Charles Krauthammer weighs in on Iran’s hostage gambit:
Iran has pulled off a tidy little success with its seizure and release of those 15 British sailors and marines: a pointed humiliation of Britain, with a bonus demonstration of Iran’s intention to push back against coalition challenges to its assets in Iraq. All with total impunity. Further, it exposed the impotence of all those transnational institutions—most prominently the European Union and the United Nations—that pretend to maintain international order.
You would think maintaining international order means, at least, challenging acts of piracy. No challenge here. Instead, a quiet capitulation.
And yet, if Democrats like John Kerry had their way, they would readily mortgage US sovereignty to transnational institutions like the UN or the ICC—which, in effect, would replace representative democracy with a new kind of aristocracy, given that unelected leaders and free-agent courts would be given final say over law and international policy.
Which would not only make a mockery of the US Constitution—but as this episode (and many others, including the self-interested opposition to the US campaign in Iraq, disgustingly and opportunistically presented as a moral objection, a framing of the issue a progressive western media happily peddled) show, these organizations are so bureaucratically constrained by the notion of consensus that they seldom act.
On the flipside, though, the EU has managed to implement precise regulations on cheese. So there’s a bit of a trade-off, if you are half glass full type…
Continues Krauthmammer:
The quid pro quos were not terribly subtle. An Iranian “diplomat” who had been held for two months in Iraq is suddenly released. Equally suddenly, Iran is granted access to the five Iranian “consular officials”—Revolutionary Guards who had been training Shiite militias to kill Americans and others—whom the United States had arrested in Irbil in January. There may have been other concessions we will never hear about. But the salient point is that American action is what got this unstuck.
Where then was the European Union? These 15 hostages, after all, are not just British citizens but, under the laws of Europe, citizens of Europe. Yet the European Union lifted not a finger on their behalf.
Europeans talk all the time about their preference for “soft power” over the brute military force those Neanderthal Americans resort to all the time. What was the soft power available here? Iran’s shaky economy is highly dependent on European credits, trade and technology. Britain asked the European Union to threaten to freeze exports, $18 billion a year of commerce. Iran would have lost its No. 1 trading partner. The European Union refused.
Why was nothing done? The reason is simple. Europe functions quite well as a free-trade zone, but as a political entity it is a farce. It remains a collection of sovereign countries with divergent interests. A freeze of economic relations with Europe would have shaken the Iranian economy to the core. “The Dutch,” reported the Times of London, “said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.” So much for European solidarity.
As I noted yesterday, the White House must have felt a compelling need to bail out the Brits—which one hopes is tied to a larger plan, though it is possible they did so as a reward for Tony Blair’s support for the Iraq War, and because, well, that’s what allies do.
But though many observers on the right have seen this as a wash—Iran didn’t get the public apology it wanted, for instance, and its showy release of the hostages could be seen as a way to save face, if during the “negotiations” Iran suspected the EU, under growing internal pressures, may have been willing to relent on its earlier refusal to freeze exports—I think that analysis misses the mark.
The US did what it could to help an ally. But the cost was high—and as I argued yesterday, it sends the wrong message: namely, that the West will, in fact, negotiate with pirates. It likewise exposed, yet again, the self-interest of the EU nations, the fecklessness of the UN, and the fact that, with the US out of the picture militarily, the only thing holding the West together is paper and ink and, thanks to multiculturalism, an ideological bond that is rapidly eroding.
*****
(h/t Instapundit, who notes: “Impotence, corruption, whatever. No one in his right mind would rely on either institution to do anything against the immediate financial and political self-interest of its players, regardless of the stakes. The Mafia has more principles. And a longer-term perspective . . . .”)
I pretty pessimistic about things lately, but tell me, did anyone see any other possible outcome?
Those Iranians are really, really good at taking hostages. I mean they’re like the New England Patriots of hostage taking. And if they hadn’t traded their kicker to Hezbolla, the Brits would still be waiting this one out.
