Thursday, September 11, 2008

Foreign Policy and Other Realists

"I was one of the National Guardsmen stationed in Hunt Armory in Pittsburgh, Pa., on Oct, 28 and 29, 1962, when the Russian supply ships were heading to Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. ... President Bush did not pay attention to lessons on military strategy or diplomacy when he served in the Texas National Guard. Unless we want a Polish missile crisis, we had best not install so-called anti-ballistic missiles batteries in Poland, when anyone knows that, to be effective, you must also install artillery batteries and missile launchers with a strong compliment of troops to protect them in the event of attack", Irving Rothman (IR) letter to the Houston Chronicle, 27 August 2008.

"Where are the realists? When Russian tanks rolled into Georgia, it ought to have been their moment. Here was Vladimir Putin, a cold-eyed realist if ever there was one, taking advantage of a favorable opportunity to shift the European balance of power in his favor--a 21st century Frederick the Great or Bismarck, launching a small but decisive war on a weaker neighbor while a surprised and dumbfounded world looked on helplessly. ... Yet where are Mr. [Hans] Morgenthau's disciples to remind us that Russia's latest military action is neither extraordinary nor unexpected nor aberrant but entirely normal and natural, that is but a harbinger of what is yet to come because the behavior of nations, like human nature, is unchanging? ... Rather than talk about power, they talk about the United Nations, world opinion and international law. They propose vast new international conferences, a la Woodrow Wilson, to solve intractable, decades-old problems. ... Power is no anwer to the vast majority of the challenges we face, they insist, and, indeed, is counterproductive because it undermines the possibility of international consensus. ... Mr. [Dean] Acheson, as Harry Truman's Secretary of State, had nothing but disdain for the [UN] and for most international efforts to solve problems. As his biographer, Robert L. Beisner, has shown, he considered such efforts evidence of the naive hopefulness of 'people who could not face the truth about human nature' and 'preferred to preserve their illusions intact.' ... Today the elder Bush is hailed by realists because he went to the [UN]Security Council, while the younger George W. Bush is condemned because he treated the U.N. as the delusion Dean Acheson said it was. Realism has pulled itself inside out. ... The original realists had no patience for such Candide-like optimism about the inevitable upward progress of mankind", Robert Kagan at the WSJ, 30 August 2008.

"At the beginning of the 21st century, the West is the sick man of the world. We provide our enemies with the technology and medicine to multiply, give them the transportation and legal rights to move to our countries (after we first showed them through TV and movies how much better life is in our part of the world). On top of this, we pay them to colonize our countries and harass our children, while our so-called leaders ban opposition to this as intolerance, discrimination and racism. ... 'We have now had two generations of Westerners, almost three, who have never known real poverty, hunger, war, or "the knock on the door in the middle of the night." Without a need for survival skills, we had the time and money to focus on ever-more insane political and cultural ideologies. ... But that's what we are now--obsessing about how to be good, not on being powerful. And our "goodness" isn't worth much if the rest of the world is focused on becoming powerful.' ... The 'diversity' industry in the U.S. is worth billions--people with little skills or ability are being given comfy well-paid jobs because of it. ... All you have to do is scream 'racism' and your ticket is punched for life. .. But my blonde, blue-eyed daughter must step aside for the progeny of a Mexican illegal immigrant who deliberately got pregnant and gave birth here so she could access the schools, welfare state, and infrastucture that my ancestors fought, bled and died for. ... That all of this is building up to a mass genocide of our people, no one seems to care, except for the Marxists, who of course, eagerly look forward to it", Baron Bodissey (BB) at Gates of Vienna, 30 August 2008, the link:
"I have written several essays before on the damaging effects of Western feminism. The massive wave of violence and especially rapes in Western cities now is a form of warfare against whites, and it's about time it is recognized as such. ... 'As in war, the winners seize the indigenous women all the while protecting their own. ... Are not the notorious 'gang rapes' another example of collective violence to European women, just as Russian soldiers did when they seized German women in a devasted Berlin in 1945. A tribe that does not protect its women is behaving as they have already lost the war. Many of us don't know this. But our enemies do.' ... As a Western man, I would be tempted to say that Western women have to some extent brought this upon themselves. They have been waging an ideological, psychological, and economic war against white men for several generations now, believing that this would make you 'free.' The actual result is that you have less freedom of movement and security than ever, as a direct result of the immigrant policies supported by you and your buddies. ... The truth is that any nation is always protected from external aggression by the men. The women can play a supporting role in this, but never more than that. For all the talk about 'girl power' and 'women kicking ass' which you see on movies these days, if the men of your "tribe' are too weak or demoralized to protect you, you will be enslaved and crushed by the men from other 'tribes' before you can say 'Vagina Monologues'. Which means that if you break down men's masculinity, their willingness and ability to defend themselves and their families, you destroy the country. That's exactly what Western women have done for the last forty years", BB at Gates of Vienna, 31 August 2008; here's the link:

