Didn’t Take Long: VP-elect Joe Biden said that once Barack Obama was elected, some nation or force would confront the US, just as the Soviet Union was thought to have put nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 to rattle President John Kennedy. (“Watch. We’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy”, Oct. 20, 2008.)
Well, the votes from last Tuesday haven’t been completely tallied yet and already two threats have arrived on the proverbial radar screen. Iran just issued a statement threatening to shoot at US aircraft operating near the Iran / Iraq border (Reuters quotes an unnamed Iranian politician as saying “This is a clear message to the American president-elect because radicals are not very happy that Obama has been elected.” ) And, Russian President Medvedev just announced his intent to station tactical missiles in the Kaliningrad sector of Russia, that isolated little portion of Russia squeezed between Poland, Lithuania and the Baltic Sea. He claims this to be a necessary countermeasure to the anti-ballistic missile interceptors that the US plans to install in Poland. Interestingly enough, the US rationale for placing those missiles in Poland is to blunt the threat of a missile attack on Europe from Iran.
(This sounds rather crazy at first; Iran’s missiles should logically be aimed at Israel, not Europe. BUT, if a nuclear-emboldened Iran eventually plans to attack Israel, it might also want to discourage Europe from uniting with the US in defense of Israel. Iran’s ability to lob a nuke at Vienna or Paris might bring back those old European pacifist instincts that served it so tragically in the 1930’s, should Hezbollah, Hamas and other Iranian surrogates bring Israel to its knees.)
I am currently listening to a Teaching Company lecture series on “The Lessons of History” by Prof. Rufus Fears. One of his lessons is that we don’t learn from history. Before WW1 and WW2, according to Prof. Fears, Americans and Europeans didn’t think that another big war could happen. They were convinced that technology and world trade had changed things such that no one anywhere would remain interested in the barbaric tradition of war. Life was good, everyone seemed happy; another big war just didn’t seem possible. And yet, more big wars tragically occurred.
I can’t help but wonder if some of that mentality lives on, as reflected in President-elect Obama’s solid victory over Senator McCain. This is not to belittle the credentials that Senator Obama earned over the past year as a skilled politician and an intelligent leader. He survived two extremely brutal political campaigns and proved that he has “the right stuff”. I previously expressed my reservations about him, and I still have some concerns; but I do feel a bit better now. However, a segment of his supporters (young people and liberal Democrats) cast him as “the peace candidate”, the guy who they hope will successfully conclude the two US military involvements in the Middle East which have dragged on since 2001.
(Two more lessons of history – the USA gets very tired of war after a few years; and the Middle East is the graveyard of empires.)
In my opinion, there are still strong forces out there in the world today for whom war IS still thinkable. Even worse, they may see war as an extension of an historic vision, just as Hitler once convinced Germany of an historic destiny to conquer Europe. Such modern forces could well include Russia and Iran. Russia lost the Marxist vision, but I’m sure it can come up with some new “lesson” (or older lesson about the greatness of its past) that it feels bound to teach the world. With Iran, the lesson is very old, regarding the superiority of the Persian people (they’re still getting over that defeat by the ancient Greeks) and the ultimate victory of the Shia vision of Islam. How better to gain dominance over the Islamic world but to take out Israel, something that Sunni-based al Qaeda can only dream of. (Al Qaeda showed us that pan-national “movements” can be extremely dangerous; but we must NOT take that to mean that the world has changed such that powerful nation-states will never “go Napolean” on us.)
I think that President Obama will be smart enough to see the warning signs and realize the need to quickly and forcefully prepare for and respond to what Biden predicted. Unfortunately, the political pressures from his supporters will make it difficult for him. He will be urged to get US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan quickly, and to avoid installing that anti-ballistic missile system in Europe (which Russia hates so vehemently even though it’s too light-weight to knock down their nuclear missiles). There are intelligent arguments for this. BUT, if this is done too quickly, it might create the impression of weakness and pacifist delusion, just what the bad guys are looking and hoping for. I suspect that Obama will in fact “stand strong” militarily, and will take a lot of criticism from some who vigorously supported him (he might wind up being called “a Bush in sheep’s clothing”; or would that be too ironic?).
Hopefully, Senator McCain will be among the first to speak up and defend President Obama in time of crisis – and in preparation for a coming crisis that the public doesn’t yet see. McCain, for all his failings, does have an old-fashioned sense of sin and the need for atonement. Recall how he vigorously promoted campaign reform after being caught in the Keating banking scandal in the 1980s. Well, Senator McCain sinned again by unleashing Sarah Palin from the frozen wastes of Alaska (what if she appoints herself to replace a re-elected Senator Ted Stevens once the Senate banishes him?). And McCain probably knows it. Hopefully he will realize that his penance is to once more cross the line of party loyalty, so as to do all that he possibly can to promote the success of President Obama. I expect nothing less of John McCain over the next four years.
Jim,
First with regard to Russia “squeezing” missiles on its land between Poland, Lithuania and the Baltic Sea: What occurs to me is that it now places itself in a military position to move into Lithuania. I have tho’t since its invasion and take over of a portion of Georgia that that kind of move was a small one on a much larger move to get back all its conquered states that it gave up when it decided to go “democratic.” Might this move to station missiles in that particular place be the first step to a move into Lithuania? After all, now it will need a military to guard the missiles. One by one I think Putin intends to get all those states back.
