Joshua Muravchik at Commentary reviews the history of summitry from Potsdam to Nixon in China and concludes that personal contact between leaders is no substitute for sound diplomacy based on a shrewd appreciation of national interests. In fact the illusion that “world peace” is automatically advanced by talking proved fatal on more than one occasion. Muravchik notes that two of the most disastrous meetings in recent history — between Neville Chamberlain and Hitler in Munich and Truman (I had earlier written FDR) with Joseph Stalin in Potsdam — set the stage for conflicts which would subsequently shake the world. Chamberlain believed that if one summit was good, then several would be even better. Muravchik writes that “the story of Munich itself has been too often told to bear repeating, but it is worth recalling that it was not a single meeting but a series of three, with each serving to embolden Hitler further.”
The chief danger when two heads of state meet to resolve conflicts occurs when one, who has no clear idea of his own national interests, is manipulated by his counterpart by playing on his vanity, credulousness or innocence. Even illness and physical weakness can be exploited. Stalin knew how to play the dying FDR like a fiddle.
In April 1943, the American ambassador in Moscow conveyed FDR’s wish to “sit down with Stalin and talk over problems” so as to avoid any “lack of understanding.” As the President wrote Churchill, “I think I can handle Stalin better than either your foreign office or my State Department. . . . He thinks he likes me better, and I intend to keep it that way.” Stalin played on these illusions like a drum, maneuvering for Western assent to postwar Soviet rule over Eastern Europe while answering every appeal for moderation by referring to supposed hardliners in the Kremlin who were making it “impossible for me to fulfill your wish.”
Barack Obama, however, may view things differently. Obama implied that international tensions, and in particular the fall the Berlin Wall occurred largely because Presidents like Reagan were willing to talk to the Soviet Union. (See a video of Obama saying so here). He was pointedly contrasting the process of reaching out from what suggested was a timorousness in the Bush administration based on fear. At a speech he emphasized that it was important to reach out, implying that all diplomatic progress sprang from an outstretched hand:
Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That’s what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That’s what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’ And ultimately, that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall.
The idea that personal communications inherently carries within it the seed of understanding is the political analogue of Marshall McLuhan’s famous adage that the “medium is the message”. In this line of thinking, whenever the medium is personal, the message is peace. But surely this is a half-truth. Historically, the outcomes of a President talking to hostile leaders depended not simply on the unmediated conversation, but more critically upon the substance of the discussion. It depended on what was said and conceded. For example, French Prime Minister Pierre Laval had many conversations with the the Nazis for the purpose of cooperating with them. Laval was executed as a traitor in postwar France. In contrast Eisenhower’s staff also spent some hours talking to General Jodl for the purpose of arranging the surrender of German forces. Eisenhower was welcomed as a hero by an adoring public. The difference between the two negotiations can be summed up as follows: same medium, different message.
Nowhere is the paramountcy of content over medium more greatly emphasized than in politically correct speech codes. Larry Summers discovered to his cost that speaking to a group of feminists on the subject of gender and intelligence could get him fired. Summers
suggested that, after the conflict between employers’ demands for high time commitments and women’s disproportionate role in the raising of children, the next most important factor might be the above-mentioned greater variance in intelligence among men than women, and that this difference in variance might be intrinsic, adding that he “would like nothing better than to be proved wrong.” The controversy generated a great deal of media attention, forced Summers to resign, and led Harvard to commit $50 million to the recruitment and hiring of women faculty.
Summers’ offense was not in the saying, but in what he said. Recently, a webmaster in the Netherlands was arrested for remarks that a commenter had left on his site without any prior request from the authorities to remove the offending material. They simply arrived to arrest him. Perhaps to justify their actions, Dutch authorities argued that because the website contained the wrong tone it was a hate crime waiting to happen. The webmaster was going to be guilty sooner or later anway. “The judge clearly indicated that the contents of texts placed on sites are the responsibility of the manager … The manager placed negative news items about Muslims and links to extremist sites. He could therefore expect that punishable texts would be placed on his site.” Again the offense was not in the posting, but in what was posted. “Hate speech” is proof, if any were needed, that the message is the message.
How then can it be maintained that summitry itself is an intrinsic good? A summit might actually aggravate the relationships between the United States and Iran, Cuba, Venezuela if the President resolutely opposes certain of their key demands. Only if the President goes along will negotiations proceed smoothly. To avoid that difficulty, it is normally left to lower-ranking officials to identify the differences and resolve them beforehand. For that reason summits are normally postponed until basic agreement is worked out at lower levels in preparation for a final meeting between the two principals.
Upon closer examination it is clear that Obama himself doesn’t believe in the unqualified virtues of face to face meetings either. Bill Richardson and Susan Rice, both Obama supporters, modified BHO’s willingness to rely on “direct engagement” in an video interview. They said that an Obama administration would not talk directly to Hamas — although they did not rule negotiation by proxy. Since Hamas is even weaker than Cuba, which Obama scathingly described as weaker than the Soviet Union, why exactly is it bad to have a summit with Hamas? And moreover, since by Richardson’s own admission indirect negotiations are exactly what the Bush administration was doing already, then what remained of Obama’s claim that “strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries” and the distinction between himself and President Bush? Maybe only the suspicion that the more things changed in Washington, the more they remained the same.
Tip Jar.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
104 Comments
1. neolex:@ Wretchard
Excellent as usual.
I would like to call your attention to an obscure event in Ukraine that has went completely under the radar. The ruling coalition of Pres. Yuschenko’s NUNS and Timoshenko’s BUT fell apart. It was preceded by BUT siding with pro-Russian block in the parliament to strip the president of the powers to set foreign policy and many others. Before crisis in Georgia, Timoshenko has met with Putin, she subsequently went on vacation and avoided making any statements about the conflict. Yuschenko accused her of treason by agreeing to advance Russian interest in Ukraine. West has just lost Ukraine, with the unlikely exception of imposition of martial law by the president. Despite overplaying its hand in Georgia, Russia’s gambit is paying off.
Sep 2, 2008 - 9:10 pm 2. Cannoneer No. 4:American presidents engage in summitry when they have reason to believe they will be rewarded by domestic constituencies for averting whatever apocalyptic crisis was deemed worthy of a summit. The realpolitik approach to summitry would not squander the prestige of the office and the minuscule attention span of the MSM on penny ante crises. Too much personal Presidential involvement in what should be the business of American diplomats is every bit as bad as an LBJ personally approving targets to be hit in Viet Nam.
“Only Nixon could go to China.” — Captain Spock, star date 9521.6
Sep 2, 2008 - 10:20 pm 3. Alexis:One should not forget that Pierre Laval regarded himself as a French patriot because he perceived his collaboration as a means to ameliorate the cruelties of German occupation. He collaborated partly because he thought his personal contacts with the Nazis and Italian Fascists from the 1930’s would help serve France. The point I am making is that he was sincere.
During his second stint in the service of Vichy, Pierre Laval was said to have been told by a friend that 95% of Frenchmen hated him for collaborating with Nazi Germany. Pierre Laval disagreed, telling his friend that at least 99% of Frenchmen hated him. He wasn’t collaborating with Nazi Germany out of a desire for popularity but out of his warped variety of French patriotism.
For that matter, Benedict Arnold may have had altruistic motives for changing sides in the Revolutionary War. He, like many other Americans, were tired of the war and didn’t see any chance for American victory. So, Benedict Arnold did what was within his power to bring the war to a close out of a desire to “give peace a chance”. It is easy for Americans to regard Benedict Arnold as a traitor, but if the British Empire had won, he may have been regarded as a hero who put an end to a ruinous war.
