How Much Change Is Too Much?

Prague is a wonderfully romantic city. It is a place where one feels free to pursue ideals. It is, in fact, a place where ideals propelled people to make a genuine challenge to the Soviet Union. Not once in 1968 but again twenty years ago.

Perhaps it is the mood and history of Prague which inclined President Obama to have his speech writers craft a fine paean to ideals. And, in the process stick the president's fingers into an electric socket.

The more idealistic and, paradoxically perhaps, less difficulty producing portion of the president's speech dealt with the need to end nuclear proliferation and, ultimately, eliminate the current nuclear weapons stockpiles. Obama was appropriately conservative about a time line for the eradication of nukes from the world, saying, "It may not occur in my lifetime."

The speech served to confirm the earlier reports that Russia and the US would proceed to negotiate a reduction of nuclear charges to 1,500 each. This would constitute a necessary first step to achieving the finite deterrent level of roughly five hundred warheads each. As noted in an earlier post MAD would continue to exist giving an appropriate "comfort level" to two nations which will never be "friends" but will continue to be (using a delightfully ambiguous Vietnamese term) "partners in struggle."

President Obama called for the US to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Doing such would not harm US interests. Improvements in the US weapons would not require testing of the physics packages. Whether or not the CNTBT would then be ratified by China, India, Pakistan, Israel or Iran is open to question. Further it should be noted that decoupled underground tests of low yield devices are not susceptible to definitive detection since the Earth is a restless place with seismic shocks occurring as a form of geological background noise.

The North Koreans flipped the bird in the general direction of the "international community" (whatever that might be) with their launch of a prototype ICBM. This act calls into serious question the relevance of international agreements as it did Security Council resolutions. It's fine to talk of "breaking the rules" as the president did, but it also irrelevant.

There is no credible means of enforcing the will of the Security Council or the "international community" (which the Geek takes to be the equivalent of the bumper sticker, "We are all passengers on spaceship Earth") against the Hermit Kingdom of the North. As has been argued in previous posts, economic sanctions will not prove any more efficacious in the future than they have in the past. War is not an option. Only bribery might work. And, Pyongyang is unlikely to stay bribed for long. For Dear Leader and company, blackmail is an unending enterprise.

Unfortunately President Obama and his speech writers demonstrated a lamentable ignorance of historical reality when the Nice Young Man From Chicago beat his breast on behalf of the US. He averred that the US had a "moral responsibility" to take the lead in seeking total nuclear disarmament. He linked this alleged "moral" load to the US having employed two nuclear bombs against Japan in World War II.

Morality is not involved either then or now. There is and never has been any requirement for the US to enter a mea culpa in its nuclear usage. A nation at war has the goal of ending the war as quickly as possible at the lowest cost in friendly lives compatible with its political demands. The bombings of two Japanese cities accomplished this goal. (And, saved Japanese as well as American lives in the process.)

It is in American national and strategic interest to lower the levels of nuclear weapons extant today. It is in our national and strategic interests to end proliferation. To control nuclear materials so as to prevent their drifting into the hands of rogue states and non-state actors. These are matters of realpolitick. Morality has nothing to do with it.

There is no objection to using moral terms to cover the naked flesh of national interest. But, (as usual here is the big "but") it is critical that morality not become the engine of policy. As we should have learned from the disaster of Woodrow Wilson's moral based approach to foreign affairs, the adoption of the high moral tone is the road to failure. Similarly, the moral stance adopted by the US in its assorted "non-recognition" moves directed against the Soviet Union, the Peoples Republic of China, Iran and Cuba dragged failure in their train.

Perhaps it was morality more than ideals which caused President Obama to stick his wet fingers into a particularly dangerous electric socket. At the European Union meeting in Prague Obama told the assembly, "The United States and Europe must approach Muslims as our firends, neighbors and partners in fighting injustice, intolerance and violence, forging a relationship based on mutual respect and mutual interests."

Nothing wrong with those words. Glittering generalities are a politician's stock in trade. Then the president bore down on a specific. "Moving forward toward Turkish membership in the EU would be an important signal of your commitment to this agenda and ensure that we continue to anchor Turkey firmly in Europe."