Is Krauthammer really all that right here? I think it pretty likely on balance that Europe supports Iran as a counterweight in the region and as a member of a broader alliance that includes Russia, Venezuela etc. The EU’s role in the hostage situation was completely in keeping with the footdragging they’ve shown on the nuclear issue. The spaces in the world where Europeans have robust interests and Americans are marginalized are beautiful and precious to them.
I think Krauthammer’s point is that the EU won’t even take care of one of its own. Which may be in the best interests of the EU overall, but it doesn’t help the individual members any.
So why join?
Still doesn’t feel quite right. The EU is very much relying on Iranian support in its efforts to supplant the dollar in petroleum markets. They HEART those rascally Persians, way more than they heart those stupid Brits with their stupid pounds in their own stupid sandbox.
Feet,
What’s the dollar in the petroleum markets thing you’re on about?
BRD
This sort of thing.
Well, what is the EU allied against?
Protecting and enhancing members’ national and citizens’ interests–clearly not the point.
And the curvature of bananas. Wouldn’t want consumers to be confronted by improperly curved bananas.
Oh, and they’ve banned non-metric units of measure on packaged goods. It’s not that you just have to present metric units, you cannot have anything but metric units on the package. Because their consumers might be confused if they see “16oz” next to “473ml”.
Or, maybe, they’re just trying to start a trade war under the guise of consumer protection.
Duh. The United States.
Let me ask you he-men this question : besides war with Iran, what outcome would have been acceptable?
What I’m saying is, pointing fingers at the EU for not forcing Iran to do anything while whinging about “how the US totally bailed those limeys out again” looks an awful lot like misdirected disappointment at our inability to bomb Iran. Sorry, kids. You may still get your new war, though. Keep the faith.
It won’t be our war heet. It will be yours, and it will be because your every action taken against the current war is seen as weakness which is to be exploited or attacked.
I agree with your assessment–It truly is a black-or-white issue:
The Persians are either at your feet or at your throat and not capitulating fully to their piracy is an act of war.
I think you have framed it correctly, either we agree to Iranian de-facto control of the Gulf and shipping, or we go to war.
What. The. Fuck.
Yeah, run with that one. “We wuz stabbed in the back I tells ya! Commie pinkos among us!”
I will pose a second, special question for you DG : at what percentage of US anti-war sentiment does “weakness” become “the will of the people”?
Take your time.
It’s the will of the people to succumb to Iranian demands of tribute?
Gray,
You manage to be clever and stupid in the same post. Well done.
Translation: “Got nothin.” -heet
When Jack Murtha becomes POTUS.
I have little doubt that Munich was the will of the British people at that point in time. The folly of that desire to exempt themselves from history was paid many times over.
Heet,
Are you familiar with the concept of credibility as it applies to deterrence?
BRD
The British hostages are safe at home now.
Isn’t that a success?
The pro war crowd sure has a curious tkae on success and failure.
This is what weakness gets you:
The American Soldier’s Code of Conduct:
I
I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
II
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
III
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
IV
If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
V
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
VI
I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
TW: army33. You’re godamned right.
Heet,
Are you familiar with the concept of credibility as it applies to deterrence?
BRD
BRD, you (literally) have just taken part in the invasion of a sovereign nation, kicked its Army up the Euphrates in three weeks and toppled the government (under no direct provocation). On the other side of Iran, you (literally RTO) beat the living hell out of the Taliban in a month, fighting in the most rugged backwater on the planet and taking few casualties.
A decade ago in the name of protecting little brothers Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the world oil price, we created a coalition that beat the army they could not beat in 8 years of war in a whole 100 hours.
I think, and I know this hurts you, that Iran is aware of your “deterrence.” You have proven your manhood.
Moving on, why is it every time a Brit or American soldier spends a week or so as a “guest” of foreign power, you dudes want to go like Rambo.
Hell, it’s a good thing none of listened to you in 2001 when the right wing tried to force into a war with China…after all we would have never been prepared for the invasion of Iraq.
