Message from McNamara’s book: it’s not too late to rethink our war policy…

With the war in Afghanistan getting more serious and the indication that Iraq’s ongoing civil war might be heating up with the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the cities, it seems a good time to look into not-so-distant history – the Vietnam War – and see if something can be learned from it.

I have now finished reading the late Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara’s book, some would say his mea culpa, on Vietnam: “In Retrospect, the Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam”, published in 1995. McNamara died a week ago at the age of 93. He lived with the fact that many had called Vietnam “McNamara’s War”. Having left President Lyndon Johnson’s administration in 1968, he apparently kept all that bottled up until he published his book.

After reading it, I would sum up his position this way:

I was wrong. I was not the only one. We should have analyzed the situation better, but the mood of the times (Zeitgeist?), the Cold War philosophy, precluded that, and we were supported by the public up until we had gone too far. And the reason we conducted a limited war (instead of doing anything and everything to win) is that we feared getting Communist China and the Soviet Union directly involved and pushing events to a nuclear confrontation. And we eventually realized that due to the ineffective government in South Vietnam and the ambivalence of the population there really was never a chance to save that nation from the communists.

One portion of the book dealt with the fact that at one time there seemed to be a direct and public confrontation between the military chiefs and McNamara. They accused him of micro-managing the war and not letting them do their jobs. They, the military chiefs, wanted to be more aggressive, especially in the air war, and go after all targets, no matter their geographical location, such as Haiphong Harbor and on the border of China.

And I have blogged before, and nothing in this book told me anything different, that the mood of the public at the time was this: first the nation was truly divided on the war. Nonetheless, I think even among those who did not like it, most of them agreed with war supporters that if we must fight then the only way was fight to win and get it over with. By doing that, we would achieve our goal of saving South Vietnam from the communists and we would save American lives by not needlessly prolonging the conflict. I lived through this entire history and I heard people, so many, say things like: “I don’t really believe in this war, but if we’re going to risk American lives then why don’t we fight to win?”

In one brief passage in the book, McNamara notes that in the process of trying to save South Vietnam we indiscriminately killed a large number of civilians and did much damage to the country. I would add that it seemed like we were doing more damage to South Vietnam, our ally, than North Vietnam. We bombed North Vietnam, but with many restrictions. And we never invaded North Vietnam, even though North Vietnam invaded the south with both regular army forces and the Viet Cong guerillas they supported (and McNamara referred to other types of forces, such as militias, I was never aware of).

I’m not going to go back through the book and quote things. But I would suggest if you have not read it to read it. It’s kind of self-serving, and I got the impression that he slyly took the blame while spreading it around and went to great lengths to say that he at some point knew along with many others who supported the war that they were all wrong and that he tried to tell other insiders, thus trying to lessen his own blame (I would blame LBJ and then Richard Nixon; they were the commanders in chief through the all-out part of the war).

But here is something important that I think the book brings out: Public opinion means everything. You can’t fight to win a war without full public support. And unless you level with the public early on, you will not get it or be able to keep it. The Johnson administration withheld their own studies that demonstrated the cause was probably hopeless (and they knew this early on).

We fought the Vietnam War on the premise that we had to hold the line against the expansion of communism. But once we withdrew and once South Vietnam fell, while that nation became one nation under communist rule, the communists did not expand. Their own system worked against them and does today.

Also, reading the book has only served to confirm my already-held belief that the United States should only fight wars in true self defense. Sometimes it is hard to decide what that actually means, but that should be the rule to guide decision making on whether to fight a war, nonetheless.

(Also before I forget, I have more than once blogged that really we could have won the Vietnam War, kind of Korea style, but I am not so sure of that now, but that is moot anyway.)

So, using history as a guide, the U.S. needs to reassess what it is trying to do now in Iraq and Afghanistan and whether we can prevail and whether it is all worth it (and is it ever too late to save American lives?).

My take on what the Obama administration’s position seems to be is that we need to exit Iraq gracefully, but we need to press on in Afghanistan because that is where the 9/11 forces staged and where Al Qaeda leaders got refuge (so they seem to be in Pakistan now – so do we invade Pakistan?). The administration has also decided that we should protect the Afghan villagers to get their support, kind of like the pacification program in Vietnam (which was a failure).

But my question is: given our economy at home, whose living conditions should we be working on, those of Afghan residents or U.S. residents? (And there is a direct parallel here with the guns and butter approach of the LBJ administration – fight Vietnam, improve things at home at the same time, and that did great damage to our economy – but as often is the case, I digress.)

We did manage to install a government, however effective or ineffective, in Kabul, Afghanistan. Maybe we should simply tell it, handle it, and don’t harbor enemies of the U.S. We can come back by air or land or both.

And I think that if the Obama policy makers came to the conclusion in private that winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans cannot be done, they would face the same dilemma as McNamara said he and others did. They were afraid that the U.S. would lose face and would become weak. Decisions are tough. But do you continue to commit others’ lives to save face?

In my previous blog I wrote that the U.S. still today needs to come up with a clear policy on how the nation gets into war. I think we ought to follow the Constitution, which indicates that declaring war is the responsibility of congress. While the president always has to have the authority to deal with emergencies, a war is a much more involved process with such dire ramifications that it needs deliberation and support from elected representatives. And don’t play games with the definition of war by calling it something else (police action, conflict), everyone knows one when they see it.

The U.S. has not fought a constitutionally-declared war since World War Two. And I don’t think it is a coincidence that we have not had a clear-cut victory since then. Korea was a stalemate (although we did save South Korea), Vietnam a failure, the first Gulf War indecisive in that we found ourselves going back into Iraq years later, Kosovo, well you have me on that one, I don’t even know why we felt we had a dog in that hunt (and that was not an all-out war on our part), and the current wars – don’t know, still in progress.

But without taking a position on the current wars, I can only say, let’s learn from history and think this thing out and do what is actually best for our own defense and realize we cannot nor should not remake the world in our own image.

And to paraphrase a famous quote: who wants to be the last person to die for a lost cause?

Oh. But I feel self-conscious now, for some would contend I am not supporting the troops. To the contrary, I support them one hundred percent. I am only saying we need to clearly have goals spelled out and be in agreement that they are just and we need to make an honest assessment as to whether our efforts are practicable. If we have checked all the boxes in support – throw everything at it and fight to win.

I do not believe in the concept of “limited war”. Seems like if you limit your actions but the other side does not, you lose. And if you both agreed to limit your war, you would both be morally wrong — wasting lives for a game. 

P.s.

