The European "solution" to the threat of Iranian atomic bombs bids fair to join the "peace process" as the most boffo running gag in the history of show biz. Every few months, the elegantly dressed diplomatic wizards from London, Paris, and Berlin race across a continent or two to meet with Iranians dressed in turbans and gowns, and after some hours of alleged hard work, they emerge with a new agreement, just like their more numerous counterparts engaged in the peace negotiations. The main difference is that the peace-process deals seemed to last for several months, while the schemes hammered out with the mullahs rarely last more than an hour a week or two. Otherwise, it's the same sort of vaudeville routine: a few laughs, with promises of more to come.
"Oh, charades! I love charades!"
The latest Iranian shenanigan may have set a record for speed. On Monday they announced they had stopped the centrifuges that were enriching uranium. On Tuesday they asked for permission to run the centrifuges again. The Europeans sternly said no. The next scene will be at Turtle Bay, with brief interruptions for somewhat off-color remarks about sexual harassment at high levels (so to speak) of the United Nations.
No serious person can believe that the negotiations are going to block, or even seriously delay, the Iranian race to acquire atomic bombs. The European posturing is the Western counterpart of the Iranian deception, a ritual dance designed to put a flimsy veil over the nakedness of the real activities. The old-fashioned name for this sort of thing is "appeasement," and was best described by Churchill, referring to Chamberlain's infamous acceptance of Hitler's conditions at Munich. Chamberlain had to choose between war and dishonor, opted for the latter, and got the former as well. That is now the likely fate of Blair, Chirac, and Schroeder. They surely know this. Why do they accept it?
Chirac and Schroeder do it out of habit. They can't conceive of the idea of Islamic nukes destroying Paris or Berlin, and there's all that lovely money to be made before crunch time comes, far down the road on somebody else's watch. They assume they'll always Realpolitik themselves onto the winning side, and for some reason they never conceive that the Merkins will be the winning side — from their standpoint the odds are too long. I'm not sure what Blair's doing; perhaps he's giving it one last good, honest effort before coming to the conclusion that the ayatollahs need to be assisted to the trashbin of history...
They accept it for many reasons, of which two seem paramount: They have huge financial interests tied up with the Iranian regime (billions of dollars worth of oil and gas contracts, plus other trade agreements, some already signed, others in the works); and Iran is the last place in the Middle East where they can play an active diplomatic role. This is particularly acute for France, which knows it will long be a pariah to free Iraqi governments, and views Iran as its last chance to thwart America's dominant role in the region.
Not all is hopeless. There are alliances to be made under the table with the Soddies and Egypt and a possibly resurgent Libya. There are North African alliances to be built with Algeria as the keystone. There's Turkey to be toyed with, shown the Europrize but never allowed to quite touch it. And Jacques should keep in mind that memories in the Middle East are all very short term or very long term, with a big blur in the middle; five years after the Merkins are gone, there's every chance that La Belle France could be riding high again in Baghdad.
Sad to say, there is no evidence that the Europeans give a tinker's damn either about the destiny of the Iranian people, or about Iran's leading role in international terrorism, or about the Islamic Republic's joining the nuclear club. They are quite prepared to live with all that. I think they expect Iran to "go nuclear" in the near future, at which point they will tell President Bush that there is no option but to accept the brutal facts — the world's leading sponsor of terrorism in possession of atomic bombs and the missiles needed to deliver them on regional and European targets — and "come to terms" with the mullahcracy.
They're making the assumption the U.S. will be willing to "come to terms" with a fundamental disruption to the balance of power in favor of Islamism, when the U.S. is engaged in a war with that very Islamism. Their political bedrock involves a world without major war in its future (or its present). Their recurrent attempts to redefine the WoT as something other than a real war is a symptom of that. If it's akin to the war on drugs or the war on poverty or the war on AIDS, then there's no Anzio involved, no Tarawa, and no Dresden. There's only "provocations," "aggressions," and "responses." Their current level of indignation with the U.S. is because we're no longer playing by those rules, having inconsiderately received another Pearl Harbor before they've gone through September, 1939.
In other words, as the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal have wryly commented, the real goal of the negotiations is to restrain the United States, which, left to its own devices, might actually do something serious.
If Europe had still been negotiating with Hitler in late 1941, I suspect we'd have gotten much the same reaction after Pearl Harbor: suck up the casualties, go to the negotiating table, and don't upset the apple cart. Things will come out in the end.
If President Bush found a way to prevent Iran from acquiring atomic bombs, it might well wreck the Europeans' grand appeasement strategy. There is certainly no risk that the United Nations will do anything serious, which is why the Europeans keep insisting that it is the only "legitimate" forum for any discussion of the Iranian nuclear menace. At the same time, I rather suspect that the Europeans, like many of our own diplomats, would be secretly pleased if someone else — that is to say, Israel — were to "do something" to rid them of this problem.
I agree. It would change everyone's negotiating position, of course, but it would also damage Israel's "legitimacy," as the Osirak raid did at the time. The Ãbereuros' fear, though, is that the U.S. will "do something," which would add to a basically unbroken string of successes since the Reagan administration, with the glaring exception of the Europhile Clinton years. Apres we thumped Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and a few other fairly rabid states decided to join the U.S. side to greater or lesser extents, because they had visions of similar scenes taking place in their own countries. After the fall of Baghdad, Libya decided to hang up its own nuclear pretensions and Syria briefly came around before Teheran jerked the Boy President's chain. Enthusiasms have cooled as we've become bogged down in the minutiae of occupation, but they'll fire up again if we deliver a thorough thumping to the ayatollahs. Eventually the enthusiasm will remain or the mad dogs and mullahs will find themselves moving up the list. That points to an eventual naturally developing American sphere of influence, which the Euros see as a zero-sum game.
When they whisper that thought to themselves in the privacy of their own offices or the darkness of their own bedrooms, they mentally replay the Israeli bombing of the nuclear reactor in Osirak, Iraq, in 1981, an attack they publicly condemned and privately extolled. They would do the same tomorrow, sighing in relief as they tighten the noose around Israel's neck. Rarely has the metaphor of the scapegoat been so appropriate: the burden of our sins of omission loaded onto the Israelis, who are then sacrificed to atone for us all.
I'd call that thinkful wishing at this point. Like the press's vision of generals, they're fighting the last war, rather than the next one. If they really do think that way, they're looking at process, rather than result. Iran's one of the two axes of terrorism and knocking down the ayatollahs would fundamentally swing the balance of power our way, to the Euros' zero-sum detriment. A world without ayatollahs leaves only a very naked Soddy Arabia to push terrorism. The remainder of the bad guy world is either dependent on the princes — like Chechnya and Paleostine — or ineffective on the larger world stage — like the Liberation Tigers or Lashkar e-Taiba.
This may seem sheer wishful thinking, but wishful thinking is an important part of foreign policy. The idea that "we don't need to do anything, because so-and-so will do our dirty work for us" has in fact been central to Western strategy in the Middle East for quite a while.
That's worked well, hasn't it?
For example, it was practiced by Bush the Elder in 1991 at the end of Desert Storm, when the president openly mused that it would be simply wonderful if the Kurds and Shiites overthrew Saddam Hussein. They tried it, foolishly believing that if things went badly the United States would support them. But Bush the First was quite serious about his wishful thinking, and stood by as Saddam slaughtered them — the scapegoats of the hour — by the tens of thousands.
That raised enough problems to be overcome in the runup to the most recent war. And it's put local populations on their guard against trying the same thing. So the end result was detrimental to our interests. Better not to talk about it if you don't intend to help it succeed.
Similar wishful thinking is now at the heart of European — and probably a good deal of American — strategic thinking about the Iranian nuclear project. That it is a disgusting abdication of moral responsibility and a strategic blunder of potentially enormous magnitude is both obvious and irrelevant to the actual course of events.
It's like banging yourself on the thumb with a hammer. You don't set out to do it. Only when the hammer's on its way do you actually realize you're doing it. And only in rare instances are you able to stop it before you cause yourself considerable pain. Maybe the phenomenon needs a title, something like "The Law of Stupefied Momentum."
I do not believe Israel will solve this problem for us, both because it is militarily very daunting and because successive Israeli governments have believed that Iran is too big a problem for them, and if it is to be solved, it will have to be solved by the United States and our allies. Whether that is true or not, I have long argued that Iran is the keystone of the terrorist edifice, and that we are doomed to confront it sooner or later, nuclear or not.
I don't see it as the keystone, but as one of two parallel and occasionally allied axes. I certainly agree with the rest of the statement, though. Iran is more militarily powerful than Soddy Arabia, especially with its own nuclear program, but not as diplomatically and culturally intricate a problem. So I'd guess it'll be sooner, rather than later.
Secretary of State Powell disagreed, and he was at pains recently to stress that American policy does not call for regime change in Tehran — even though the president repeatedly called for it.
Along with the people in the streets. The argument against taking on Iran militarily is collaterally killing people who support us. Once the iron hand's removed, of course, they'll tend toward the Franco-European approach, since on the surface it's a more rational and humane approach to governance, but we can't hold that against them. Israel's going to do the same thing, assuming peace is ever achieved with the Paleos. It's entirely possible both Iran and Israel will be Francophile nations 30 years from now, assuming there's still a France.
And the president is right; regime change is the best way to deal with the nuclear threat and the best way to advance our cause in the war against the terror masters. We have a real chance to remove the terror regime in Tehran without any military action, but rather through political means, by supporting the Iranian democratic opposition. According to the regime itself, upwards of 70 percent of Iranians oppose the regime, want freedom, and look to us for political support. I believe they, like the Yugoslavs who opposed Milosevic and like the Ukrainians now demonstrating for freedom, are entitled to the support of the free world.
It's certainly something to try before expending the men, money, and resources that'll be involved in war. But I think ultimately it's going to come down to war, and it'll probably happen next year.
Even if you believe that a nuclear Iran is inevitable, is it not infinitely better to have those atomic bombs in the hands of pro-Western Iranians, chosen by their own people, than in the grip of fanatical theocratic tyrants dedicated to the destruction of the Western satans? And maybe it isn't inevitable. Faster, please.
Posted by: tipper ||
11/30/2004 3:33:10 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"...if it is to be solved, it will have to be solved by the United States and our allies."
I'd like to see the US's other allies stepping into the breech the UK (under the Europhilic compromisers Blair/Straw) has left open. Australia and Japan could really shine here.
#2
Chamberlain had to choose between war and dishonor, opted for the latter, and got the former as well.
Neville Chamberlain agreed to a compromise with Adolf Hitler, but he also drew a line and told Hitler that if her crossed it, then there would be no more compromises. Hitler crossed the line anyway, and Chamberlain stuck to his guns, literally. Chamberlain did not "chose between war and dishonor." He declared war on Germany.
The European Union has agreed to a compromise with Iran, but has warned that if Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons, then there will be no more compromises. The EU will impose extremely strict economic sanctions. Basically the EU will declare economic war on Iran.
Strict economic sanctions would not be just a joke for Iran, where the unemployment rate is about 30%. And the EU would strive, probably very successfully, to engage many non-European countries into cooperation with the sanctions.
