Darfur As Kosovo, Iraq As Vietnam
One of my foreign policy heroes is a man about whom most people would say, "Huh? Who the hell is that?" or "Shya, figures that right-wing nut would idolize a nineteenth-century German militarist."
I refer to Otto Von Bismarck, Prussian statesman, unifier of Germany in 1871, and not a militarist at all, but rather a conservative (for his time) monarchist. And the only thing I idolize about him is his foreign policy doctrine of realpolitik.
Realpolitik was, as the term suggests, a policy that brooked no illusions and no indulgences in wishful thinking. It looked at the new German state's ambitions versus its resources and capabilities, and ruthlesslessly reconciled the former to the latter. Bismarck's principle life's ambition had been to unify all the German principalities and fiefdoms into a single national entity under Prussian leadership that would establish itself on a par with the other great powers of Europe (Britain, France, Russia). Once that goal was accomplished, he declared, as one of his notorious successors did half a century later, that his country had no more territorial ambitions in Europe. In Bismarck's case, he meant it. Thereafter he sought only to preserve what he had painstakingly constructed. It was Kaiser Wilhelm II that wasn't satisfied with that status quo, clashed with and finally fired Bismarck in 1890, and undid his policies, including the fantastically intricate web of alliances that had neutralized all of Germany's potential enemies, making World War I more or less inevitable.
I go into this background to provide some perspective on and context for how I believe our country has to look at its role in the world. History, particularly the past century and change, shows that wars arise not from "arms races" and "cowboy unilateralism" and the assertive use of Western, and principally American, power, but rather from weakness, fecklessness, cowardice, and a puerile escapism that seeks to forever kick the cans of dealing with avowed foreign enemies down the road until they finally blow up in our faces like land mines and plunge us into the very conflicts we want to avoid.
This is why the Democrat party has, until this past November, not been entrusted with the national security of the United States when it has been perceived to be threatened. Look what passes for the two wings of the Donk Asylum want to do vis-a-vie Darfur.
You know Darfur, right? The isolated region of Sudan where the Islamist government has been carrying out a merry genocide against its Christian minority. There appears to be a limited consensus amongst the Donks that we need to "do something" to stop it.
"But what," you may be asking. That's a fair question.
The "altruistic interventionist" wing, personified by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe "Hairplugs" Biden, says we should invade Sudan with all guns blazing precisely because the U.S. has no national security interests in Sudan, precisely because Darfur is way to heck & gone distant from any American bases or the nearest body of water, precisely because Darfur has no infrastructure to speak of, and precisely because of the need for U.S. soldiers to do good (unlike in Iraq) by standing between two sides who hate and want to kill each other (like in Iraq, or so the Dems claim).
Well, that might be a bit of a stretch. "Slow Joe" does all the bowing & curtseying about "no fly zones," UN resolutions and sanctions, multilateral peacekeeping forces, and all that fiddle-faddle. But he just can't wait to put our men & women in uniform into the middle of a REAL civil war in whose fight we don't have the slightest strategic or national security interest - probably "redeployed" from Iraq, which is critical to the War Against Islamic Fundamentalism and which he'd cast to the four apocalyptic winds for precisely that reason.
The "clinically insane" wing of the Democrat Party, represented on the Darfur question by Fussy Russy Feingold, can't even bring himself to call for using U.S. forces there even under blue helmets:
Michael Barone's questions are rhetorical, of course. The ChiComms understand and practice realpolitik like no other regime on the planet has since the days of its spike-helmeted formulator. Soft-headed people like Feingold are more likely to get such spikes crammed up their asses and think that passes for "prudence" and "restraint" and being a "responsible member of the international community."
I'm not sure to which wing Jack "Haw-Haw" Murtha - who yesterday charged that the plot to blow up JFK Airport and the borough of Queens along with it arose because of the liberation of Iraq - more tellingly belongs. He seems to be a wing unto himself; call him the "corrupt, mouthy old bastard" wing (as opposed to Ted Kennedy, the "portly, senile, perverted lush" wing, to which no bridges are allowed). But the Iraqis who have worked with us in the hopes of building a better country for themselves, their families, and their common future, don't need to make such distinctions to be able to read the handwriting on the wall:
Who's going to protect you, m'am? Heck if I know. All I know is that's not the problem of people like Murtha and Feingold and Biden, any more than the plight of the South Vietnamese we abandoned thirty-two years ago was the problem of....well, a lot of the same people, actually, for whom abandoning some peoples to genocide for the sin of being strategically relevant is as old hat as preeningly but emptily posturing over the genocide of other people whose virtue is not mattering a hill of beans to U.S. national security.
Our Iraqi friends seem to know that part of our history. Our dishonorable, detestable, despicable DisLoyalist overlords only remember nationaler selbstmord, as long as it happens to somebody else.
And when it finally happens to us? You have to ask?
I refer to Otto Von Bismarck, Prussian statesman, unifier of Germany in 1871, and not a militarist at all, but rather a conservative (for his time) monarchist. And the only thing I idolize about him is his foreign policy doctrine of realpolitik.
