Yes, Mr. Jenkins we're tried it your way with the Nazis and Japanese. The result: 62 million dead.
A rather damning article. However, very pragmatic, though with gloomy thoughts!The Sunday Times November 12, 2006
America gets real, but Britain is still lost in military fantasy land
Simon Jenkins
The world believes that a new America was born last week. At the flick of a democratic switch out went the wild, warmongering, fundamentalist neocons. Out went the xenophobic fanatics who believe that allies are wimps, that Arabs should be tortured and that dinosaurs inhabited the Ark. European is no longer an American term of abuse and vice versa. Liberals walk free down Fifth Avenue and eat french fries. In short, the great American polity is sane again.
Anyone who criticises America knows that it is among the world’s most paranoid nations. But nothing has more irritated many Americans this past six years than that the world should identify them with George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. I once attributed responsibility for Iraq to “America” and was deluged with complaints that the fault lay in Washington, with the Republicans, with the White House, then with the Pentagon, until I was told kindly to restrict my criticism to “Cheney and Rumsfeld”.
Nor have all Americans opposed abortion, homosexuality, stem cell research and evolution, let alone supported Pastor Ted Haggard, extraordinary rendition and biblical truth. As of last Tuesday, Bush’s reincarnation of the Ugly American may be dead, but not all Americans were that ugly nor are all ugly Americans that dead.
Since 9/11 the devil of the apocalypse in American politics has had the best tunes. There is nothing as useful to an insecure leader as fear. But it yielded no consensus. The last two presidential elections were a sign not of a homogeneous America but of a divided one. A bare majority (in 2000 a minority) supported Bush not just because they liked his fundamentalism but because his opponents were unconvincing and his organisation superb.
Nor are all this week’s “neo-Democrats” born-again liberals — far from it.
The election was a clear referendum on six years of Republican rule in Washington, but humility should guide any response to an American election.
A nation does not change its political culture overnight and America is the size of a continent. Reading this election would be like reading a European one in which, God forbid, voters were spread across Andalusia, Bavaria, Sicily and Wales.
The best available guide is the exit polls. Any midterm vote is conditioned by anti-incumbent, anti-Washington sentiment. After 12 years of a Republican Congress that failed to bring either Bill Clinton or Bush to book, outsiders might conclude that the American constitution of checks and balances needs reform. A flurry of scandals during the campaign capped a widespread aversion to the corruption of Bush’s Washington and a sense that something must be done about public spending that has risen faster under Bush than under any president since Johnson.
But this is a mood, not a programme. There is no evidence that the American people have turned against “big government conservatism”, dominated as it is by swollen welfare, only against its hijacking by Halliburton imperialism. Yet the polls did indicate the centrality of Iraq and this is the more remarkable in a country whose political concerns are usually domestic.
Voters told pollsters that they rejected the portrayal of Iraq as a “threat to America”. They did not like being made to seem incompetent in the eyes of the world, nor did they welcome the prospect of military defeat and global humiliation. They never willed this war on the president; he willed it on them and they took him on trust. When a loyal Republican complained to me that his president “did not tell us the truth”, I replied that nor did my prime minister. No, he retorted, but my president is also your queen.
The voters clearly indicated — by two thirds to one third — that they want the Iraq expedition to end. Rarely has a commander-in-chief had the rug pulled so ruthlessly from under him. Bush’s Wednesday press conference was a chastened affair, even without the dismissal of Rumsfeld.
“Pre-mortems” on Iraq are now piling up in every American bookstore. There will be no heroic war movies about Iraq, only painful ones. The arrival of Robert Gates at the Pentagon is a victory for the “realist” anti-war party associated with Bush’s father, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker. Somehow he must salvage some dignity for America from the jaws of defeat.
This will be agonising. Talking with ordinary Americans about Iraq is an eerie experience. Even opponents of the war imagine themselves still in control of events. Sentences tumble out with America as the subject of every verb.
I keep hearing of “what we should do next in Iraq” or “what we need to say to Iran”. The occupation could have worked if “we” had handled it differently and there is “a job” that America must “finish”. Always the premise is that America possesses absolute power.