Iran well might cross the EU's line, just as Hitler crossed Chamberlain's. Crossing that line might be the Iranian mullahs' fatal mistake.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/30/2004 7:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The EU-3 operate on wishes and wants, Michael operates in reality. I give this deal less than three months before the EU-3 is founded outted again by the theocracy.
Posted by: Capt America ||
11/30/2004 8:13 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mike Sylwester: a fan of Nazi appeasement in the 1930s? I know I really shouldn't be surprised, but I am...
Go silently into the night, Mad Mullahs! For we won't buy your carpets no more.
#5
Chamberlain joins the Mike Sylwester pantheon of loyal, wise, misunderstood leaders, persecuted for doing what is best for the unappreciative and ignorant rabble. Who next? Stalin?
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/30/2004 8:56 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Neville Chamberlain agreed to a compromise with Adolf Hitler, but he also drew a line and told Hitler that if her crossed it, then there would be no more compromises. Hitler crossed the line anyway, and Chamberlain stuck to his guns, literally. Chamberlain did not "chose between war and dishonor." He declared war on Germany.
And in the meantime, Chamberlain utterly ignored Churchill's warnings. Wanting to avoid seeming "provocative", Chamberlain failed to re-arm Britain and committed Britain to the defense of France -- a commitment the French themselves were unwilling to make.
Chamberlain's decision to actually -- finally, after sacrificing Austria, Czechoslovokia, and Poland on the altar of "diplomacy" -- go to war with Hitler was simultaneous with his decision to resign in favor of Churchill. He left Churchill facing a re-armed Germany, short two-and-a-half allies, with Italy firmly in Hitler's camp, and with little or no useful military force to use.
Basically, Chamberlain shit on a stick then handed it to Churchill.
(And I'm as unsurprised as Bulldog.)
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/30/2004 8:59 Comments ||
Top||
#7
It started with the reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936. Hitler could easily have been stopped then, but of course that would have meant actually doing something. I fear it's too late with regard to the mullahs. Their program is too far along. Only concrete action will stop them, but the EUros have forgotten how to act, knowing only how to blather.
#8
To be fair to Chamberlain - almost everyone at the time thought Munich was a good idea - Churchill and Eden were the outliers, NOT Chamberlain. And, as historian Robert (?) Overy has pointed out, Chamberlain had access to secret information that made Munich a good idea - he knew how pitiful British air defences were in 1938, and how much they were improving. He believed that if war were necessary, 1939 or 1940 was the optimal time to fight, not 1938. In retrospect we know that if the UK and France had stood up to Germany, Hitler would have backed down and no war would have occurred - but this information was NOT available at the time.
Of course Chamberlain could also be faulted for a soft line toward Germany prior to Munich.
It should be noted that Churchill, in his autobiography of world war 2, makes it clear that while he disagreed with Chamberlain, he still considered him a patriot and a decent man, and that Chamberlain served with merit in Churchills own cabinet, until Chamberlains death in 1940.
#9
The European Union has agreed to a compromise with Iran, but has warned that if Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons, then there will be no more compromises.
Don't tell me, let me guess-the compromise agreement will be given three or four years to work. (Hint-how many years away from nuclear weapon actualization is Iran?)
Then our EU strategists really WILL resemble Chamberlain.
#10
"Chamberlain's decision to actually -- finally, after sacrificing Austria, Czechoslovokia, and Poland on the altar of "diplomacy" -- go to war with Hitler was simultaneous with his decision to resign in favor of Churchill"
UK went to war with Hitler on Sept 3, 1939, after Germanys invasion of Poland. Chamberlain remained PM, but invited Winston in as First Lord of the Admiralty. Chamberlain resigned (under pressure) in May of 1940, after the fall of Norway, and then the Netherlands. This was 8 months after UK entered the war. At this point it was determined that a Britain needed a coalition govt, including Labour and the Liberals, despite the Conservatives overwhelming majority in Parliament. (Ya see back then they thought wars of national survival required that ALL parties take part in govt, and share responsiblity - even parties like Labour that had opposed rearmament) The Conservatives still had a majority and the PM had to be Conservative - the only Conservative leader who was acceptable to Labour and the Liberals was Churchill - Chamberlain was STILL more popular among the Tories than Churchill, who was widely distrusted by them.
All of the above is based on Churchill's works, particularly "The Gathering Storm" and "Their Finest Hour".
#11
The Munich analogy isn't really apt here. Unlike Hitler's Germany, the Iranians pose an asymmetric and latent threat from a non-European nation. It's also likely that a post-mullah Iran will also strive to acquire nukes, and that their young and nationalistic populace will support their quest. The best option here is not the military one but a full court press, including: sanctions, perhaps with a naval blockade; a joint US-EU-UN insistence on truly free elections with foreign observers present; and covert western efforts in support of democracy movements in Iran.
Given that the Three Dwarves are unwilling to support any of the above, their behavior is even worse than Chamberlain's. This is not appeasement; this is taking Iran's side in hopes of embarrassing the US.
#12
Lh: Chamberlain's intentions may have been good, but his strategy - appeasement, was utterly wrong. That's the point. Chamberlain's popular 'feed the crocodile' approach was thoroughly discredited, and amongst those who chose to learn the lessons of history, still is today. His actions, and those of other leaders at the time, allowed a war to foment that ultimately killed people in the tens of millions. All that could have been averted had Chamberlain and his peers not adopted appeasement, started rearmament the moment Hitler's intentions became clear (the mid-thirties), and moved against him when he started invading his neighbours.