Nothing like sticking your face in a fan, is there, Mr President? Turkish membership in the EU is not a popular concept in France or Germany.

Nicholas Sarkozy, perhaps regretting the Gallic bouquets he had verbally heaved at Obama earlier in Strasbourg, was quick to respond. He stated on French TV, "I have always been opposed to this entry." In case there was any doubt in anyone's mind, he added,"I still am and I think I can say that the immense majority of member states shares the position of France."

Sarkozy was quick to toss some rhetorical flowers in the general direction of Ankara. He called Turkey an ally and stated it would remain what it has been, "a privledged partner." But, not a member of the EU.

Angela Merkel, German PM, took a similarly dim view of President Obama's advice. Being German she used fewer words. They were, however, Teuton-blunt. "It's clear there are different opinions." In other word, "Butt out, buster."

The US is concerned that Turkey will drift further and further into the Islamist camp. There is good reason for any such apprehension given the background of the ruling party and the growth of Islamism among the hinterland dwellers of Turkey. Beyond that, Turkey is an important energy nexus. The importance of Turkey in this role will grow in the near- to mid-term.

These reasons along with the potential of Turkey as an intermediary in Mideastern affairs as well as Central Asian gives the US powerful reasons to wish Turkey to be tied closer to the West through EU membership. It is in our national and strategic interests that this occur.

The critical question is not if Turkey's joining the EU is in American interests. That is a given. Is it in the national and strategic interests of the European states? That is the question. The US, as PM Merkel suggested, is not in a position to answer that question. Sarkozy took a more robust line. EU membership for Turkey is not in French national interest.

Sarko is probably correct in assessing that France is not alone in its rejectionist stance. Certainly other countries have reasons to keep Turkey out of the EU. There are many, but one remains the hippo in the bedroom.

That issue is immigration. EU rules provide for unrestricted movement between member states. Turkey as a member would be an open door for uncontrollable immigration of Muslims. The demographic, cultural and political effects of a Muslim "Open Door" are unpredicable as to scale but predictable as to effect. The effect would be negative.

Admittedly the multi-culti oh-so-sensitive elites of Europe do not want to openly acknowledge that Muslim populations in European cities have already caused social, cultural and political frictions which do not bode well for the structural integrity of these societies and polities in the future. The unemployment which has accompanied the present economic situation has provided a degree of cover in that one can oppose immigration now on the basis of protecting jobs.

The pleasant economic cover and concealment will not last forever. Looking ahead, the politically articulate elite of the EU member states have to decide if they really, really believe that their societies and political structures will survive a large, very large influx of Muslims through the Gates of Ankara. This elite has to decide how much change and how much rapid change the nations of Europe can accept and survive. They have to decide how much they want to see the far right of European politics empowered by the flood of Muslims.

The American president can afford to be High Minded and Lofty Thinking about Turkey, the EU and migration. It is, after all, not in our backyard.

It would be good if some blunt, bold European head of state would ask President Obama the following questions. "If NAFTA had provided for free migration between the US and Mexico, would the American Senate have approved it? The American president signed it? Would you?"

Sarkozy Is Blunt. But Right On

The Geek gives French President Nicholas Sarkozy a really big "thumbs-up." Not only is he the first TACAMO type to lead the French since le grande Charles, he has a unique willingness to call things as he sees them--a quality which would benefit politicians in other countries.

His most recent demonstration of Harry Truman style "plain speaking" came in a closed meeting of French diplomatic personnel. Fortunately some of Sarkozy's observations leaked out around the locked doors. To cut to the chase: Nick the Man eviscerated Senator Obama's stance on Iran.

According to Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html) Sarkozy perceives the views of the Nice Young Man From Chicago as "utterly immature." He went on to note that Obama's position was based on "formulations empty of all content."

Back during the all-conquering Obama World Tour last July, the French president met at some length with the smiling senator. At the shake-and-grin press conference afterwards, Obama allowed as how the Iranian nuclear research and development effort was serious and endangered Israel.

