Far East Cynic

Margaret Thatcher died today, at the age of 87.

As a result, thanks to our British satellite system,  we have been watching voluminous coverage of the memories of her life. What strikes me the most is how very different it is from the gushing American coverage. It speaks volumes about the naiveté of Americans in general, and conservatives in particular.

The British coverage on BBC has been much more even handed-unsparing of her failures while quite laudatory of here achievements-which were many-and trying to give a balanced picture of a life that shaped a great deal of Great Britain's post World War II history. American coverage, particularly on Fox-which I have the misfortune to have on my Sky system-not so much.

Americans tend to view her as a British version of Reagan, but in reality she was very different. Consider:

Thatcher slashed, but there was no Reaganesque free candy. She lowered the rates, but she also raised other taxes, such as the value added tax. She was about sacrifice, cutting government subsidies and programs in a way that Reagan never matched. Millions of people went on the dole because of her cuts, whereas the recession in the U.S. did not result from Reagan cutting the budget but from Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker slamming the brakes to wring inflation from the economy. (Reagan did reappoint Volcker once.)

Thatcher called Reagan "the second most important man in my life." And both drew strength from the other. It helped at home. It was hard for Americans or Britons to dismiss their leader as a crazy outlier if your most important ally had an elected leader with a similar worldview. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair would mutually reinforce each other in the same way as they took on their own party's established interests. When Thatcher and Reagan differed, as on the Falklands war, where the Reagan Administration had coddled the "authoritarian" regime in Buenos Aires, it strained the relationship but never broke it.

 

Consider too-that America later brow beat Britain into its wars,  but when the British Navy could have really used our help-in the form of AEW aircraft and refueling, we did the minimum acceptable to get by. The US could have done far more to support Britain in the Falklands, support that it had richly earned, but the US failed miserably in the undertaking. And a year later-it invaded an island where the Queen was head of State without so much as a "by your leave" to the British government.

Americans should also remember that whatever success she had came at a painful cost. 3.3 million were unemployed with no hope of a job. The economy went into recession and the dole was being withdrawn unless you could "prove" you were actively searching for work.  It ruined millions of people's lives and put millions more into unproductive boredom and hardship. It cost the country £40b in lost productivity and the only thing Margaret did was make it worse.  Furthermore, just as in America 20 years later-it accelerated a gap between the wealthiest 1% and the majority of the population. Tony Blair came to power in part because of that-just as Barak Obama did some 10 years later in the US. Americans tend to forget how bad it really was in Britain for a great while.

Here is a point of view you will not hear on American TV-but probably should:

Thatcher was an evil, twisted woman who encouraged greed and isolation. she decimated the North of England and virtually destroyed my father during the miner's strikes.

I remember one Christmas particularly, during that dark time. The rotary club turned up at the door with a food parcel complete with turkey, veg and a small bottle of sherry.

This was our Christmas – all I can recall of Thatcher's wonder years was imminent threat of redundancy and penury.

Maybe Thatcher did something good for the country, but as a child growing up in Newcastle, I am at a loss as to what this good actually was.

Conservatives in America will love the woman because they will view her through the prism of her friendship with Ronald Reagan. She was, like Reagan, probably what her country needed at the time-but one must never forget the actual facts of her time in office, which had a lot of bad to balance out the good. Just as it was with Reagan.

Regardless of what one thought of her-she did a lot to earn a great deal of respect. However one should never forget the undercurrent that came with that legacy and the deep divisions she fostered in her country. British politics still lives in her shadow-for both better and worse.

But the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.

What is Spanish for, " Suck on this you Latin bastards?"

Of 1,517 votes cast in the two-day referendum – on a turnout of more than 90% – 1,513 were in favour, while just three votes were against.

It follows pressure from Argentina over its claims to the islands, 31 years after the Falklands War with the UK.

The UK government welcomed the result and urged "all countries" to accept it and respect the islanders' wishes.

The referendum had asked: "Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?"

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner , here's a little music to cry yourself to sleep by:

Can we put that Las Malvinas bullshit to bed forever now?

