Hi Everyone,
Since my mammoth post last March in which I laid out some ideas on how to create peace, the tpoic has been on my mind a lot. I have been thinking about it in conjunction with North Korea, the Middle East, particularly Iran. How to lay the groundwork for peace and stability in such a chaotic world? Well, I've been thinking, and yesterday, I came back to an old video clip I saw a while back.
The youtube clip comes from a May 2008 episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews. Then-President Bush had just implied, in an appearance in Israel, that then-Senator Obama's promise that he would meet with the enemies, principly Iran, without preconditions, was tantamount to the appeasement of Adolf Hitler in the run-up to World War II. Los Angeles talk radio host Kevin James went on Hardball to reinforce this point of view, and when Matthews started playing hardball, James struck out.
In the clip, James states that he wished the President (Bush) had been more direct in calling out the man who would become his successor. James began talking indirectly about how Obama's plans were dangerous for Israel and the US, and that he was an appeaser. Matthews then pressed James with a simple, but poignant question "What did Neville Chamberlain do wrong?" James continued with his line about appeasement and all the rest, but Matthews wouldn't let him get away. He kept asking, again and again "What did he do?"(If you watch the video, you'll see he asks at least 23 times) Finally, James just said "I don't know what [Bush] was referring to." This was probably one of Matthews' finest moments. I probably would have done the thing a little differently, but Matthews' point is right on the money.
What James and Matthews were referring to, what Chamberlain did wrong, was the Munich Agreement. When Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain traveled to Munich to meet with Hitler. He then signed an agreement allowing Hitler to annex part of Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland, I think it was called, in September 1938. Chamberlain promised the agreement would bring "Peace in our time." Well, we all know how that worked out. Hitler violated the agreement, and when the Germans invaded Poland, everyone realized the only way to stop them was to fight.
The point here is that what Chamberlain did wrong was not talk to the enemy. What he did wrong was allow Hitler to grab up all the territory, on hopes that the problem would go away if they let Germany get what it asked for. This strategy of avoiding the issue does not work with any issue, whether personal or international. Regimes need to be confronted. This is the mistake that Chamberlain and others made, which eventually made the most violent war in history inevitable.
It is also important to realize that confrontation is not just about military might. This is the philosophy that fuels the tyrant. Confronting the issue also involves diplomacy. Diplomacy is different than just caving into demands. Tough diplomacy entails talking to hostile countries, offering deals, but also consequences. One strong point is knowing where the person is coming from. Matthews later elaborated to Rachel Maddow that perhaps if more of the leaders at the time had heard about Mein Kampf, they would have known who they were dealing with.
Matthews also talked about how these slogans, like "cut-and-run," "appeaser," are used irresponsibly to drown out criticism. The process and history of this warrants a post in its own right, but let's just look at this appeasement line. All negotiation with hostile powers is not appeasement; ceding territory for the sake of placating those powers are. They talk about "dealing from a position of strength." But it is possible to deal from a position of strength while acknowledging fault on both sides. Indeed, it seems to me that this is what is required to deal with the situation we now find ourselves in. Thankfully, this seems to be the strategy that President Obama is now implementing.
For all those people who think any talks or deals with hostile forces is appeasement, think of this. What about Richard Nixon? More importantly, what about Ronald Reagan? Did they not talk to the leaders of hostile nations? Nixon had his success with China, and more memorably, Reagan had his success with the Soviet Union. One of the things that people remember about President Reagan was that he was "a statesman." Doesn't being a staesman require talking to hostile leaders? Funnily enough, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, at the time, was extremely concerned about Reagan's engagement of Gorbachev and the USSR. He, too, likened it to Chamberlain's appeasement.
So why is this important. Two, well, several, reasons: Iran, North Korea, Israel, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan. All of these places are hostile territories, and they will all have to be dealt with with a strong diplomatic approach. Thankfully, it seems one of the President's strong points is comunication. Whether dealing with skeptical voters, critics, or audiences in the Middle East, he has shown talent for communicating seldom seen in anyone. Say what you will about his policies, who can doubt his intelligence when it comes to communication skills? So, going forward, we must not be afraid of dealing in messages of strength and perception. History has shown that strong diplomacy, not appeasement, works.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Monday, June 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
War on Terror? That's so 2001!
