Showing posts with label USSR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USSR. Show all posts

Friday, August 1, 2014

Wars Averted



Some places with serious conflicts and potentials for the outbreak of war in the recent past include:

1. Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov is a retired lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces. On September 26, 1983, he was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile was being launched from the United States. Petrov judged the report to be a false alarm,[1] and his decision is credited with having prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its NATO allies that could have resulted in large-scale nuclear war. Investigation later confirmed that the satellite warning system had indeed malfunctioned.  SOURCE: Wikipedia

2. To date, the United States and Iran have not gone to war, in spite of calls for attack by some within the United States. Rather, the two sides are engaged in on-going negotiations about the nuclear question.  SOURCE:  Juan Cole

3. The United States and the then-USSR – the Cuban Missile Crisis.  A diplomatic solution was reached behind the scenes with an agreement that the USSR would withdraw its missiles from Cuba and the United States would withdraw from Turkey.

4. South Africa.

There are others, both near and far in time, I am sure.  The point is this: we are taught much around the world about wars that were fought, but, I suspect, precious little about the wars that were not – except the ones history judges should have been (think Chamberlain and the charge of appeasement).

Might the wars avoided to a good end be just as valuable a lesson?

Might our children not profit from learning how not to fight a war as much as by learning how to fight one?

Might we not all be the better for a little time spent in contemplation on how not to fight?


____________________
Some other conflicts that didn’t erupt into war but could have: Cracked.com




Friday, July 18, 2014

Honor Has Left the Building: Lying and Dying on the International Stage


A plane crashes in Ukraine and a Russian official claims that Mr. Putin himself was the target – really?

Classic propaganda technique: make yourself the victim when in fact you are among the class of perpetrators.

Let me be clear: there is insufficient evidence at this point for anyone to claim with any degree of certainty who actually shot the Malaysian plane down.

That said, all kinds of folk are making dreadful and obvious plays to make this horror all about them – like the Australian life insurance company that threw up an ad for life insurance linking the need to this crash.  And like Mr. Putin’s government putting out the word that whoever shot the plane down was actually trying to shoot his plane down.

Really, Mr. Putin?  Really?  300+ families around the world today sit in shock and mourning about the literal disappearance of their loved ones from the planet for no reason other than that they happened to be flying over some land in dispute and you make it be about you?  Really?

Nice touch.

Then come the reports of fighting about who controls the scene of the crash – really?

Of passports being stolen.

Is there, at the last, no shame?

Why would I think there would be?

This is war.

And the one thing war gins up quite a bit with virtually no effort is paranoia.  And for some reason still obscure to me, when paranoia enters, shame leaves.

The thinking seems to go something like this:  Either we’d better get control so they don’t know we did it or we’d better get control so they don’t say we did it when we didn’t.

Let me make it easy for you.

You did it.

You know who you are.

And so, actually, do we.

The person or persons who actually hit the buttons, set the aim, made the call – they have the direct responsibility and they, whoever they may be, know it.  Their demons, I suspect, are already many and unrelenting.

But it is not of them I speak when I say that we all know who you are.

The people caught up in the swirl of strike, counter-strike, move, counter-move, in the conflict zone that Ukraine has become (and yes, most certainly, that includes you, Mr. Putin), are responsible.

You cannot create the chaos that is war and then step back and claim innocence, horror or surprise at the speedy demise of those caught in the cross-fire.

So now we know.

We are not safe around you.

Good reminder – thanks for that.

Of course it would have saved a whole lot of lives if you had simply declared Ukrainian air space off limits or no longer protected.

Yeah.

Too late for that, eh?

Forgive the sarcasm (or don’t), but perhaps a few obvious lessons might emerge:

1. Mr. Putin – cut it out.  Just cut it out.  Every big land grab backfires.  Your country has learned it before.  So has mine.  But we both seem to keep forgetting, eh?  A quick review might be helpful: Hitler and his Reich?  Gone.  The Soviet Union?  Gone.  The British Empire?  Gone.  The colonialized African sub-continent?  Independent and yes, in chaos*, but largely colonies no more.  And let us not forget the Middle East – the French, the British, the Americans, the Turks, the USSR (I’m sure I’ve overlooked someone) have all relearned the lesson of history that land grabs backfire over time only to have the next sucker come along thinking, apparently, this time will be different.  Are you one of the stupid ones?  Or the smart ones?  That’s the only question I really want answered from you and we will all know soon enough.  Keep it up like you have been and we’ll have our answer, won’t we?