Realpolitik was, as the term suggests, a policy that brooked no illusions and no indulgences in wishful thinking. It looked at the new German state's ambitions versus its resources and capabilities, and ruthlesslessly reconciled the former to the latter. Bismarck's principle life's ambition had been to unify all the German principalities and fiefdoms into a single national entity under Prussian leadership that would establish itself on a par with the other great powers of Europe (Britain, France, Russia). Once that goal was accomplished, he declared, as one of his notorious successors did half a century later, that his country had no more territorial ambitions in Europe. In Bismarck's case, he meant it. Thereafter he sought only to preserve what he had painstakingly constructed. It was Kaiser Wilhelm II that wasn't satisfied with that status quo, clashed with and finally fired Bismarck in 1890, and undid his policies, including the fantastically intricate web of alliances that had neutralized all of Germany's potential enemies, making World War I more or less inevitable.
I go into this background to provide some perspective on and context for how I believe our country has to look at its role in the world. History, particularly the past century and change, shows that wars arise not from "arms races" and "cowboy unilateralism" and the assertive use of Western, and principally American, power, but rather from weakness, fecklessness, cowardice, and a puerile escapism that seeks to forever kick the cans of dealing with avowed foreign enemies down the road until they finally blow up in our faces like land mines and plunge us into the very conflicts we want to avoid.
This is why the Democrat party has, until this past November, not been entrusted with the national security of the United States when it has been perceived to be threatened. Look what passes for the two wings of the Donk Asylum want to do vis-a-vie Darfur.
You know Darfur, right? The isolated region of Sudan where the Islamist government has been carrying out a merry genocide against its Christian minority. There appears to be a limited consensus amongst the Donks that we need to "do something" to stop it.
"But what," you may be asking. That's a fair question.
The "altruistic interventionist" wing, personified by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe "Hairplugs" Biden, says we should invade Sudan with all guns blazing precisely because the U.S. has no national security interests in Sudan, precisely because Darfur is way to heck & gone distant from any American bases or the nearest body of water, precisely because Darfur has no infrastructure to speak of, and precisely because of the need for U.S. soldiers to do good (unlike in Iraq) by standing between two sides who hate and want to kill each other (like in Iraq, or so the Dems claim).
Well, that might be a bit of a stretch. "Slow Joe" does all the bowing & curtseying about "no fly zones," UN resolutions and sanctions, multilateral peacekeeping forces, and all that fiddle-faddle. But he just can't wait to put our men & women in uniform into the middle of a REAL civil war in whose fight we don't have the slightest strategic or national security interest - probably "redeployed" from Iraq, which is critical to the War Against Islamic Fundamentalism and which he'd cast to the four apocalyptic winds for precisely that reason.
The "clinically insane" wing of the Democrat Party, represented on the Darfur question by Fussy Russy Feingold, can't even bring himself to call for using U.S. forces there even under blue helmets:
“In order for the initiatives announced today to be effective,” he says, “the Administration must redouble its diplomatic efforts at the United Nations, and in particular with reluctant Security Council members, to ensure these initiatives are complemented by similar multilateral measures. This administration must work in concert with the international community if targeted sanctions and economic pressure are to have any meaningful impact in reversing the humanitarian crisis and ending the genocide in Sudan.”
My questions for him: Why do you suppose that redoubled diplomatic efforts will do anything to persuade China, which buys oil from Sudan, to cooperate? What do you do if it continues to be impossible to get the Security Council to authorize sanctions? What steps are you prepared to take to enforce sanctions?
Michael Barone's questions are rhetorical, of course. The ChiComms understand and practice realpolitik like no other regime on the planet has since the days of its spike-helmeted formulator. Soft-headed people like Feingold are more likely to get such spikes crammed up their asses and think that passes for "prudence" and "restraint" and being a "responsible member of the international community."
I'm not sure to which wing Jack "Haw-Haw" Murtha - who yesterday charged that the plot to blow up JFK Airport and the borough of Queens along with it arose because of the liberation of Iraq - more tellingly belongs. He seems to be a wing unto himself; call him the "corrupt, mouthy old bastard" wing (as opposed to Ted Kennedy, the "portly, senile, perverted lush" wing, to which no bridges are allowed). But the Iraqis who have worked with us in the hopes of building a better country for themselves, their families, and their common future, don't need to make such distinctions to be able to read the handwriting on the wall:
With pressure building in Washington for an American troop pullout, Iraqis who have worked closely with U.S. companies and military forces are begging their employers for assurances that they will be able to leave with them.
"They must take care of the people who worked with the Americans," said Hayder, an Iraqi who has worked for several U.S. companies since coalition forces entered Iraq. ...
A woman who has worked closely with the U.S. military said she was deeply worried about what will happen when the Americans leave.
"Who is going to protect us?" she asked during an interview near her home in downtown Baghdad.
When the Americans leave, all those who worked with them "must leave also," said another woman who has been forced to move to Jordan. She asked that her name not be used in order to protect her extended family still living in Baghdad.
Who's going to protect you, m'am? Heck if I know. All I know is that's not the problem of people like Murtha and Feingold and Biden, any more than the plight of the South Vietnamese we abandoned thirty-two years ago was the problem of....well, a lot of the same people, actually, for whom abandoning some peoples to genocide for the sin of being strategically relevant is as old hat as preeningly but emptily posturing over the genocide of other people whose virtue is not mattering a hill of beans to U.S. national security.
Our Iraqi friends seem to know that part of our history. Our dishonorable, detestable, despicable DisLoyalist overlords only remember nationaler selbstmord, as long as it happens to somebody else.
And when it finally happens to us? You have to ask?
posted by JASmius at 5:34 PM
<<< Home