Just stand down a bit, BDR, Defense Guy, and Gray. You’ll get another chance to shoot at bad guys when George calls you back for the end of the Surge.
Shorter timmyb:
To all you military guys out there, killing brown people “proves your manhood.”
Thus, if you haven’t served and are prepared to use force, you’re a chickenhawk.
If you have served and are prepared to use force, you’re “proving your manhood.”
Don’t question timmyb’s support for the troops. It’s just that the only ones timmyb is prepared to support are either the LT Watadas who desert, or the SGT Akbars who kill our own.
And Timbo wonders why so few people take him seriously. The rest of us, in the meantime, haven’t forgotten the history that led to the invasion.
Keep up the good work, sparky.
Iraq wasn’t a sovereign nation, Saddam only remained in power due to UN Resolution 1444.
Once he reneged on that, how much blood and treasure should we spend enforcing the No-Fly-Zone to keep Saddam in power?
It’s obvious we could not continue to fight in Afghanistan while enforcing the sanctions and No-Fly-Zones in Iraq, we don’t have enough military to do both….
Did you read the Code of Conduct I posted? As American soldiers, we don’t have the luxury of rolling on our backs and pissing on ourselves like the Brits did….
That’s cute, Gray. When you feel like having an actual thought instead of beating your chest, feel free.
The only reply to individuals like timmy and aphid was written by CS Lewis some time ago:
Behold, the geldings among us speak and bid us applaud the capitulation of our British allies.
Translation: “Still got nuthin.” –heet
As American soldiers, we don’t have the luxury of rolling on our backs and pissing on ourselves like the Brits did….
Considering the conditions at Walter Reed, some might find that kind of hollow preening in poor taste, Grey.
You know, I know you guys think it’s soooo cute having this reverse sock-puppet called “alphie, heet, timmyb,” etc., but aren’t you the least bit concerned that newcomers to PW will think they’re real?
I mean, having a reverse sock-puppet that is always so dumb…c’mon, put a little effort into it, will you?
What, exactly, is your position, Gray? The British are big pussies and American military people totally rule? Explain yourself, tough guy.
My position is that the weakness of the Blair government and the shameful behavior of the captured British Sailors and Marines in the face of Iranian aggression has caused more British soldiers to be killed by agents of Iran in the formerly pacified area of Basra.
My position is that weakness invites further attack.
My position is borne out by all of human history. And particularly the history of the Middle East.
What have you got?
Gray,
Last we heard, you were on a government-paid vacation in California trying to see if you could get Reagan’s 25 year old flying pork trough back into the air (and into the budget).
Maybe you could cut our British allies some slack, eh?
PSA time again:
IGNORE THE ALPHTARD.
alf and all,
Yes, the British marines are home.
The marines are in the military. Success defined in a military context is broader than “coming home alive”.
Men and women whose jobs involve risk to their lives… have to risk their lives. Firefighters can always come home if they never leave the station.
If police never confront a criminal then sure, they’ll always come home alive.
I think the Royal Marines should have demanded the surrender of the Iranians.
I also think that if possible they should have retreated to the vessel they have just searched and defended themselves there. The Captain should be relieved of any command.
“Death before dishonor” and all that
Never lay down your weapon. My guess is that the Iranians would have backed down if the British had stood firm and refused to surrender.
Soldiers are required to be brave and sacrificial. alf and ilk are only brave when hiding behind the skirts of the First Amendment
Read this stuff here, heet. Follow the links in the Wiki articles, they are a bit simplistic by themselves. Once you begin to understand it, you might be able to hold a conversation about this without sounding like a blithering idiot.
One small detail, Steve,
Britain isn’t at war with Iran.
Why should these British “firefighters” sacrifice their lives to please the neocon arsonists?
My ex-wife subjected me to more psychological torture than these Brits got and I never gave in!
Alphster: Given the likely latitude and longitude of the Royal Marines when seized by the Iranians, how would you characterize the nature and quality of what Iran did?
Are you saying you have a problem with the tenets of international law?