I did not mention the involvement of the UN or NATO in Korea or Kosovo, respectively, or coalitions, because it is my observation that the U.S. always uses those organizations as cover for its own policy. On that subject I fear one day it could come back to bite us. Sure it works when we run the show, but what if we were outnumbered? And in no case should the U.S. ever give over its sovereignty to another nation or entity (I think it has been done to some small extent, but it should not be done).

From near insurrection in Iran, to crying in Argentina, celebrity deaths, to the death of the King of Pop…

What a news week. It began with what seemed like it might be an outright insurrection of a cross section of Iranian society, to include large numbers of women, against an oppressive Islamic religious-controlled government and the sham re-election of a nut case as president, and then there was the news that all-time sidekick/ yes man and pitch man Ed McMahon died, then the news of yet another political philanderer who, to make things a little more interesting, went to Argentina to break up with his mistress and cry his eyes out, then the death of actress and poster girl and cancer sufferer and crusader Farrah Fawcett and finally the story that blew everything else out of the water – MICHAEL JACKSON DIES!!! or as one newspaper headline put it: THE THRILLER IS GONE.

I think the Jackson death story rivals the death of President Kennedy in coverage. I don’t recall for sure, but even though there are many similarities, I think the coverage far surpasses that of the death of Elvis Presley in 1977 of a drug overdose (the computerized media today is omnipresent). There are suspicions that Jackson may have overdosed, as well (no decision on that from the coroner at this time). Presley was the King of Rock n Roll and Jackson the King of Pop.

ADD 1:

Today (Saturday), although there is no official cause of Jackson’s death stated, it is being widely reported that it was due to a heart attack (and I suppose that could have been brought on by drug use).

————— 

I recognize that Jackson was a major entertainer, but he played no major role in my own life. He was a super talent, he was eccentric, and controversial, and most important of all he can’t be ignored in death simply because all of the money he made over his lifetime (and spent) and I guess more important than that his fan base, which accounted for all that money. The news outlets, particularly the cable and internet, can’t seem to get off the subject. They need the ratings and the hits to attract advertisers. As I blogged previously, he’s still a commodity after death.

ADD 3 (add 2 is farther down):

While the TV and the rest of the web, including the LA Times site, was reporting that Jackson was being treated at the hospital, for at least an hour the TMZ site, owned by Time Warner, was reporting him dead. They were correct. When I took journalism I was taught that it is more important to be correct than first, but of course being both is the best of both worlds. Oh, TMZ pays for tips and photos, although it is not known whether they paid in this case (what do you think?). Anyway, like I said, Jackson is a commodity even in death.

————————————————————————————–

 

TO MORE LONG-LASTING AND momentous news, it seems the resistance in Iran may have begun to fizzle somewhat with the heavy crack down by authorities there – but at the same time, reports indicate it continues on some level and has caused a split in the government and ruling religious community itself.

ADD 2:

And I see others have noted that the Jackson news has diverted attention away from the freedom movement in Iran (possibly to its detriment) and away from the adulterous Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina (somewhat to his benefit).

————

But I think the pressure by U.S. neocons (or right wing) to take advantage of the rift in Iran or at the extreme instigate some kind of all-out (armed) revolt is wrongheaded and meant more to discredit President Obama. Obama is still trying to keep cool and not fall for being a foil, as he says, to Iran’s America-hating government, who is already trying to make it look like the U.S. is instigating dissent. Obama does seem to have taken a stronger position in the past few days against the Iranian government’s excess in putting down dissent and to be keeping his options (other than outright interference) open.

From what I am reading about Iran (some of it from Iranians), although many there may want increased freedoms, they still believe in having an Islamic Republic and don’t see that as incompatible with their idea of democracy.

But with the violence inflicted upon peaceful demonstrators that we have seen and heard of and the news that a major cleric wants to prosecute what he calls “rioters” (but really is referring to peaceful dissenters) with harsh punishment, I would hate to see the U.S. president give that government legitimacy by agreeing to talk to it. It has already rebuffed his offers so far anyway. Obama was right in going over Iranian president Mamoud Ahmadinejad’s head and appealing to the ruling Ayatollah, for the president of Iran is but a figure head as far as foreign policy, I understand, and besides he is not rational. But I no longer, if I ever did, see that the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is either. But even if he is, I no longer think he deserves the respect of anyone, least of all the president of the United States.

I have read that even if the Iranian opposition were to win out, there is not necessarily any improved chances the nation would abandon its quest for nuclear weapons.

The U.S. would do well to play this close to the vest and let things play out. In the end the U.S. will have to do what it must to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons.

P.s.

The network news comes on and seems to be devoting the entire cast to Michael Jackson. Who cares about Iran? They know what’s important.

P.s. P.s.

Even my local TV news is going to Michael Jackson — enough is enough!

China and U.S. after resources; U.S. role in Persian Gulf all about oil…

With the events in Iran and the tussle over what the U.S. response should be, I started to blog the other day that all the U.S. is really after in the Persian Gulf is oil, not so much democratic government or power to the people or anything like that. Then other events came along, and then I read something to remind me of that blog I meant to post.

China is after oil too, big time. That part we already knew of course. But the news is that the state-owned Chinese oil refining entity Sinopec has agreed to purchase Addax, a Geneva, Switzerland-based oil exploration firm for the equivalent of $7.2 billion. With this, China will be heavier into oil exploration in Iraq and offshore Western Africa. The deal is not final yet  (http://www.thestate.com/359/story/838931.html ).

Up until now, according to what I read, China has had a hard time competing with other major oil companies in the world. China tried to buy U.S.-owned Unocal four years ago but that deal was killed by political pressure. China also tried to by a mining company in Australia, but political pressure there killed that deal too. But China is in the process of trying to lock up natural resources in the world.

So the idea that the U.S. is after oil is not so strange or even unreasonable. How else would it remain a world power? (It’s bad enough that it is suffering along with the rest of the world from an economic crisis, but lack of resources can kill any nation.)

But as I started to blog previously:

What does the United States really want in the Persian Gulf region? Peace? Democracy? Governments friendly to the U.S.?

Well yes to all three, but really the overriding need for the U.S. is what it always has been – OIL!!!!

Remember, way back in the run-up to the first Gulf War under Bush 1 an argument was that we were not really concerned that Saddam Hussein was violating the sovereignty of Kuwait by invading it but instead that we might lose access to oil. But there was no love among the U.S. populace for the evil dictator that Hussein was (and he was – just saw a documentary with video shot by Saddam’s henchmen to remind me) so Bush was able to get his way and put together a coalition led by the U.S. to kick old Saddam out of Kuwait. He was kicked out.