The Obama exhortation directed at least in part to the mullahocracy was a slight genuflection to Sarkozy's strong argument that any change in direction regarding Iran by the next US president would be "very problematic."

Apparently now Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the semi-united front offered by the P5+1 to open direct talks with the mullahs. Without preconditions, if one takes the Nice Young Man at his word.

Over the months since meeting with Obama on his European Triumph, Sarkozy has reportedly fretted over the reality that the senator's position on Iran was "not crystallized" and like unset Jello could wiggle all over the plate--and the table. Reportedly senior advisers of Sarkozy who met with the Nice Young Man came away with an identical set of impressions.

The criticism leveled by Sarkozy against Senator Obama on Iran could be extended accurately to other important foreign policy venues. Arguably, the Nice Young man has positions on Iraq and Afghanistan which are not yet "crystallized" or are "utterly immature" and founded on "formulations empty of all content."

One cannot help but wonder whether a man who is obviously without the slightest grip on the realities of Islamist goals and strategies or the nature of counterinsurgency would take charge and move out on Afghanistan where the US could still fail to achieve the minimum necessary strategic goal of "not-losing." Considering that Obama clings to the long disproved thesis that poverty causes Islamist terrorism, how would he deal with the on-going struggle with those who promote and employ indiscriminate violence to effect political change?

Sarkozy and an increasing number of European political leaders and opinion molders are becoming increasingly aware that there is an alternative worse than the hyper-hawk unilateralism of George W. Bush and Associates. The growing consensus is that an Obama in the Oval would have a high probability of resulting in super-dove unilateralism.

The world is a far more unstable and dangerous place than the Nice Young Man appears to recognize. Islamists litter the mountainsides in Afghanistan. They also lurk in the souks and mosques spreading in the vast arc from Morocco to Indonesia.

The North Koreans are nuclear and less than predictable. The Russians are upgrading their military capacities both conventional and nuclear. The PRC is an ever more potent threat to US interests both in Asia and around the world.

Then there are the failed and failing "states" of Africa.

Of course, there is the growing trend to dictatorship in Latin America led by Hugo Chavez whose latest "democratic" move is jailing of opposition candidates in the upcoming provincial and municipal elections less than two weeks after We the People may give Obama the keys to power.

The Geek could go on, but it is too depressing. Suffice it to mention the glowering presence of a global recession (depression?) and the historical reality that very bad economic times are usually associated with increases in international political instability and the rise of revolutionary regimes promising prosperity at the expense of others.

You want to bet on Joe Biden bringing adult supervision to the Obama Administration?

Don't. That was the role presumed to be fulfilled by Dick Cheney in the current administration. We know how that came out. Not that the Geek sees Biden as another Cheney. He isn't. Not goal oriented (or if you prefer) sociopathic enough.

Even so, Joe the Bloviator is not suitable for the mission of adult supervision. There is one reason for this the Geek opines based on reviewing Biden's Senatorial career.

In foreign policy and national security matters, Joe the Mouth is roughly as competent as Joe the Plumber.

Ahh, It's So Easy To Forget--And So Dangerous

Gather 'round kiddies and Ole Uncle Geek will tell you a story. A story that has obviously been forgotten by assorted academics, politicians (both here and in Europe) and pundits (again both here and overseas.) A story that is relevant to our current problems with the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Resurgent Russian Empire.

Long ago (the 1930s) and far away (Europe) there lived a man who was leader of his country. The country had been broken and impoverished and embittered by having lost a war. The leader wrought an economic miracle and made the people of his country feel strong and proud again. Now the leader and his newly empowered army faced a challenge.

The challenge was in a neighboring country. According to the Leader and his country's news media, the government of this next door neighbor was abusing and oppressing citizens who spoke the language of the Leader and his fellow countrymen.

The Leader proclaimed that this oppression of his co-Germanophones was unacceptable. A clear violation of their human rights. (Although, to be honest the Leader didn't use that term. It hadn't been invented yet.)