This thinking is still so much in imperialist mode that the scale of America’s impotence has yet to dawn. American and British troops are squatting in bases across Iraq, but they are not in military let alone political control. The public’s knowledge is mostly from reporters embedded in army fortresses and tanks, seldom the best standpoint for balanced analysis. The only policy choice is whether to stay and get killed or get out.
Since the Kurds are de facto autonomous and the Sunni militias are in virtual control of their region, military attention is concentrated on aiding the sectarian partitioning of the Baghdad area and hoping the Shi’ite militias settle their private civil war as soon as possible.
The policy of orderly handover to that British fantasy, “a strong Iraqi army and police force”, or to that American fantasy, “a new strongman in Baghdad”, is pie in the sky. Iraq is a state of anarchy beyond the wit of any foreigner to cure. Bush’s generals are close to mutiny and his new defence secretary is a member of the independent Baker/Hamilton Iraq review team, whose one agenda item is how to withdraw in good order. The chief task is to find a euphemism for cut and run, of which “redeployment to Qatar” is the current favourite.
Since Britons have been fed the same deluded fantasy, they might offer sympathy to Americans in this plight. British intelligence out of Baghdad has been as gloomy as the CIA’s and London has had no more excuse than the Pentagon for its mistakes. The British government fully participated in the fiasco. Tony Blair was there at Crawford and Camp David and spoke, so he said, to the president “almost daily”. That Blair shared little with his sceptical cabinet colleagues may deepen his guilt but it in no way exonerates them. They stand charged with corporate negligence over Iraq.
None appears to have believed fully in the war — yet, apart from Robin Cook, all signed up to it. If Rumsfeld must resign, what are Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, John Reid, Margaret Beckett and Des Browne doing in office? As for the majority of Labour MPs, they were so compliant that last month they dared not risk even a parliamentary inquiry into the war’s conduct. They are about to be taught a lesson in oversight by the new Congress.
The trouble is that the realism of America’s political class is now ahead of Britain’s. Iraq has discredited British foreign policy as much as America’s. The difference is that American democracy has realised this and America’s leaders have had to listen. To return from America this weekend and read the mealy mouthed excuses of Beckett, the leaked innuendos of Gordon Brown, the tough-guy posturing of John Reid and the wriggling, inconsequential double-talk of the opposition front bench is distressing.
Worse, they are all signed up to the identical mistake in southern Afghanistan, a war that even Rumsfeld was sensible enough to abandon. Mesmerised by events in Washington, London has lost the capacity for original thought.
The Iraq war will end. As in Lebanon, its wretched victims will spend a decade piecing themselves together after suffering this bout of boastful and reckless pseudo-philanthropy. Liberals and conservatives alike will doubtless pretend that they never supported the war. Iraqis will have no such freedom. Hypocrisy is the privilege of wealth.
But now we should at least give credit where it is due. An electorate realised that it had been conned and told its rulers so. American democracy gave a raucous roar of dissent — and was heard.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...450049,00.html
One wonders if indeed there is no way out wherein the mess is cleared as also there is an avenue for honourable exit.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
Yes, Mr. Jenkins we're tried it your way with the Nazis and Japanese. The result: 62 million dead.
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto
"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan
which probably would have been a good deal less likely to occur if the likes of UK and France didn't treat the end of WWI as one big imperialist feast over the body of the germanic empire!USA didnt try anything with the Nazi's. You were happy wallowing in self-imposed isolation...
in any case, this article has got it wrong. the biggest fixture of this campaign was NOT iraq, but corruption and ethics.
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
Will we laugh in Spanish by then?
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
Yeah, leaving an embittered German empire fed on lots of US cash was a very good idea. Either leave them happy and well fed, or smash Germany into the small states it was in before Bismarck (with most importantly Prussia seperated from the industries). Anything in between is asking for trouble.
at the risk of getting off-topic,
the versailles treaty was a remarkable piece of stupidity. in economic terms, the costs were hoisted largely on america (as the germans started to massively loan and then default on said loans).
it wasn't enough to beggar the german economy, the territory that was taken away from germany were given to imperialist UK and france (both of which soon found that the territory wasn't much of much, given germany's late entrance into the imperial game), and it was calculated to insult german sensibilities.
in other words, punitively it didn't really hurt germany much. in terms of gain for the allies, it was minimal. and it insulted germany to the point that it just about guaranteed a second round.
germany emerged as the economic victor of WWI among the europeans.
