The title for this article is derived from the old song longing hopefully for the safe return of soldiers from the carnage of the American War between the States1 (1861-1865). What is usually not mentioned nor remembered is the fervor and celebration of just a few years earlier with which Johnny marched off to war and his family and friends, both North and South, cheered him on, gave parades in his honor, showered him with adulation, flowers, and kisses. “Hurrah! Hurrah! We’ll teach those scoundrels (Yankees, Rebs) something they won’t ever forget! Go get’m, Johnny! We’re behind you all the way.”
This, as I recall, was the atmosphere in America immediately after 9/11. It seemed that everyone couldn’t wait to go out and kick some a$$ for the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001, and, to be perfectly honest, it didn’t really matter whether the actual perpetrators were brought to “justice” or not, as long as someone paid. The administration, George W. Bush presiding, took full advantage of the situation and launched two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, which were only ended years later, without ever resolving the question of “whodunit?”. Not that it mattered too much, anyway. The American public is driven by emotion rather than common sense and Congress is repeatedly admonished to “Don’t just sit there, do something.”, with the unspoken implication that it is better to do anything, even if it is wrong, than to contemplate their actions, consider the consequences, and make good choices.
Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, the “day which will last in infamy”, was no different, except that there was no question about who had initiated the attack: Japan, the Rising Sun empire, and America lost no time in ramping up to a wartime footing in a massive spirit of revenge and retaliation, intent only on the destruction of those who dared to slap the face of Uncle Sam. Nothing was held back by the public, no sacrifice was too great, no cost was too much to bear for The Cause of total victory.
That was then, this is now.
Today, even as I write this, the tension in the Middle East is at a fever-pitch and rapidly escalating. The US may have already attacked Iran by the time you read this. Donald Trump is ramping up his threats and bullying tactics against Iran, demanding that the government undergo a regime change, that it Cease and Desist from any nuclear program, and that it immediately disarm by getting rid of its long range missiles. Basically, complete and abject surrender on Trump’s terms which, of course, the mullahs who lead Iran have rejected without any equivocation. What is Trump going to do if Iran doesn’t bow and scrape? Sign the order to attack? Or, TACO? We’ll know soon.
It seems to me (and polls regularly bear this out) that the mood of the country is against starting another war, especially one in the Middle East. People are genuinely tired of the “forever wars” and Trump capitalized on that sentiment when he was on the campaign trail, promising to end them. Political reality reigns supreme, however, as he conveniently forgot what he had promised to the voters only a short time earlier and started aggressively going after other countries, all smaller and weaker than the US. To date, in the first year of his second term, he has literally bombed ten countries, more than any of his predecessors. One of those was Iran at the end of the 12-day war with Israel last summer when he supposedly destroyed (obliterated was the word he used) Iran’s nuclear capabilities completely. I say supposedly, because, if that was the case, then why is there so much concern about Iran’s current nuclear program? Something doesn’t add up here and can be seen for what it is–a bald-faced lie.
Events like this which have occurred over the years wherein The Powers That Be have run roughshod over the interests of the common people do not build trust within society. Without that trust, institutions fail and when a society’s institutions fail, the society collapses. The ongoing Epstein scandal and the recent Covid scam have created an enormous (and growing) distrust among the populace which will not be reversed if Trump goes to war against Iran and gets the pants beaten off him. The only reason that trust and faith might be restored would be if he achieves complete and total victory immediately, without question, for the whole world to see and understand. Of course, once the victory laps, backslapping, and grandstanding were done, we’d be off to the next conquest, the next enemy which needed to be taken out as a matter of “national security”. Any guesses as to which one that would be? You get three and the first two don’t count, but I’ll give you a hint. It starts with an R, ends in A, and has six letters.
God help us!
If he is not immediately successful and Iran closes the strait of Hormuz to shipping, the price of oil will go through the roof, the financial Jenga tower known as derivatives will collapse, the Federal Reserve printing presses will be pushed to the limit resulting in hyper-inflation, and the world-wide system of fiat money will be scrapped in favor of a different one–the Great Reset, which we’ve all heard about. Probably something along this line of thinking will happen, that is, if Trump does not achieve complete and total victory with the first strike. Probably. It might happen if he does succeed. I’m only speculating.
Or, perhaps that has been the plan all along. Who knows?
In an article posted on Forum Geopolitica, Scott Ritter had this to say about the situation.
“A war on Iran will result in a disaster for all parties involved. There is no guarantee of success on the part of the United States and Israel, or failure on the part of Iran. There is a huge risk that this war will result in massive disruption of critical energy production capability in one of the most critical energy production regions in the world, triggering a massive energy security crisis that could collapse regional and global economies.
So, the key question is why Donald Trump, a man who ran on a platform of peace, willing to risk losing his political base on the eve of critical mid-term elections by betting on the successful execution of a short war with Iran that achieves the regime change outcome desired?
The simple answer is because he simply has no choice.”
Ritter goes on to explain why he thinks Trump has no choice and I can’t say that he’s wrong. The extremely high sunk costs of the military buildup almost guarantee that an action of some type will be taken, if for no other reason than to recoup some of the expense incurred. The greater reason, though, is that Trump’s ego, prestige, and reputation will take an enormous hit if he “chickens out” this time. Given the polling numbers on his sinking approval rating, it would likely lead to a loss by the Republican Party to the Democrats in November, virtually ensuring that impeachment hearings would be resurrected, this time with a fairly good chance of “throwing the rascal out”. Of course, if he does initiate the war and loses, the same scenario presents itself. In short, Trump is caught in a lose/lose situation. Heads I lose, tails you win, and there’s not much that he can do about it.
If Trump wins, he will be insufferable. If he loses, watch out. Either way, the American public will pay the price and my guess is that cheering Johnny as he marches off to war will become a highly unpopular act. As it should. Wars have a nasty habit of biting the hands which feed them.
- Technically speaking, not a civil war as the Confederate States were not trying to take over the existing government, but wanted to split from it and set up a separate one. It should more properly be called a secessionist movement which was put down by force. ↩︎
Poor Roger's Almanac 
WAR PROPAGANDA is one of he greatest tools for promoting PATRIOT PROPAGANDA, resulting in America’s sons and daughters sacrificed to the International Bankers’ war machine:
“…the power to declare war is a serious responsibility. Why were the framers so vague in defining the parameters of war and the conditions under which it could be declared? Section 8, Clause 11 is the only place of significance where warfare is mentioned in the Constitution. Little wonder this power has been abused. Luther Martin [one Maryland’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention] protested:
“
…Because the framers provided no Biblical parameters, unbiblical warfare has been the rule ever since. Following is a list of the countries bombed by the United States since World War II:
“From 1945 to the present [2012. with several more countries added to the list since], the United States has bombed nineteen different countries under the guise of defending America’s sovereignty and promoting democracy. But America is none the better for it, and not one of these countries has become a legitimate democracy – not that this would be anything to celebrate. Something is amiss. Wars fought for political gain or financial profit can only be classified as ungodly acts of aggression….”
For more, see Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at https://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html
Thank you for this information.
Of course! You’re very welcome. Thanks for letting me share it!
“Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, the “day which will last in infamy”, was no different, except that there was no question about who had initiated the attack: Japan, the Rising Sun empire…”
I guess it depends on what you mean by “initiated.” Japan “initiated” the attack on Pearl Harbor in the same way that Russia “initiated” the attack in Ukraine.
Well, yes, you are right in that sense. I believe that Japan was manipulated and maneuvered into a position from which they had to attack out of desperation because of US sanctions, embargoes, and blockades. However, at the time, in the eyes of the world, Japan struck the first blow, as did Russia in Ukraine. This might be like two boxers dancing around each other, feinting, ducking, and bobbing, until one finally lands a punch. Nevertheless, I will admit to poor wording.
“…poor wording…”
Well, Roger, you write a lot. I find poor wording in just about every one of my posts…after they have gone live!
I write a lot? I don’t write anywhere near as much as I want to nor should. There might be a book in here–somewhere.
At any rate, I try to follow the advice of William Zinsser, from whom my email is derived. “Write at least one sentence every day.”
One sentence becomes two, two become ten, ten becomes an article of 1500 words. One sentence every day!
But, I’ve not seen poor writing on your part. I may argue with your point, but never with your presentation.