Those we disagree with can be well-meaning and patriotic. They can sometimes even be technically right (such as when Pierre Laval asked why Leon Blum’s leftist government hadn’t declared war on the Soviet Union for its invasion of Finland as well as declaring war on Nazi Germany for invading Poland).
Yes, it may very well be that Barack Obama is repeating the mistakes of Chamberlain, Roosevelt (at Yalta), and Laval. Yet, not of these statesmen were unpatriotic. They were patriots, and each of whom was devoted to his nation’s interests as he perceived them. They meant well. So let’s not question Senator Obama’s patriotism. Let’s also realize that patriots can sometimes lack judgment.
Sep 2, 2008 - 10:23 pm 4. Cannoneer No. 4:USS Mount Whitney sails for Georgia
Sep 2, 2008 - 10:28 pm 5. Benj:Scratching my head re Marshall Mac reference. Doesn’t seem to add anything to the argument – Skeptical of any attmpt to drop that name since that Mac is probably the most over-valued intellect of our time…
Alexis – Steve Coll recalls an interesting exchange between Petraeus and Obama at the September 07 briefing in a current New Yorker piece I’m linking to below – Obama asked a respectful but pointed question – P. was (it seems) genuinely sorry he didn’t get a chance to answer it at the time. Sounds like they picked up on that dialogue when O was in Iraq…
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/08/080908fa_fact_coll
Sep 2, 2008 - 10:35 pm 6. Cannoneer No. 4:USNS Pathfinder, which US officials say is a non-combatant ship, passed through the Dardanelles on Tuesday.
USS McFaul is back in the Med. USCGC Dallas is probably heading back to the Bosporus. USS Taylor is still in the Black Sea.
Sep 2, 2008 - 10:38 pm 7. Ken:If you want to say that Obama has a kind of patriotism, let’s at least be clear about what kind of patriotism it is.
He wants Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Why?
Simple. He wants it to smuggle a suitcase bomb into the US, so that he can declare a state of emergency and seize all guns.
Ray Nagin’s seizure of guns during Hurricane Katrina was a test run.
If this vile plan is “patriotic,” then I am proudly unpatriotic.
Sep 2, 2008 - 10:40 pm 8. Cannoneer No. 4:USCGC Dallas and the U.S. Navy are conducting exercises with the Ukranian Navy intended to increase regional security
Sep 2, 2008 - 10:44 pm 9. Cannoneer No. 4:The Market Will Punish Putinism
What Mr. Putin has yet to learn is that capital does not respond well to extortion.
Sep 2, 2008 - 10:50 pm 10. buddy larsen:I’m not surprised –Russia early this summer basically declared limited war, and once war is on, it makes no sense to wait around –nothing makes sense but to get while the gettin’s good.
Sep 2, 2008 - 11:05 pm 11. buddy larsen:duh –i was referring to the first post –neolex.
Sep 2, 2008 - 11:11 pm 12. Nomenklatura:Obama would eventually discover that Putin’s idea of negotiating is the same as that of every other autocrat: ‘What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is negotiable’.
Unfortunately, by the time an ego-driven western leader finds this out, his prestige is often already committed to obtaining an outcome he can portray as an instant success. This is enough to enable even a more than averagely dumb opponent to play such a western leader like a musical instrument.
Also, the naive western leader gets in trouble by portraying himself as a ‘bringer of peace’ even before negotiations start (as Obama already has). The autocratic opponent thus has options – he can decide on peace or war. The western leader has no options, because the autocrat knows that a westerner reliant on a liberal constituency, once entangled in ‘peace negotiations’, simply cannot decide to go to war. Given the asymmetry, the westerner is likely to get rolled every time.
The western leader and his supporters end up believing all the nonsense about ‘hardliners at home’ because he needs to, in order to justify retreating and selling out the country’s allies, rather than because of any intrinsic plausibility.
Sep 2, 2008 - 11:13 pm 13. Eggplant:Alexis said:
“One should not forget that Pierre Laval regarded himself as a French patriot because he perceived his collaboration as a means to ameliorate the cruelties of German occupation.”
I suspect most traitors motivated by ideology think they’re patriots or martyrs. No doubt Julius Rosenberg thought he was a socialist martyr as he was being lead to the electric chair. However, it doesn’t really matter what Rosenberg thought. History records that he was a traitor and he died a traitor’s death.
Sep 2, 2008 - 11:14 pm 14. Aubrey:Roosevelt at Potsdam? Are you sure about that? Wasn’t it Truman who met Stalin at Potsdam?
Sep 3, 2008 - 12:25 am 15. outa my league:It takes a rare bird (such as a Ronald Reagan) to be able to stalwartedly maintain the interests of freedom and libery at home while in negotiations abroad “with the very devil himself”. I had hopes for Condi at State, but it didn’t take long for her to be assimilated into the subculture of the Bottom of Fog, and gradually lose “hawkish” effectiveness.
Here’s hoping President McCain will name either John Bolton or General Petraeus as SecState, and will name either General Petraeus or John Bolton as SecDefense.
Sep 3, 2008 - 12:39 am 16. sfblue:An interesting assortment of US Naval craft going in and out of the Turkish straights. It’s fun to imagine what might be going on ‘underneath the surface’. USNS Pathfinder, with advanced underwater survey equipment which will be used in a demonstrations and security excercises could be used to sweep for Russian subs while the USS Mount Whitney follows with a US or Georgian sub shadowing underneath it hidden from detection. Kind of a crazy idea, but fun to imagine.
Sep 3, 2008 - 12:56 am 17. wretchard:Roosevelt at Potsdam? Are you sure about that? Wasn’t it Truman who met Stalin at Potsdam?
My mistake. It was Truman.
Sep 3, 2008 - 1:03 am 18. fedya:@Aubrey:
Yes, Yalta was the conference at which Stalin rolled FDR.
Truman’s performance at Potsdam was, if anything, a furtherance of the same capitulation. Poland, for example, though the fourth largest army of the Allies, was sidelined by Roosevelt at Yalta and not even a recognized participant at Potsdam.
Truman was a total newbie at Potsdam. One imagines he was “just following (FDR’s) footsteps”, no excuse, but pretty much the case.
The Harry Truman that patriots love and revere was reborn three short years later in the fires of the Soviet blockade of Berlin.
By the time Harry Truman was faced with the fait accompli blockade of Berlin, our options seemed to be nil. Withstanding the Soviet blockade was nearly universally assumed to be impossible, including by
Truman. However much we fumbled about at the start, the “miracle” of the Berlin airlift saved Truman’s political bacon (not to mention the European Free World).
Our victory there may be strong support for the “great leader” theory of history.
At the outset, having an airlift to buy time at all was due to one very tough general, Lucius Clay who was days away from being transferred out in favor of some despicable State Department weenies.
Not to slight Curtis LeMay, the second great leader was Lemay’s ultimate pick to manage the airlift, Lt. General William H. Tunner, who had organized the supply of the Chinese Army “over the Hump” from Burma in WWII. Tunner led the greatest feats of military logistics in human history, the Berlin Airlift being the second.
The third leader was a pilot, Gail Halvorsen, who somewhat foolishly (in violation of all sorts of orders) decided to air-drop candy to the German children who gathered daily at the foot of Templehof airport to watch the procession of planes in and out.
A few such drops later, using parachutes made of handkerchiefs and his crew’s candy rations, the base was inundated with mail to “Uncle Candy Bomber” and the crowds of children mushroomed. These children of disaster had never tasted candy in their lives. The embattled and embittered Berliners’ hearts melted in gratitude. The very same Americans who had been blasting them to eternity from the skies now cared enough to bomb them with impossible rarities: simple pleasures for their suffering children.