And don't kid yourself sports fans-the entire world is watching the US election. One of the things that has always amazed me now-through 11 years of living overseas, is how much of the rest of the world watches and gets swept up in the madness that is American electoral politics. The US election has been topic number 1 on both the German and BBC newscasts I watch.

Might have something to with the fact that when the US sneezes-the rest of the world catches a cold. Or gets stuck with a war in (fill in the blank).

If you are an American in the US right now. GET OFF YOUR ASS AND VOTE! In 2008, only 56.8% of Americans bothered to vote. Even less did in 2010. That is a disgrace. Americans jingoistically boast they have the greatest democracy in the world-but they are complete hypocrites about doing what it takes to keep that democracy working.

On a lighter note, here is the Romney campaign summed up in three panels:

The last Nate Silver projection can be found here. The pundits at Fox News and the members of the Liars Club, hate it-and they hate Silver too. I sure hope he is right. I really don't want to have to go out and ask my bartender for a quart of antifreeze.

If Romney wins-I am staying drunk for a week. And as a head start for this-I plan on staying up tonight to watch the returns come in. They should start around 2AM German time. I'm stocking up on Pilsner-if they go south I'll switch to Scotch.

24 hours from now we should know how it went.

 I want write about the abomination that is the Romney campaign-and the failed dirt digging that is the Liars Club and their reaction to a reasonable statement. John Cole framed it well when he voiced the same sentiment I have:

What a crazy position for an American President to take- to actually focus on American security concerns and American foreign policy goals. It’s almost like Obama understands we are not an Israeli client state.

Call me an anti-Semite, but I guess I just have no problem with my President looking out for US foreign policy goals. Crazy, that.

Five trips to Israel in the last year have convinced me of a couple of things: 1) Israel is a vital ally of the United States and will remain so, and nothing this President has done has effectively denied that fact. In fact he's worked steadily and privately to strengthen the United States support for Israel. 2) Israelis are among the most obstinate and unreasonable people on the earth. I know that will offend some people-but its the truth. Yes there is a historical background for it-but time has marched on, and despite what the religious right believes, Jerusalem is not at the center of the world vortex right now.  Americans, as a whole, do not understand what Israel is really like-rather they have a preconceived idea of what they think it is like.

Finally, Israel's interests and ours are not in complete alignment. No nations is-but particularly the interest of a nation that is founded, rightly or wrongly, as a religious state. Or the secular representation of a particular religion. It is natural, that in the course of events-Israel and the US will disagree.  That does not make the US any less of a friend nor does it make the Israeli whining about certain matters nothing more than noise on particular issues. The President was right to say that and the folks over at the Weekly Standard can just go suck eggs. There is more to foreign policy than the views of AIPAC.

William Kristol and Benjamin Netenyahu should both realize that.

There! I feel better for having gotten that off of my chest. There are others who agree with me.

And here we see the perils of believing your own hype — apparently Bibi and friends actuallybelieved the idea of the all-powerful Israel Lobby. Whether through Romney's bald-faced pandering to that perceived lobby with his ugly comments about the cultural inferiority of Palestinians or, more shockingly, through Netanyahu's decision to take sides in the 2012 presidential campaign, they seem to think that if they can portray Obama as "weak on Israel" they will materially advance their own causes. It's worth noting, of course, that those interests are different. For Romney, the approach only works if it undermines Obama in key states, notably Florida. For Netanyahu, it would work if the fear of losing Jewish support pushed Obama to get visibly tougher on Iran, to accept, for example, the Israeli leader's call for clearly demarked and more aggressive "red lines" with Iran.

Crank up the F-15's and bring out Slim Pickens on an H-bomb. My summer just got a hell of a lot harder.

"All the signs are pointing to Iran. Only in the past few months we've seen Iran try to target Israelis in Thailand, Indian, Georgia, Cyprus and more, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said following the deadly terror attack on a bus in carrying Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria.