The Leader also gnashed his teeth over the government of this small eastern neighbor having signed agreements with large and powerful states located to the west of the Leader's country.

Something had to be done!

It was.

The heads of the western governments met with the Leader in the old and scenic city of Munchen for a conference designed to placate the Leader and assure "peace in our time."

Peace was assured. For one whole year. The small neighbor was ceremoniously dismembered and left open to a full occupation by the Leader's army.

Germany had triumphed. Hitler rode high on his charisma, political sagacity and the appearance of a military/diplomatic walkover.

A year later Hitler would try to do the same in Poland. For a while he was successful.

Now, kiddies, lets go back a few years earlier. Back to when the Leader rolled his political dice for the first time. Back to when he ordered the new and splendidly non-competent Wehrmacht to reoccupy the demilitarized west bank of the Rhine in violation of the treaty ending World War I.

A small contingent of German troops marched into the Rhineland under orders to beat feet beaucoup schnell if they met any resistance, no matter how slight. A single French military cop would have been enough.

There were no French MPs. There was no French response. The British likewise stood still and silent. Some even offered apologies and excuses for the German action.

It was, after all, their country, wasn't it?

And, the Versailles Treaty was too harsh, wasn't it?

And, Germany is too important economically to aggravate, wasn't it?

In truth, the governments of France and Great Britain took counsel of their fears. In truth, both governments made policy for today and hoped the future would take care of itself.

(The Geek calls this tendency of governments to make policy for today while disregarding the future consequences "The Aehrenthal Doctrine" after the Austrian Foreign Minister of the years preceding World War I. Famously, he once said, "I make policy for today. Let the future take care of itself.")

It would have been very easy to thwart Hitler at the time of the Rhineland move. It would have been reasonably easy to stop him at the time of Munich. It would have been harder, but not impossible, to stop him before the tanks and Stukas moved on 1 September 1939.

It was a hell of a lot harder to stop him later.

Well, kids we forgot all this with regard the Iranian nuclear ambitions. And, buckos, we have (or are) forgetting it all over again as the Russians make their moves to reestablish operational dominance over the states the Kremlin calls "the near abroad."

Arguably, even the dimwitted neocon ninnies of the current US administration have a better handle on the historical analogies then do our European colocutors. While the Geek doubts that the current administration is using historical analogy based reasoning in forming policy, it is clear the Europeans have forgotten completely what happened in their own area less than seventy-five years ago.

The Germans have made this quite explicit with statements to the effect that "now is not the time to lay blame or question motives." The German government has already opposed allowing Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO lest doing such annoy the Kremlin. Now, the Germans don't want to say anything harshly truthful about the ongoing Russian occupation of portions of Georgia such as the city of Gori.

Why this willful act of historical lobotomy?

The reason is the same as at least one of the primary motives behind the obviously long planned Russian invasion. It's all in one word,

OK, three words. Oil. Natural gas. Thirty plus percent of the first. Nearly half of the second.

Energy for Europe.

The Germans are simply more willing than others to appease the Leader in the Kremlin.

Don't you find it passingly interesting that the ceasefire brokered by French President Sarkozy on behalf of the European Union is silent on such key points as the territorial integrity of Georgia? Isn't it a tad instructive that the agreement allows the Russians to "augment" their "peacekeeping" presence in the secessionist provinces?

Can we say, "Munich--The Sequel?"

Now a quick turn to the Iranian front. The Germans are the biggest sanction busters in Europe. They talk a great game. They play a pathetic one.

Of course, the Germans and others might think and say that the Iranians haven't crossed any actual red lines in their nuclear work to date. They might honestly believe that there is plenty of time before any drastic action might be necessary.

A good case might be made for believing that time still existed in which to seek a compromise with Tehran or with the Kremlin. The Geek would be willing to make one himself---

Except for a couple of bothersome details.

To make a case for a long and easy process of diplomacy and accommodation with either or both Russia and Iran would require ignoring the lessons of history, which show conclusively that the earlier one acts to abate a nuisance, the easier it is.

And, it would require making policy for today in the hopes that the future would take care of itself.