Credibility w/r/t deterrence:
Riddle me this. If Iran is being effectively deterred from being aggressive and bellicose, why do they engage in acts of piracy and continue apace with their nuclear program?
BRD
The fact they are so mind-numbingly stupid is what convinces me they are real. You just can’t make this shit up.
The problem with allies is that you have to take them as they are, their strengths and their weaknesses. If the UK government wasn’t willing to fight for its people, the US government couldn’t very well fight for the UK.
As much of an ass that DeGaulle was, he was willing to fight, even if his conditions had to be met. That was sufficient reason to suport DeGaule and his Free French Forces; even though others may have been more congenial he and his would fight.
The UK appeared unwilling to fight to the extent that their personnel surrendered and quickly made themselves available for propaganda. With that, the US was hamstringed in its response, with only being able to provide a show-of-force.
Hopefully the show-of-force was enough to give a pause to any thoughts of grabbing US personnel and making a propaganda statement out of them. We shall see.
I will pose a second, special question for you DG : at what percentage of US anti-war sentiment does “weakness†become “the will of the people�
Posted by heet |
This isn’t a democracy. Look it up. Go ahead take your time.
Well, it is a republic, Rusty, but the elections are democratic. It’s just that periodic elections allow the weathervane of democracy to get a read on prevailing winds as opposed to responding to every vague gust.
Next elections are 2008. We shall see what happens to the balance of electoral power48.
Wow heet, timmah & little “a” a non-thinking man’s trifecta. We’re only short a marky mark & we’d have a starting line-up of our own factually ignorant Special Olympics, w/ each competing to see who could distort the truth w/o relying upon predetermined talking points first. The favorite is little “a” who has never shown the slightest inclination to remain on topic, but heet has proven to be a strong contender in the past & who can ever forget marky mark’s inane ability to link to articles that disprove his point? timmah, the dark horse of the group, w/ his patented non-logical tangents is also a crowd favorite & is sure to please.
One problem I am having guys, is that according to my ”progressive” talking points generator, the proper response for this thread would have been to bring up the lack of WMDs to perpetuate our inherent need to kill “brown†people, not the thinly veiled “chicken-hawk” meme. I’m running version 2.21 are you guys running an upgrade version I’m not aware of or just that naturally gifted in obtusiveness?
Arguing with them is like trying to qualify for Mr. Universe by bench-pressing a roll of toilet paper.
Little Timmy propositions normal humans the stupidest post in weeks:
Iran had better damn well be aware, little man. The question is, of what? I tend to doubt that in this nuclear age, it’s manhood. I suspect the stakes are somewhat higher.
Let me lead you through this: Brinksmanship. Ergo, welcome the new kids on the nuclear block.
Kids there will be much heard from. In your lifetime.
Rambo? You mean go shoot the place up? Drive the tanks in in our next three-week mop-up? Define your terms.
Reducing this issue to your schoolyard taunts likely pays it substantially less serious regard than it deserves. In your lifetime, dependent. I wonder why that is.
alf
All the more reason not to surrender at gunpoint.
“we are not at war with you… bugger off”
Also alf… why do the marines have guns? Are they at war with the merchant ships they are searching?
Are they ready to defend themselves if attacked, and to exert force if needed to complete the mission?
Lord give me strength; yes the soldiers ar home,
however, they humiliated themselves and they make
the next convoy, squadron, fleet, company more
vulnerable. This garbage about the “Iranians being
belligerent, there fricking insane, their leader’s
insane, he wants a nuclear war to kill two thirds of the world, so the Mahdi can climb out of the well! That press conference is right out of the Monty Python sketch about joining the British Army; or the pointed stick one; I can’t recall which is more appropriate. They really do think
like the characters in Spooks last season, who
thought we were provoking the Iranians to war;
can you imagine that. If anything we continue
to face their provocations and ignore them. Maybe
the cargo on that Indian flagged freighter,(Pakistani nukes, North Korena bioweapons) which
they never got to inspect; will wake us up.