Of course-there is absolutely NO WAY Yetanahyu would seek to capitalize on this.  No way , whatsoever. I mean-it is not like his government has just fallen or anything:

The 70-day-old Likud-Kadima government that broke up on Tuesday was a prime example of political shoddiness at its worst.

Israel has seen its share of unity governments. Some lasted longer than others; some accomplished a great deal and some were missed opportunities. But there has never been anything like this.

In the dark of night 70 days ago, only minutes before the Knesset was going to schedule elections for September 4, the leaders of the two big parties shocked everyone with a "historic" coalition agreement for the ensuing 18 months.

The new government had four goals: pass a universal draft law, change the system of government, jump-start the peace process and pass an emergency budget. Tuesday, after 70 days of euphoria, the partnership dissolved without any one of those things being achieved.

Benjamin Netanyahu and Shaul Mofaz are emerging from this bad joke, which made a mockery of Israeli democracy, looking bad. Both are going back to square one in much worse positions than before. Netanyahu looks as though he has forged an eternal alliance with the ultra-Orthodox, while Mofaz, who wanted the public to judge him by his results, has a very poor report card to show his voters; it has four zeros on it. He had good intentions, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

 

The draft issue is a serious one-Israelis are tired of seeing the Haredim be moral hypocrites, advocating policies that lead to violence-while getting a free pass to have to not have to deal with the consequences; this in order to study the Torah or other such nonsense.

Then again, the question has to be asked-what sort of accommodations can the IDF realistically make for the Haredim? 

I  can already picture military correspondent Carmela Menashe reporting on a yeshiva student-soldier whose young son fell ill, suddenly developed a high fever, and his wife summons her husband from the base to the hospital. She has left another two to three babies at home, her husband is no longer a child, he's at least 22. Someone has to help her, but the commander refuses to release her helpmate in the middle of a training exercise. Won't we all protest the hardheartedness? It's absolutely infuriating. After all, equality in sharing the burden of the family is also an important value.

And another yeshiva student will say he noticed a female soldier walking near the camp, he's almost certain it was a woman, he was even able to hear her voice from afar. Here's the proof: The IDF is not really interested in conscripting them, isn't willing to consider their feelings, and it's impossible to go on this way.

One scandal follows another, it's already the third case in one week: Another yeshiva student, who was hungry, got up at night to eat something in the brigade pantry. He became very upset: The kashrut stamp on the canned goods is an unacceptable one, and not from the proper Badatz (Haredi kosher certification ). True it's kosher, even glatt kosher, but it's someone else's seal of approval, not ours. As though bitten by a snake he runs outside to the parade grounds, and with a loud "gevalt" he wakes up his friends. Together they decide to phone the rebbe, to wake him up, too, so he can rend his clothes and raise a scandal. Here's additional proof of the non-Jewish nature of the Zionist army, which will soon be an army of Arabs, because Yisrael Beitenu ("Israel Our Home" ) is also Israel their home, until the voluntary transfer.

And what will happen on Shabbat? Who will measure 2,000 cubits and draw the Shabbat boundary? And who will rule on what constitutes pikuah nefesh (a danger to life ) that justifies desecrating the Shabbat, and who is worthy of having his life saved on the holy day? Soon there will be a heated debate over Jewish religious law between the rabbinical leaders of the Hardalim and those of the Haredim, whose disputes are always for the sake of heaven and never for earthly reasons: Who will bully the IDF more, who will prove to be the most important Jewish legal arbiter of the generation? In other words: Conscription for all, in the present situation, means dismantling the IDF.

In other words-the IDF would become the Jewish equivalent of the US Navy. Too willing to cave into the demands of a protected class to get any real work done. Only in the US Navy its women-in the IDF it would be the Haredim.

But don't kid yourself-with a collapsed government, new elections on the horizion forcing Bibi to get more hard line than he already is, and the fingerprints of Iran on this-stand the fuck by-the jets are going to roll.

Which will suck for the rest of us.

