World View: Would America Not Defend Israel After All?
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- John Kerry: 'This is our Munich Moment'
- Forces gathering momentum in the Mideast
- Would America not defend Israel after all?
John Kerry: 'This is our Munich Moment'
On Saturday in Paris, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the
world was facing a "Munich moment," referring to Neville Chamberlain's
1938 meeting with Adolf Hitler, and returned to London brandishing an
agreement with Hitler for "Peace in our time":
"This is our Munich moment.
We in the United States know, and our French partners know, that
this is not the time to be silent spectators to slaughter.
This is the time to pursue a targeted and limited but clear and
effective response that holds dictators like Bashar Assad
responsible for the atrocities which they commit.
This is not the time to allow a dictator unfettered use of some of
the most heinous weapons on earth."
President Barack Obama also referred to the lead-up to World
War II when he said that not coming to Britain's aid was
not the right thing to do:
"I'm not drawing an analogy to World War II other than
to say that when London was getting bombed, it was profoundly
unpopular, both in congress and around the country to help the
British. Doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to
Both Kerry and Obama were, in fact, drawing analogies to WW II.
Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement toward Hitler was
extremely popular, but was later recognized as historically
disastrous, as Britain was in full-scale war the following year. When
I was growing up in the 1950s, my school teachers all vilified
Chamberlain for his appeasement of Hitler. And Obama makes the point
that, just as Chamberlain's appeasement policy was extremely popular,
any American plan to aid Britain as London was being bombed by the
Nazis was extremely UNpopular. It was only after Pearl Harbor was
bombed that helping Britain became acceptable to the American public.
I've written about so many truly astonishing things that have
happened in the last ten years, and this situation has got to
be among the two or three most astonishing. It literally takes
my breath away.
On the one hand, you have President Obama, who spent 20 years
in avid adoration of his mentor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright,
whose theme was "God Damn America! God Damn America!", but
who was elected president on a surge of popularity because
of his hatred of President George Bush.
On the other hand, you have John Kerry, who testified before the
Senate in 1971 that America's soldiers were a bad as Nazis, and who
reaffirmed his 1971 statements in 2006, at the same time he was saying
that any American soldier who ended up in Iraq was stupid. Obama
appointed Kerry as Secretary of State because they shared the
same views about America.
So you have two people, the epitome of anti-Americanism and the hatred
of American values, who have suddenly done a 180 degree turnabout and
adopted the most American of pro-World War II values, that it's
America's responsibility as Policemen of the World to protect human
life and alleviate suffering, even if it means using military force,
especially when doing so might prevent a wider war. If these two have
been botching foreign policy, it's because they've been at war with
But that's only half of the astonishment.
The other half is that we are, in fact, reliving the late 1930s, a
"Munich moment," a time when appeasement is suddenly extremely
popular, and a willingness to help people suffering horrific deaths is
extremely unpopular. And the history of the 1930s tells us that such
appeasement leads to war.
Some people have written to me to complain that al-Assad is no Hitler,
and this time it's different because al-Assad isn't annexing territory
as Hitler was doing.
But that's wallowing in details and not looking at the big picture.
What Hitler and al-Assad have in common is committing psychopathic
atrocities on a large scale, treating the international community
contemptuously, and openly driving the region and the world to a major
And what's Russian president Vladimir Putin's role in all this? Putin
has already used military force to annex parts of Georgia, and other
regions in the Caucasus and in central Asia are being threatened.
Even if al-Assad alone isn't annexing territory, his ally Putin is,
and if Putin were contemplating any way to gain control of Syria, we'd
have no way of knowing it until it happened.
Forces gathering momentum in the Mideast
There are powerful forces gathering momentum across the world,
converging on Syria -- Sunni jihadists from Pakistan to Nigeria to
Dagestan are going to fight in Syria. Shia jihadists from Iran and
Hezbollah are going to fight in Syria. Russia is pouring advanced
weapons into Syria. Millions of refugees are pouring out of Syria
into neighboring countries. The entire Sunni/Shia and Arab/Jew fault
lines are inflamed throughout the Mideast.
And in the middle of all this, the psychopath Bashar al-Assad shocks
the entire world by perpetrating a horrific chemical weapons attack,
and the psychopath Vladimir Putin helps him.
As I've said in the past, it's my opinion that Syria has already
passed a tipping point, headed for a major conflict that will engulf
the entire region. That's going to happen no matter what the
U.S. does. Furthermore, the U.S. will be drawn into this
conflict sooner or later.
So that's the context in which a decision has to be made whether to
strike at Syria, in one form or another. If we do nothing -- if we
"appease" al-Assad, and allow him to use chemical weapons freely with
no restrictions -- if we "appease" Putin, and allow him unrestricted
use of Russian weapons and military -- will we be drawn into a larger
war? Based on my understanding of history, there's no doubt in my
mind that we will, and that the West will be blamed for appeasement.
In fact, I believe that the last two years have proven that. America
has been appeasing al-Assad for two years, ignoring his psychopathic
attacks on his own people, and the result has been disastrous for the
region, getting worse every day.
So what if we do take some military action? Two years ago, that would
have been extremely effective. But what about today? Will that
immediately trigger a larger war? I don't believe so. Despite all
the bluster, Russia will not launch a strike at American assets. Iran
and Hezbollah are both in generational Awakening eras, and they won't
be triggered into a major war, in my opinion. Most of the threats of
war from Iran and Hezbollah are just posturing. I don't want to
underestimate the threat of a terrorist act on an American embassy or
other American or Israeli asset, but that threat always exists no
matter what we do. And I do believe that America showing some
strength instead of ceaseless dithering and confusion can have some
deterrent effect, as it has had for decades, and may even curtail
al-Assad's use of chemical weapons for a while.
So is appeasement of the psychopaths al-Assad and Putin the right or
wrong policy? There are too many unknowns to reach a conclusion, the
worst unknown being that neither Obama nor Kerry has a clue what's
going on in the world, and are completely rudderless. As I've said,
the Mideast is headed for a major war along numerous fault lines --
Sunni versus Shia, Arab versus Jew, Arab versus Arab (Saudi Arabia
versus Qatar), just to name a few. As we continue to relive the late
1930s, the only thing we can be sure of is that we're headed for the
worst world war in the world's history. And all we can do is hope the
country survives. BBC and Irish Independent
Would America not defend Israel after all?
Since WW II, we've signed mutual defense treaties with numerous
countries, including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia and New
Zealand (ANZUS treaty), the Philippines, Israel, Europe, Iceland, and
President Obama made the point, quoted above, that when our
close ally, Britain, was being brutally bombed by the Nazis,
it was extremely unpopular for America even to consider helping
our close ally, and so we didn't.
So are any of the treaties we've signed worth the paper they were
written on? If Israel, or the Philippines, or Japan, or any other
country with whom we have a treaty were attacked and asked for our
help, would providing that help be so unpopular with the American
people, that America would be completely paralyzed?
Here's a quotation of unknown origin that I heard today on the BBC:
"Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail