How The Peaceful Left Treat Inconvenient Truths

Hiroshima Mushroom Cloud, originally uploaded by ddbsweasel.

I view Conservatives as being part of a 'broad church.' Some are hawks. However, I feel the message of war mongering conservatives overstated where the hawkish decision making of the left is (imho) too often sanitised.

It is like that statement 'Religion is responsible for wars' and an example posited of the Crusades. It is undeniable that religion was a rallying point of the Crusades, but it is not true to say that Religion was the sole aspect, or even the cause. Most people today are motivated by the immediate needs of making a liveing, I believe people behaved that way historically.

In WW2, the Democrat administration, firstly under FDR, then Truman, made some appalling decisions that ended many lives. At the start of WW2, FDR denied MacArthur's requests for equipment to defend the Phillipines. MacArthur was a conservative aspirant and I believe that FDR was working to policy to deny oxygen for political enemies. Later, after war was engaged for the US, FDR again denied supplies to MacArthur, but instead supplied a more compliant Admiral Nimitz.

The decision to use bombs against civilians comes from the FDR European war strategy, and came late in the war. Allies had been targetting military targets, including the industrial Ruhr dams, for most of the war. Targetting cities like Dresden came about with artificial competition against the Soviets, trying to claim as much of Europe as possible for post war politics. The policy was understood by many in German high command who begged Hitler to surrender to the West.

Truman's administration began with carpet bombing civilians in Europe, extended to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and then extended to Korea.

There is an expression for how conservatives prosecute war, as there is for liberals. An unfair description is liberals use bombs and conservatives use troops.

So Truman almost loses Korea with oversupplied South Korean troops, while MacArthur uses undersupplied US forces to win ground.

It is true that MacArthur wanted to take on Communist China.

We see the unfair description again in Vietnam, when Kennedy's observers recommend an escalation of supply. Johnson weighs in with a secure South, bomb North model. Nixon escalates troops, and in ending the war removes troops. I recognise the Cambodian bombing runs whivh targeted supply bunkers.

In Grenada, Reagan sends in troops. In first gulf war, Bush sends in troops. In Yugoslavia, Clinton uses bombing raids. Afghanistan and Iraq have largely used troops.

I feel that Truman made his decision to bomb civilian targets so as to protect US life. I don't think he considered options that would minimise Civilian casualties. I don't accept the argument that says that Truman did not have final say as to targetting. In years to come, Truman repeatedly affirmed his 'protect US life' policy and that he 'slept well' over his decision. However, media have never challenged the view that Truman maximised civilian casualties.