The result (given that Tunner had the good sense and humanity to reward Halvorsen instead of court-martialing him), was an astonishing triumph of human goodwill over darkest evil. Hope swept through the Berliners who had already determined to resist Soviet domination to the bitter end even if it meant starvation.
Their renewed hope and the rallying support of the American people provided the world with a stark object lesson: military determination — against all odds — employed in the service of simple humanity can let Freedom ring and reign triumphant.
Sep 3, 2008 - 1:19 am 19. fedya:Egad! I see I have “seriously violated the rule about long ass responses”.
Sorry, the first 4 paragraphs followed by the last one would have made the point. I sure do love that story, though. JFK could never have proclaimed “Ich bin ein Berliner” [sic?] had not Harry Truman stood up with our military forces against the Foggy Bottoms, er, Soviets.
BTW, he left the Presidency extremely unpopular, as no doubt will GWB. No doubt history will judge GWB more favorably, as it has harry Truman.
Sep 3, 2008 - 1:50 am 20. fedya:Wikipedia sez:
Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan concluded that Truman was “almost willfully obtuse” concerning the danger of American communism.
Hmmmm! Will some notable one conclude that GWB is “almost willfully obtuse” about the danger of Islamist fascism?
Stratfor’s free newsletter concludes that the USA is extended to its limit, unable to respond to Russian adventurism (my phrase) without drooping in the Middle Eeeest. Does that exonerate apparent US inaction in the face of neo-Soviet revanchiste adventurism? Is the USA gonna surprise los Euro-Weenies by arming Georgia?
(not that it is my place to ask these “?”
Sep 3, 2008 - 2:28 am 21. Peter Boston:I have been scanning the Eastern European newspapers for the past year or so and the Russians have always made their intentions clear – in the plainest language possible. It would seem that even a Harvard educated analyst or journalist could figure out that Ukraine is the prize.
With Ukraine in the fold Russia is the overwhelming military power in Europe and master of the Black Sea and Caspian Basin. That’s how I think Putin sees it. His legacy will be either the powerful man who restored the prominence of Russia or the weak man who idly watched as the Empire was reduced by its rivals to the Duchovy of Moscow. When viewed in this context the stakes for Putin are the survival of Russian culture.
From what I’ve read of Susan Rice and Obama’s other advisers they cannot articulate what America’s role would be in Putin’s world. How can diplomacy or negotiation be an end in itself when there is not even a clear commitment to some desirable result?
Sep 3, 2008 - 3:00 am 22. Doug:The Medvedev Doctrine and American Strategy – Stratfor
Second, the world should be multipolar. A single-pole world is unacceptable. Domination is something we cannot allow. We cannot accept a world order in which one country makes all the decisions…
Fourth, protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country. Our foreign policy decisions will be based on this need. We will also protect the interests of our business community abroad. It should be clear to all that we will respond to any aggressive acts committed against us.
Sep 3, 2008 - 3:22 am 23. Doug:“The measure of courage”
The U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency’s table provides a revealing measure of courage.
Sep 3, 2008 - 3:32 am 24. fedya:Should Russian belligerence continue, either over Georgia or in some other adventure, observers will have to question why the big countries in “Old Europe,” those with the least to lose, are also showing the least resolve.
My frustration is that Stratfor is mostly for paying customers and I cannot afford it.
The “free” alternatives are mostly ego-organs published by suspiciously oriented policy prescriptionistes. They usually claim some amazing insight and keep flogging the same **** insight long past its usefulness. Many of them are STILL repeating the non-intelligent idea that Georgia somehow provoked Russia by virtue of its adventurism, hubris, neo-con dupe-ism, whatever.
I suspect that they are all shills for “moderate” political tendencies. As an ex-leftist who “converted” slowly way back when along with Norman Podhoretz and Joshua Muravchik (i.e. as a Commentary addict) I just cannot believe the inanity of some of these self-appointed wizards with their oh-so-clever theories of late model conflict.
Color me frustrated. OMG, how I hate to click on Stratfor links and get that “Subxcriberz Only” interface! Open source Patriotism, anyone?
Sep 3, 2008 - 3:39 am 25. fedya:Alas, my point could have been made more simply, thusly:
“Free” strategic theorists on the webbie-web-webbe are triangulating to pseudo “moderate” positions as a function of their patronage. The mechanisms and media of that patronage totally, like, escape me. The litmus test of ongoing “Georgia shares the blame-ism” is my exhibit arguendo #1 — and I really think it is an inescapable fact of a very problematic nature — for USA patriots.
Belmont Club and Instapundit are free, albeit insufficient, responses to this reality, no? Insufficient, got that?
Try “too damned wimpy” as a substitute for “insufficient”. Or will internet0mediated free-speech carry the day? Hmmm, sounds cool! Inquiring minds REALLY want to know!
Sep 3, 2008 - 4:00 am 26. RWE:It is amusing – and amazing – to today hear the Left use the example of Reagan as that of a leader who talked to our adversaries. Because in the 80’s he was derided, repeatedly, for refusing to talk to the Soviet leaders. Few indeed today recall that prior to Gorbachev the USSR leadership was changing at an incredible pace, as one aging hard liner after another took power and then died off.
And then the Left went into full fledged hysterics when Reagan met with Gorbachev and refused to take SDI off the table. It was the end! Our best chance had been lost! It was Reagan who first proposed the INF treaty “You get rid of your missiles and we’ll get rid of ours.” And the Soviet response was to scoff. And then less than a year later they came back with the same proposal, acting as it was a wonderful new idea. And then they cheated on it.
Two books, “Victory” and “Operation Rollback” describe the details of Reagan’s “They lose, we win” approach to the Cold War. The Soviets came to the table because the 1980’s version of The Surge worked.
Sep 3, 2008 - 4:56 am 27. Cannoneer No. 4:Cheney Begins Regional Tour in Azerbaijan
will then head to Tbilisi and from there to Kyiv.
Sep 3, 2008 - 5:07 am 28. Fen:There’s a great quote of Manchester, writing The Last Lion. I don’t recall the specifics but its very close to:
“One imagines Chamberlain across the table from Satan, dismay spreading across his face as he realizes he’s just traded away his soul for the promise of future negotiations”
Sep 3, 2008 - 5:08 am 29. Cannoneer No. 4:USS Mount Whitney steamed through the Dardanelles early Wednesday and was expected to pass through the Bosporus later in the day.
Sep 3, 2008 - 5:17 am 30. Cannoneer No. 4:Putin fires warning over Nato presence in Black Sea
Russian prime minister ‘will act’ if west continues to support Georgia
Asked exactly what measures Russia would take, Mr Putin answered: “You’ll see.”
Sep 3, 2008 - 5:25 am 31. Doug:Not what the linked article said at all, fedya, made sense to me.
Sep 3, 2008 - 5:31 am 32. Doug:“You’ll see.”
Sep 3, 2008 - 5:33 am 33. Doug:In a fair world, to be followed by a sniper’s response.
Not exactly sure what your complaint is fedya, the linked article was free, and seems to get the point across on it’s own.
Sep 3, 2008 - 5:37 am 34. Teresita:Buddy Larsen: I’m not surprised –Russia early this summer basically declared limited war, and once war is on, it makes no sense to wait around –nothing makes sense but to get while the gettin’s good.
Then lets respond precisely in kind, since our spheres of influences are all jumbled up. Let’s invade Grenada again. That will be a real poke in Putin’s eye.
Sep 3, 2008 - 6:57 am 35. starling:Churchill & Roosevelt met in Malta (Jan 30-Feb 2, 1945)
to prepare for Yalta (Feb 4-11, 1945)
where they were joined by Stalin
At Potsdam (July 17-August 2, 1945) the principals were
Churchill, Stalin, Truman, and Attlee
Source: Wikipedia
Sep 3, 2008 - 7:14 am 36. sfblue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_conferences
Teresita, Obviously you’re joking. That would be an incredible gift to Putin.
Sep 3, 2008 - 7:15 am 37. Teresita:It was a joke. I’m something of an isolationist, I guess sort of like a Pat Buchanan lesbian. I don’t recognize Georgia’s claim for US military protection just because its President mouths the words “freedom” and “democracy”. Did the Georgian legislature authorize the incursion into South Ossetia which triggered the Russian response? No, it was the prerogative of the Georgian executive. Still, Georgia is a sovereign state recognized by the family of nations, so Russia needs to be punished by economic sanctions. Some of these will be official decrees, but the natural flight of capital out of Russia will have the real bite. Any jointly beneficial relationships between the US and Russia should start to be terminated, permitting them to escalate or be dialed back as a carrot and stick for what Russia does. In fact, we should have done this in response to the Russians building a reactor in Iran. But if Europe does nothing and prefers to be energy slaves to the Kremlin, I will shrug. Screw ‘em.
Sep 3, 2008 - 7:32 am 38. NahnCee:Russian admiral sayeth, “Former Russian Black Sea Fleet commander, Adm. Eduard Baltin was quoted by Moscow media as saying Friday, Aug. 29: “Despite the apparent strength of the NATO naval group in the Black Sea… a single salvo from the Moskva missile cruiser and two or three missile boats would be enough to annihilate the entire group. Within 20 minutes, the waters would be clear.”
So with the Americans steaming in and out with great impunity, are the Russians only going to sink NATO boats; i.e., any boat that is NOT American?
Why do the Russians blow-hard like this? Does it read good back home, or something?
I’d love to know if any American submarines are burbling around underneath the Russian fleet, and think that I’ll believe they are just because the idea tickles me.
Sep 3, 2008 - 7:56 am 39. Strick:Interesting premise. My read of Churchill was that he believed the exact opposite. He certainly wrote that the issue between FDR and Stalin was less that summitry was a bad idea and more that FDR was naive and completely misjudged his ability to handle Stalin.
Likewise, I believe that Truman and Stalin did come to an agreement at Potsdam, only, in a classic case of miscommunication, each thought it was a different agreement. Stalin thought Truman was giving him a greenlight to establish a Soviet sphere of influence, and Truman thought Stalin really meant democracy (instead of “oh, yeah, ‘democracy’, wink, wink, nod, nod”). Truman straight forward and literally minded, Stalin hatching plans within plans.
So it all depends on the leaders involved. Kennedy versus Khrushchev the classic bad example, Reagan versus Gorbachev the classic good example. All this study proves is that leaders who know what they’re doing are rare. Surprise.
Sep 3, 2008 - 8:00 am 40. OldSalt:Why do the Russians blow-hard like this? Does it read good back home, or something? – NahnCee
When’s the last time you saw an American General/Admiral speak in such terms?
But, don’t you know, the US military is absolutely the worse, most imperialist force in the world. The American left (and most Democrats) keeps informing us of this fact. There’s no difference between the Russians and the USA other than that the Russians are all peacekeepers, and the US troops are all rapists and baby killers.
The left hates me because I’m a conservative. I hate them because they’re lying traitors, not just an parochial opinion of mine – but based on many objective facts and actions by the Democrat gang.
And the Russians? As I said, my own family has been on the ground in Russia. We hoped for a better future for Russia. However, they are reverting to form, i.e. Russian soldiers rape, pillage, and plunder for 10 centuries. They may wear pretty uniforms just like Americans, but they are thugs, draftees who have no choice led by abusive, sadistic NCO’s. They are a gang, not a professional military force. The more dead Russians there are, the better it will be for the innocents of the world.
Sep 3, 2008 - 8:21 am 41. Lifeofthemind:@Nahncee,
Sep 3, 2008 - 9:01 am 42. Lifeofthemind:No non littoral submarines are allowed in the Black Sea. Much as we’d love it we can’t. Wish we had a dozen good small shallow water super quiet fuel cell submarines. They would be perfect for the Persian Gulf, the coast of Syria and the Aegean as well as the South China and East China seas. Need to set up airbases in Romania and Georgia. A Lend Lease arrangement to get a US base near Batumi would really put the screws to Putin.
@Old Salt,
Sep 3, 2008 - 9:07 am 43. Joseph Somsel:We never finished our discussion on PT – MTBs. Are their skippers really best treated as the COs of an independant command or more like the Pilots of very low flying craft that is part of a larger command (the Squadron) that is functioning as a distributed network? The later model offers the appealing idea of developing specialized units that can mix match and manuever as the situation demands.
Doug’s observation on why Old Europe is hanging back against Russian aggression was the subject of a piece I did on AmericanThinker.com last week. Sorry for touting it again on wretchard’s comment section but the subject and content remain pertinent.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/sticking_it_to_gazprom.html
The Ukraine may well be lost. I was shocked when it split off from Russia in the dissolution of the USSR. However, I don’t see how reuniting it and Russia will make a new Colossus of the East. Bigger and better, yes, but a long way from a world beater.
Anyone want to bet on date of the detonation of Poland’s first nuke?
Sep 3, 2008 - 9:12 am 44. RWNJ:The more dead Russians there are, the better it will be for the innocents of the world.
Perhaps we should covertly assist and encourage their national suicide. Demoralize them further. Pump Russia full of the poisonous, corrosive, family destroying components of western culture. Cheap drugs, moral relativism, consumerism, etc. Assault their culture until abortions have climbed another 10 percent and life expectancy has fallen 10 percent.
They have shown the world again and again that they bring only chaos and destruction. It is in our interest that they destroy themselves.
Sep 3, 2008 - 9:19 am 45. Storm-Rider:“Yes, it may very well be that Barack Obama is repeating the mistakes of Chamberlain, Roosevelt (at Yalta), and Laval. Yet, not of these statesmen were unpatriotic. They were patriots, and each of whom was devoted to his nation’s interests as he perceived them. They meant well. So let’s not question Senator Obama’s patriotism.”
I have an idealistic definition for patriotism; it is love of country because of the nation’s devotion to human life, human liberty and human creativity – see the American Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. When a leader loves his country in spite of its destruction of human life, liberty and creativity, i.e.: in spite of the nations tyranny, i.e.: “my country right or wrong;” then the leader is a Nationalist, not a Patriot. Laval was a French Nationalist, not a French Patriot; and he deserved capital punishment for his crimes against humanity.
Does Barak Obama, or any Leftist Democrat, really believe in the ideas in the American Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights? Or do they love America because of its state power envisioned in their hands?
Sep 3, 2008 - 9:22 am 46. Peter Boston:I have no illusions about Putin and the Russian oligarchs but I still can see Russia as the frontier state – the bulwark against a modern Mongolian invasion, if you would. The problem is that the Bear if left untethered is as likely to maul you and eat your lunch as it is anybody’s approaching from the East.
Jump ahead 100 years. If Russian influence is not preeminent in the region then what shall replace it? The Chinese? The Islamic states to the South?
Sep 3, 2008 - 9:25 am 47. David M:The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 09/03/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Sep 3, 2008 - 9:41 am 48. Aether:The StratFor article on “The Medvedev Doctrine and American Strategy” focuses purely on military responses to the challenges that Russia is posing to US hegemony. It fails to address the larger geopolitical situation and potential non-military American responses.