What Iran has is an oil problem that it has put in place by its strange conception of economics and inability to get the idea on how to run petroleum infrastructure. This is the system that Russian Gazprom took a look at a year or so ago and said ‘no thanks’ to doing anything to help out the Iranians. China had but forward a $10B deal, but pulled back on it when they started to realize the absolute problems they were going to encounter were beyond their technical expertise. Iran now *rations* gasoline because its refineries do not work efficiently and is even resorting to *buying* gasoline on the spot market.
What could the EU have done? How about cut trade with Iran? Pretty simple, that. And you have some nice British ships to back it up right there in the region! Do a full cargo inspection on every ship coming into the Gulf headed for Iran and turn back those with goods from the EU… or send them to Bahrain or some such to off-load it. Yes it would have hurt the economies of the EU. It would cripple Iran, possibly to a point where it would not recover.
The EU could have cut diplomatic relations with Iran until they stop playing games with nuclear ideas and terrrorism. Then end the trade when they don’t. Set one of these nice ‘timelines’ on it and stick to it.
Yes some minor pin-pricks to the EU economy, but a crippling of Iran. That would get a message across. Japan has already sucked that one up for *years* by no longer funding petroleum work in Iran and advising its allies and customers to do the same. Their economy has taken a few hits from that, but you do not hear them complaining about it. The EU? Entirely Useless.
The way things are going in Iran *today* will require nearly a decade to turn around if the regime disappeared *tomorrow*. That is how much they have diverted funds into terrorism: their petroleum system is stuck with heavy fluctuations, impossible to sustain internal subsidies, an idiotic way of actually selling crude oil, refineries and oil pipelines that are losing oil in an unrecoverable fashion, using high cost – low output means to try and keep things going so they have some oil to export. And they have missed OPEC export quotas for nearly two years, now. The state of that infrastructure will make Iraq’s seem nearly pristine in comparison as much of it underwent orderly shutdown with Saddam over the years as spare parts ran out.
Doesn’t take much to hurt that kind of setup.
Ajacksonian,
It would seem to me that some electromagnetic weapons to short out electronics – with all the attendant damage that does when heavy machinery sudden loses power – would be all it would take to put a mighty big crimp in the Iranian economy.
BRD
I don’t know what to make of this entire episode. At first, I thought, “My God! How stupid of the Iranians to grab those legitimate service members under questionable circumstances! This is it for them!” And then, nothing. Everyone just looking at each other, shuffling their feet. Lots of measured condemnation, and strong letters to follow. The UN and EU I don’t blame so much, because, be honest, there wasn’t much of a strong position for them to back.
The conduct of the British military personnel was even more perplexing. I was astounded by their confessionals; they came across like naughty kids caught sneaking into a warehouse. If that is an example of breaking the will of hostiles and coercing them into becoming propaganda tools, then we need to load up the Gitmo transport planes and ship everyone over to Iran, because those guys are good and quick!
None of this makes sense. I didn’t see any of the press conference with the marines and sailors, which in my opinion, is a further blunder, but being an outcome-based type, I look for strategy where I can find it. And this is what I come away with:
The capture was orchestrated by the British as some kind of morale building exercise, but the participants got goofy;
The Iranians are really pushing for a full-on conflict and looked for the most lovable yet symbolic captives they could find;
The date and time certain for the Iranian shoe to drop simply hadn’t arrived yet, and the West had to do its best to finesse this tantrum until the real ass-kicking commences.
This is some kind of damn performance art.
Cynn,
I hereby nominate you for an Ambassadorial post to the Middle East, because I think you’ve most succinctly summed up the regional politics for the last 3,000 years.
Cynn, you win.
BRD
I still wonder why heet comes into this site. Bad temper, chest beating…I come here to see several angles on things I haven’t seen myself. Or hear from some darned smart and experienced folks. I guess if I have to get accused of some rather bizaare things whilst doing so, meh.
..will hold their manhoods cheap…eh?
Major, nobody should hold their manhoods cheap. When I ransom one, I get top dollar!