(As a somewhat separate issue, it seems to me it was folly first for the U.S. to go to war in Iraq the first time – and second time – but seeing as we did, we should have gone all the way to Baghdad the first time and deposed Saddam then and set up a reasonable government and secured our oil supply in the process. I think we had the momentum then, something we seemed to have lacked the second time around.) 

In the second war against Iraq, there was also an argument that oil was the real motivation, but most of its supporters denied that. It’s as if those who support our moves in the region play a little mental game that says we are simply fighting for representative and peace-loving government with oil being a side benefit.

Well now that Saddam has been removed and executed and we have helped install a government more friendly to us (maybe, or so far) the race by the oil interests is on. See the Wall Street Journal article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124579553986643975.html

I don’t think we got exactly what we wanted, though. The U.S. is now in competition with all other nations, including China (and how many troops did they send?) for the oil. China has already sealed a deal that was initially made years ago (separate from the one mentioned above). The Iraqi oil industry is nationalized, but the Iraqi government needs outside expertise to rejuvenate its oil industry damaged by years of war.

It was all about oil all along, make no mistake about it. I don’t necessarily think that is wholly indefensible. After all, the U.S. does have its “strategic interests” as it is often put (I think that means we need access to oil for our survival). I just wish we could be more open about it when we decide to commit U.S. forces (let everyone decide using honest reasoning).

The British held sway in the region after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the British really got interested once oil was discovered in the first half of the 20^th Century.

After World War II the U.S. became a world super power and became interested in oil and resisting communist (Soviet Union) influence in the Gulf (and elsewhere).

At the same time there were budding nationalist movements in the region. The U.S. was afraid that if the nationalist movements took hold they might be taken over or influenced by the communists and that would be a threat to the West and its free enterprise system and to our oil supply.

That is why, for instance, the U.S. helped install the Shah of Iran. He was a dictator and no practitioner of western-style democracy, but he was anti-communist and he tried to do what we told him to. 

(Interestingly, as much of a tyrant as the Shah of Iran was, I have read that he was the first to give Iranian women the right to vote and that his government supported various women’s right reforms. He himself, though, was quite the male chauvinist, I have read too. I have also read that even in Iran today there are those who lament that the economy of that nation was better under the Shah.)

I’m skipping over a multitude of details and historical events here, but at times we supported Iraq’s despotic and maniacal leader Saddam Hussein because he was not communist and we wanted his oil. Eventually he turned against us or we turned against him.

We also screwed up our relationship with Iran by supporting the Shah who was deposed by an Islamic-backed revolution in 1979, and worse yet by supporting Saddam in his war on Iran.

One thing the Western powers may have done wrong is treat the people themselves in the Persian Gulf as not important, but instead concentrating on the governments that could be installed and supported.

But here’s the deal. We don’t need to run the affairs of other nations – governments or people. We need oil. But oil is worthless unless it can be sold. In fact the OPEC nations are discovering that their black gold is not worth nearly as much as it used to be what with declining demand due to a world-wide recession (of course that can and likely will go the other way too).

I would think the only concern we should have is whether we have access to buy that oil. Sure if the Chinese were to get a lock on the oil supply we would have a problem. And I can see they are probably working at it.

While there is no justifiable excuse for the attacks we suffered on 9/11, we have to admit it concerned in part the U.S. role in Mid East affairs.

Nearly all of the 9/11 attackers were not from Afghanistan or Iraq or even Iran but Saudi Arabia, whose monarchy is a solid ally of the U.S. and its major oil supplier. But the monarchy there is fearful of any movement among its populace to overthrow it. The Al Qaeda attackers were a threat to Saudi Arabia and they detested the U.S. for its support of the monarchy and other governments who they claim are not representative of the people, but of the outside oil interests. Of course Al Qaeda itself is simply a group of power hungry individuals who use religious fervor to gain support. If they even are genuinely devout (and I doubt a lot of them are), they subvert the true ideals of Islam to their own advantage (kind of like politicians in the U.S. do when they appeal to the religious right for support).

Japan struck us at Pearl Harbor back in 1941 in large part because the United States was attempting to cut off its oil supply.

Oil seems to often be tied to war – resources (and religion) being the cause of war throughout the ages.

Now we are all caught up in the struggle for freedom in Iran. And while after seeing apparently sincere people who simply want rights as human beings beat back by the goons that protect the religious dictatorship there, we do have sympathy for them.

But there is nothing we can really do other than to offer moral support.

We don’t go into Darfur in Africa where people are starved and slaughtered and we don’t go into Myanmar in Southeast Asia where their own government refuses outside aid in a natural disaster to the detriment of its own people. 

But Iran has oil. And I’ll bet if it were not for the fact that the U.S. is tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan and facing threats from North Korea, there would be talk of going in militarily to support the brave Iranian freedom fighters (and picking up the oil as a side benefit).

Iran is believed to be developing a nuclear weapons capability. As I have blogged before, that is a true concern that we must ultimately address. But that is a separate issue. And Israel may yet do our job for us on that – they did so in Iraq, bombing a nuclear reactor there many years ago.

Something tells me we don’t want to get bogged down anywhere. And something tells me we better watch China – and it is uncomfortable that China holds so much of our debt.

Struggle continues in Iran and change may be in the air, but the U.S. has to keep an eye on what is really important — nuclear capability

After blogging so much yesterday about the tumult in Iran and questioning in my last post as to what would happen there today, I feel compelled to write a few words today.

With the stranglehold on the free flow of information by the government there, it is quite difficult to get a clear picture of what is taking place or took place today (Sunday). I’ve read reports that there was an eerie silence on the streets and even more of a police presence and I have also read that there have been continued protests and continued violence. We know people have been beat up and that people have been killed (no clear figures on how many). And there have been arrests, some of those arrested were even in hospital beds reportedly. And militias or whatever they call themselves have reportedly broken into homes to go after or intimidate anyone suspected of dissenting from the government view.

And there is a split in the ruling clergy in this theocracy, as well as in the elected portion of the government.

Former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani, who heads up two powerful clerical institutions, the Assembly of Experts and the Expediency Council, is being intimidated, or at least that must be the intent, with his daughter and other relatives arrested. I understand the relatives were released (not sure), but his daughter remains under arrest. She had participated in a rally for opposition figure Hossein Musavi.

Another former president has criticized the government too, I heard.

But I want to pull back and just say I wish the people there the best and hope that out of all of this that they get a better government and get rid of that nut case Amadinejad who glibly denies the Holocaust, even visiting the U.S. to do so. No matter what your religion is or whether you support or don’t support the Jewish nation, if you have any knowledge of the world at all you know that of course the Holocaust happened, and the eyewitness accounts plus the documentation and documentary film footage taken both by the perpetrators themselves and the allies when they liberated the camps prove the case (I know, some people say we never went to the moon – that footage was shot in Arizona or New Mexico).