I find the statement by Friedman that “At the moment, the United States faces the strategic problem that the Russians have options while the United States does not.” to be absolutely ridiculous.
While I very much disagree that the US
military is overstretched, does any serious observer truly believe that either Russia or the United States is eager for a direct military conflict?
With that in mind, are military responses the only otions that the American government can bring to bear on Russia?
Friedman provides a hint: “the real heart of this problem is not merely the deployment of U.S. forces in the Islamic world — it is the Russians’ ability to use weapons sales and covert means to deteriorate conditions dramatically.” This ability of causing mischief is a sword that cuts both ways.
Which raises the question, How did Reagan win the cold war “without firing a shot?”
(which is btw, pure BS)
The answer being that the US won the cold war Economically… that the US bankrupted the Soviet Union, by bleeding them dry in the proxy Afghan war, by outspending the Soviets Militarily, and by crashing the price of Oil.
Naysayers will attempt to say that it is the US that is over a barrel, that the US is overstreched in Afghanistan, by the price of oil and by military spending.
Bottom line is that the Russians have far less Economic, Military and Geopolitical power that the Soviet Union had, and are therefore in a much more precarious situation than the Soviets were vis-a-vis the United States.
The key for the US to win “Cold War II” is having leadership with the WILL to oppose the Russians. Of course MUCH hinges on the upcoming presidential elections.
The Russians are making quite a case for electing the tried and true cold warrior McCain over the unknown leftist neophyte Obama.
Sep 3, 2008 - 9:41 am 49. RAH:I have been watching the dance in the Black Sea. Dallas’s port call in Sevastopol was a message. But Ukraine’s Yukoshenko weakness was palpable. None of Dallas’s crew disembarked due to concerns of attacks by the populace, which was out in protest.
NATO and US is rotating naval vessels, not merchant vessels in the Black Sea. This is a major message and Russia is very annoyed. Cheney’s visit to Azerbaijan to discuss pipeline and oil security and possible solutions to the threat of Russia is a serious message. Then he travels to Tbilisi the highest profile message of support to Georgia.
The Bush administration is reviewing their positions on sharing of military cooperation with Russia that had been standard in the last 10 years. See http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/03/white-house-treads-carefully-on-cutting-ties-with-/?page=2
At the Pentagon, spokesman Bryan Whitman said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had ordered a review of military cooperation agreements with Russia as part of a wider evaluation of relations in response to the continued presence of Russian troops in parts of Georgia.
Condi Rice is trying to formulate a new policy toward Russia aggression, which deters and has possible rewards. She has a very weak hand with the EU in appeasement mode due to energy concerns. We need to formulate a new idea on what the US wants to see in the Caucasus states for the next twenty years. Do we want to secure the energy routes and what military policies will we used to secure the Caucasus states?
This needs a complete review on what is possible and what is desired. That is why Afghanistan needs to wind down since we have lost Pakistan’s cooperation and will lose Russian cooperation for supply routes.
To be honest I do not think we can fulfill Bulgaria’s and Romania’s NATO obligations with the lack of assets in the area. If we plan to be serious and not rely on paper diplomatic promises for defense needs then we need to move NATO in truth into those countries. That also means port facilities on the Black Sea.
However I believe that Russia will not give up Sevastopol and that will be their line in the sand for war. That brings into play the nuclear threat component. BMD has not yet been built and Russia is forcing us prematurely to deploy when we don’t have the BMD in place yet. The numbers of BMD ships are low since we are still in research rather than operational mode.
Gates needs to redeploys assets and push rebuilding to address the Russia threat with the idea on what will be needed to defend these NATO countries and Georgia and Azerbaijan if that will be our new doctrine.
Bush is not a very good long-term strategic thinker and focuses on the immediate threats rather than long term doctrine. McCain is also a reaction person rather than a long-term strategic thinker. These are very dangerous times and at the moment we are playing for time with the diplomatic front.
The new challenge will be to develop a new strategic vision and then rebuild and deploy the military bases to fulfill that vision to back up the diplomatic agreements. Both Bush and McCain know the national interests but are not that good in forming a doctrine to implement that interest. Palin is an unknown and she seems to be more of a tactical thinker than strategic, though both her and McCain seem to have the will like Bush to fight for the national interest
Russia and now Korea are taking advantage of our political and Iranian distractions to take this opportunity to change and push for their new doctrine.
The Obama camp has not the ability to properly react to the foreign challenges and even though Obama seems to be a strategic thinker his focus is the domestic and liberal appeasement policies.
Dangerous sailing ahead.
Sep 3, 2008 - 9:50 am 50. RWE:Storm-Rider: Obama and the rest of the Left do see themselves as loyal and patriotic. But their loyalty is to a country that does not exist yet and, in fact, can never do so – because it won’t friggin’ work.
Terisita: Pat Buchanan IS a lesbian, as are all straight men. Why do you think we enjoy those Playboy special editions so much? As Paul Riser put it “They are both having fun and I agree with them.”
As for isolationists, there are two kinds. One is of the Buchanan type, who does not want to see the U.S. dirty its hands with the filth of the rest of the world. That ultimately means trade wars and eventually, real shooting wars. The other is the type of the Left, who have come to realize they are hopeless, utter incompetents at international affairs and thus have decided that they won’t play in that sandbox except when it is of no real consequence (Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, etc.) and offers them some opportunities for personal enrichment (check on who ended up owning the Haitian phone system).
Sep 3, 2008 - 10:17 am 51. Lifeofthemind:OT
Here are three Headlines in a row from the Bllomberg News’ France page.
Remember sports fans, Sarkozy is our ally. He is the improvement. Can we bring our boys home from France? The soil there is poisoned.
Sep 3, 2008 - 10:45 am 52. slade:Palin is an unknown and she seems to be more of a tactical thinker than strategic, though both her and McCain seem to have the will like Bush to fight for the national interest.
The Obama camp has not the ability to properly react to the foreign challenges and even though Obama seems to be a strategic thinker his focus is the domestic and liberal appeasement policies.
What constitutes “strategic” thinking? Has anyone ever navigated white water rapids in a canoe? The strategic goal is to get out alive. It’s all tactics – wave to wave, moment to moment.
Some Democratic speaker/writer (from this site I believe) made the point that barbarians will always be at the gates to badly paraphrase a more elaborate presentation. The recent eruptions in nation-state aggression, surely support the concept that what is old is new again. As I see it, the strategic goal is to remain intact, as a nation state. This in sharp contrast to the multiple trends towards unity of government, law, justice, economics.
A crucial distinction between the ideological platforms of the two candidates in this presidential election.
Sep 3, 2008 - 10:45 am 53. Roy Lofquist:Dear Sirs,
John F. Kennedy met with Nikita Kruschev in Vienna in 1961. Kruschev bullied JFK and came away believing that he was a weakling. This led to Russia challenging us with the missiles in Cuba. I was on the inside for that. At one point we were less than five minutes away from a nuclear war. Kennedy blinked. We lost – big. The price we paid was the removal of Thor and Jupiter missiles in Turkey. Those were major strategic assets. They covered most of Russia’s strategic bomber force and were close enough to destroy them on the ground before they could take off. The next push was Vietnam. Russia started sending weapons, supplies and advisers to Hanoi. Kennedy judged that we had to make a stand there. You know how that turned out.
Kennedy’s naivete almost destroyed the world, cost us lives and treasure in Vietnam and tore our society apart.
Obama scares the hell out of me.
Regards,
Sep 3, 2008 - 10:47 am 54. cjm:Roy
obama and the left are not loyal to any nation. they are trans-nationalists; class based loyalty. parasites all.