Hi everyone,
Well, I'm back to reviewing current events now. Today's post will be all about national security. I've gotten behind again, so I will have to cover a mutitude of recent events, and break them down in a way that only I, as a true Washington outsider, can. Later, I will explain the meaning of the title, and elaborate on why I chose it. So bear with me, and let's get to it.
By now, you've probably heard about the episode with the pirates and our navy personnel in Somalia last week. This was the first test of President Obama's ability to handle international crises. Thankfully, the order was given for the SEALs to fire on the pirates, a few were killed, another surrendered, and the American hostage was rescued. This first test was a success, but it was a small test, and there are sure to be more tests for our young president.
Some detractors, like Fox's Sean Hannity, are claiming that Obama is now trying to "hog all the credit". I've seen no indication of this. I've heard no statement from Obama on the subject, and I've searched the white house's website religiously, and nowhere have I found anything pertaining to the incident. The order for the SEALs to attack had to come straight from the Presidnet himself, so his decision making is being evaluated along with the skills of our SEALs. Thankfully, he passed this test, but there are surely more to come, and I don't think Somalia is going away soon, so stay tuned.
In other, less-encouraging news, North Korea recently announced it was going to continue its nuclear rocket program. The North Koreans threw out everyone who was looking around at the programs, and announced they would not participate in any talks. This a week after yet another botched rocket launch. Kim Jong-il was giving the finger to the rest of the world, and now a challenge is being posed to Obama's ambitious plan to get rid of nuclear weapons around the world. This, coupled with a slew of suicide bombings in Pakistan, could well be that next test of Obama's skills in international crisis management.
Anyway, on the domestic front, a recent report from the Department of Homeland Security has triggered another firestorm from our fellow travelers on the right. The report, by Janet Napolitano, head of the DHS, warned of domestic extreme-right-wing, anti-government militias being a possible threat. These would be groups similar to those that sprung up in the early- and mid-90's, like the Timothy McVeighs, Eric Rudolfs, and other such groups. The report noted that the election of a left-leaning President, like Bill Clinton in the early 90's, infuriated these groups. The fact that this President is also black can only aggravate it, since many in these groups aren't very fond of black people either. The report went on to warn that veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to a desolate economy, low job prospects, and no training in any specialized skills, except for killing and attack, would be likely targets for recruitment into these groups.
Conservative commentators like Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh have chosen to interpret the report as an attempt at censoring all conservatives. Wow, the irony is palpable. Look who is now concerned with having their dissent trampled. Look who is now shouting "Dissent is Patriotic!". How interesting to hear this from those who, not long ago, were declaring that anyone who did not support the President's actions was a traitor. The irony is delicious. They also claim that this is an attack on our veterans. This would be like claiming that a report warning children to be on the lookout for drug dealers was accusing children of being drug addicts.
Anyway, I never thought I would be saying this, but the DHS is working to protect you guys on the right, protecting you so that you can go out and complain about the government. I just thought I'd bring this up since it is delightfully ironic. I also enjoyed being able to finally say that. By the way, the report also talked about threats posed by extreme-left-wing groups seeking to use cyberterrorism. So it isn't about ideology, it is about genuine security.
Moving on, we now come to the meaning of the title. It is now known that the phrase "war on terror" is being phased out. Using the phrase "War on Terror" will now be like saying "Don't go there!". You can use the phrase, but it's just so stale and outdated that who would want to use it?There is, of course, no formal order making this so.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just directed that the term will no longer be used officially. And we all know what happens if you don't do what Hillary tells you to.
Just kidding. But in all seriousness, this was a wise move on Secretary Clinton's part. Not because there is no threat posed by terrorists; there is. Not because we will not seek to defeat them and their hateful ideology wherever it festers; we will. But this struggle needs to be redefined. I am all for battling terrorists and keeping innocent people safe, but how can you win a war on terror? A war on terror would be like fighting a "war on anger" or a "war on hatred". No matter how hard you fight, how much victory you achieve, you can never definitively "win". War could work against a country, which could formally surrender, and then you would win. But how can you really beat an idea, an irrational action, or series of actions, which constitute terrorism?