However, even though what happens in Iran, thanks to modern rapid communication technology, does not stay in Iran, I still say the best we can do is offer moral support. The Iranian government knows the world is watching. I think it has lost what little credibility it ever had on the world stage, let alone domestically.

I would say the U.S. needs to keep its eye on the ball (or should I say bomb?). More important in all of this is making sure Iran or no other nation, that does not already have it, gets access to nuclear weapons or the ability to produce them. It’s just something we have to do for survival. The U.S. let the genie out of the bottle back in 1945. And although we can’t fully put it back in, we have to do what we can.

We lived for decades wondering whether between us, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, we would manage to destroy the world by some terrible mistake or miscalculation. But apparently the Soviets were not nut cases who would launch nukes with no concern whether it might end the world.

That does not seem to be the case for the nut cases out of the Middle East or over in North Korea.

While we always want to do what we can to support freedom everywhere, the overriding concern must be to save the world from nuclear annihilation.

We now have a government in Iran that we know for sure we cannot trust and has lost its legitimacy.

And we have a government in North Korea we cannot deal with.

Interestingly, even if the dissidents win out in Iran or get some type of accommodation, that does not resolve the nuke question. The dissidents want their freedom, but for all I know they might decide nukes would protect them.

Our message must be clear – no nukes. And we have to have the resolve to do what is necessary to back that up.

I applaud President Barack Obama’s diplomacy expertise – he’s amazingly won high praise in the Islamic world.

And while I am 100 percent for open or transparent government, as I have blogged before, on the nuclear issue, we would do better to say little, but let those who would do mischief know what our position is and then let action speak louder than words, if that becomes necessary.

But in the end, some things are not negotiable, unless we want to risk the end.

Iranian authorities: we held back Saturday (really?), but don’t try it again Sunday; expert says turmoil a big civil rights demonstration…

Never on Sunday? Things might have been rough in the confrontation between demonstrators and the authorities in Iran Saturday but the dissidents have been warned not to try it again — so will they today (Sunday)?

Read a report on the Time Magazine site that quoted the Tehran police chief, I think it was, who claimed that authorities held back somewhat Saturday, but do not plan to do so Sunday or in the future should dissidents continue to conduct protest demonstrations of any kind.

Seems like the the Iranian religious authorities, who run the government, are not all in agreement with each other. Even the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is on shaky ground, I have read. The totalitarian government knows it has to clamp down hard on the protesters to maintain its authority, but is in jeopardy of losing its support if it creates a major bloodbath.

Some experts seem to think that the dissidents may be emboldened now that they have seen the elephant, so to speak. That is they may have lost some of their initial fear. Get folks mad enough and they lose some of their fear (even if the government has the guns).

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama seems to have been forced by the politics of the whole thing to take a somewhat more agressive tone against the Iranian government’s actions.

I began following the news early this (Saturday) morning. No one seems to know how many people may have been killed or hurt, but certainly there were casualties.

Through the night Saturday after the street protests, I understand, citizens have hollered out through the dark the slogan Allahu Akbar (God is great), ironically as they reportedly did during the revolution of 1979 when the Islamic revolution overthrew the secular (non-religious) government of the U.S.-imposed Shah of Iran. And now the Islamic-run government is threatened from within. These people have no beef with Allah (God), but instead those who claim to be his representative here on earth.

Interestingly they were reportedly also shouting “death to the dictator” and most interestingly. “death to the Ayatolla”.

And let’s don’t lose sight of the fact that not everyone by a longshot in Iran is against the present government. But apparently the current government did not have enough confidence in itself to run a free election. From what I read, they both stuffed ballot boxes and forbade a real count. Seems a strange way to go about things. Their fraud was too transparent. Why didn’t they go through the motions and then declare Ahmadinejad the winner as expected?

Opposition leader Hossein Mousavi as I understand it did not meet with authorities as they had offered today, probably because they had already closed the door on a new election as he has demanded. Who knows? maybe he is under arrest or house arrest anyway (don’t know). The Iranian government is working hard to prevent news from getting out. But modern computer technology and citizen journalists along with professional journalists are fighting back.

My favorite political cartoon is a protester standing up to a baton-wielding policeman and saying: “stop or I’ll tweet”!

What follows is my original post Saturday morning, plus several add ons:

ADD 6 (2:34 p.m.  PDT):  U.S. President Barack Obama is getting less neutral on Iran. He has now issued a statement in which he said in part: “We call of the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people…”

ADD 5 (12:32 p.m. PDT): If I have my calculations right it is in the middle of the night (already early Sunday) in Iran and I don’t know what is happening at this time. I just know that demonstrators defied the government and there was violence — saw one scene on YouTube (of course, as they say, it was not vetted). I read one blog said to be out of Iran and describing cries in the night of  “Allahu akbar” (God is great) and “death to the dictator”  and even death to the Ayatollah. Now I don’t know if that blog was describing Saturday night or Friday night or both. Also, I make reference in this blog that the U.S. official position is neutral in all of this. But I should clarify that. President Barack Obama may still be holding to we won’t meddle, but he did make a statement in the last 24 hours that said in part to the Iranian government: “The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching…. the universal rights of assembly and free speech must be respected.” One insider blogger claimed that Joe Biden made him say it (convinced him, okay). Seriously, there is some indication of a slight change of stance on all of this by Obama (he is getting political pressure). But what I don’t get is certainly we don’t make China live up to the standards we are calling for in Iran and last time I checked China has a most favored nation status in trade and is our bank and we owe them one heck of a lot of money (think I just figured it out).

ADD 4 (10:09 a.m.): I’m reading on the web that the main opposition leader Hossein Musavi has vowed that he is ready for “martyrdom”. There are reports that some demonstrators are carrying copies of the Koran, sometimes wearing them on their heads, the idea being that will protect them. I also read one blog that said a policeman was attacking a woman and she said: “Why are you doing this? Are you not an Iranian”? Also heard an Iran expert Iranian professor  at an American college describe what is going on as not a revolution or counter revolution or even civil war, but a “civil rights” movement. It is interesting to me — and others have of course observed — that so many of the protesters are women. As we know, women are considered second-class citizens in Iran, as well as in most or all Islamic-controlled nations (and I would say extreme conservative Christians consider women second class as well and I have read where one Islamic woman said she would rather men be in charge so that they can take the blame — I think I have heard Christians or just other women say that or imply that as well). Interestingly, I think, the protesers are not necessarily protesting religious rule or religion — they just want more freedoms. We’re not getting a lot of reliable information, but I have read that there has been much violence and many deaths (and so far, I believe that would be violence primarily from the authorities inflicted upon demonstrators).