2. The more outrageous your claims, the more we in the rest of the world will believe you were behind the action.  Pretty simple, isn’t it?  But maybe the rest of the world isn’t the intended audience.  Maybe only the people of Russia are the intended audience.  And perhaps they are with you, Mr. Putin.  Perhaps they too dream of a return to previous glories.  Perhaps they too fear the expansionist designs of other nations.  Perhaps they too believe that your plane was the target (without bothering to even think about how very unlikely it is that your plane, of all the planes in the world, would fly over Ukrainian air space in the first place, given the state of present events).

3. The world has come to, crossed over and retreated from all kinds of brinks before.  This feels different.  Maybe it is; maybe it isn’t.  But we (humanity) are out of control.  The lawless indifference to life that shoots into the sky and asks questions later has risen to epic proportions within my own lifetime.  It’s bad enough when the plane is the actual target.  But, for me, at least, it somehow seems so much worse when it was merely an accident of war – an unintended consequence – that they were caught in a cross-fire they didn’t even know was there.  For that kind of indifference to all life tells me that this is no longer about enemies squaring off to settle the fight.  This is about destruction for its own sake.  The dehumanization is complete.  And we – all of us – are the lesser for it.

4. None of us on the planet can complain about things being out of control.  They are – out of control.  And we – all of us – are responsible – since we – all of us, seem to have collectively decided that getting our way matters more than anything else, that our tribe is the only tribe that counts – well, we can hardly be surprised at the results, given that everyone else belongs to a tribe too, now can we?

5. Finally, it is clear that there is no honor in war.  Even I, as a pacifist, have long wanted to believe that honor on the battle field is possible.  But that is a lie.  If there were honor on the battlefield, then whoever did push the button, aim the weapon, and brought down an airplane of folk flying from one place to another on a bright and sunny day, would come forward and own their action.  If there were honor, the individuals who killed the 4 Israeli teenage boys just a few weeks back, as well as those who killed the Palestinian boy and set his body afire in apparent retribution; the Israeli soldier or soldiers who purportedly made the mistake of killing 4 teenage Palestinian boys playing on the beach, would step forward as individuals and take responsibility.  If there were honor, the United States would have bothered to count, name and report the civilians it killed in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  If there were honor, when things like Abu Ghraib happen, responsibility would voluntarily travel up the chain of command, because honor demands that its own part in folly be named and acknowledged.  That’s what honor does – it owns its deeds.  It does not hide, for it cannot.  But these things are not about honor.  And no one must be allowed to pretend that they are.  Whatever else they may be about, honor left the building a long time ago, if ever it resided here before.




_________________
*Don’t you just love – I bet you do – because I bet you use the same rationale yourself – how the colonizers claim to have invested so much in the transformation for the better of their colony, and then when they leave, claim that their absence caused the collapse [‘they’ could not survive without ‘us’]?  Don’t you just love the absolute absence of irony in the colonial voices?  Don’t you just love the inability to do any meaningful self-reflection that would allow any human being or group of human beings to actually claim [often at the same time] to have saved someone from themselves and then prove that no one was saved or ever intended to be saved – that the very fact of the descent into chaos proves the absence of salvation – saved people don’t devolve – kind of obvious, isn’t it?

Thursday, October 18, 2012

21 Questions for the Candidates on Foreign Policy: Just a Suggestion


Here are some suggested questions for next week's foreign policy debate.  I really don't want to waste a single minute on how it's been gotten wrong or right in the last four or even last twelve years.  I want to know where we go from here.  And in order to know, as best we can when it comes to predicting future behaviors, I have some questions.

1. Why must Israel be our ‘special’ friend?  Why isn’t it enough that we are allies?  Shouldn’t our goal be to be ‘friends’ with all the nations of the world?  Does speaking ‘for’ human rights for Palestinians equate in your mind to speaking ‘against’ Israel?

2. Why should we arm anyone around the world?  There is a call to arm folks in Syria, which overlooks the obvious question of why arm anyone.  In Syria in particular, who would you arm?  Why?