"One idea that you will never hear expressed by either Barack Obama or John McCain in this presidential race is the notion that a chief task of US foreign policy in the next administration will be to gracefully manage an adversely shifting global power balance and significantly diminished US influence. This is not a hypothetical issue, but one that stares us in the face today. ... Since the Yeltsin years, the US has had a series of policy differences with the Russians, including Nato expansion, the Balkans, missile defense, policy towards Iran and human rights in Russia iteself. Diplomacy, such as it was, consisted of persuading Russia to accept all of the items on our list and telling them their fears and concerns were groundless. The US never regarded the relationship as a bargaining situation in which it would give up things it wanted in return for things the Russians wanted. Like the proverbial Englishman speaking to a foreigner, we thought we could make them understand us by repeating ourselves in a louder voice. ... If we could roll the clock back to before February when Kosovo declared independence with US support, the elements of a bargain were there. .... Nato membership is not a talisman that magically confers protection. It requires operational planning and expensive defense commitments. ... An understanding that may have been possible a year ago is not workable now. ... The fact that Russian feelings of resentment are understandable does not make them morally right. ... We will have to think of ways of supporting Georgia and Ukraine other than by new alliance commitments. And we need to plan in concrete terms how to defend exisiting Nato members--particularly Poland and the Baltic states--from an angry and resurgent Russia", my emphasis, Francis Fukuyama (FF) at, 2 September 2008. Thanks YS for bringing this article to my attention.

Would IR prefer being Secretary of Defense or State in the next administration?


BB states what many, perhaps most in the West are not even able to think about!

BB refers to what in France is called "tourante", i.e., "taking turns". Many Moslems who emmigrated to Europe believe they have the right to rape European women. This has also been Australia's experience. They see women as "war booty". Read the Koran for Islam's position on "war booty". We are fed nonsense by people like Karen Armstrong, who I believe is owned by the Saudis. These Moslems see welfare as "jiyza" they are entitled to. Moslems make up about 6% of Western Europe's population, but in some countries, like say Sweeden, commit 70-85% of all rapes and robberies! Among the more outspoken persons about the problems caused by Islamic immigration to Europe are: Brigette Bardot (the 1950s "sex kitten") and Oriana Fallaci.

For my money, FF, John Hopkins professor, is a fool. Morality is irrelevant to foreign policy, even if you "channel" Woodrow Wilson. How to defend Poland and the Baltic states? Is FF crazy? I'll say again: did we learn nothing from England's 1939 Polish corridor guarantee? Has FF seen a map of Europe? "Nato ... requires ... expensive defense commitments". Indeed. How do we meet them? With 30-year old F-15s? With a 276-ship Navy? FF should have learned long ago: ignore "intentions", only capabilities count. As George Washington said, "If we desire to secure peace, ... it must be known that we are at all times ready for war". "Fools," said Bismarck, "say they learn by experience. I prefer to profit by other people's experience". We should end Nato. Now! I had more sense than FF in 1960! Whaaaaat? I specifically remember a civil war in progress in the Congo-Leopoldville (now, DRC) over Katanga province's secession. Patrice Lumumba had been deposed in a coup d'etat, but not yet executed, which Wikipedia states was on 17 January 1961. Dag Hammarskjold, UN Secretary General, died in an airplane crash a few months later in September 1961. Living in the United Nation's home, New York City, mankind's "last great hope for peace" we were sent to the UN to see "peace at work" or some such thing. I suppose being sent to the UN was better than Siberia, or a Cambodian reeducation camp. I place my visit in late October 1960. Khrushchev's UN shoe banging incident was 12 October 1960. We were told that the UN let people of various countries come together to talk and avoid war. I remember telling my teacher, "that's nonsense. Whichever country has the biggest army decides. If President Eisenhower and Premier Khrushchev agree, that settles it. And if some country doesn't like it, either we'll drop a bomb on them, or Khrushchev will drop a bomb on them or we'll both drop bombs on them. What the other countries in the world think doesn't matter. If Eisenhower and Khrushchev disagree, either Eisenhower blinks or Khrushchev blinks or we'll have a war. That's it. What the rest of the countries in the world think doesn't matter". Not very evolved by today's standards. My teacher was horrified at what I said. I said this at the UN! I haven't "grown" much in the last 48 years. Having admitted this, I just removed myself from consideration as next US ambassador to the UN. I might like the job. It would be a laugh a minute. And it would give me the right to doublepark in New York City, a very valuable perk.


tvoh said...

Any small money I have is going to the tuition of one of my children at a technical university.

Having said that, FF is an argument for never giving money to a university. After all, Herodotus and Thucydides never went to college and they had a better grasp of history and political science than FF.

Good post.

Independent Accountant said...

Thanks. Imagine, FF has degrees from Cornell and Harvard. What did he learn at either place? Not very much apparently.