Sep 3, 2008 - 10:52 am 55. RAH:Strategic is setting up long term goals and the planning to acheive them. Like Bill Clinton had planned to be President since college. He set up a plan and suceeded. Had no strategic goals for the Presidency though. Once he acheived his object it was just tactical or day to day.
Sep 3, 2008 - 11:14 am 56. Peter Boston:What kind of strategic thiker can Obama be when he wants to surrender the battlefield in Iraq and bottle-up American forces in land locked Afghanistan? Has Obama or Susan Rice or any other member of his team ever made the argument why Iraq is not of strategic interest while Afghanistan is? Do they not ever look at a map?
I fear Obama shares Carter’s philosophy that knocking the USA down a peg or two is a “patriotic” act.
Sep 3, 2008 - 11:16 am 57. Teresita:RWE: As for isolationists, there are two kinds. One is of the Buchanan type, who does not want to see the U.S. dirty its hands with the filth of the rest of the world. That ultimately means trade wars and eventually, real shooting wars.
In the perfect world of Isolationism, the foreigners can have all the shooting wars they want to, as long as they don’t bring it here. For that contingency, the Department of Defense is to be reconfigured from nation-building back to, you know…defense.
Sep 3, 2008 - 11:21 am 58. Aether:RAH:
“Bush is not a very good long-term strategic thinker and focuses on the immediate threats rather than long term doctrine. McCain is also a reaction person rather than a long-term strategic thinker.”
I disagree, I believe that Bushes policy’s in the Middle East have a very long term focus of reshaping the Middle East and placing incredible pressure on the Iranian Regime… probably far too long term, given the progress Iran has made towards nuclear weapons.
also, I’ve never been a big fan of McCain but I’m beginning to appreciate his strategic thinking… for instance selecting Palin as his running mate negates almost every political strength that Obama brings to the table. Palin’s selction has also served to push the Dems off-balance and therefore to tremendously overreact and slander her.
Bush has been described as an expert poker player… In poker, an excellant strategy is be to play low key and allow your opponent to become overconfident and overplay their hand(s), which is something that both the Progressives and Russians seem to be very prone to do.
Sep 3, 2008 - 11:37 am 59. enscout:Alexis: Re: 10:32 PM
“The point I am making is that he was sincere.”
I’m convnced that many of the far left moonbats are sincere. That doesn’t make them any less dangerous.
When your worldview is contorted, everything that follows is skewed as well.
cjm is correct that these people are trans-nationalists. But something further. Clearly, their ability to recognize evil is muted. Thy have no conscience; no discernment of true from untrue.
Sep 3, 2008 - 11:38 am 60. Joseph Somsel:I do think the Russians surprised us with the invasion. It was a ballsy move when they temporarily held a strong hand, one difficult for us to counter.
Agreed that a complete strategic review is required and quickly. In the longer run, we can prevail and Russia should become a more “normal” country, or at least what will be left of it after the bottoming out of their demographic collapse.
Do the Russians even have a word for “friends”?
Sep 3, 2008 - 11:42 am 61. NahnCee:“Bush is not a very good long-term strategic thinker and focuses on the immediate threats rather than long term doctrine.”
Disagree. I think from 9/12/01 on, Bush’s sole goal has been to avoid the genocide of the Arab people. I think that has been his goal because he sees it as being the Christian thing to do. He knew and understood that ” bringing democracy” to the Middle East was a crap-shoot and *the* toughest, longest and most expensive option, but that has been his long-term strategy and doctrine.
The details in how to accomplish taming the wild Muslim while avoiding genocide have been left up to the Pentagon and the State Department, and there have been failures in those details. But really, isn’t the President supposed to be the chooser and not the planner? Aren’t the “experts” who know about these things supposed to bring the President Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C, and then in consultation, they all agree on a course of action?
So if Bush has decided his bottom-line goal and strategy is to avoid genocide — the nuclear option — then ensuing failures can be laid at the doorstep of Colin Powell, the various Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the State Department. Powell is out, various Joint Chiefs have been rotated out, but evidently the State Department is beyond the reach of a mere President, something that the next encumbant should remember and attempt to route around.
* * *
Wretchard, where did you find the picture of Kruschev waving his shoe at the UN? I attempted to find a copy of it for a project I was working on a couple of years ago and there was *nothing* out there on the internet anywhere that I could find, even discussing the incident, let alone showing the photo. I decided that either the Russians had systematically removed all mention of it the world-over, or that I was hallucinating and it had never happened.
Sep 3, 2008 - 11:43 am 62. Eggplant:NahnCee said:
“I think from 9/12/01 on, Bush’s sole goal has been to avoid the genocide of the Arab people. I think that has been his goal because he sees it as being the Christian thing to do.”
Agreed. G.W. Bush understands the logic of the Third Conjecture (maybe he reads “Belmont Club”?). This whole process has been about avoiding the destruction of one or two American cities followed by the retaliatory genocide of hundreds of millions of innocent people in the Middle East. What could have been the worst holocaust in human history was avoided through the moral strength of one man, i.e. G.W. Bush.
Sep 3, 2008 - 11:51 am 63. RAH:Bush himself sees the threat of jihadism. His strategic idea of solving the ME by securing Iraq is a good idea and does show more strategic thinking. However I usually have thought that was more Cheney’s input that Bush adopted wholehearted.
I am not convinced that Bush thought about a Russian pushback while we were taking advantage to seduce the eastern European nations. What was Bush’s Russian policies or China’s policies? They have not been enunciated. There are policies and I believe Bush tries to engage the Chinese on the economic front. He certainly was trying to satisfy Russian pride with inclusions in NATO exercises and G8. However the Balkans and Caucasus states was mostly just reacting to the situations as they happen and encourage democracies.
Actually I think his policy is to encourage democracies and free markets and as a bulwark. So that was his strategic goal. Better than most presidents.
Obama as normal he has not raised to his potential with any accomplishments or a clear policy. He just appears to be a thinker, just comes to the wrong conclusions. He really has been a mirror most of his life. He has played it safe except for this Presidential run. But he took the opportunity when it came and ran with it.
Sep 3, 2008 - 12:29 pm 64. Teresita:Here’s a Russian newspaper whose editorial staff hasn’t had their families taken hostage yet:
Aug. 8 stands out as a fateful day for Russia. It marks Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s greatest strategic blunder. In one blow, he wiped out half a trillion dollars of stock market value, stalled all domestic reforms and isolated Russia from the outside world.
Russia’s attack on its small democratic neighbor was bad enough, but its recognition of two conquered protectorates as independent states has been supported only by Hamas, Belarus, Venezuela and Cuba. Putin is turning Russia into a rogue state.
Sep 3, 2008 - 12:31 pm 65. fedya:So, the big and vague picture is this:
There are two arenas of strategic conflict in which we (USA) are presently embroiled in military confrontation.
The one is the arc from Mesopotamia through Persia to Kashmir. Within this arc, Afghanistan and the Pakistani NW are land-locked “heartland” areas.
The other is the arc from Turkey and Bulgaria and the Black Sea region, the trans-Caucasus, the Caspian to the turkic-Mongolian central Asian states who, along with the Caspian states are land-locked in the “heartland”.
The two arcs share one state: Persian/Iran. The two arcs comprise the Northern and Southern extents of the ancient Silk Road.
If we are overextended in dealing with this whole region, I surely couldn’t tell just from Stratfor’s engaging (but pompous as Hell) little freebie teasers because the lure of solid analysis lies behind their “Pay to Play” firewall. How anyone could mistake Stratfor’s marketing lures for substantive analysis is beyond me, but I ain’t all that durn smart anyhoo.