British air defences may have been improving in '38, but so were Germany's. Combined British and French armed forces were strong enough then to easily overwhelm what Germany had to offer then, had they been used aggressively. The Maginot mentality - sit things out and hope they improve whilst letting your determined enemy prepare himself unhindered - is precisely the same attitude we're seeing today from the EU-3. Lots of papers being waved about, the Bad Guys rubbing their hands with glee, and the Churchills marginalised and sneered at as 'warmongers'. Although, thankfully, there's a Churchill at the helm of the US this time.
I wonder where we'd be right now had the invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq War not occurred? We already have a great deal to thank Bush for in terms of someone being in a position to deal with Iran should the need arise. This time, despite their popularity, the Chamberlains can be sidestepped.
#13
That the Dwarves are on the other side can be seen from the unintentionally hilarious headlines coming out these days. My favorite was "EU 3 and Iran Working Furiously to Save Nuclear Deal," which described Iran's immediate breach of the deal they'd just signed.
The clear implication was that the Dwarves and the "moderate" mullahs were practically third party agents cooperating in order to restrain two sets of wicked "bad cops" who were determined to destroy the peace. Or maybe just one bad cop.
#14
Think about it: what do you think the response would be if you were to ask Straw, Fischer and Villepin "Which is worse: a) the mullahs with a full-blown nuclear weapons program, or b) the US forcing, through threat or actual use of military strikes, Iran to back down?"
Is there any doubt that they would rather restrain and embarrass the US than actually address the threat posed by the mullahs?
#16
OK, I had the timeline off a bit. The point remains valid: Chamberlain's appeasement was a horrendous policy, and it left the British in horrible shape for the war that was, frankly, inevitable.
Ya see back then they thought wars of national survival required that ALL parties take part in govt, and share responsiblity - even parties like Labour that had opposed rearmament
What a pity the modern Democrats don't agree.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/30/2004 11:01 Comments ||
Top||
#17
"British air defences may have been improving in '38, but so were Germany's. Combined British and French armed forces were strong enough then to easily overwhelm what Germany had to offer then, had they been used aggressively. "
I can only suggest you read Robert Overy on Chamberlain. First its not German air defences that were relevant, but German air attack capability in the Luftwaffe. Which was not improving as fast as Britains air defences, with the addition of radar, improved coordination, etc. Churchill inherited an excellent air defence system, which is clear from his won "Their Finest Hour"
Its not at all clear what would have happened had war broken out in fall 1938. The notion that the Brits and French could have overwhelmed Germany has, I think been debunked. Assuming they would not have violated Belgian neutrality, they would have had to attack on a narrow front - the German-French frontier. The Germans could have held them off while finishing off Czecho. OTOH Czecho could probably have done more damage to the Germans than the Poles did, and probably Czech arms factories would have been destroyed instead of being captured intact. So when the Germans DID get around to attacking in the west, they might have been weaker. But no way they could have beaten in short order, without Soviet intervention. The question of how serious the Soviets were about offering help to Czecho seems to be at the heart of the current Chamberlain revisionist debate. Chamberlain did not trust the Soviets, and didnt think their offer was real, while others saw Munich as a Western betrayal of the Soviets, and a cause of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. I beleive Overy worked with recently released Soviet documents, but Im not sure his interpretation is universally accepted.
#18
RC - Labour and the Liberals were invited to JOIN the cabinet. Labour got several highly responsible cabinet positions, including 2 of 5 seats on the war cabinet. The smaller Liberals got cabinet positions as well. They were NOT asked to simply support everything the govt did, while being kept out of the govt and in opposition.
Dont take my word for it. Read Churchills "Their Finest Hour", esp the parts dealing with internal politics and forming the new cabinet. Then look at Bush administrations approach. Then think.
#19
Chamberlain did not trust the Soviets, and didnt think their offer was real, while others saw Munich as a Western betrayal of the Soviets, and a cause of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. I beleive Overy worked with recently released Soviet documents, but Im not sure his interpretation is universally accepted.
LH, "the soviets" = Stalin, period. Chamberlain had good reason not to trust Stalin, whose approach to Hilter and the West was simply to offer his allegiance to the highest bidder. Had nothing to do with Munich and everything to do with the fact that Hitler offered Stalin a very plausible and attractive offer to carve up, once again, Poland and divide it between the Prussian and Russian empires.
#21
Given that Stalin's price for aligning with Chamberlain and the West against Hitler was territory in eastern Europe, it's ridiculous to argue that Munich represented "a betrayal of the Soviets." More like a refusal to be blackmailed by Stalin or to participate in his grand bazaar.
#22
I can't believe anyone is trying to defend Chamberlain here. That man is responsible for REFUSING to identify the evil of Nazism. There was already plenty of evidence available, tons of people were fleeing Germany and warning of coming mass murders and war. Some people had read Mein Kampf, after all.
#23
All I'm saying is that the Soviet aspect was irrelevant. They were not and could not be expected to take our side prior to June 1941.
And that the Chamberlain analogy is also irrelevant to the Iran crisis. The EU Dwarves are quite clearly on Iran's side here. This is not a matter of delay or stalling tactics, as the Chamberlain supporters allege; the Three Dwarves have no intention whatsoever of applying serious pressure to the mullahs. They're simply negotiating a trade deal and pretending to place conditions on Iran's nuke activities, conditions which are inevitably violated immediately after each new agreement gets printed.
#24
KF - Theres lots of evidence from Chamberlains private diaries, letters etc that he was quite aware, in 1938, of how evil Nazi Germany was (nor do i think he ever said in public that they were NOT evil.) His reasons for Munich stemmed from his belief that Britain was NOT ready for war in 1938. He may have been wrong. And he bears some responsibility for failing to take the Nazi menace seriously before 1938 (though most of the UK Conservative part, Churchill and Eden aside, and some elements in Labour and the Liberals as well, and plenty of folks in the US, share that responsibility)
Look, Im not suggesting that Chamberlain should be our model of grand strategic thinking. But the man was NOT a Nazi sympathizer, nor was he an idiot.