3. When will either of you bring all our troops (mercenaries/private contractors included) home from Iraq?

4. What is the tipping point for you in moving away from sanctions and towards military solutions (including nuclear attack) against Iran?  In other words, what would trigger a justification for war or military action against Iran?

5. What WWIII dangers do you see right now in the world?  What about Syria/Turkey/Iran/Russia/China/US alignments in regards to the Syrian civil war?  Do you see a danger there of missteps that might lead to global conflict?  What will you do to avoid that?

6. Explain to the American people exactly upon what legal basis, national and international, you would place US ships in the Strait of Hormuz?  Iran has threatened to blockade its own territorial waters in the Strait.  Upon what basis do you claim that the United States would have the justification to militarily oppose such an action?  Do you have any other basis for such a position than ‘because we can’?  Or that cutting off oil (even if done perfectly legally) ‘threatens our national interests abroad’?  Why would it be militarily actionable for Iran to police its own waters however it sees fit?  Please bear in mind that inconvenient or costly or even economically catastrophic is not militarily actionable, else we would have tanks parked on Wall Street.

7. Drones – yes or no.  Usage of drones inevitably takes the position that the lives of civilians, often children, are expendable, more expendable than our own troops.  After all, they aren’t our kids.  How do you justify that?  Will you at least acknowledge that modern warfare as waged by the United States has abandoned even the pretense of acting to protect civilians on all sides?

8. What do you believe solved the Cuban Missile Crisis?  Was it military strength?  Diplomacy?  Some combination?  We teach our children that it was military strength alone that averted nuclear war between the US and the then USSR, omitting from the narrative the behind-the-scenes negotiating that took place whereby the USSR withdrew its missiles from Cuba and we withdrew ours from Turkey.

9. Do you perceive engaging in diplomacy as a sign of weakness or of strength and why?

10. When, if ever, should the United States apologize on the world stage?  When have we gotten it wrong in the last 10-20 years?  Should we admit that?  Why or why not?

11. Name your top 5 principal advisors on matters of foreign policy – the people upon whose advice you most rely.  What is their experience/where and for whom have they worked in the past?  What do they bring to the table as far as you’re concerned?

12. Name one naysayer on matters of foreign policy to whom you regularly listen – someone who sees the world very differently than you do and tells you so.  Name one time when that person changed your mind and why.

13. Name the most important religious principle of your own faith that governs your views on how the United States interacts with other countries and why.

14. Name one person from history whose leadership in world affairs shapes how you think on these issues and one lesson you learned from that person.

15. You are both espousing Christians.  How does your faith inform you on matters of foreign policy?  Specifically, Jesus taught that the other, the enemy, the one not of our tribe, is in fact our neighbor, whom we are to love even as we love ourselves.  How do you see that maxim of the Christian faith played out in your presidency?

16. Constitutionally, the president is the commander-in-chief.  Why, in your view, is this role important to be held by a civilian?  How does investing the duties of commander-in-chief in the civilian office of the presidency serve and promote the public welfare?

17. Surveillance of citizens of the United States by the CIA and other intelligence agencies of the federal government – do you favor or oppose and why?

18. The Patriot Act’s provision making the education of persons or groups on non-violence, peaceful resolution to conflict and utilization of legal recourse an act of terror if provided to persons labeled by the government as terrorists – what, in your view, is the purpose of prohibiting such skills, intended to help people move away from violence and towards peace in solving problems?  How does this provision promote the national security interests of the United States, if at all?  To Mr. Romney – if elected president, would you keep this provision intact or move to rescind it?

19. NAFTA and CAFTA and other free trade agreements are attacked by working people of the countries with whom we have these agreements as decimating their livelihoods.  What changes, if any, would you make to these agreements?  How do these agreements benefit working people in the US or abroad?

20. Please as best you are able refrain in speaking in sound bites or slogans and address the role of the United Nations from your point of view – addressing specifically its positives and not its negatives.  What does the United Nations do well in your view?  Name at least one success story of the United Nations from your point of view.

21. There is much discussion about the Republican strategy regarding taxes of having a pledge, a precommitment, if you will, not to engage in tax-increasing behaviors.  Will you make such a pledge here and now to the American people when it comes to engaging in military action around the world?  Will you pledge not to engage in military action around the world unless you have first sought and obtained from Congress a formal declaration of war?  If you will not, why not?