enlightened elites have been able to convince themselves that the era of conflict is over and a new age is dawning.

The fact that they have always been wrong before does not, somehow, lead them to question those assumptions in the present day, because this is such a convenient belief to have.

Today, for both Republicans and Democrats, the president and Congress, these hope-based assumptions about defense spending allow them to put off the truly difficult decisions about cutting entitlement spending. But at what cost? If history is any guide, the cost of unpreparedness will be steep and will be borne by future generations of American troops.