#25
the EU 3 are in a dilemma of sorts. Certainly they dont see Iranian nukes as particularly a direct threat to them, anymore than say, Pakistani or Indian nukes. Iranian nukes mean a shift in the power balance in the mideast, away from the US and Israel. Im not sure id go so far as to say they desire it, but clearly theyre not interested in giving anything up to prevent it - and they certainly DO want the trade, and influence with Iran. OTOH if they are too obvious, they lose credibility, and leave an opening for the US to act unilaterally without any further lessening of the US world position. Therefore they have to press for something facesaving enough to make it costly for the US act to unilaterally. The Iranians, for apparently internal reasons, make this rather difficult.
It should also be noted that the failure to find WMDs in Iraq, however justified our position may have been, has not helped us to put pressure on the europeans, nor has the failure THUS FAR to stabilize Iraq increased our leverage. Over time we WILL stabilize the situation in Iraq, and that will help in several ways, putting greater pressure on the Iranian regime by the Iraqi model, and helping to restore US credibility in Europe. Also over time the intel failures wrt to Iraq will be overcome. The danger is that Iran gets a useable bomb BEFORE that happens. Whats important to the US now is not so much to stop all Iranian advance, but to press the Euros to insist on at least a strict enough arms control regimen to dramatically SLOW the Iranian progress toward a bomb. Time is NOT on the Mullahs side, IMO, and that may be why they are proving so difficult.
#26
It's not a dilemma for the Dwarves. They know that the US and Israel will take care of the security threat, because Shahab-3 missiles can of course reach Israel as easily as Europe. They know they have very little to lose by taking Iran's side.
And they have much to gain: remember, it's the EU Dwarves who are being bribed here, not the mullahs. The millionaire mullahs couldn't care less about their nation's prosperity or economic progress; they're interested only in lining their own pockets and have already done so, in spades.
#27
Kalle and others, you should beware the Left's version of history. Many people at the time argued the Soviet Union was a bigger threat (and arguably they were right). Others argued for a similar position to American isolationsim. Britain was a Naval power and why get involved in continental wars especially after WW1.
Adolph Hitler considered himself a socialist, and Britain allied with Stalin (after both invaded Poland) because Germany was seen as a greater military threat, not because it was considered a greater evil. To view the causes of WW2 in moral terms is little more than after the fact justification. Were the decision made at the time on moral grounds (which of course it wasn't), vastly more was known about Stalin's crimes than Hitlers. In 1939 Stalin had racked up at least 10 million dead, while Hitler was still in the thousands.
#28
Ah, yes, the liberal appeasement argument for allowing Hitler to consume Austria, Poland, Czec and millions of German Jews, is clearly as compelling to liberals today as it would have been then.
#29
lex, beg pardon I do think the Euros have something to lose. Theres no assurance the Israelis will do the taking out, given their own limited technical means (despite augmentation from US smart bombs) and the high political costs to Israel of the action. If the US ends up taking out Iranian weapons, and does so successfully, thats another victory for US "unilateral" action (which in this instance really would be unilateral) in the region, and would confirm US dominance, a result that France and Germany certainly want to avoid.
#30
2b - first of all it was largely conservatives then who took the arguement that Stalin was a bigger threat than Hitler. Secondly, while I cant speak for Phil, I certainly think Churchill was right in identifying the Nazi threat - he was one of the greatest men in history, IMHO. However I thought it best that when we discuss history, we do so with ACCURACY as to the facts. Call that a liberal obsession, if you wish (unfortunately i fear most of my fellow liberals are just as historically illiterate as anyone else)
#31
If the US ends up taking out Iranian weapons, and does so successfully, thats another victory for US "unilateral" action
True, but does anyone really believe this will happen? Bush has his hands full with not only Iraq but also delivering on his extraordinarily ambitious second term objectives. I can't imagine that any administration would be capable of overhauling Social Security and the tax code and winning SCOTUS nomination fights and managing Iraq and Afghanistan and strikes on Iran.
As Bush learned at HBS, capital is not infinite, and one should deploy it to earn the highest possible ROI. Of the above projects, I have to believe that strikes on Iraq require the highest capital investment and by far the greatest risk. I don't see Bush taking that risk and jeopardizing all the other crucial projects already on his plate.
#32
But the degree of cost and risk of a US strike on Iran is NOT independent, but is itself a function of EU action. If the EU can establish a semicredible inspection regime, than I agree that the cost and risk of US action is high. If the EU3 give up the store, and the Iranians publicly pursue nukes, the costs and risks of US action decline considerably. As for hands full in Iraq, Im assuming a surgical strike on weapons, NOT regime change. As for the domestic initiative, without getting into an analysis of domestic politics, I dont think the Euro3 are in a position to count on a Bush commitment to his domestic agenda saving them - US domestic politics is inherently unpredictable, and theyve already miscalculated it (well other than Tony, that is).
#33
LH..maybe you should climb down on your own accord, since Stalin did indeed prove to be a bigger threat than Hitler. It may have been to our benefit that Stalin fought against Hitler, but that is far from saying that Stalin was not the greater threat. Hey, don't get me wrong, but I'm guessing that 3D tic tac toe is no not your game.
I'm just saying that if this was the 30's, liberals would be all this Iranin/Euro deal with placards and cheers of "peace in our time". They are as stupid today as they were back then.
#35
Labour and the Liberals were invited to JOIN the cabinet. Labour got several highly responsible cabinet positions, including 2 of 5 seats on the war cabinet. The smaller Liberals got cabinet positions as well. They were NOT asked to simply support everything the govt did, while being kept out of the govt and in opposition.
And no one's asking the Democrats to do that, either. They're being asked to act like adults.
They're not doing that.
(And be honest -- why should Bush trust ANY Democrat to be in his cabinet? Every time he's tried to compromise, the response he's gotten is venom, back-stabbing, and shrieking hatred.)
Dont take my word for it. Read Churchills "Their Finest Hour", esp the parts dealing with internal politics and forming the new cabinet. Then look at Bush administrations approach. Then think.
I have read it, and I have thought about it.
My conclusion: The modern Democrat party, as a party, places its lust for power above the good of the country.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/30/2004 14:42 Comments ||
Top||
#36
2b - im terribly confused - you seem to be saying that the geopolitical view that resulted in Munich was RIGHT, and then say that its todays liberals who would have supported Munich, and not you.
Hitler was certainly the greater IMMEDIATE threat, as Winston Churchill among others recognized at the time and reiterated later. If Churchill is one of those misguided liberals, Im proud to be among them.
You seem to very good at 20-20 hindsight, though, since it enables you to accuse others of supporting a policy that derived from assumptions that YOU share.
#37
RC - I dont see the shrieking the Dems have done as any worse than what Conservatives, Labour and Liberals shrieked about each other in the 1920's and 1930's. Or for that matter the shrieking that Labour and the Liberals did about Chamberlain during the period Sept 1939 to May 1940, when Britain was AT WAR, but they were excluded from the govt (and BTW,thats NOT a minor aspect of the timeline, but central to understanding British politics during the war)
BTW, could you please list for me times Bush has tried to compromise. I can think of the Education bill, and Dems were pretty cooperative on that.
#40
Re #6 (Robert Crawford) Wanting to avoid seeming "provocative", Chamberlain failed to re-arm Britain
The following are excerpts from Richard Overy's The Road to War: The Origins of World War II (beginning on page 81):
Chamberlain as Chancellor of the Exchequer had played the leading part in the development of Britain's rearmament programme from 1933 onwards. In 1936 his budget proposals for the four-year plan were denounced by the opposition as "war-mongering." Though he recognised the financial and political contraints on higher levels of remarmament, he had endeavoured as Chancellor to strike a reasonable balance between the kind of risks Britain faced internationally and the level of military spending the economic recovery would permit.
When he became Prime Minister, rearmament was already well under way, though it was inevitably a slow process after years of military decline. The general aim in 1936 was to produce forces strong enough by 1939 to prevent defeat and deter the aggressor .... In the summer of 1937 Chamberlain determined to get a clearer view of future strategy and a firmer grip on rearmament. A Ministry for the Coordination of Defence had been set up in 1936 under Thomas Inskip. He was instructed to draw up a comprehensive survey of what had been achieve and what Britain needed to be able to fight a total war. .....
In February 1938, Inskip produced his final report. All were agreed that expenditure should be increased. In 1938 Britain spent four times as much on defence as in 1934 -- 38 percent of all government expenditure. Plans for 1939 were higher still; a great effort of rearmement was set in motion to give real teeth to appeasement policy, without raching levels that would produce economic collapse.
First rank went to completing the air defense of Britain with radar and modern fighters; naval strength was expanded for the defense of Britain's vital trade routes; industrial mobilization was speeded up with a so-called "shadow factory" scheme ....
The goverment recognised that it woud be some time before Britain was secure from such a threat [of attack on Britain and its Empire]. The programmes would be complete or near completion in 1939 and 1940. ....
It was the central purpose of British strategy during the months of crisis in 1938 to avoid a European war before British rearmement was completed. .... In 1938 the rearmament programme was only halfway to its goal and was facing major problems. Until it was complete, Britain had almost nothing with which to threaten Hitler ....
What was more important was the knowledge Chamberlain had that within twelve months Britain's military position would be quite different. "From the military point of view, General Ismay told him, "time is in our favour ... if war with Germany has to come, it would be better to fight her in, say, 6-12 months' time than to accept the present challenge." ....
Chamberlain saw the British options plainly: "Hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst. .... The pace of rearmament did not slacken after Munich, but quickened. ... In October [1938] Chamberlain explained that "it would be madness for the country to stop rearming .... We should relax no particle of effort." Chamberlain had been a rearmer before Munich; he remained one thereafter. On 27 October Inskip was installed at the head of a new Comittee on Defense Preparations and Accelerations. .... Chamberlain clung to the belief that military preparations would deter Hitler once he realized the extent and thoroughness of British defences. ....
By August [1939] Britain's military preparations were also greatly improved. During 1939 the government spent half its revenue, swollen by further tax increases, on defence, double the level of 1938. ....
From the start, British rearmament was planned with the idea of general cnflict in 1939. ... War could not be fought with any confidence in 1938, but neither could it be posponed much beyond 1940. ....
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/30/2004 23:51 Comments ||
Top||
Edited for the conclusion. RTWT Horowitz launches a new tactic against loudmouth leftists like Al Franken. I doubt it works though. Nothing survives history like a false charge though, so he may. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
As it happens I marched in my first civil rights protest in 1948 before Al Franken was born. For more than fifty years I have supported minorities and defended their civil rights in public word and deed, and raised millions of dollars to help inner city minorities whom racism has scarred. In fact there is no single cause — except America's wars against totalitarian foes — to which I have devoted myself more consistently that than that of racial equality. Not a shred of evidence exists to the contrary. I have written more than a million words on racial and political matters -- all of them public record. There is not a single sentence, or phrase, or comment of mine that could be cited to justify Franken's attack.