Stratfor can charge whatever they like, more power to them. I do think democracy (heck, my survival!) depends on a free marketplace of information and ideas. As substantive as the free stuff (from perfessionul strategy peddlers like Stratfor) is, it is still essentially teaser fluff. Engaging and provacative, yes.
Substantial, nyet. And I couldn’t begin to suggest whether the stuff behind their “Pay to Play” wall is substantive. I don’t know and I suspect I’ll never have a chance to find out.
Sep 3, 2008 - 12:45 pm 66. fedya:@Cannoneer No. 4:
Your links posts are very, very helpful and very, very timely. They provide a useful antidote to “Perfeshunnal Strategiste” dependency, at least from my fevered point of view.
Thank you.
Sep 3, 2008 - 12:56 pm 67. Charles:I usually don’t like Spengler at atimes.
To be fair the reason I don’t like him is either because he’s telling me what I don’t want to hear or because I think he is wrong. I’m never sure which.
In this case he’s saying what I want to hear and I think he is right.
How Obama lost the election
By Spengler
DENVER – Senator Barack Obama’s acceptance speech last week seemed vastly different from the stands of this city’s Invesco Stadium than it did to the 40 million who saw it on television. Melancholy hung like thick smog over the reserved seats where I sat with Democratic Party staffers. The crowd, of course, cheered mechanically at the tag lines, flourished placards, and even rose for the obligatory wave around the stadium. But its mood was sour. The air carried the acrid smell of defeat, and the crowd took shallow breaths. Even the appearance of R&B great Stevie Wonder failed to get the blood pumping.
On television, Obama’s spectacle might have looked like The Ten Commandments, but inside the stadium it felt like Night of the Living Dead.
Sep 3, 2008 - 1:02 pm 68. cjm:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JI03Aa02.html
if stratfor ever has anything juicy, it will get quoted somewhere. they are just in the entertainment business, so don’t worry about missing anything signifigant by not paying them.
we are like a python, squeezing the life out of iran and the dprk (economically). and now that oil prices are crashing and global financial markets are closed to russia, we are doing a pretty good number on them too. google “Proliferation Security Initiative” for details.
when people talk our options being limited, it’s laughable. what’s limited, is the options of our enemies.
Sep 3, 2008 - 1:59 pm 69. cjm:LONDON – Rupert Murdoch is considering an acquisition of The New York Times , according to a report by Vanity Fair’s Michael Wolff, who wrote a profile and interviewed the News Corp. chairman and chief executive. Wolff speaks of watching Murdoch “go through the numbers, plot out a merger with the Journal’s backroom operations, and fantasize about the staff’s quitting en masse as soon as he entered the sacred temple.”
Sep 3, 2008 - 2:09 pm 70. steveaz:=================================================
checkmate
Rah,
Yes, Bush had a plan. It was a good plan. A lot of its intended effects are exploding on the domestic political scene right about now. You could say, the plan had “ancillary” goals.
1. By modeling democracy in Arab Iraq, it tested Arab and Western Leftist’s cultural prejudices. Recall that in response to Bush’s invasion, many of our most ardent multiculturalists, from academe to Hollywood to Washington, immediately shape-shifted into cultural chauvenists (as in, “Muslims can’t do democracy.”) Principled, huh?
2. By forcing America’s pre-arranged will in the region, the implementation of which was the literal target of the sum of the Left’s anti-war efforts, Bush has highlighted those same domestic American politicians and their press-org’s that worked every day to grind-down our efforts there. The pillary is excruciating and building in volume with every day. Where’s Ann Coulter when we need her?
3. To throw one more benefit into the bunch: Bush also restablished America’s contiguous, long-term foreign policies for the region – put the train back on its tracks, so to speak, which (I think even Ralph Peters’d agree) is essential to the maintenance of any great republic.
After all, even Bill Clinton’s SecDef had a battle-plan for Iraq, didn’t he?
It’s Rove’s job to make political hay out of all of these accomplishments in a McCain sorta way.
Meanwhile, pssssst! Here’s a secret: George Bush was a great American President!
PS: Teresita, honey…we didn’t get the McCain Lieberman ticket we predicted, but we did get the Lieberman speech at the convention. It was the next best thing!
Cheers
Sep 3, 2008 - 2:14 pm 71. buddy larsen:Old Joe’s speech was just great. Relaxed, smiling, tickled at the situation –and rhetorically as devastating as he was folksy. Two such honorable men and Democrats as Lieberman and Zell Miller (remember that speech?) coming over to the other side for a presidential election is just a huge statement of who is and who isn’t the Right Stuff.
Sep 3, 2008 - 2:50 pm 72. Aether:fedya:
“So, the big and vague picture is this:
There are two arenas of strategic conflict in which we (USA) are presently embroiled in military confrontation. …
The two arcs share one state: Persian/Iran. The two arcs comprise the Northern and Southern extents of the ancient Silk Road.”
All the more reason to take down the Mullah’s Regime, pronto…
Cut that Gordian Knot!
Sep 3, 2008 - 3:06 pm 73. Joseph Somsel:Frustration is part of the art of statecraft, as are doubt and uncertainty, tools of the trade all. For us citizens, we just have to bear with it along with our enemies and competitors while our statesmen work the problem.
Will we strike Iran militarily? Will it be bombs, missiles, and/or ground troops? Who’s supporting the non-Persians in Iran? Will they be armed?
Bush has been a wonderful president, a master statesman. But to tell us all his plans and strategies is to tell the world and that’s a disadvantage he must forego.
Sep 3, 2008 - 3:23 pm 74. Doug:A Negotiator Without Preconditions
Sarah Palin
—
- A TIME-WARPED SEXIST ASSAULT ON SARAH PALIN –
Sep 3, 2008 - 4:23 pm 75. bobal:Bush hasn’t been perfect. Turn the country over to illegal immigrants isn’t the mark of a great President, regardless of what is done on the world stage. If you give your country away at home it doesn’t matter so much what you do elsewhere.
Sep 3, 2008 - 4:28 pm 76. Doug:Attempt to pass the filter:
A Negotiator Without Preconditions http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13809 Sarah Palin
href=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09032008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/a_time_warped_sexist_assault_127183.htm – A TIME-WARPED SEXIST ASSAULT ON SARAH PALIN -
Sep 3, 2008 - 4:28 pm 77. Doug:Sorry
Sep 3, 2008 - 4:29 pm 78. Cannoneer No. 4:The USS Mount Whitney travels through the Bosporus strait in Istanbul, Turkey, Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2008.
Sep 3, 2008 - 4:32 pm 79. Cannoneer No. 4:As the most sophisticated Command, Control, Communications, Computer, and Intelligence (C4I) ship ever commissioned, MTW incorporates various elements of the most advanced C4I equipment and gives the embarked Joint Task Force Commander the capability to effectively command widely dispersed air, ground and maritime units in an integrated fashion.
We have just put the biggest ELINT trawler in the world in Ivan’s lake. We’ll know every cell phone number, pager, Blackberry and any other emitter from Rostov to Astrakhan.
Sep 3, 2008 - 4:50 pm 80. Cannoneer No. 4:Cell phone technology has come a long way in recent years. The ability to track a cell phone using GPS and triangulation provides a capability to locate a cell phone within meters of a point. This morning IDF [Indirect Fire] rounds hit one of the sites where we live and work. There was a fatality. A review of the scene later revealed that a cell phone was used immediately prior to and after the attack – an outgoing call and two incoming calls. The phone was found within meters of the impact area.”
Sep 3, 2008 - 5:05 pm 81. Teresita:All the more reason to take down the Mullah’s Regime, pronto…
The day after the election, of course.
Do the Russians even have a word for “friends”?
Yes, “intelligentsia” and it refers to the Western, specifically the Hollywood variety, but they also have friends in Turtle Bay and The Hague.
Sep 3, 2008 - 5:09 pm 82. Cannoneer No. 4:Nicaragua Recognizes South Ossetia, Abkazia
With Ortega’s announcement on Thursday, Nicaragua became the second country to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia after Russia.
Sep 3, 2008 - 5:11 pm 83. Bob Murphy:@Cannoneer No. 4
Sep 3, 2008 - 5:12 pm 84. Cannoneer No. 4:The USS Mount Whitney is carrying 17 tons of emergency supplies to Georgia?
A C-130 can carry and even airdrop 21 tons.
That’s not even an articulated truck payload.
The paltry payload and the implications crack me up.
Winning Hearts and Minds in Georgia: USCGC Dallas Earns an A+
Sep 3, 2008 - 5:26 pm 85. Cannoneer No. 4:Bob, only meanies oppose humanitarian supplies. The Black Sea is international waters in which the Stars & Stripes are as free to wave as any white, red and blue rag.
At 17 tons a trip, the Stars & Stripes will have humanitarian reasons to wave for quite some time. I hope we keep a cutter in the Med to make the Batumi run a routine event.
Our “ally” Turkey requires us to jump through hoops to get to the Black Sea. We tolerate their games with the understanding that they must make Ivan play by the same rules.
I say we re-designate San Antonio a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser. Worked for Admiral Kuznetsov.
Sep 3, 2008 - 6:05 pm 86. Doug:Murphy,
Sep 3, 2008 - 6:46 pm 87. Teresita:The Ship is a more environmentally sensitive way to transport 17 tons.
Global Warming, ya know.
Doug: The Ship is a more environmentally sensitive way to transport 17 tons. Global Warming, ya know.
Putting an intel ship in Russia’s “lake” is a major loss of face for Putin, and these strongmen live or die by their position in the pack of other assholes. Bush is saying the US is prepared to meet every Russian move with an array of pain for Russia, economic, military, and symbolic, and sustain the pain for as long as it takes. So the ball’s back in Putin’s court.
Sep 3, 2008 - 6:54 pm 88. buddy larsen:Rudy BLEW ‘em AWAY –then out walks this little woman, with a look on her face….
the crowd is going wild
Sep 3, 2008 - 7:36 pm 89. buddy larsen:well that does it –i’m in love
Sep 3, 2008 - 8:17 pm 90. Dave:Buddy: What do you call the kind of word
that when spelled foward means “bad news for Dems” and when spelled backward means
“bad news for Dems”??????
A Palin-drome.
Sep 3, 2008 - 8:23 pm 91. buddy larsen:LOL –boy, i’ll say. They run on style instead of substance –and now they ain’t got either one —
Like Major Kong, I’ve been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that’s about the best durn speech i ever heard –
Sep 3, 2008 - 9:21 pm 92. buddy larsen:Joe Biden, wearing a false beard and sunglasses, has just been sighted in a Tijuana bus station buying a one-way ticket to a monastery south of Guatamala City.
Sep 3, 2008 - 9:32 pm 93. Dave:“There is not a dry eye among Republicans.
Among Democrats, there is not a dry seat.”
Sep 3, 2008 - 10:16 pm 94. buddy larsen:LOL –from sea to shining sea the in-continent drips
Sep 3, 2008 - 11:33 pm 95. Cannoneer No. 4:RE: My Sep 3, 2008 – 4:50 pm above
Voice Mail As A Weapon
Sep 4, 2008 - 5:23 am 96. Fletcher Christian:Eggplant, your comment was probably right, except for one small thing:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INNOCENT MUSLIM.
“Moderate Islam” is semantically equal to “Islam that hasn’t won yet”. Atrocities are committed every day, dozens of them, all over the world, and it’s not only Arabs committing them; it’s Muslims from all sorts of ethnic backgrounds – for example Muslim violence is endemic in the Phillipines and Indonesia.
Islam is utterly, completely and unalterably opposed to anything decent; barring only such large changes in Islam as to make it unrecognisable. What ought to have been said after 9/11 and still might not be too late to say now:
“We consider one of our buildings to be as valuable as one of your cities. We don’t care what you think, only what you do. The next time you do something like that, the Dar-al-Islam will lose a city. And the next time after that, and so on until you run out of cities or you stop.”
And when they do in fact repeat 9/11 – as they will? Fulfil the threat. Do that, and the West might not have to kill them all. We have been at war for thirteen hundred years; that’s long enough.
Sep 4, 2008 - 11:39 am 97. Teresita:Fletcher: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INNOCENT MUSLIM.
Bolshevik. When you attack people for simply being something (black, gay, muslim) you are a bigot. Stick to attacks based on people doing something.
Sep 4, 2008 - 6:20 pm 98. buddy larsen:Teresita, you go, girl –
Sep 4, 2008 - 8:15 pm 99. NahnCee:“Stick to attacks based on people doing something.”
Oh, you mean marrying child brides?
Or perhaps you mean female genital mutilation? Little girls held down by their mothers and grandmothers and forceably castrated without anesthetic, their clitoris gouged out because some ancient cretin with a long beard demands it in the name of their barbaric religion.
How are we supposed to feel about people who hack off the heads of Christian school girls? Is that an attackable offense?
Or maybe we’re allowed to attack people who do honor killings and then defend them? Or who use gang rapes as sentencing mechanisms?
No? How about people whose religion commands them not to be friends with or touch other people who are not that same religion? Can we condemn them? At least look askance at them?
And, if you won’t let us despise people who follow a religion that torments, tortures, keeps in poverty and ignorance their fellow human beings, can we at least frown upon them because they hate puppies? I know that we’re not allowed to think there’s something abominable about them just because they killed 3,000 innocent Americans — let alone all the raping, pillaging, plundering and mutilation they do to each other across the world — but surely … puppies?!?
Sep 4, 2008 - 9:50 pm 100. Fletcher Christian:NahnCee; it appears that you agree with me at least partially, on this issue at least. I disagree with you on one issue. I don’t care in the least how much rape, pillage, mutilation, slavery and gruesome painful death Muslims inflict on each other, at least other than an example of how vile they are. I do care how much they inflict on decent people.
It’s rather like my attitude to drug dealers shooting each other; the more the merrier. The trouble is with decent people getting caught in the crossfire.
Sep 5, 2008 - 3:26 am 101. NahnCee:Fletcher – here in LA, the cops refer to it as being a “self-cleaning oven”. I like that concept.
Sep 5, 2008 - 9:01 am 102. Fletcher Christian:Teresita, one more thing:
Being black is not a matter of choice. The jury is still out as to whether being gay is. But one thing is for certain; your religion is a matter of choice, both individually and as a society.
And therefore if you willingly (and even proudly) allow yourself to be identified as a member of a group that not only allows, but encourages as a core part of its ideology, murder, rape, paedophilia, slavery and never-ending war; then you deserve censure and prejudice against you. Hence the hatred and contempt many right-thinking people have for Muslims. Every single one of them has a choice, and they choose to associate with murderers and rapists. They should be treated as the accessories after (and before) the fact that they are.
Sep 6, 2008 - 12:12 am 103. NahnCee:… and they hate puppies …
Sep 6, 2008 - 4:19 pm 104. NahnCee:And Saudi Arabia has also banned kittens.
Sep 6, 2008 - 4:19 pmSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.