I probably won’t blog more on this until much later in the day. Have other things to do — but this is important stuff with implications on the whole world and people who long for or want to preserve freedom everywhere.

One more thing. It is hard to know actually how widespread this discontent is through Iranian society — certainly there are many layers with their own wants and needs and preferances in Iran. And as much as people there want freedom (or not), I doubt that they want meddling from the West. They’ve had plenty of that over the past many decades.

 ADD 3 (7:20 a.m. PDT): Several news sources, including the one-sided Iranian state sites, are reporting a blast at the shrine of the late Ayatohllah Rubollah Khomeini, with at least one death. One web site implied that it could have well been a suicide bomber working on behalf of the government to discredit the opposition by making it look like they are committing violence. It said the current Ayatollah made reference yesterday to such violence as a cause for authorities to crack down. Meanwhile, there are reports of police beating demonstrators and firing off tear gas and water cannon to disperse the crowds.

———–

It seems that the confrontation in Iran between the dissidents of last week’s presidential election and the authorities has begun, with reports this morning that several thousand demonstrators defied the Ayatollah’s order and marched on the streets in Tehran and have been met by thousands of both uniformed and plain clothes police who are reportedly using tear gas and water cannon to disperse them.

Now I guess few on the outside can really know what is going on because the government there has done its best to shut off all communication. That of course is proof in and of itself that the Iranian government is corrupt and illegitimate. But as I have blogged consistently, I don’t think this affair is officially any of the U.S.’s business, although of course the hearts of the freedom-loving world go out to oppressed peoples everywhere. I think our president, Barack Obama, has struck the right tone so far saying we will not meddle in the affairs of Iran, but at the same time saying that we support the right to free elections. Two resolutions passed late Friday, one each by both houses of congress, in support of the dissidents I think were unecessary and somewhat meaningless, in that what could we or should we do if things go far awry in Iran? As one commentator said: what do we do? Invade Iran and shoot bullets that only kill the oppressors but not the opposition? On the other hand, I suppose the resolutions – which I have not read, only heard reported about – were probably harmless and maybe do give some moral support. I must say if the reports I have seen within the past 15 minutes or so on the web are true, the dissidents have a lot of guts and must truly believe in their cause.

It’s 6:30 a.m. PDT (here on the U.S. west coast) as I write this line and I saw the first reports of demonstrators vs. authorities activity on the web at about 15 minutes ago. I got up about 5:30 a.m., eager to read the news and hopeful that a bloodbath will not occur, and also hopeful that some people power will have some effect on another of so many oppressive governments in the world.

I also think of the major change we made here a few months ago and thankfully without violence.

Going to go back and check the web for more news updates, plus check out my local newspaper for what is happening here in local affairs. Will blog more in a while.

ADD 1: Not the same circumstances, but I can’t help but think about all the uproar back in the mid 1950s when the U.S. failed to support the Hungarian uprising when some thought we should have stood up to communism then and there. That short-lived uprising was crushed by Soviet tanks. Decades later people power fueled and augmented by modern communication won out and with little violence. That is why the tyrannical Iranian government forces are working so hard to keep a lid on communication.

ADD 2: I should have noted that there have been reports of people chanting “Death to the dictator” and “death to the dictatorship”. If that is meant to be literal, and what else could it mean? that sounds ominous (those slogans were reportedly chanted earlier the week too, I recall). Up until now and maybe even now the demonstrators have been for the most part peaceful with the violence done on the part of the govenment and its supporters, as far as I know.

What goes around comes around for Iranian Revolution, maybe…

While it seems that the iron hand of the Islamic fundamentalist theocracy in Iran has crushed any hopes of increased democracy and better relations with the West with the questionable re-election of the dictator and Holocaust denier (I think there is a bit too much evidence to deny it) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it seems to me that the U.S. would do well to simply sit back and let things play out (not that anyone was planning anything different).

I’m not sure the elections there were rigged, but I imagine that is a good possibility.

——————–

ADD 1:

Well it’s Sunday now and from what I am reading it seems clear that the Iranian elections were rigged. It was so lopsided and the results were reported so fast — I understand that the official Iranian news agency reported the winner even before the first vote was counted. And do they use hand ballots or computers? Don’t know ( ADD 2: A Wall Street Journal piece I just read says they were hand ballots).

—————————

But it seems clear there is a major protest movement and I don’t know but that the whole nation may be in the middle of some type of popular uprising at this very moment. I suspect the government has enough power and hold on the populace that it will be able to stop the rioters. The government may have allowed the spirited debate between Ahmadinejad and Hossein Mousavi, the major candidates, as a mechanism to allow everyone to let off some steam, knowing it could always step in and decide the result in the end.

It was a revolution of the people that kicked out the U.S.-imposed Shah, a tyrant himself. Would it not be ironic if the Islamic fundamentalist Iranian Revolution of 1979 was toppled by another popular uprising three decades later in 2009?

Rigged or not, from what I have read recently, the protest movement in Iran is primarily among young and urban and educated people. The older set and the not-so-older but rural set are much more conservative.

One piece I read quoted a worker out in the rural area saying that since all he had was a high school education, he was willing to leave the complex issues of government and especially international relations to the government. I understand that Ahmadinejad has been able to largely buy off what we might call the lower classes with government goodies financed by Iran’s oil wealth. And less educated people are often more amenable to hard-line religious beliefs and tend not to be terribly open minded or receptive to change.

Nonetheless, I have read that Iran is a more open society than we are often led to believe. I get the impression, only an impression, that the average Iranian has no particular beef against the U.S., but he or she has pride in Iran and does not cotton to the idea of any other nations interfering.

With what to me appears to be more of another Great Depression than simply a recession, worldwide, but particularly in the U.S., I think we have too many of our own problems here, such as a need for affordable and universal health care and the need to make sure people do not go hungry (as many are) in this nation, and more access and encouragement for young people to be properly educated in order to cope with a changing world.

Let things play out elsewhere; let Iranians and others push for their own change. It seems they are doing it without our help, and they indeed do not need nor probably even want it.

P.s.

As I understand it, no matter who won, the Iranian government would forge ahead with its nuclear program, which most expect includes a nuclear weapons program along with an energy program. The U.S. cannot afford to let Iran have the bomb, that is one area into which we have to poke our nose.

Aside from us being blackmailed for billions, I like Obama approach to Muslim world…

At the end of my last blog I wrote something to the effect that I would like to go back over any details of President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world to see if there was anything I might have missed or that I would disagree with and that I would be interested in world reaction.