#11
Just because Franken associates with racists, and uses racist code words on the radio, doesn't mean he won't try to conceal the fact. And after all, the seriousness of the accusation is what is important here.
Somewhere in the world, a filmmaker creates a short documentary that chronicles what he perceives as the excesses of anti-abortion activists. An anti-abortion zealot reacts to the film by killing the filmmaker in broad daylight and stabbing anti-abortion tracts onto his body. How does the Hollywood community react to this atrocity? Would there be angry protests? Candlelight vigils? Outraged letters and columns and articles? Awards named in honor of their fallen comrade? Demands for justice? Calls for protection of artistic freedom? It's a pretty safe bet that there would be all of the above and much more. And all of the anger would be absolutely justified.
So I'm trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from Hollywood over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam. The killer then stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another.
The presumed murderer, a Dutch-born dual Moroccan-Dutch citizen, attached a 5-page note to van Gogh's body with a knife. In it, he threatened jihad against the West in general, and specifically against five prominent Dutch political figures. Van Gogh's crime? He created a short film highly critical of the treatment of women in Islamic societies. So, again I ask, where is the outrage from Hollywood's creative community? I mean, talk about a violation of the right of free speech!
Perhaps they are afraid that their protests would put them in danger. That, at least, is a defensible position. If I were Michael Moore, I would much rather rail against George W. Bush, who is much less likely to have me killed, than van Gogh's murderer and the threat to creative freedom he brings. Besides, a man of Moore's size would provide a great deal of "bulletin board" space.
Maybe they think it would be intolerant of them to criticize the murder, because it would put them on the side of someone who criticized a segment of the Arab world. And, after all, we are often reminded that we need to be more tolerant of others, especially if they're not Christians or Jews.
There's another possibility; one that seems crazy on the surface, but does provide an explanation for the silence, and is also in keeping with the political climate in Hollywood. Is it just possible that there are those who are reluctant to criticize an act of terror because that might somehow align them with President Bush, who stubbornly clings to the notion that these are evil people who need to be defeated? Could the level of hatred for this President be so great that some people are against anything he is for, and for anything he is against?
As nutty as it sounds, how else can you explain such a muted reaction to an act that so directly impacts creative people everywhere? Can you conceive of a filmmaker being assassinated because of any other subject matter without seeing a resulting explosion of reaction from his fellow artists in America and around the world?
As I said, it's a nutty-sounding explanation, but we live in nutty times.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/30/2004 2:22:55 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One day, this will be made into a movie: The Silence of the Hams.
#4
Well, let's see. Fewer than a thousand US tankers drive straight into an enemy city of 5 million people, take it in less than 24 hours, and then fight off wave after wave of counterattacks. Nope, not enough dramatic action for a movie there.
Posted by: Matt ||
11/30/2004 15:56 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Just when you thought that all sanity departed Hollowood, Sajak steps up to the plate and knocks one out of the park! Pat U DA MAN! the money phrase: "If I were Michael Moore, I would much rather rail against George W. Bush, who is much less likely to have me killed." A classic!
But I think Mrs. D. was referring to Curly, Moe, and Larry, 3 key overpasses taken during the battle, whose defense in the face of hordes of attackers was pretty stirring.
MSNBC had a cameraman at one of them, and played the footage: I distinctly remember a couple of troops bringing back a guy on a stretcher; suddenly, he sits up, whips out his weapon, and blows away a fighter (offscreen, but in the footage the reporter confirmed that the wounded trooper killed him)
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
11/30/2004 20:24 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Carl, your recollection is confirmed in Thunder Run by David Zucchino, IMHO the best book to come out of the war so far.
Posted by: Matt ||
11/30/2004 20:31 Comments ||
Top||
#12
You remember that too, Carl? I rarely watch TV, even in wartime. But I saw that and laughed and cried at the same time. How could those weenies ever expect to win against men like that? That was one of the few moments in television to exceed the 1980 Olympic hockey win.
It was followed up with an article on the battles, in the LA Times?, that convinced me that the event you mention was only one of hundreds that day. Taking Baghdad was such a close run thing even Patton would be swept away by the audacity of it. And we haven't even heard about what really went down in Fallujah, yet. There is no doubt in my mind that this represents the finest, best trained, most well equipped, lethal, you name it, military in the history of mankind. No wonder the rest of the world is scared of us. Four hundred years ago this country was nothing but trees. What will we do, they ask themselves, if we get another hundred?
I also like the way the Three Stooges plays against the Three Kings. Stooges...riiiiiight.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/30/2004 20:40 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I think "Team America: World Police" really shut Hollywood up - absolutely hysterical satire clowning on the hollywussys. America - fuck yeah.
#14
Mrs. D, good post. An interesting point is that one of the soldiers who fought in the intersection battles was Bob Gallagher, who also was with the Rangers in the October 1993 battle in Mogadishu. In Iraq he won the Silver Star.
Mogadishu was the battle that caused Osama to say that our soldiers were "soft." It looks like he misunderestimated Sergeant Gallagher.
Posted by: Matt ||
11/30/2004 21:16 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Pat Sajak is a really smart dude, don't let that WOF stuff throw you off. I've seen him interviewed before and the guy always surprises me with his intelligence.
His point, in this case, is dead-on. No need to add why we haven't seen a movie about 9/11,except from the terrorists's side.
The anonymous commenters at that site just have to be honorary Rantburgers.
It looks like a shelf in an elderly lady's bathroom, scattered with half-full and almost empty bottles so old the faded labels are peeling off. But Qassem Daoud, Iraq's national security adviser and Prime Minister Allawi's confidant, calls it a "chemical laboratory" where Fallujan insurgents supposedly made "deadly explosives and poisons," including anthrax. Noninsurgents probably have more chemical containers underneath the kitchen sink at home.