Furthermore, since the concept of a "war on terror" would go on indefinitely, it would be easy to claim again and again, perhaps forever, that there's a big, bad enemy out there, and we gotta do "whatever it takes" to "beat them". Such a nebulous war against such a loosely-defined opponent would easily allow abuse from power-hungry hands seeking Orwellian benefits here at home. It would easily allow a leader to, say, shift the battlefield to wherever he chooses, regardless of the actual value of that battlefield in the larger struggle to defeat terrorists.
Also, the term "terrorist" has been blurred and abused in recent years. It used to refer to actual assailants who attacked large numbers of people to further an ideological goal, often a hateful, extremist one. Now it has been stretched by many in this country, particularly in this country, to mean anyone in the Middle East, any Muslim, regardless of whether they actually participate in or even espouse extremism, and any person of Middle Eastern descent.
"Get the terrorists!" Well, who are the terrorists, first of all? In this effort, it will be critical to differentiate between real terrorists, the violent extremists, and law-abiding people, or those just caught up in the whole thing, who turn to extremist groups like the Taliban, because they have no one else to turn to. Force will have to be used against dangerous extremists. However, as someone once pointed out, "We shouldn't be torturing these people. This isn't Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia or Red China. There are other ways of interrogating these people." Who said this? A veteran from the marines who was a devout republican. He said this when calling in to Rush Limbaugh's show, as he called Limbaugh on his extremism. Kudos!
These values that the man espoused are what separates us from the terrorists. We do not use sadism and torture for our ends as the terrorists and those rogue, despotic states do. Our government was founded on principles, strong ones, and what makes us strong is when we stick to them in hard times.We have, collectively, the character to rise above these darker instincts that constitute the terrorist's only guiding force. Our country is not driven by hatred and mindless violence the way the terrorist groups are. At the CIA headquarters, President Obama noted that we the terrorists would be defeated because they were on the wrong side of the battle. Utilizing not only "the examples of our strength, but the strength of our example" is what will guide us in combating the insanity of terrorism and spreading the light of stability and peace. That's how you could win a war on terror, if you wanna put it that way.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Well, I'm back to reviewing current events now. Today's post will be all about national security. I've gotten behind again, so I will have to cover a mutitude of recent events, and break them down in a way that only I, as a true Washington outsider, can. Later, I will explain the meaning of the title, and elaborate on why I chose it. So bear with me, and let's get to it.
By now, you've probably heard about the episode with the pirates and our navy personnel in Somalia last week. This was the first test of President Obama's ability to handle international crises. Thankfully, the order was given for the SEALs to fire on the pirates, a few were killed, another surrendered, and the American hostage was rescued. This first test was a success, but it was a small test, and there are sure to be more tests for our young president.
Some detractors, like Fox's Sean Hannity, are claiming that Obama is now trying to "hog all the credit". I've seen no indication of this. I've heard no statement from Obama on the subject, and I've searched the white house's website religiously, and nowhere have I found anything pertaining to the incident. The order for the SEALs to attack had to come straight from the Presidnet himself, so his decision making is being evaluated along with the skills of our SEALs. Thankfully, he passed this test, but there are surely more to come, and I don't think Somalia is going away soon, so stay tuned.
In other, less-encouraging news, North Korea recently announced it was going to continue its nuclear rocket program. The North Koreans threw out everyone who was looking around at the programs, and announced they would not participate in any talks. This a week after yet another botched rocket launch. Kim Jong-il was giving the finger to the rest of the world, and now a challenge is being posed to Obama's ambitious plan to get rid of nuclear weapons around the world. This, coupled with a slew of suicide bombings in Pakistan, could well be that next test of Obama's skills in international crisis management.
Anyway, on the domestic front, a recent report from the Department of Homeland Security has triggered another firestorm from our fellow travelers on the right. The report, by Janet Napolitano, head of the DHS, warned of domestic extreme-right-wing, anti-government militias being a possible threat. These would be groups similar to those that sprung up in the early- and mid-90's, like the Timothy McVeighs, Eric Rudolfs, and other such groups. The report noted that the election of a left-leaning President, like Bill Clinton in the early 90's, infuriated these groups. The fact that this President is also black can only aggravate it, since many in these groups aren't very fond of black people either. The report went on to warn that veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to a desolate economy, low job prospects, and no training in any specialized skills, except for killing and attack, would be likely targets for recruitment into these groups.