After reading the official White House transcript, complete with notations of applause and someone blurting out “Barack Obama we love you!” and the president saying “thank you”, I concluded that I had indeed heard the speech in its entirety and I did not find anything particularly objectionable, save his promise to provide billions of dollars for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but in even that I can accept the concept, just don’t see how we can afford it.

So, my plan here is to go down through the transcript, paragraph by paragraph, and make some comments. Before that, I note that as of this time it seems overall world reaction, particularly among the target audience, the Muslims, seems to have been quite receptive and quite good. And, as I expected, his biggest detractors were the American far right (you know, those folks who love to hate and love torture) and some Muslim extremists (you know, those folks who love to hate and love to torture).

And now the paragraph by paragraph analysis of the transcript of his speech:

The president greeted his audience at the Cario (Egypt) University and noted that for a thousand years it has been a “beacon of learning”, and he said he carried with him a greeting from Islamic communities in the U.S.: “Assalaamu alaykum” (Peace be upon you), to which he received enthusiastic applause.

Later on a talk show someone commented that it is good that he spoke at a university and there were a lot of young people in the audience, and it was said that it is a mis-perception that terrorists come out of only the poverty-stricken class. In fact, many, including the 9/11 terrorists, are highly educated.

And I realize now that commenting on each paragraph or each line is too tedious, but I am going to arrange my commentary in descending order of the transcript paragraphs.

He noted that there are great tensions between the Muslim world and the U.S. (And the whole Western world) and he acknowledged the role colonialism played in all of this and the fact that the best interests of the inhabitants were not looked after and that in the Cold War Muslim country’s were treated as proxies in the struggle between the West and the communist block nations (although he did not actually mention the communist nations or the former Soviet Union). But anyone who has any grasp of recent history knows that it was all about the competition between primarily the U.S. and the Soviet Union for influence in the Middle East and other areas of the world. The president also said that Islamic traditions were not always respected. And I think that the fact that President Obama recognized Islamic traditions and even used some Islamic phrases and quotations from the Koran is a major deal. You do not have to adopt someone’s religion to respect it. And this recognition, a show of respect, plays big in the Muslim world.

And the president said that he had come to Cairo to “seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world”. And that “new beginning” phrase I note was used in headlines around the world – pretty powerful stuff.

To show his sincerity, Obama noted that although he is a self-professed Christian, he has Islamic roots in his family and lived in a Muslim country (Indonesia) and heard the morning and evening prayer calls (he did not say, but I think it is correct that he attended a Muslim-run school for a time). He also said that he worked among Muslims in Chicago neighborhoods. I don’t know if he meant members of the “Black Muslim” sect or just Muslims in general. But it does demonstrate his unique ability to connect with Muslims. And it shows that he is an adept politician in that he downplayed (had to ) his Muslim roots and connections during his presidential campaign (does anyone think that in this day and age anyone who even hinted he might be a Muslim could be elected president of the U.S.?). I think it is a de facto requirement at present in the U.S. that one be a Christian or profess to be in order to get elected president (that might change some day – stranger things have happened, like the election of Obama).

He noted how the whole world is interconnected and thus has mutual interests. In the global economy all nations suffer at a downturn. Disease threatens all. Nuclear weapons threaten all.

And I’ll jump in here and note that just going chronologically doesn’t work here either. So I will jump to the fact that he said that Iran has a right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes but that developing nuclear weapons, no. And that is the great irony we have come to and these are my words. The U.S. was the first to develop nuclear weapons and the only nation to ever use them. They are so terrible we are stuck with the quite necessary and difficult task of doing everything we can to make sure no one else who has not already got hold of nuclear weapons does.

President Obama assured his audience that the U.S. in not at war with Islam. I note here that even George W. Bush said the same (but the overall tone from his administration and those who so adamantly supported his policies made it seem otherwise).

In probably one of the most important parts of the speech as far as U.S. policy and justification for it, Obama made it clear that the U.S. was and is justified in going after Al Qaeda (and other extremists) in Afghanistan and Pakistan as the result of the 9/11. He noted with some force and even anguish in his voice that nearly 3,000 innocent people in the U.S. were killed on 9/11.

And then he turned around and said that on the other hand, while we felt compelled to invade Afghanistan (because the 9/11 extremists were based there), our government (then headed by Bush) chose to go into Iraq and that there was much controversy within the U.S. at the time over that. Obama, who had been on record as against the Iraq invasion, implied in his speech that the U.S. made a mistake in doing so and had learned a costly lesson. I think that he essentially admitted that the U.S. had over reached in its rightful authority in Iraq (and I realize that arguments could be made either way on all of this, but in the end, the Iraq invasion does seem to have been a blunder – and even if it all works out, that does not make it right).

The president also proclaimed that the U.S. seeks no permanent military presence in either Iraq or Afghanistan. And I think that is a major policy statement.

President Obama said that he has unequivocally made his position clear that the U.S. will no longer use torture (so I do not know what Dick Cheney meant when he claimed recently in his own defense that even Obama had reserved the right to use “enhanced interrogation techniques” — the right wing nut euphemism for torture). That is a powerful statement that hopefully puts the U.S. back on the high ground of humanity (if we become as ruthless as the terrorists, what do we have left worth saving?).

One part that bothered me was that he pledged several billions of dollars to build schools and hospitals and infrastructure and in economic support for both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now probably that is a good idea in that folks with a better standard of living and a better standard thanks to us might be less inclined to become terrorists against us. But it also seems that we are being blackmailed here and there is a question in my mind: who needs this money more? folks over there or folks here at home? (Does not charity begin at home?) But that is the great quandary we always find ourselves in as the world superpower (and one wonders how long at this rate we can hold on to that claim).

And maybe the biggest thing president Obama proclaimed in U.S. foreign policy was his insistence on a two-state solution for the 61-years-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his insistence that Israel quit expanding its settlements into Palestinian territory. And I say, what other solution is there to all that and why have we not insisted on that all along?

He said he supported women’s rights and the right of women to education, which is significant in that conservative Muslims often deny such rights to women (but I note that conservative Christians in this country often put down the idea of women’s rights and seem to promote the idea that women must be subservient to men – it’s all biblical, you know).

President Obama also said that although the U.S. prefers democracy and the rule of law it would only promote its form of government rather than force it upon other nations. But I have to note that wouldn’t it be heck if after all of this that Iraq or Afghanistan, for instance, would wind up with hardline Islamic governments ruled by religious leaders without regard to human rights?

I probably missed some things to comment upon after all, but I’ve probably already gone on too long.