Major John:
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the Feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and omes safe home,
Will stand a-tiptoe when this day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall see this day, and live old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast of his neighbors
And say, “Tomorrow is Saint Crispian.”
Then will strip his sleeve and show his scars, And say, “These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.”
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantqges,
What feats he did that day.”
What if no one is actually in charge, no conspiracy, no political will and no plan?
What if the Brits really did turn chicken because they spend more money on single mothers, cameras and mosques than they do training their military?
What if the West really believed their own bullshit–that we’re are evil and should die ‘cuz we’re not all rock stars?
What if there is no deus ex machina? What if what’s happened in Iraq is really the best we can do now?
What if Donald Rumsfeld wasn’t incompetant and, being Sec Def twice, he’s the best we can do?
What if there was no Chuck Norris to kick ass in half an hour and cure cancer with his tears?
What if there were no shoe to drop on Iran and we’d rather quit selling pork and beer and put you in a burkha than fight?
Well, if you could see all that is true, as it is, then you’d join us in the real world….
Rambo? You mean go shoot the place up? Drive the tanks in in our next three-week mop-up? Define your terms.
Reducing this issue to your schoolyard taunts likely pays it substantially less serious regard than it deserves. In your lifetime, dependent. I wonder why that is.
Posted by JHoward | permalink
on 04/06 at 05:49 PM
Yet, none of you substantial righties can argue the China point can you? You wanted a military confrontation with China in 2001, with Cambodia in 1975 (that worked well!), and now with another country’s soldiers in Iran…
Somehow, despite those displays of wussiness, my country limps forward as the most powerful on Earth. How is it possible, since 61% are such pussies?
And Mikey, great quote. Personally, I like the part about “we happy few, we band of brothers…”
Henry the Fifth was a great warrior. Alas, the man who wrote THOSE stirring words and attributed them to ol’ Hank had never picked up a sword in anger, celebrating the finest victory in a war that was doomed to failure, and yet, England was able to limp forward long enough to produce Shakespeare. Perhaps, one of you keyboard warriors (Jeff? Dan?) could put stirring words into General Pace’s or mouth before Fallujah and hallowed victory, we could marry Jenna Bush to Muqtada Al-Sadr, and get the hell out.
Then again, I’m so stupid I don’t see the point in killing thousands to save 15. It’s all about deterrence, because it only takes a day to Fed Ex an IED to Basrah and blow up four Brits. I mean that’s how it happened, right, Gray? Hello…..logistical inconsistency noted.
Oh, and in the invective, ignore the saber-rattling at China yet again. Your short memories are endearing.
Does anybody know what the fuck he is talking about with all that China nonsense? Were we worried they were stockpiling shipping containers or something?
Beats me, BMoe. Leftists run on blind emotion, molding reality to fit it. Little Timmy didn’t define his terms because he couldn’t.
I simply don’t expect reason from the Left anymore. They are intellectual leeches; what Godwin calls mind parasites.
Note Little Timmy’s simultaneous but conflicting charges. First the Right’s Rambo, then they’re pussies. I think it depends on those all important appearances.
But like the little man says, he’s too stupid to comprehend principle, and with it then, naturally, scope. Perspective. The appearances obscure the picture; the trees, the forest.
The hallmark of the mad Leftist is the ability to never see causes and effects but to always see effects as equal in every way.
Armed robbery? Blame the handgun, and like that, over and over and over. War? Co-equal combatants and the bullets are the real bad guys.
Mad Leftism isn’t a valid position and never has been. It’s an affliction and the Democrat party, to some substantial degree, is where they go, looking for the warmth and stickiness of the hivemind.
Rambo? You mean go shoot the place up? Drive the tanks in in our next three-week mop-up? Define your terms.
What is it with you lefties wanting to kill everything in sight? Howsabout we just shoot the bad ones?
Reducing this issue to your schoolyard taunts likely pays it substantially less serious regard than it deserves. In your lifetime, dependent. I wonder why that is.
