I'm writing this entry to bring into sharper focus the events that catapulted us into WWII, and make a few comparisons to events of today.

A stultifyingly dull history student could make a compelling case that even without the events of December 7th 1941, we would have eventually gone to war with the axis powers. The attack on Pearl Harbor, without a doubt, however, served as a (if not the) event that forced out hand. Of course, it's fairly clear to a slightly sharper student of history that Roosevelt did not share the noninterventionalist views of the majority of Americans previous to that infamous day. A very strong case can be made for his essentially provoking the Japanese through economic and materials embargoes. It is a slightly weaker case regarding whether or not he knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor. The problem with the latter is distinguishing between the natural incompetency of government with a case of deliberate "wagging the dog".

Many parallels have been drawn between the behavior of Roosevelt and our current administration. I think in the end, this is unfair given the significant differences in context. There are some parallels, of course, but the differences far outweigh the similarities, despite popular rhetoric.

First of all, in WW2, we were clearly faced with two aggressive and bloodthirsty state regimes. The Holocaust is well known among western circles, but lesser known (but still equally horrific) is the atrocities committed by the Japanese in the east. I must admit that although I knew of these events academically, it wasn't until discussing them with the Chinese in my lab that I knew of their severity. ([Rape of Nanking], the bombing of Shanghai, etc.)
Although the individuals that supported these regimes held almost religiously to the ideology espoused by their leaders, this was (by and large) an offshoot of preexisting nationalistic pride.

The perpetrators of 9/11 (the event most often compared to Pearl Harbor) were motivated not by nationalistic fervor, but purely religion, with little or no nationalistic basis. Their goals also differed greatly: Although the penultimate goals of Germany and Japan can be debated, their immediate objective was not the utter and complete destruction of the U.S., but a desire to degrade our ability to support nations more immediate on their checklist. The goal of the Jihadist is the utter destruction of Western society.

It is these crucial yet often overlooked disparities that show the current hostilities to be much more difficult than the largely nationalistic conflicts in the past.

Our current enemy cares little for national boundaries or political affiliations because they are driven by religious hatred. What little central command structure exists is quickly replaced when destroyed, and like a metastasizing cancer, new camps can arrive de novo at practically anywhere, anytime.

It is, then, not a clash between equals, but an unholy war pitting a nation against an ideology. Our existing war archetype involving two land-bound entities seems destined to fail when applied to our current conflict.

On the other hand, I my estimation we are in much less danger from crazy jihadis than from any of our previous state antagonists. Indeed, the half-dozen odd wars since 1812, there has been little danger that our homeland itself would be attacked, Japanese balloon-bombs notwithstanding. 9/11 was a discomfiting wakeup regarding the reality of our situation. The fact of the matter is that limited-scale terrorist actions are merely a component of the times we live in, and that like any other nation, we are far from immune.