Most don't have any anthrax, though...
But Fallujah's where Al-Zarqawi, Jordan's notorious kidnapper, assassin, and reputed master poisoner, reportedly gave US Marines the slip. And so when Daoud claims Zarqawi left souvenirs behind, the world pays attention. But not everyone is impressed.
Especially not those who try real hard not to be...
Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix urged restraint: "Let's see what the chemicals are.... Many of these stories evaporate when they are looked at more closely." Blix added that "the chances" soldiers had actually "found something" significant "are... relatively small. I would be surprised if it was something real."
Prob'ly nothing. Certainly the writer thinks it is.
Blixie could never be surprised. That's one reason why he never found anything.
Something real. That's the ticket, always has been. Those elusive weapons of mass destruction. And Daoud's perceptions aren't always the best. In an invasion interview, Daoud (then in Kuwait) assured CNN that US "military force(s) are (being) received with flowers and with very warm feeling toward them."
Some were. Some weren't. The writer's obviously trying really hard to forget the ones who were.
But actually, Daoud is uniquely qualified to assure the authenticity of the insurgents' "chemical laboratory" or, alternatively, create a hoax. Daoud is a scientist with a microbiology doctorate. In office and in Allawi's affections, he replaces another scientist-politician, Dr. Mowaffak Al-Rubaie, a neurologist. But Al-Rubaie inopportunely tested Allawi's patience by promoting reconciliation with radical cleric Moqtada Sadr when Allawi preferred a more radical solution.
So did Tater. He just didn't get the radical solution he wanted.
Daoud's proved infinitely more flexible. Originally opposing elections in January, 2005, Daoud seems to now have no serious objections. Initially willing to release Saddam Hussein's female science advisors "Dr. Germ" (Dr. Rihab Rashed Taha) and "Mrs. Anthrax" (Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash) so "that British guy," as Daoud called hostage Kenneth Bigley, could be saved, he bowed respectfully when Western officials resisted.
That's because we don't give in to terrorists. Trading Bigley for Dr. Germ would have resulted in more deaths than just that of Mr. Bigley.
Oh, so Sarah's actually against releasing Saddam's friends. I'm so confused!
And Daoud is reportedly a decorous neocon "Iraqi friend with ties to Mr. Franklin," meaning Larry Franklin of the US Defense Department who's under investigation for leaking secret documents to AIPAC — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Ahah! The Jews are involved, are they? Somehow I thought they might be.
One wonders why Daoud rushes to conclude the musty shelf scattered with aged containers is a covert laboratory. Surely Daoud knows that much, much more is required even for a primitive weapons operation. If insurgents planned to make anthrax, as Daoud implies, they needed more kit. Where are the incubators? Anthrax and most biological agents need a warm, stable place to grow at a very specific temperature. Refrigerators, dry ice, and vacuum pumps are also needed. Where's the fermentor, necessary for the growth of large quantities of bacteria and pathogens? Where's the sterilizing autoclave? Where's the centrifuge spinning anthrax spores, concentrating them for weaponization?
In another building, perhaps? Or on order from France?
Maybe over at the Fallujah "hospital".
And such equipment requires copious, steady amounts of electricity. Sporadic surges would make short work of insurgents' scientific efforts, unless they had generators. But generators require fuel, which in Iraq is in notoriously unreliable supply.
Unlike arms and ammunition, which are plentiful...
Serious insurgents would need yeast extract, tryptone, sporulation medium, glucose, and salts — all of which make biological nasties grow. Insurgents would also need glass flasks, tubes, and Petri dishes to handle nasties safely. A pH meter would be needed for measuring acidity, although this could run off a battery. But where is it?
Out back in the shed? Or down the street, in the mosque?
I could order all this stuff from Fisher Scientific tomorrow and have it by Friday afternoon.
And to make sure the insurgents live long enough to make their toxic cocktails, decent ventilation is essential. And then an assortment of extra rubber gloves, masks, and protective clothing. Finally, for anthrax, insurgents would need a drying apparatus, ideally less windy than a hair dryer, and a grinding apparatus — silicate placed in a tumbler of anthrax spores and mechanically churned. Could one do it by hand? Conceivably, answered a Washington, D.C. National Institutes of Health scientist, but it would take days of constant shaking to humanly replace the machine.
I notice she's not talking about ricin, or about various gases. So what was it, lady? Little Mahmoud's chemistry set?
For about $10K I could have everything Sarah's said we need. Wonder if anyone in jihadi-land has that kind of walking around money.
What might those dusty jars tell us? Each bottle of chemical or agent will have a label lot number indicating where and when it was made, and from what larger batch it derives. The manufacturer could conceivably determine where smaller batches were shipped or repackaged, and to whom they were sold. A National Science Foundation-funded scientist examining Daoud's lab picture declared: "The chemicals look like they've been taken from a university laboratory. The lone glove appears to be planted. The most recognizable bottle is fourth from the left with the light blue top. This is a Fluka chemical bottle in an old style." Daoud's Fluka bottle is square-shaped, whereas contemporary Fluka bottles are noticeably rounded. Ironically, the country nearest Iraq that's done the most anthrax weaponizing research is Israel.
Yep. Those damned Jews again. She just can't get away from it. It's as plain as the nose on her face...
Look at Daoud's shelf, look at what's not there, then look at the clock and check the time. Time to examine Daoud's "friendly ties to Mr. Franklin." Time to look at something real.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/30/2004 11:03:47 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why the focus on biological weapons? It would be much more likely that improvised weapons would be chemical. Anyone else read "Lucifer's Hammer"?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/30/2004 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