Personally, even though a cable news commentator said his speech contained no real policy statements, I think it was the strongest and most reasonable foreign policy speech I have ever heard from a U.S. president (and even though I was young at the time, my memory goes back to hearing Dwight David Eisenhower).

Obama appears as peacemaker for the world, but far right and terrorists line up together against him…

“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.”

So says the Holy Bible.

And if with the speech President Barack Obama has just given in Cairo, Egypt in an address to the Islamic world he is not seen as just that, a peace maker, well then no one could be seen as such.

He was extremely even handed in addressing the issues and extremely humble in admitting that the U.S. and the rest of the Western world has not always acted with good intentions or in the best interests of those in the Islamic world.

But at the same time he asserted in no uncertain terms that the U.S. would not back down from fighting extremists who threaten the U.S. and the whole world, to include their own Islamic world.

There is no doubt that Mr. Obama has a God given gift of speech. I actually think most American presidents going back over the years, at least as far back as Eisenhower, might have liked to have given just such a speech (maybe even George W. Bush would have – don’t know). But maybe the timing was not right and maybe they just did not have the abilities or the persona that Mr. Obama embodies.

As a black man (and half white in heritage), a Christian with Islamic roots and experience living in the Islamic world, even attending an Islamic school for a time, a community organizer on the mean streets Chicago’s black neighborhoods, a top Harvard Law graduate, and a masterful politician, the stars have just seem to come together for him.

Is he “The One”, the perfect person? Of course not. He is human and not everything he does can be correct – but all evidence so far is that he sure is trying.

Strangely, I imagine – have not heard a lot yet – that the biggest detractors of his speech will be both the far reactionary political right (Limburger/Cheney and company) and Islamic extremists. Neither side wants peace, well except if it is totally on their terms, but paradoxically peace cannot be obtained on either of the afore mentioned sides’ terms.

The president took a chance I think in asserting that we CHOSE to fight in Iraq and indicating we made a big mistake in doing so (even if that is correct). And the far right is certainly going to hate that he said not only that but that we will not maintain permanent military bases there or even in Afghanistan and that we are in fact on our way out of Iraq.

But the president also asserted that we (he) had a duty to defend the U.S. (and by extension the Western world) by fighting Islamic extremists in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And his critics will (already are) howl about his call for a more even-handed approach in the 61-year-old dispute between the Palestinians and the Jews over the creation of Israel and the need for an independent Palestinian state (it seems to me that such should have been the U.S. position all along, but of course there is the Jewish lobby and all the money it throws the way of politicians, guilt feelings over the Holocaust, and the history of the Cold War when everything was seen as a competition between the West and the Soviets and so on).

I don’t think I heard all of President Obama’s speech, but I heard most of it and I will be interested to read more about it and catch up on parts I might have missed and that I might not agree with and I will be interested to see the reaction around the world, and of course particularly in the Middle East and Persian Gulf states and all of the Islamic world.

P.s.

Interesting that President Obama quoted from the Holy scriptures of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism – all with similar messages of peace. If only the leaders who profess so strongly in these beliefs all practiced what they preach.

Same sex marriage fight continues in California; North Korea beats the drums of war — what do we do???

What I really want to blog about right now is the continuing threats from North Korea, but first I must note that the fight over same sex marriage continues in California. I understand that two attorneys today are going to (or already have) file a brief in U.S. District Court in California to among other things get an injunction against the ban on same sex marriages.

In addition, I believe there are plans to mount yet another ballot measure, this time to re-instate same sex marriage.

As I blogged yesterday, I am not and out and out supporter of same sex marriage as such, but I do believe that the law should be clear on this. Right now we have a situation in which the state’s high court HAD declared that same sex marriage was protected under the state’s constitution, but then upheld a ban on such marriages that came as a result of a voter initiative. But another voter initiative could be mounted and the vote could go the other way. Opinion on the matter I think is fairly well evenly divided in the state. Prop. 8, which banned same sex marriages, passed, but part of that was from voter apathy and even confusion on the measure itself, as I recall.

One thing we have found out here in California is that it is far too easy to change our constitution. The anti-same sex marriage forces (including money from out of state and including help from the Mormons) were able to successfully argue that their ballot measure was an amendment, not a revision. Under state law an amendment can be made by the voters, but a revision requires a two thirds vote of the legislature and then a majority vote by the electorate.

To add confusion to all of this, some 18,000 same sex marriages performed before the ban are still legally recognized under yesterday’s court ruling. That seems rather odd to me, to say the least. Some same sex couples can be married others not. There is no precise legal definition in state law that makes it clear as to what the differences are between an amendment and a revision. The revision is supposed to be more all encompassing. Well anytime a class of people are said to have rights and then those rights are snatched away from them seems kind of a major deal to me, kind of like a “revision”.

It is argued that same sex couples have the right to civil unions and are afforded the same (or essentially the same) protections as opposite sex married couples. I doubt that such is accurate. And I doubt that California civil unions are recognized in all states, whereas marriages are (except possibly same sex marriages?).

Recognizing same sex marriages and calling them marriages is a major cultural change. And that is the problem. But it needs to be resolved by something better than a court ruling that same sex marriages can be allowed, but then disallowed by voters, but then maybe allowed again.

What if all the protections we have under the federal constitution’s Bill of Rights could be changed each election or in special elections at the voters’ whims? Fortunately it is a lot harder to amend or revise the federal document. Maybe California’s way of doing things needs to be revised.

AND NOW TO NORTH KOREA:

Just read an article on the web that said the North Korean army has declared the 1953 armistice null and void and that the Korean War is on again. And I think that this was in reference to some plan to intercept shipments dealing with nuclear proliferation to or from North Korea, that South Korea joined in. North Korea has threatened to attack U.S. and South Korean ships (I would hope we would respond to an attack better than we did in the Pueblo incident).

Well, it’s just threats for now.

An underground nuke test (and it is not generally known really how powerful it really was) and some more missile test launches and a lot of tough words have and are coming out of North Korea. And I read today that everyone, and especially the U.S. and China, which are key players here, seems baffled or befuddled as to what to do about the whole thing. North Korea is supposed to be China’s ally, but it is making that nation’s leaders uncomfortable with all of its threats that it is ready to use nukes to get its way. China does not want to cut off food and other aid on which North Korea depends for its survival. Fore one thing, China is afraid that if North Korea collapsed its million-man army might turn into armed marauders. The U.S. has to be concerned that North Korea might do something crazy like attack South Korea (a major ally of ours and one we saved at great cost to us back in the early 1950s). Or they might eventually, if left unchecked, launch a nuke at us, or sink one of our ships, or who knows?

I have read that the U.S. is depending upon China to do something about North Korea because we here in the USA don’t have many options. On the one hand, it might be hard to exert pressure on China since we are so much in debt to them for all the outstanding loans they have made us. On the other hand our whole relationship with that communist nation is symbiotic. Although we seem to depend upon them for money and our consumer goods, they depend upon us for trade, that is for buying all of their products.

While I am not for a lot secret dealing in international relations, maybe if it is necessary we should be doing some with China. As I have blogged many times – give nations like North Korea or Iran a secret ultimatum that allows them to change course but save face at the same time. Maybe we could do this with China. Make it plain to them that we, the USA, do not intend to simply wait until North Korea actually has the power to make good on its threats.

And if you read my blogs, I know you’ve read this one before: I like Teddy Roosevelt’s idea that we should speak softly and (but) carry a big stick. John McCain, as I recall, said he liked that approach too. So in that respect, if he really believed that (and with his singing, bomb, bomb, Iran, I don’t think he did so much), in the field of foreign relations he might have been a better pick for president. But there were so many other issues, such as the economy, for which he did not seem to offer acceptable alternatives to his own political party’s bungling (and yes, the Democrats bungled too, but they had a new face and something that appeared more like change).

President Obama is no peacenik. He has not ended the war in Iraq and is strengthening our effort in Afghanistan (and Pakistan). And I think he may well realize that at some point we will have to do something about North Korea. Mean words from that nation will not hurt anyone, but nukes controlled by a nut case of a dictator could (and that applies to both North Korea and Iran).

North Korea nuke test and Memorial Day remind us that there’s good guys and bad guys…

Add 1:  North Korea continues its saber rattling with the news that it has followed up an underground nuke test yesterday with more missible tests today.

On the same day I read that North Korea is bragging that it set off another nuclear test, the second in some two years, I attended a Memorial Day ceremony at the local cemetery and it made me think about some thoughts I had concerning what was said at the ceremony:

My first thought was that the Memorial Day ceremony emcee got a little carried away when he said that all our current conflicts or wars boil down to is good guys (us) and bad guys (them). I mean permissible I guess in a Memorial Day talk, but a little simplistic. I mean especially in these modern wars where instead of fighting the Empire of Japan or Nazi Germany, we are fighting some less identifiable groups such as the amorphous Al Qaeda or various religious factional insurgent groups, or something called the Taliban, with hapless civilians, not always knowing to whom to turn, caught somewhere in the middle because they don’t know who will win or who all might still be there when all the dust settles, and they have to keep on trying to live their lives in their own homes. And of course I am referring to the War on Terror – primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan too. Before that we had Vietnam where we had a corrupt government that was supposed to be on our side, peasants who didn’t know whose side to be on, insurgents dressed in black pajamas, and regular troops from North Vietnam.

But in the end, if they are not on our side, then they are the enemy or if they are shooting at us or giving aid and comfort to those who are, they are the enemy.

So I come full circle and realize that the emcee was essentially correct – there’s the good guys and the bad guys – the heck with nuance. All that nuance stuff is for policy makers to argue about, and argue with words to avoid real war they should, but once the bullets start flying, it’s us versus them.

Another speaker, a Marine Corps colonel, asserted that we have won in Iraq (I missed that report on the news — yes i’m being sarcastic again). He also claimed that there were WMDs there – “I don’t care what you’ve heard”.

We do seem to be trying to leave Iraq (if only to move more heavily into Afghanistan) and certainly the fighting is not as intense in Iraq now (but casualties continue). But I think to say we have won is a bit of an overstatement, except since there is no official definition as of yet of winning, I guess you could claim victory at any time.

As to the WMD claim, as far as I know none were ever found, although that is almost academic by this time.

And here is what really concerns me in all of this. Wars are a lot easier to get into than get out of, but it’s also easier to get out of a war by settling for less than total victory. But then one day you likely will have to go back – remember Desert Storm anyone?

And, more than five decades after the Korean War ended with the U.S. deciding to stop it where is began, at the 38^th Parallel, instead of vanquishing the enemy by going all the way to its capital we continue to have our noses rubbed in it all by a belligerent North Korea.

Ever since I can remember that country has been tweaking our nose. I recall a 1976 incident where two U.S. officers were hacked to death by North Korean soldiers at the border and what did we do? Nothing.

I recall the Pueblo incident in 1968 when they captured one of our Navy ships in international waters and held our people prisoner for a year and subjected them to torture (one sailor died during the initial capture). What did we do? Nothing.

And there have been many bloody and deadly incidents involving the North Koreans over the years.

North Korea was able to bamboozle George W. Bush by making a show of blowing up one of their nuclear cooling towers as if they were shutting down their nuclear program. That was good for some aid from the good-hearted world and throwing everyone off.

Then they test President Obama by firing off a missile and now reportedly by their own bragging doing an underground nuclear test (and more missile tests today). It is said they both want to extort more aid from other countries and show off their missile and nuclear arsenal to various rogues around the world to whom they would like to sell arms.

And was it just last week that Iran fired off a rocket to show it can hit as far as Israel? And Iran is believed to be continuing work on nuclear weapons.

Of course President Obama has issued strong words against North Korea’s latest provocation. And apparently even Russia and China have condemned it, along with the UN Security Council (but something tells me that although China and Russia consider their nominal ally to be something of a loose cannon, when push comes to shove they’ll seek to protect North Korea in order to humiliate the West).

But at some point likely, someone will have to do something beyond words to get these two troublesome nations, North Korea and Iran, to stop their threats (which one day will become action, if left unchecked).

History tells me that Adolf Hitler was allowed to thumb his nose at a World War I weary world and re-arm and violate the Armistice and move into the Rhineland. Neville Chamberlain of Britain went hat in hand and came back satisfied that he had “peace in our time”. It was hoped that words meant something. But actions speak a whole lot louder.

President Obama will have to work with other nations on this problem, because we have seen what happens when we simply try to go it alone. But in the end something tells me that the United States, still the only super power left (for now), will have to take the lead.

Rather than words, whether they be civil and diplomatic or bellicose, I have to think the wiser course of action would be action.

In the case of both North Korea and Iran, a confidential but firm warning should be made to let them save face, and then if no good result – well at some point the good guys have to turn temporarily bad.

And when it comes down to it, you are either for world peace and letting nations live free, that is you are on the side of the good guys, or you are for something else, which means you are on the side of the bad guys.

So maybe it is as easy as good guys and bad guys.

P.s.

And isn’t it sad that we are left with no other choice than to fight for peace (almost a contradiction in terms, but peace without liberty would not be worth living).