Comments on: Briefs

By: Michael Lonie

Michael Lonie — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 06:09:30 +0000

It’s a bit more complicated Sabba. In the case of WWII at least the men in charge of policy then remembered that Gremany had been defeated in 1918 but not forced to surender. Twenty years later Germany bestrode the continent like a colossus and started a new war. They were determined to prevent any repetition. With Japan the Japanese government was attempting to make a compromise peace through the good offices of the USSR. Once that was done they intended a reversal of alliances in wihcih Japan would ally with the Soviets against America, handing over territory in Asia if necessary, and in 20 yers of so start another war wit the USA. Surely they would get it right the second time. US policy makers were reading this plan on the intercepted and decrypted cables of the Japanese foreign office sent to the Ambassador to Moscow, a man named Sato (who ws the only sensible man in Japan’s foreign service; he told them to make peace PDQ on whatevr terms they could get). The high officials making policy, like Stimson, were determined to prevent this result.

Fighting a war decicively means not having to fight it a second time. Iraq is a perfect example. Because we did not make sure of Saddam and his henchmen in 1991 we had to go back and do it agian 12 years later. Because we did not overthrow the North Korean Commies and reunite the peninsula in 1951-53 we are now facing a lunatic NorK with nukes.

“Those who wind up on the other side do not understand this aspect of our character and keep mistaking the initial hesitancy for weakness.”

True. The way I put it is that nobody has really seen the USA angry since 1945. We have restrained ourselves. I thought we’d get angry after 9/11 but with great restraint we did not. We’re like Hulk; you don’t want to see us angry.

By: Russ

Russ — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:01:42 +0000

a suburb of Jerusalem that the Palestinians have pretty much already agreed to swap for

Yeah, stupid Israel for suggesting that the Pali’s own something that they can swap for what is clearly Israeli land. Disputed territories do not belong to one side.

By: geoffc

geoffc — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:31:44 +0000

@Sabba Hillel: I agree with this point. As Isoroku Yamamoto said after Pearl Harbor, I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

However, that was true in the past, and I believe is still true of the American people. But the key question, that the rest of the world is gambling on is, Is it still true of this current administration?

By: Sabba Hillel

Sabba Hillel — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:30:55 +0000

The problem is that the United States cannot bring itself to react at all until it is pushed over the edge. At that point, we hate war and fighting so much that we react with overwhelming force to end it as soon as possible. That is why Woodrow Wilson insisting on complete victory in the first phase of the World War when the European allies were ready to conclude a truce with Germany. That is why FDR and Harry Truman insisted on “Total Surrender” to end the second phase and Harry Truman ordered the two bombs dropped. That is why the Iraq war was fought with “shock and awe”.

Those who wind up on the other side do not understand this aspect of our character and keep mistaking the initial hesitancy for weakness. It is like someone being harassed by a schoolyard bully, who finally reacts with a single punch to the trachea that sends the bully to the hospital.