Posted by JHoward | permalink
on 04/06 at 05:49 PM
Yet, none of you substantial righties can argue the China point can you? You wanted a military confrontation with China in 2001, with Cambodia in 1975 (that worked well!), and now with another country’s soldiers in Iran…
China? Dude. Iran. Focus, Iran.
Somehow, despite those displays of wussiness, my country limps forward as the most powerful on Earth. How is it possible, since 61% are such pussies?
I beg your pardon! I prefer to think of as heroically challenged.
And Mikey, great quote. Personally, I like the part about “we happy few, we band of brothers…â€Â
Henry the Fifth was a great warrior. Alas, the man who wrote THOSE stirring words and attributed them to ol’ Hank had never picked up a sword in anger, celebrating the finest victory in a war that was doomed to failure, and yet, England was able to limp forward long enough to produce Shakespeare. Perhaps, one of you keyboard warriors (Jeff? Dan?) could put stirring words into General Pace’s or mouth before Fallujah and hallowed victory, we could marry Jenna Bush to Muqtada Al-Sadr, and get the hell out.
So now Fallujah wasn’t a victory?
Then again, I’m so stupid I don’t see the point in killing thousands to save 15. It’s all about deterrence, because it only takes a day to Fed Ex an IED to Basrah and blow up four Brits. I mean that’s how it happened, right, Gray? Hello…..logistical inconsistency noted.
Hello! Faulkland Islands.
Oh, and in the invective, ignore the saber-rattling at China yet again. Your short memories are endearing.
<i>Boo!
Posted by timb |
Because saving those 15 will save millions by making it clear we won’t tolerate aggression.
Because you have a duty to those 15, because you’ve asked them to put their lives on the line for you. Throwing them away for nothing betrays that duty.
Because those 15 are your own people, and governments have a duty to protect their people from the crimes of foreign nations.
Because if you’re unwilling to save those 15, the answer becomes “where is the line”? Is it 150? 1,500? 15,000? 150,000? 1,500,000? You draw the line as low as possible in order to save all the people you would lose while the enemy searches for your limits.
The Chinese forcing the landing of an American surveillance plane after one of their jets rammed it over international waters and holding the crew hostage.
In other words, he’s saying another act of war wasn’t all that bad. Funny how acts of war committed by non-Americans are to be ignored, while American reactions to those acts are condemned.
I guess timb thinks men (and women) are potatoes.
Rob: sort of how it was okay for North Vietnam to use Cambodian territory as a route to funnel troops and supplies into Vietnam, but was a horrifying act of aggression when the USA finally went in after them?
Pat. There’s a special place in hell for Robert McNamera and Lyndon Johnson.
Gents, try this, google “US spy plane, China, and 2001. Remember how you all wanted to confront China over holding our airmen and women.
Why are your memories so short?
Patrick I was referring to the 1975 seizure of an American spy ship by the Cambodians. Ford went in guns blazing and killed most of the people we were trying to save.
Rusty, I’m not sure what you define as victory, but calling Fallajuh a victory is what I meant. if you anything about Henry the Fifth (the man or the play) or European history, then you would know the speech Mikey quoted was set the night before the greatest English victory of the Hundred Years War and one of the most storied and decisive battles in world history. Look it up, it’s called Agincourt. Or (snark aside) rent the fabulous Kenneth Branaugh version of Henry the Fifth and revel in glory.
Hank won his battle, married the daughter of the king of France, so his son would be King of France and England….and the whole thing fell apart within ten years because England was over-extended trying to govern France.
Sounds familiar to me
Yep. Damned Soviets tried to run their colonies around the world, and it all fell apart.
The US, on the other hand, just tries to get liberated countries to stand on their own feet. Sometimes it takes a while. Hell, contrast Germany to Japan: it’s pretty clear the Japanese are able, and just about to the point of being willing, to provide for their own defense while helping their allies around the world. The Germans? Still dependent on Uncle Sugar for their defense.
Disadvantage: Performing double signature rollovers will result in the zone size doubling. ,
Depending on the circumstances leading questions can be objectionable or proper. ,