The historical pattern of incidents leading to U.S. military engagement, as illustrated by events such as the sinking of the Lusitania, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and 9/11, raises concerns about current geopolitical tensions surrounding Taiwan, with the potential for a similar trigger event to provoke U.S. intervention against China’s aggression.
The adage “a picture is worth a thousand words” couldn’t be more poignant when examining the historical parallels depicted in the image above. Each event illustrated represents a significant and often controversial entry point for the United States into major conflicts. From the sinking of the Lusitania to the attacks on September 11, 2001, these incidents served as catalysts for military action, often justified by the need to protect national security or respond to aggression. The burning question now is: Is Taiwan next?
Here are four huge events that changed our nation and all seemed to have a similar beginning and progression. In this chain of events, the United States of America was at the forefront militarily, followed by a national rally cry to intervene, media promotion, and last, a trigger event. At this point, it’s safe to assume that the government is hell-bent on maintaining its dollar hegemony and dominating the free world. The saying goes something like, “History never fully repeats, but it usually rhymes.” Here are a few examples to back up that claim.
The Lusitania and World War I
The sinking of the RMS Lusitania in 1915 by a German U-boat is often cited as a pivotal moment that swayed American public opinion towards entering World War I. Although the ship was carrying munitions, the loss of nearly 1,200 civilian lives, including 128 Americans, was used to paint Germany as a barbaric nation that needed to be stopped. This incident helped President Woodrow Wilson rally support for joining the Allies, despite earlier promises to keep the U.S. out of the war.
The discovery that the Lusitania was carrying munitions had a complex impact on public and political opinions about the incident and America’s decision to enter World War I. On one hand, it provided some justification for Germany’s attack, as the ship could be considered a legitimate military target. This revelation undermined the initial outrage over the sinking of what was portrayed as a purely civilian passenger vessel. However, the significant loss of American civilian lives, with over 100 Americans killed, continued to generate substantial anger and resentment towards Germany. Despite the munitions on board, the attack was still seen as an atrocity against innocent American travelers.
The British government initially denied the presence of munitions on the Lusitania to maximize outrage against Germany by portraying the ship as an entirely civilian vessel. When the truth emerged, it damaged British credibility and fueled isolationist arguments within the U.S., suggesting that the sinking was a consequence of arms trading with the Allies. While the munitions discovery tempered some of the initial outrage, the large number of American deaths remained a crucial factor driving the U.S. towards intervention. By 1917, public opinion had turned strongly against German “barbarism,” ultimately leading to America’s entry into World War I.
Pearl Harbor and World War II
On December 7, 1941, the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by Japanese forces propelled the United States into World War II. The attack resulted in the loss of over 2,400 American lives and significant damage to the Pacific Fleet. The next day, President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his famous “a date which will live in infamy” speech, leading to a declaration of war against Japan. The event unified the American public against the Axis powers and justified the U.S.’s full-scale involvement in the war.
The Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor was driven by several key factors. First, Japan’s need for natural resources like oil, minerals, and steel to fuel its expansionist ambitions in Asia and the Pacific was critical. The United States had responded to Japanese aggression by placing trade restrictions and freezing Japanese assets, effectively cutting off Japan’s access to these essential resources. Second, the presence of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor was seen as a direct threat to Japan’s expansion plans in the Pacific. When President Roosevelt moved the fleet to Pearl Harbor in 1939, Japanese military leaders believed war with the U.S. was inevitable and decided to preemptively strike. Third, Japan sought to neutralize the U.S. Pacific Fleet to prevent it from interfering with Japan’s plans to seize resource-rich territories in Southeast Asia, such as the Dutch East Indies and British Malaya.
In response to Japanese aggression before the attack, the U.S. implemented several economic countermeasures but failed to adequately prepare for an attack on Pearl Harbor. The U.S. cut off shipments of scrap metal, steel, and aviation fuel to Japan in 1940 after Japan occupied French Indochina. By July 1941, following Japan’s further moves into Indochina, the U.S. froze all Japanese assets, cutting off Japan’s access to American oil. Diplomatic efforts by the U.S. insisted that Japan withdraw from occupied territories in exchange for lifting trade restrictions, but Japan refused. Despite these economic and diplomatic measures, the U.S. missed several tactical warnings on the morning of December 7, such as radar detections of the incoming Japanese air attack, leading to the devastating surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the Vietnam War
Fast forward to August 1964, when the Gulf of Tonkin incident served as the pretext for escalating U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Allegedly, North Vietnamese forces attacked the USS Maddox in international waters. Although later evidence suggested that the incident might have been exaggerated or misrepresented, it led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This gave President Lyndon B. Johnson broad powers to wage war in Vietnam without an official declaration from Congress. The resulting conflict became one of the most contentious and divisive wars in American history.
Several pieces of evidence emerged later suggesting that the Gulf of Tonkin incident, particularly the second alleged attack on August 4, 1964, was exaggerated or misrepresented by the U.S. government. Contradictory reports from the USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy about the alleged attack, along with the absence of physical evidence of Vietnamese boats or damage to the ships, raised doubts about the incident. In 2005, a declassified NSA report revealed that intelligence data had been deliberately skewed to support the claim of an attack, despite intercepted communications indicating otherwise. Additionally, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara admitted in 1995 that the incident was misrepresented and that the decision to escalate the war based on it was a grave mistake.
As this evidence came to light, it became clear that the Johnson administration had misled Congress and the public to justify escalating U.S. military involvement in Vietnam through the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This revelation significantly damaged public trust in the government’s justification for the war and fueled growing anti-war sentiment. The Gulf of Tonkin incident became a pivotal moment, highlighting how the government could manipulate public opinion through exaggeration and deception, leading many to question the truthfulness of official narratives and eroding confidence in the motivations behind U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.
9/11 and the War on Terror
The attacks on September 11, 2001, were a devastating blow to the United States, killing nearly 3,000 people and causing massive destruction. These attacks by al-Qaeda led to the U.S. launching the War on Terror, beginning with the invasion of Afghanistan to dismantle the Taliban regime and hunt down Osama bin Laden. The subsequent invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified by the Bush administration through claims of weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. Both wars have had long-lasting and controversial impacts on global politics and U.S. foreign policy.
The failure to find weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq after the 2003 invasion severely damaged the credibility of the Bush administration and eroded public support for the broader War on Terror. The primary justification for the invasion was the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed active WMD programs and stockpiles posing an imminent threat to the United States and its allies. This claim was based on intelligence assessments that later proved to be fundamentally flawed. Despite extensive searches by UN inspectors and U.S. forces, no active WMD programs or stockpiles were found. The intelligence underpinning these claims was revealed to be based on outdated information, faulty assumptions, and dubious sources.
The failure to substantiate the WMD claims called into question the Bush administration’s rationale for the war and damaged its credibility both domestically and internationally. Critics accused the administration of manipulating or exaggerating the intelligence to justify a predetermined decision to invade Iraq. Public support for the Iraq War and the broader War on Terror declined significantly as it became clear that the WMD threat had been grossly overstated or did not exist at all. This erosion of trust made it more difficult for the administration to maintain domestic and international backing for its counterterrorism policies. Investigations, such as the 2005 Robb-Silberman Commission and the 2008 Senate Intelligence Committee report, concluded that while the intelligence community’s assessments were flawed, the Bush administration had selectively used and exaggerated the available intelligence to make the case for war. This fiasco highlighted the need for reforms in the U.S. intelligence community to improve analysis, challenge assumptions, and provide policymakers with more accurate assessments on critical national security issues.
Is Taiwan Next?
Given this historical pattern of incidents leading to military engagement, it is worth scrutinizing the current geopolitical tensions surrounding Taiwan. The island nation, which China views as a breakaway province, has been a flashpoint for potential conflict between the U.S. and China. The U.S. maintains a policy of strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan, pledging to support its self-defense without explicitly promising to intervene militarily.
Recent developments, such as increased Chinese military exercises near Taiwan and heightened rhetoric, have raised concerns about a potential conflict. If an incident were to occur—whether an unprovoked attack or a manufactured crisis—it could serve as a trigger for U.S. intervention. The implications of such a conflict would be far-reaching, potentially drawing in regional and global powers into a major confrontation.
The pattern depicted in the image—of incidents leading to U.S. military action—raises critical questions about how history might repeat itself. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait, it is crucial to remain vigilant and question the narratives that might emerge in the event of a crisis. Understanding past events and their contexts helps us critically evaluate current situations and the potential motivations behind them. Is Taiwan next? Only time will tell, but the lessons of history suggest we should be prepared for all possibilities.
When Trump gave the most de-globalized U.N. speech in decades (2018), it was a big deal and paved the way to Americans exiting the Middle East, which continues to this day.
0 Comments