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
The perils of coalition warfare. The French wanted to break Germany down so it could never attack them again, while the US wanted to be nice to them and create some sort of pleasant new world order where everyone would be nice to each other. The UK never really made their mind up, hence the resulting hodgepodge.
Absolute horse-radish. Germany was in a state of economic collapse until 1924. It recovered somewhat under the leadership of Stresseman, combined with American credit. Credit that was quickly called in after the Wall Street Crash leading to a profound economic depression.
Hitler then rebuilt the economy through re-armament. That rebuilding was only skin deep - in essence, Nazi Germany was bankrupt by 1938 and could only cope as a command economy.
The removal of Germany's paltry colonies was not the fundamental reason for German's territorial resentment, it was the creation of Poland (and the Polish corridor) and Czechslovakia that caused the real resentment, leaving millions of Germans under foreign rule.
That idea was Wilson's, far more than it was anyone elses.
Another bright idea of his was the League of Nations, a body to keep the peace. A body to enforce Versailles. A body the USA declined to join and thus rendering it impotent from the start.
Responsibility for the disasters that followed WWII is shared because the new European order was flawed from the start, and 3 nations shaped that start.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto
"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan
Germany gave as bad of terms to Russia and planned to give them to the allies...the versailles treaty was a remarkable piece of stupidity. in economic terms, the costs were hoisted largely on america (as the germans started to massively loan and then default on said loans).
I'm pretty sure by the time the Emirite of Fracistan, Germanistan, Englishistan, Dutchistan, Danistan and the Islamic Republic of Noway are in place America will have a generalimisso... probably join with Mexico and El Salvador in a federation of Hispanic nations... at the least America will be leader of the pan-Hispanic movement..California will.
Last edited by troung; 16 Nov 06, at 22:23.
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
Here's a brief overview of the reparations system as it played out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versailles_treatyThe economic problems that the payments brought, and German resentment at their imposition, are usually cited as one of the more significant factors that led to the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler, which eventually led to the outbreak of World War II. Some historians, such as Margaret Olwen MacMillan, have since disagreed with this assertion, originally popularised by John Maynard Keynes.
Commercial transport vessels, including all oceanliners, locomotives, commercial motorvehicles, factory equipment and anything else that was not "nailed down" was confiscated.
In 1921, Carl Melchior, a WWI soldier and German financier with M. M. Warburg & Co who became part of the German negotiating team, thought it advisable to accept an impossible reparations burden. Melchior said: "We can get through the first two or three years with the aid of foreign loans. By the end of that time foreign nations will have realized that these large payments can only be made by huge German exports and these exports will ruin the trade in England and America so that creditors themselves will come to us to request modification." (Quote from: Lord D'Abernon, An Ambassador of Peace, Vol. 1, p. 194.).
The 1924 Dawes Plan modified Germany's reparation payments. In May 1929, the Young Plan reduced further payments to 112 billion Gold Marks, US $26,350,000,000 over a period of 59 years (1988). In addition, the Young Plan divided the annual payment, set at 2 billion Gold Marks, US$473 million, into two components, one unconditional part equal to one third of the sum and a postponable part for the remaining two-thirds. However, the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the onset of the Great Depression resulted in the Allies instituting a moratorium for 1931–32 during which the Lausanne Conference voted to cancel reparations. By this time Germany had paid only one eighth of the sum required under the Treaty of Versailles. However, the Lausanne agreement was contingent upon the United States agreeing to also defer payment of the war debt owed them by the Western European governments. The plan ultimately failed because of the U.S. Congress refusal to go along but in fact no more reparations were paid by Germany.
On first glance, the reparations seem excessive. However, according to William R. Keylor in "Versailles and International Diplomacy", 'A increase in taxation and reduction in consumption in the Weimar Republic would have yielded the requisite export surplus to generate the foreign exchange needed to service the reparation debt.' In "American Reparations to Germany 1919-33", Stephen Schuker says that 'the Weimar Republic ended up paying no net reparations at all, employing the proceeds of American commercial loans to discharge its reparation liability before defaulting on its foreign obligations in the early thirties.'
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Share this thread with friends: