As my wife noticed every year I re-read the Guns of August. I think it’s very important to not only remember the lessons of Vietnam and World War 2, but the lessons of wars before that. Particularly World War 1 because it came at the end of a long period of general peace between the great powers , just like we have now.
As I’m a bit of a navel fan one of the most interesting stories to me is the pursuit of the Goeben and Breslau, two German ships in Mediterranean Sea at the very start of the war. British ships were ordered to intercept him including some commanded by Rear Admiral Ernest Troubridge.
Troubridge following a strict interpretation of his rules of engagement considered the ships a superior force and declined to engage. Accused of cowardice and court martialed he was acquitted but his career ended at that moment.
That would have been quite a shock to his ancestor Sir Thomas Troubridge who served with Nelson at St. Vincent, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, and Aboukir Bay and was the first Baron of the Troubridge Baronets.
It was likely a big shock to the Germans as well. The Kaiser had a healthy respect for the tradition of the Royal Navy and after a single battle of Jutland kept it pretty much in port.
It wasn’t fear of the reality of the early 20th century Royal Navy of Ernest Troubridge. It was fear of the memory of the early 19th century Royal Navy of his ancestor Thomas Troubridge and Lord Nelson.
And that’s how we get to Israel and the Middle east today. It hasn’t just been the fear of Israel’s nuclear power it has been the memory of each Israeli Victory in 1948 , 1956, 1967, 1973 and the willingness of Israel to do what had to be done to win.
The question on Iranian nukes really comes down to one thing: When the UN and the US under president Obama “fail” (assuming they are actually trying) to restrain Iran will today’s Israel act differently than the Israel of 40 years ago. Will it be Thomas Troubridge or will it be Ernest Troubridge? Iran, Europe and President Obama are betting on Ernest. I think it will be Thomas.
Glenn links to an article in the Times of London suggesting the Saudis have given an ok for an Israel overflight to take out Iranian Nukes.
It is important and Ambassador Bolton must be pleased but if you don’t look at the entire page you might miss something significant.
The Times’ archive has been scanned and there is a link to a story concerning Khomeini from 1981. It is worth a read to see what a British reporter had to say about the man who would fuel Islamic Terror for decades.
A perceptive on what people actually thought and said at the time is invaluable. The Times has their archive available back to 1785. It is an amateur historians dream, and the price ranges from $9 for a day to $130 a year. Do a search for example for “Guerriere” during the period of war of 1812 and you’ll get the idea.
If you consider the short attention spans of Americans and the need for attention to keep the pressure on Iran the last few days have been really lucky for the Mullahs.
Jay Nordlinger hit on something today that is so true that it is painful to read:
Hey, speaking of genocide, what about Sudan? Wanting to come to grips with Darfur, I wrote an article called “About Sudan: What has been done? What can be done?” That was published in National Review four years ago: in the May 23, 2005, issue. I have checked in on Sudan from time to time since. And I really see no need to revise that piece, or to write another one. Hardly anything has changed. Last week I read, “The human rights situation in Sudan is ‘critical,’ an independent U.N. expert said Tuesday, accusing the nation’s government of cracking down on its critics and shielding those responsible for gross violations such as rape, torture and murder.” (For the article, go here.)
Yeah, well when is the “human rights situation” not critical? It has been so for a very, very long time. We all know the drill: After a genocide — Rwanda, say — we say “Never again,” and then after the next one “Never again,” and then after the next one . . .
It would be more seemly, I have often thought, simply to stop declaring “Never again.”
There always seems a reason not to worry about stuff like this, we will provoke them, we want to make constructive change, Oh the Olympics will open up China, oh we need to deal with Cuba to open them up. And of course we can’t say a thing because of Gitmo or because of Abu Graib or because of a revolt in 1955 or because of the evils western civilization etc etc etc…
The average American gets it, the reason why there are holocaust museums today isn’t because of what was done, governments KNEW what was being done and didn’t give a damn. This is why:
It’s because an army of average American SAW it and were outraged. It could not be ignored or explained away. Excuses wouldn’t wash. That is when we chose to pretend that this is why we fought, it had nothing to do with it. It SHOULD have, but it didn’t.
It wasn’t till that moment that we transformed the Nazi’s into the most evil people in the world. The reality is there are plenty of candidates for that title, Stalin & Mao slaughtered millions more yet they are acceptable as leaders in Civilization IV and Hitler isn’t. What is the difference? The difference is it hasn’t been seen firsthand by tens of thousands of Americans. This allows intellectuals and political types to explain things away, to be “realistic”, to not interfere.
The American soldiers who fought in Iraq and found the mass graves there (that are still being found) get it, but for our political class other considerations will always rule.
It is also why the left will always hate president Bush. 9/11 may have been the impetus but in the end in at least one place in the world the mass graves were stopped and he was responsible and still doesn’t apologize for it.
We are going say little and do less while these people are slaughtered. It’s what we are doing with Sudan and it is what we will do the next time and the time after that. This might seem odd but it’s not about saving slaughtered people; it’s about being able to say you care and convince others you care while doing nothing.
Ah the joys of self esteem.
Update: You know on reflection I’m being unfair. There is a lot of solid outrage against the Mullahs on the left blogs. I think my attack on the administration is correct and those who compare the mullahs to the last administration are frankly loons however that doesn’t describe the majority of the blogs on the left who have supported the people of Iran yearning to be free. I’ve given a wrong impression of the majority opinion on the left on this issue.
So I apologize, my bad.
Update 2: The Iranians have gotten worse:
From the live blogger’s eyewitness account:
>More than 10.000 Bassij Milittias get position in Central Tehran, including Baharestan Sq.
>Army Helicopters flying over Baharestan and Vali Asr Sq.
>The streets, squares and around BAHARESTAN (Approx. South-eastern of Tehran) is swarming with military forces, civilian forces, the security motorists
>The crowd have moved to the south of baharestan, the situation is bad, the shooting has started
>In Baharestan Sq. in the Police shooting, A girl is shot and the police is not allowing to let them help
>In Baharestan we saw militia with axe chopping people like meat – blood everywhere – like butcher
This is the Iranian regime, wading into its own unarmed people and axing them to death, bludgeoning women (seen as the greatest threat to the regime) and throwing them to their deaths from pedestrian bridges. The same Iranian regime whose embassy officials are invited to American embassies around the world to celebrate on July 4th, of all things, a successful revolution.
Yesterday’s left-wing conventional wisdom: We can’t jeopardize diplomacy by taking a meaningless moral stand! Today’s left-wing conventional wisdom: Obama has taken a bold moral stand against regime abuses!
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 