Conservative commentators like Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh have chosen to interpret the report as an attempt at censoring all conservatives. Wow, the irony is palpable. Look who is now concerned with having their dissent trampled. Look who is now shouting "Dissent is Patriotic!". How interesting to hear this from those who, not long ago, were declaring that anyone who did not support the President's actions was a traitor. The irony is delicious. They also claim that this is an attack on our veterans. This would be like claiming that a report warning children to be on the lookout for drug dealers was accusing children of being drug addicts.
Anyway, I never thought I would be saying this, but the DHS is working to protect you guys on the right, protecting you so that you can go out and complain about the government. I just thought I'd bring this up since it is delightfully ironic. I also enjoyed being able to finally say that. By the way, the report also talked about threats posed by extreme-left-wing groups seeking to use cyberterrorism. So it isn't about ideology, it is about genuine security.
Moving on, we now come to the meaning of the title. It is now known that the phrase "war on terror" is being phased out. Using the phrase "War on Terror" will now be like saying "Don't go there!". You can use the phrase, but it's just so stale and outdated that who would want to use it?There is, of course, no formal order making this so.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just directed that the term will no longer be used officially. And we all know what happens if you don't do what Hillary tells you to.
Just kidding. But in all seriousness, this was a wise move on Secretary Clinton's part. Not because there is no threat posed by terrorists; there is. Not because we will not seek to defeat them and their hateful ideology wherever it festers; we will. But this struggle needs to be redefined. I am all for battling terrorists and keeping innocent people safe, but how can you win a war on terror? A war on terror would be like fighting a "war on anger" or a "war on hatred". No matter how hard you fight, how much victory you achieve, you can never definitively "win". War could work against a country, which could formally surrender, and then you would win. But how can you really beat an idea, an irrational action, or series of actions, which constitute terrorism?
Furthermore, since the concept of a "war on terror" would go on indefinitely, it would be easy to claim again and again, perhaps forever, that there's a big, bad enemy out there, and we gotta do "whatever it takes" to "beat them". Such a nebulous war against such a loosely-defined opponent would easily allow abuse from power-hungry hands seeking Orwellian benefits here at home. It would easily allow a leader to, say, shift the battlefield to wherever he chooses, regardless of the actual value of that battlefield in the larger struggle to defeat terrorists.
Also, the term "terrorist" has been blurred and abused in recent years. It used to refer to actual assailants who attacked large numbers of people to further an ideological goal, often a hateful, extremist one. Now it has been stretched by many in this country, particularly in this country, to mean anyone in the Middle East, any Muslim, regardless of whether they actually participate in or even espouse extremism, and any person of Middle Eastern descent.
"Get the terrorists!" Well, who are the terrorists, first of all? In this effort, it will be critical to differentiate between real terrorists, the violent extremists, and law-abiding people, or those just caught up in the whole thing, who turn to extremist groups like the Taliban, because they have no one else to turn to. Force will have to be used against dangerous extremists. However, as someone once pointed out, "We shouldn't be torturing these people. This isn't Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia or Red China. There are other ways of interrogating these people." Who said this? A veteran from the marines who was a devout republican. He said this when calling in to Rush Limbaugh's show, as he called Limbaugh on his extremism. Kudos!
These values that the man espoused are what separates us from the terrorists. We do not use sadism and torture for our ends as the terrorists and those rogue, despotic states do. Our government was founded on principles, strong ones, and what makes us strong is when we stick to them in hard times.We have, collectively, the character to rise above these darker instincts that constitute the terrorist's only guiding force. Our country is not driven by hatred and mindless violence the way the terrorist groups are. At the CIA headquarters, President Obama noted that we the terrorists would be defeated because they were on the wrong side of the battle. Utilizing not only "the examples of our strength, but the strength of our example" is what will guide us in combating the insanity of terrorism and spreading the light of stability and peace. That's how you could win a war on terror, if you wanna put it that way.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)