Cherry picking history can be dangerous

History belongs to us all, not any one group or person.

Much as been written about the opportunities our political leaders had in the 1930’s to have nipped the coming world war in the bud. Comparisons to the Vietnam War come in as another war that could have been fought differently, in the conduct especially when applying principles. Now the analogies have been forwarded to include the rise of Islamic fascism and the attacks and recruiting throughout the world, with Iraq dragged in as part of Islamic fascism, and its own wars against its own humanity.

And all most of us want to do is wake up in the morning and do a good job, and trust our Family is safe in the most fundamental sort of way. This applied to our ancestors, also.

During the late 1930’s there were four Neutrality Acts passed by Congress and signed by the President that focused on our isolationism, that is to not let the US be entangled and dragged into another world war, especially on their terms. There were also lesser elements of pacifism, which in today’s terms might be called anti-war. That such laws were passed and signed by the President is little discussed today. And given that we did get involved in another world war, the attempts to legislate our way out failed. Sometimes it takes more than legislation in America to stop evil, or even nip it in the bud. In our case, it took a united nation, and sacrifice, to end it as quick as we could.

Vietnam can be construed to sound simpler. In the end, Vietnam was not worth dieing for in pursuit of our national interest. For history’s sake, it is worth noting that one of Nixon’s campaign planks was to get us out of Vietnam. And Congress did get involved in defunding Nixon’s method of getting out of the war, so one may argue Congress has been involved in the conduct of a war, during a war. Of course all this is muddled because it was never a declared war, an old fashioned historical principle, by the way.

Does any of this history help guide us today? The complicated answer is no. The simple answer is yes. But this is not a John Kerry answer, and it is not cherry picking history.

The American personality of being isolationist is still alive and well. But the idea is a two way street. We do not have to be tied down and dragged in by what others in the world think, and tell us what to do. We can be isolationist, and act in our own national interest, one and the same. So if we are attacked and recruited by some tribe and idea out of the 7th century, we can respond in our own isolationist way, the rest of the world be d**med.

We did such a thing in the late 1930’s with the Neutrality Acts. Unfortunately we could not legislate our way out of evil then. And efforts to legislate Nixon’s exit from Vietnam resulted in the decades of local misery and American unintended consequences. History suggests our prospects, if we do the same, are just as dismal today.

Fortunately, there is at least one alternative. It is called let the Executive run foreign policy, have the Congress fund it, and let the voters decide.