Reviewing events now occuring in North Korea, Iran, and Israel-Palestine, it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we will not resolve the problem of nuclear proliferation by diplomatic means. That Genie is allready at loose in the world, and it won't take long before he will be at the service of the most unstable terrorists.
MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, worked in the case of US vs Soviets because both sides had too much to lose, and their leaders had strong survival instincts.
In the radical states, fanatical elements with strong death wishes are immune to such restraints.
The Arab states will consider real peace with Israel as unacceptable, until their fear of a nuclear, Shia, Iran overcomes their hatred of a Jewish state in their midst. By the time they awaken to where their best interests lie, it will be too late.
In Asia, a bellicose No. Korea will continue to be provocative, blackmailing the
world with threats. Deteriorating conditions within their own borders may lead them
into some incident which could potentially lead to a nuclear confrontation. They may also provide a weapon to terrorists to use against the West. Such an attack, without a return address, could result in mass, indiscriminate retaliation--the Apocalypse.
As it appears we cannot learn to live together harmoniously, I fear we may be destined to perish together erroneously.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Memorial Day
The annual Memorial Day concert from Washington has just concluded. It was a joy
to participate in an orgy of pure patriotism and memorial for the millions of our
war dead and maimed. Throughout our history a relative few have given up so much for the safety and security of the many, in our, and other lands.
Ours is a great, unique, nation. Our founding ideals speak to the noble natures that can reside in all mankind, but we have perfected and nurtured them more than any other peoples. We have rescued large parts of the world from tyranny, at the cost of
great material and human treasure, expecting no spoils for ourselves. We have used our wealth for the aid and comfort of billions of depressed people whether by disease, natural disasters, or genocidal conflicts.
Yet, in one arena of human relations we have not succeeded in living up to our ideals. We have failed to anticipate, or avoid war by our intellect and statecraft.
War is a failure of diplomacy. It is an attempt to resolve disputes by the most
primitive means: "I will make my point by killing and maiming more of your people, and devastate more of your real estate, than you do mine. That will convince you
that right is on my side". Of course, solutions by intellect and diplomacy require the consent and efforts of all sides. That may be nearly impossible to achieve, particularly when our opposites do not share our ideals, or possess our wealth.
Which way is a more desirable resolution, therefor requiring whatever amount of effort and time short of surrender, to solve the problem?
to participate in an orgy of pure patriotism and memorial for the millions of our
war dead and maimed. Throughout our history a relative few have given up so much for the safety and security of the many, in our, and other lands.
Ours is a great, unique, nation. Our founding ideals speak to the noble natures that can reside in all mankind, but we have perfected and nurtured them more than any other peoples. We have rescued large parts of the world from tyranny, at the cost of
great material and human treasure, expecting no spoils for ourselves. We have used our wealth for the aid and comfort of billions of depressed people whether by disease, natural disasters, or genocidal conflicts.
Yet, in one arena of human relations we have not succeeded in living up to our ideals. We have failed to anticipate, or avoid war by our intellect and statecraft.
War is a failure of diplomacy. It is an attempt to resolve disputes by the most
primitive means: "I will make my point by killing and maiming more of your people, and devastate more of your real estate, than you do mine. That will convince you
that right is on my side". Of course, solutions by intellect and diplomacy require the consent and efforts of all sides. That may be nearly impossible to achieve, particularly when our opposites do not share our ideals, or possess our wealth.
Which way is a more desirable resolution, therefor requiring whatever amount of effort and time short of surrender, to solve the problem?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
From Gitmo to where?
Even a Democratic controlled congress won't help Obama solve the detainees problem. Many congress members have simultaneously come down with the NIMBY disease. Yes, they say, close Gitmo, disperse the inmate population to various states (but NOT
MINE) and put them on trials. The Republicans oppose dispersion, even to the most secure prisons, which house our most dangerous mass murderers and child predators, because they could be a risk to their constituents, (including those noble murderers?)
In fact dispersion would reduce the dangers of blackmail by terrorists threatening
disaster to the residents of those many states if the detainees were not set free.
It would require more resources than they could muster.
The frights that the Repubs have also provide a great excuse for our "allies" to beg off. It is expensive to house, and try such detainees. Many of our allies have large
numbers of Muslims among their populations. which do represent a greater risk.
The only downside to keeping that Gitmo status quo is the blatent hypocrisy
which we demonstrate to the world when we preach the nobility of our constitution. We show that becoming smarter in outwitting terrorists has less value than acting as terrorists ourselves.
How's this for a solution? Board all the detainees on an overage airliner, piloted by
a terminally ill pilot who is ready to die for his country, apparently to fly them
to the US mainland. En route the plane crashes, with no survivors. That is rendition
without involving other countries. American ingenuity at its best!
MINE) and put them on trials. The Republicans oppose dispersion, even to the most secure prisons, which house our most dangerous mass murderers and child predators, because they could be a risk to their constituents, (including those noble murderers?)
In fact dispersion would reduce the dangers of blackmail by terrorists threatening
disaster to the residents of those many states if the detainees were not set free.
It would require more resources than they could muster.
The frights that the Repubs have also provide a great excuse for our "allies" to beg off. It is expensive to house, and try such detainees. Many of our allies have large
numbers of Muslims among their populations. which do represent a greater risk.
The only downside to keeping that Gitmo status quo is the blatent hypocrisy
which we demonstrate to the world when we preach the nobility of our constitution. We show that becoming smarter in outwitting terrorists has less value than acting as terrorists ourselves.
How's this for a solution? Board all the detainees on an overage airliner, piloted by
a terminally ill pilot who is ready to die for his country, apparently to fly them
to the US mainland. En route the plane crashes, with no survivors. That is rendition
without involving other countries. American ingenuity at its best!
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Grand Illusion, Part II
President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu are about to meet. Obama will
be pressuring Israel to make major concessions to the Palestinians for a two state agreement. The assumptions are that such an agreement, which will significantly reduce the survivability of Israel, will turn Iran from its expressed intention to eradicate Israel, relieve Iran of its concerns about an Israeli preventive strike, and persuade it to abandon its creation of a nuclear arsenal.
I have searched the annals of history to find an example where appeasement as a foreign policy has succeeded in averting armed conflict. History supports the opposite view.
Does anyone believe that if Israel were to disappear the Iranians would give up their drive for nuclear status? Israel is merely a tool the Iranian government
uses to persuade their citizens to accept the huge investment required for nuclear
developement and the economic hardship that imposes. Iran wants to be the dominant
Muslim power and defender of the faith in world affairs. To realize that goal it
must possess "the bomb".
Reducing Israel to impotency will remove a powerful counterweight to Iran's drive
for hegemony.
be pressuring Israel to make major concessions to the Palestinians for a two state agreement. The assumptions are that such an agreement, which will significantly reduce the survivability of Israel, will turn Iran from its expressed intention to eradicate Israel, relieve Iran of its concerns about an Israeli preventive strike, and persuade it to abandon its creation of a nuclear arsenal.
I have searched the annals of history to find an example where appeasement as a foreign policy has succeeded in averting armed conflict. History supports the opposite view.
Does anyone believe that if Israel were to disappear the Iranians would give up their drive for nuclear status? Israel is merely a tool the Iranian government
uses to persuade their citizens to accept the huge investment required for nuclear
developement and the economic hardship that imposes. Iran wants to be the dominant
Muslim power and defender of the faith in world affairs. To realize that goal it
must possess "the bomb".
Reducing Israel to impotency will remove a powerful counterweight to Iran's drive
for hegemony.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Grand Illusion
The Obama administration has ramped up the momentum for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It appears that they have assumed a mirage is reality.
Without exception every leader in the Muslim world, religious or political, believes that a democratic Jewish state in the middle east is an abomination. They are unanimous that it must be eliminated--that the land must be cleansed of every trace of Jewish presence. Where they are not in unanimity is in tactics and time span to
bring that about. Some have publicly announced that they are willing to accept two
states for a time, during which they count on demographics to weaken the Jewish nature of Israel, while they arm and prepare for its final extinction. None are willing to make the attempt now because of Israeli military power, and the will of its people to survive.
What the Arabs do not understand, and the Western world barely understands, is that
"never again" is the existentialist core of the Israelis. When a final solution attack comes, the Israelis will unleash Armageddon on its attackers. Almost all will perish. The Israeli policy is to try to avert the catastrophe now by quarantining
the Palestinian territories, maintaining its nuclear deterrence and military
power, keeping its eastern border settlements for strategic depth, and reaching out
for peace to any reasonable, honest broker. Concessions now by Israel are seen as
rewards for the Arab tactic of piecemeal erosion of the Jewish state. Will the U.S.
and Europe be more secure without a secure Israel?
Without exception every leader in the Muslim world, religious or political, believes that a democratic Jewish state in the middle east is an abomination. They are unanimous that it must be eliminated--that the land must be cleansed of every trace of Jewish presence. Where they are not in unanimity is in tactics and time span to
bring that about. Some have publicly announced that they are willing to accept two
states for a time, during which they count on demographics to weaken the Jewish nature of Israel, while they arm and prepare for its final extinction. None are willing to make the attempt now because of Israeli military power, and the will of its people to survive.
What the Arabs do not understand, and the Western world barely understands, is that
"never again" is the existentialist core of the Israelis. When a final solution attack comes, the Israelis will unleash Armageddon on its attackers. Almost all will perish. The Israeli policy is to try to avert the catastrophe now by quarantining
the Palestinian territories, maintaining its nuclear deterrence and military
power, keeping its eastern border settlements for strategic depth, and reaching out
for peace to any reasonable, honest broker. Concessions now by Israel are seen as
rewards for the Arab tactic of piecemeal erosion of the Jewish state. Will the U.S.
and Europe be more secure without a secure Israel?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
