Thoughts from VDH on the danger of the Obama foreign lack-of policy:
I think we are going to see soon some regional flare-ups, minor in themselves, but terribly important as the world pauses to gauge the US reaction. Syria and Iran feel liberated and think they can act with impunity. Turkey is an emerging regional hegemon. I would not want to be a former Soviet republic—at least if I were consensually governed, pro-Western, and democratic.
If I were in Manila, I’d start learning Chinese; if in Tokyo, I’d think about massive rearmament. I would not wish to be in NATO if east of Berlin—“allies” in the West would (cf. 1939) stay theoretic and distant, enemies would be concrete and proximate.
The survival of Israel now depends on its pilots and missiles, not on any guarantees from the US. In today’s currency, what we guarantee is worth about as much as US treasury bills, or promises of missile defense for Eastern Europe. If I were an Israeli, I’d either pray for the skill and audacity of the nation’s Air Force pilots, or begin cultivating India, Russia, and China, or that and more.
The problem with all this pessimistic view of human nature is that our elite and anointed smirk at it. They seem to say, “Tsk, tsk, we are 21st century Ivy-Leaguers in the postmodern age. The world is no longer like it was in 1914. I explained all this in my latest piece in Foreign Affairs. Cell phones and the World Court are the order of the day, not Neanderthal notions of something called “appeasement””. But does anyone think human nature has changed since the Greeks due to improved diet, or that brain chemistry has altered with video games?
The problem is that the left doesn’t believe in human nature. And when you don’t know, or understand history, and think that Austrians speak Austrian, and that the Americans liberated Auschwitz, it’s hard to learn from it. Again, I’m thankful on this day that we’ll have elections in a little less than a year. I wish they were sooner, though.
The Great and Mighty Historic President is a student of history. Who are you to question him?
Obama was a Law Review editor and a Community Organizer and almost a professor of Constitutional Law, which makes all that other crap unnecessary.
The Left doesn’t believe in human nature, they’re essentially “Leftist Creationists”.
That’s like so serious and stuff. Didn’t you see the United Way commercial this morning? Obama runs around and plays football! That smile too! He’s so dreamy why I don’t care about all the furhin’ stuff. I’m too busy shopping Michelle approved belts for my Mom this Christmas.
OK, I have a question for everyone.
The TV news has it that President Obama will be requesting 10,000 additional troops from NATO allies to supplement 34,000 more American soldiers and Marines, leading to a force increase of more than the 40,000 requested by General McCrystal.
This request for 10,000 troops. Is this something that our NATO allies will hear for the first time on Tuesday night along with you, me, and a lot of other people? Or in Mr. Obama’s trips, was he spending time with European leaders explaining the need, applying his skills of persuasion, being respectful and non-unilateral in a way that his predecessor never was?
So, are these 10,000 troops from NATA allies a “done deal to be announced on Tuesday”, or is this wishful thinking on Mr. Obama’s part, like the Chicago Olympics?
If these 10,000 troops come through, I will be properly impressed.
Although, I am having a hard time imagining how to sizing a belt that is worn above the solar plexus. Bra size maybe? Seems like an awkward questions to ask my mom though.
Well duh. Of course the Americans liberated Auschwitz. The Soviet Union was a bunch of incompetent peasants who could not even manufacture tanks or airplanes. The USA graciously gave them all of those. Their high number of casualties just reinforces their dumbness since Real Men(TM) make sure their enemies die while taking little to no losses on their own side.
“The Soviet Union was a bunch of incompetent peasants who could not even manufacture tanks or airplanes.”
We did not such thing — the Sovs built all of their own tanks and airplanes. What we in the U.S. gave them was of much better war fighting capability: trucks. As they say, amateurs talk tactics and strategy; professionals talk logistics.
“If these 10,000 troops come through, I will be properly impressed.”
You would be more likely to get Iran sanctions from the UN before more NATO combat troops. That means the chances for either are slim and none. Slim left town.
Paul, I can’t see us Brits sending more troops to Afghanistan even if Obama hadn’t dissed the Prime Minister and the Queen in his first month at the helm.
Public opinion on Afghanistan is at an all time low. We lost more troops this year than any other year of the campaign and there are frequent articles in the press about how poorly our soldiers are equipped for the war. The government are taking most of the flak for this, though the bloom has gone off the Obama rose and the latent anti-americanism that’s always just below the surface here is starting to rise again.
Since Brown faces a general election next year in which he and his party face a wipeout, the better chance would be for him to order a complete withdrawal of UK troops as a hail-mary effort to boost his popularity.
Still, Germany, France, Belgium and Holland are all probably keen to send more troops to make up the difference, as are the new East European members of NATO like Poland. I’m sure they won’t hold that ABM thing against the One.
“Paul, I can’t see us Brits sending more troops to Afghanistan even if Obama hadn’t dissed the Prime Minister and the Queen in his first month at the helm.”
So why is Mr. Obama (supposedly) announcing 10,000 NATO troop going to Afghanistan? Is the outcome of the Great Dither that he has been working behind the scenes for all of this time and has this force committment in hand? Or is this a face-saving thing of not coming up with the 40,000 soldiers and Marines the good general had asked for and that the Allies would make up the difference, and then whether NATO comes through (or probably not), the whole thing is to be forgotten?
If these 10,000 troops come through, I will be properly impressed.
Even in the very unlikely event the NATO allies (chuckle) sent an additional 10,000 troops, it won’t accomplish much unless they’re actually used as troops. I’ve heard very good things about the Canadian and British troops but many of the rest are a waste of uniforms. Old Joe Stalin used to say that “quantity has a quality all its own” but simply sending more people without actually using them against the enemy accomplishes nothing.
The survival of Israel now depends on its pilots and missiles, not on any guarantees from the US.
Hasn’t that always been the case? Have any of Israel’s enemies ever been restrained by a fear of U.S. involvement?
Israel has a formidable conventional military, plus a robust nuclear deterrent. They don’t depend on the U.S. to come to their rescue.
I quite agree, Jim. But the converse may not true. Supposedly Israel has been restrained in its actions due to the US. The best example is the Yom Kippur war where allegedly Israel refused to use nuclear weapons despite being close to overrun because they would lose logistical and financial support from the US.