Second, as to Obama being the “peace candidate”: I looked at his very solemn face during his first press conference and wondered if he is simply dead tired OR if his briefings have apprised him of the fact that what he wants to do may well be a case of biting off more than he can chew–so to say.
This week I see there is a new book out on JFK by a James Douglass in which he makes the case that JFK was done in on the “peace front” in the Vietnam war by his own CIA. Basically, the argument runs simply: The president may be Commander-in-Chief but what happens if the military and those controlling the intelligence of our country decide to say we just don’t like your ideas Mr. Commander-in-Chief and won’t do them, won’t follow any orders you send down the line! Then what? Just how does a peace prez MAKE the military do what he wants if they decide they don’t want to do it? (I have not yet read this book but have it on order and intend to read it.) As one thinks about it, coups in the other countries besides ours have many, many times been the result of the military saying just that: We won’t do what you want, Mr. Prez. In fact, we want to do something else.
And what else is there for the military (and intelligence departments/offices, etc.) to do except make war? What may happen if Obama’s best efforts at peace are subverted by a military afraid it will be put out of business? What if Obama’s best efforts at peace are obstructed by an intelligence agency that thinks it knows better and/or has its own sense of “survival” threatened? After all, if there is peace, just what will the military (of any part of the world for that matter) have to do? If there is peace, just what will the spies of this world have to do? They are out of business. The implications here are vast.
And a third tho’t on another topic: If one looks at things from the standpoint of McCain, I doubt he will see that he has any need for “atonement” and even less for “penance.” He’s a military man and sees things thru military eyes. I’m sure he sees things thru the eyes of the above scenario I just outlined. I ask again: What else does military do but make war? “Keeping the peace” is b-o-r-i-n-g!
And lastly: You mention Palin appointing herself in place of Ted Stevens when he’s booted out of the Senate. There is another such situation here in Illinois: Blagojovich may end up appointing himself to fill Obama’s seat in the Senate. It seems to me about the worst (and I admit there may be much I do not see about Palin) Palin can do is be an air head in the Senate. But our good old governor here has proved to be a complete and total monkey wrench in what could be the smooth-running wheels of gov’t. One “Blago” in Congress just might manage to be the complete monkey wrench in Congress to stop all movement toward any goal whatsoever–that seems to be what our governor has proved to be here in Illinois. And as in Congress, we have both: A Democrat for head of state (governor) and a Democratic State Assembly (Congress).
MCS
Comment by MCS — November 9, 2008 @ 8:30 am
Jim,
First with regard to Russia “squeezing” missiles on its land between Poland, Lithuania and the Baltic Sea: What occurs to me is that it now places itself in a military position to move into Lithuania. I have tho’t since its invasion and take over of a portion of Georgia that that kind of move was a small one on a much larger move to get back all its conquered states that it gave up when it decided to go “democratic.” Might this move to station missiles in that particular place be the first step to a move into Lithuania? After all, now it will need a military to guard the missiles. One by one I think Putin intends to get all those states back.
Second, as to Obama being the “peace candidate”: I looked at his very solemn face during his first press conference and wondered if he is simply dead tired OR if his briefings have apprised him of the fact that what he wants to do may well be a case of biting off more than he can chew–so to say.
This week I see there is a new book out on JFK by a James Douglass in which he makes the case that JFK was done in on the “peace front” in the Vietnam war by his own CIA. Basically, the argument runs simply: The president may be Commander-in-Chief but what happens if the military and those controlling the intelligence of our country decide to say we just don’t like your ideas Mr. Commander-in-Chief and won’t do them, won’t follow any orders you send down the line! Then what? Just how does a peace prez MAKE the military do what he wants if they decide they don’t want to do it? (I have not yet read this book but have it on order and intend to read it.) As one thinks about it, coups in the other countries besides ours have many, many times been the result of the military saying just that: We won’t do what you want, Mr. Prez. In fact, we want to do something else.
And what else is there for the military (and intelligence departments/offices, etc.) to do except make war? What may happen if Obama’s best efforts at peace are subverted by a military afraid it will be put out of business? What if Obama’s best efforts at peace are obstructed by an intelligence agency that thinks it knows better and/or has its own sense of “survival” threatened? After all, if there is peace, just what will the military (of any part of the world for that matter) have to do? If there is peace, just what will the spies of this world have to do? They are out of business. The implications here are vast.
And a third tho’t on another topic: If one looks at things from the standpoint of McCain, I doubt he will see that he has any need for “atonement” and even less for “penance.” He’s a military man and sees things thru military eyes. I’m sure he sees things thru the eyes of the above scenario I just outlined. I ask again: What else does military do but make war? “Keeping the peace” is b-o-r-i-n-g!
And lastly: You mention Palin appointing herself in place of Ted Stevens when he’s booted out of the Senate. There is another such situation here in Illinois: Blagojovich may end up appointing himself to fill Obama’s seat in the Senate. It seems to me about the worst (and I admit there may be much I do not see about Palin) Palin can do is be an air head in the Senate. But our good old governor here has proved to be a complete and total monkey wrench in what could be the smooth-running wheels of gov’t. One “Blago” in Congress just might manage to be the complete monkey wrench in Congress to stop all movement toward any goal whatsoever–that seems to be what our governor has proved to be here in Illinois. And as in Congress, we have both: A Democrat for head of state (governor) and a Democratic State Assembly (Congress).
MCS
Comment by MCS — November 9, 2008 @ 8:30 am