As I have noted before-I am an unrepentant Anglophile and fan of the British Empire. We have gotten to see great coverage of the celebrations on our British Satellite system. Even as an American you should be struck by the difference between the respect shown here to the Queen and our own twisted and misguided politics. The British Empire may have faded from the stage-but the spirit that makes Britain unique among the nations-and the traditions that made America-are still quite in evidence. Whatever we Americans have-we learned from the British.

The sun going down on Kidney Ridge is setting on the British Empire, on which-so we learned as schoolboys-the sun never set. Our Empire was born of the skill of our explorers, the martial prowess of our yeomanry, the innovative genius of our scientists and engineers. We stole a march on the world that lasted 200 years. Lulled by the long peaceful protection of the great fleet we built, we thought it could last forever. We dozed.

Here in Kidney Ridge we have erased the disgrace of our somnolence. If history is but the clash of arms, we now begin to leave the stage with honor. But if it is a march of the human spirit toward world freedom, [Britain] will never leave the stage. British ideas, British institutions, British scientific method, will lead the way in other lands, in other guises. English will become the planetary tongue, that is now certain. We have been the Greece of the new age.

After an arduous trip home-made doubly long due to bad weather in Chicago-leading us to get rerouted on Lufthansa. ( I got upgraded to Business-the SO did not. For the record, I offered the seat to her-but she knows how much the free booze means to me, God Bless Her). We were exhausted by the time we got back to Stuttgart.

Our bags, however, had an even longer journey not showing up till this morning. Which is just as well since the S.O was still asleep when they came-she slept till noon today.

So with the tiredness still resident, and bad weather looming on the horizon, we stayed in and watched the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Flotilla parade. ( If you have to ask "whose Queen"-you deserve to be beaten). The weather in London was not good-but thousands turned out to watch. And the British, proving to be the truly great people they are, pulled off the parade in great fashion, despite the rain. The Queen herself, 86, stood for 4 hours on the Royal Barge to watch the parade go by. Thanks to the wonder of our British Satellite System-we watched every moment of it.

Here's a note to all those folks watching Braveheart for the 15th time and thinking Scottish Independence would be a great thing: YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG! ( This could also be said to apply to Ireland-but they already fucked things up long ago). Only as a united nation with ENGLAND will you ever achieve great things.

Now, truth in advertising-I am a bonfide fan of the British Empire, if I had my way 1/4 of the earths population would still be under British rule. Get over it LKY, most of Africa, and you bastards in India and Pakistan. Sorry Gandhi, you never understood what would have been able to be accomplished had the colonies unified together to form a great power and economic block. Yes it was racist-but as Niall Ferguson has pointed out the forces of moderation were well underway before you guys went off the deep end.

ANYWAY.

As a bonafide Anglophile ( Americans take note-that still makes one an American, it simply means I recognize that America is an English country, descended from English tradition that needs to be assimilated into. That-by the way- is my view on immigration) I enjoyed the celebration immensely. Queen Elizabeth and the Commonwealth have been a stabilizing force among the world in many ways. Congratulations to her for 60 years on the throne and GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

I have been watching with considerable interest, the generally unhinged reaction of many prominent mil-blogs and other commentaries about President Obama’s speech last Thursday regarding Israel and the Palestinians. It would be funny, if the consequences were not so serious.

The most unhinged reactions I have read to date-have come from several sources, retired military officers ( many of whom ought to know their history better), hysterical Fox News commentators,  and today’s outraged column in the Wall Street Journal. Obama hates Israel. Obama is picking on poor little beleaguered Israel. The Palestinians are thugs and terrorists and have no right to settle in the holy land of Zion. Why can’t Obama just leave Israel alone?

This of course leads, in the American context, to the not so subtle innuendo’s from all of the usual suspects. Obama must be a Muslim not to support America’s best buddy in the whole world, he’s obviously arrogant, and he’s throwing Israel under the bus.  Israel, in their eyes, has done nothing wrong. Those settlements in the West Bank?  Just good business-not colonization of in support of the goal of Yeretz Israel. Don’t even think about calling it an occupation! Bibi says so.  Israeli-and more specifically Likud obstructionism to any settlement with the Palestinians? Just plain good faith diplomacy.

Now I will put my cards on the table-if I had my way, a third party along the lines of the British (preferably Britain) and their mandate would administer Palestine-just as was done in the years prior to World War II. I base that wish on the fact that for the long term I: 1) Do not believe a Palestinian state is viable along the West Bank and 2) I don’t think that Israel wants or can, come to a long term settlement with Palestinian authority.

Of course that is just nostalgic and wishful thinking on my part. It’s not going to happen-nor is it representative of what the current situation on the ground,  its sheer historical fantasy on my part.

And fantasy is what it seems Americans love to indulge in when it comes to Israel. Commentators over at OPFOR-when they are not attacking anyone who supports Obama’s speech as a raging anti-semite, are indulging in some historical fantasies of their own.

Fantasy #1.

Obama’s statements differ from previous US presidents. Flash traffic sports fans-they don’t.

But on substance, what did we learn yesterday? Certainly not that a Palestinian state must be “based on” the 1967 borders. Why this has been described as some kind of radical betrayal of Israel (“thrown under the bus”, in Mitt Romney’s words), is utterly beyond me. When Bill Clinton pushed the same thing, Aaron David Miller said America was acting as “Israel’s lawyer”. George W. Bush, whom Israelis saw as a staunch supporter, said the same. According to my colleague in Jerusalem, the innovation seems to have been the invocation of “1967″ in so many words. Why this is substantial is a mystery to me.

As the same colleague also mentions, there was an innovation, one not of substance but of sequencing—always close to the heart of these negotiations, since everyone knows what the substance must be. Mr Obama talked about settling borders and security first, and refugees and Jerusalem later. The more intransigent Israelis and their American supporters dislike this; they want a comprehensive settlement or nothing. But it’s not clear to me why this is the best option, even from their point of view. Israel is going to give up most of the West Bank in any settlement, and will and must only do so with security guarantees, as Mr Obama reiterated today. Land-for-peace would be most of what Israel wants. Meanwhile the status quo on refugees and Jerusalem favour Israel, which has its way on both at the moment.

Fantasy#2

The 1967 borders are indefensible. First of all-this statement presumes that Israel will actually end up back at the 67 borders. The odds of that happening are slim to none. For one thing-there is no way on God’s green earth that Israel will ever give up East Jerusalem, and there is no opposing Army that would even have the gumption to try. What part of “mutually agreed land swaps” did you not understand? ( or care to listen to). Since most folks are learning impaired when it comes to Israel, let me show you a visual aid that will show you why the 67 borders have to be the starting point for a final settlement:

If you have ever been to Israel and to the West Bank, as I have, you will know right away why Israel has the land to the East in the West Bank-that’s where the flat farmland is. The territory rises in elevation as you head west towards Jerusalem. Furthermore, the big takeaway from that graphic is that “Palestinian living space”, such as it is-is an archipelago of distinct ghettos. I guess I am the only person who appreciates the irony of a state that was formed as a result of outrage about rounding people up into ghettos and placing movement restrictions on them-doing the same thing to other people 40+ years later. The reason the territory is so chopped up? Jewish settlements that Israel was never supposed to allow in the first place, but did as a way to appease its orthodox population.”The settler movement could put down settlements in much of the sparsely populated south of Israel proper with no problem. Instead, they insist on taking Palestinian land. They are not colonizing the West Bank only to make it more ‘secure’ (they are making it less so), but rather out of greed, ambition, and expansionism. It is not about defense, it is about offense.”  (and water availability).

Those orange spots are not a way to create a viable state-and Netanyahu knows it. And that’s perfectly fine with him. But it shouldn’t be for any thinking American. The 1967 lines dividing Israel from the West Bank and from Gaza have always  been Washington’s point of departure for a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But now, for the first time, the four digits have become formal American policy.

Now that position has a pretty firm basis in international law-but this is where the irrational factor comes into play with American supporters of Israel. They don’t care-they just want the Palestinians to go away and die. After all, in the eyes of some wild eyed conservatives-they are all terrorist savages anyway.

There are only a couple of problems I can think of with this line of thinking. 1) They are not going away and dying-they are breeding like rabbits. and 2) they have no place to go. Any chance for them to go someplace else evaporated in 1988 when Jordan ceded its claim to the West Bank to the PLO.  The Oslo accords formalize that by paving the way to a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan. That peace treaty recognized the Mandate border between Palestine and Jordan, but specifically makes note that the treaty does no prejudice the status of the territories occupied( there is that pesky word again) by the Israeli military. Don’t forget too, that in 1987, Jordan and Israel actually tried to negotiate giving the West Bank ( but not East Jerusalem) back to Jordan, but the deal was nixed by Yitzak Shamir. So like it or not-Jordan is not a part of this picture anymore.

Fantasy #3

‘Jordan is Palestine’. Good luck with that. King Abdullah is not that stupid-and it also ignores the reason Britain broke Jordan away from the Palestine to begin with.  See Fantasy 2 above.

Fantasy #4

Israel is ringed by enemies on all sides, so it has to take drastic action to defend itself. Oh really? Those peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt don’t mean anything? And last time I checked-the Syrian military is a little busy right now trying to keep Al Asad in power. A better way to describe the situation is “Israel is ringing a lot of really pissed off people with no place to go“. And why not? Half of Palestinians in Gaza are unemployed and Israel will not allow them to export what they produce  and deeply restricts imports.  Restrictions within the West Bank make it difficult for Palestinians to commute to their places of employment and for goods to be transported to where they are needed. This has increased the costs of transportation and has thus led to lower profits for companies operating in the territories. Any wonder they are all pissed off?

It’s probably also a great time to point out that Israel is the only nation in the Levant with nuclear weapons and a military that outclasses any military,  with the sole exception of the United States.

However-Israel’s security rests on achieving a deal with the Palestinians. Because right now they are facing two ticking time bombs they can’t control. One is the “Arab Spring”:

Netanyahu ignored a very important historical reality on Friday in Washington, that Israel’s intractable enemies are always replaced with something worse. The PLO was replaced with Hezbollah in Lebanon and supplanted by Hamas in Gaza. There is a very real possibility that Hamas could be overtaken by an al-Qaeda inspired or affiliated group in the near future. Waiting for a more agreeable negotiating partner is an exercise in folly, if only because one has never appeared before.

On the other hand, I could be wrong. Problematically, that could be even worse for Israel. That would be widespread blooming of democracy in the Arab world. There is no reason to believe that democratic Arab governments would demand anything less than their autocratic ones do now. But they would have a great deal more credibility with the international community generally, and the United States in particular.

It should be remembered that America’s great democratic ally, Iraq, does not recognize Israel, nor does it denounce Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. There is no reason to believe that any other democratic Arab government would behave any differently, but their positions might seem a tad more reasonable when unattached to names like Bashir Assad or Saddam Hussein.

Add to that the possibility that the Palestinians might have learned from their mistakes and come to understand that violent resistance isn’t going to get them anywhere. A peaceful intifada might be an irresistible force in the international community and could very well isolate Israel, especially an Israel with a hardline Likud government. There’s no way of knowing how even Israeli public opinion would react to demonstrations like the ones in Tahrir square, but it’s virtually certain that the American consensus in support of Israel would fracture.

 

 

 

 

The other is, the fact that for a population that hates sex-Palestinians sure seem to f*ck a lot:

The most likely outcome of Israel’s present course is a one state solution, achieved over decades, with much heartbreak and violence and ruined lives in the meantime. The Jews of Israel will likely end up like the Maronite Christians of Lebanon. France created Lebanon in 1920 for a then Christian majority, but Christian out-migration and rapid Muslim population growth reduced the Maronites to only about 22 percent of the population today if we count children. Likewise, Israeli Jews have already lost their majority among first-graders in what was Mandate Palestine in favor of Palestinians and Palestinian-Israelis. Current demographic trends will likely produce an Israel that is a third Arab by 2030 and that is not even counting the Occupied Territories. The instability in the Arab world and the Greater Middle East, which is growing, could well over time increase Jewish out-migration (out of sheer nervousness) so that it outstrips in-migration of Jews. I can’t see a way for Israel to escape this demographic and geopolitical fate and remain viable as a nation-state. Plans on the Israeli right to denaturalize and expel the 1.5 million Palestinian-Israelis are unrealistic and do not reckon with the likely backlash from the Arab world, which won’t remain weak and abject forever.

In summary-a whole lot of Americans would do well to look at Israel as it really is-not as they think it is. It’s not a Jewish version of America. It is a complicated society with some very unique things foisted upon because its foundation based on a religious basis and not a national one. More importantly, Israeli and American interests are not always aligned. None of this is to suggest that Washington should turn its back on the Jewish state. But this is also a time when a more evenhanded position on the conflict is desperately needed. That’s what Obama is trying to do-and if he has to kick Bibi in the nuts to do it-well I won’t cry salt tears. You know who told me that? David Petreaus:

“Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples [in the region].” His statement provoked controversy in Washington, but ask any seasoned Middle East observer and you’d be hard-pressed to find one who disagrees with the general’s assessment. It is not Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya which is the greatest source of anti-American attitudes in the Arab world — it is the continued lack of resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the view of many in the region that the United States has its thumb on the scale in favor of Israel.

At some point, you have to ask yourself the legitimate question of who is looking out not for Israel’s interests, but America’s. It certainly wasn’t the slobbering idiots on the floor of the US Congress today.

The S.O. and I went to see this movie this past weekend. Believe it or not we had a hard time getting two seats together-so crowded was the theater.

We both loved the movie-even if it did take more than a couple of liberties with history. Me, because I like any movie that talks about that time when the world was as its should be- with the British Empire ruling  25% of the world’s population. ( India of course,  being as it should be with the Union Jack flying over Dehli and Gandhi just an annoying fakir). I sometimes wonder if that was the age I was meant to live in. Of course it would have been a dicey thing-in that I would have to be coming of age in 1919 so as to be old enough not to get sucked into World War II downstream. ( Impossible-no matter how many times I think it out, since being in the Royal Navy is always a part of these scenarios-I would have been in the thick of the second conflict. ) And of course, then there’s the need to be rich enough to be of the right class……….

But I digress.

Nonetheless, the movie is good story telling-and very well done. Edward VIII comes out like a real louse and Wallis Simpson gets a thorough going over , being portrayed as a real shrew. Afterwards I went back and researched a bit-it would seem they may have gotten this bit right. I’ve often wondered if later on in life, Edward did not sit out on the veranda in France and wonder what might have been…………….

Sometimes, I think I know how he must have felt.

And by the way-I was there. I launched on the first E-2 mission from USS America (CV-66), January 17 1991.

But over at John Cole’s place they noticed something I had too-we are too busy sniping about Sarah Palin to notice the 20 year anniversary of Desert Storm:

Because the Persian Gulf War made a hard thing look easy, Villagers didn’t learn the real lessons of that war. In their eyes, the Gulf War became a failure because we didn’t get Saddam, and Iraq remained a dictatorship. Even though he accomplished the fairly rare diplomatic feat of uniting a disparate coalition of countries that committed significant resources, George H.W. Bush was a wimp because the agreement that led to the coalition kept us from a glorious march to Baghdad. Despite the clear success of the Powell Doctrine, Colin Powell was too timid because he didn’t endorse an occupation of Iraq. Only Dick Cheney was wise enough to understand that the real lesson of Iraq is that we need to do it again, and that made him tough and serious.

The events of the last ten years have shown that the Village narrative of the Persian Gulf War was upside-down, and the reason we’re not having a commemoration is because it would be yet another opportunity for Village accountability. Their inability to learn the right lessons from the Persian Gulf War was the first step in the long road to their endorsement of the current folly in Iraq, and you don’t celebrate a fuckup like that.

The Gulf War began the expansion of US presence in the Middle East as a whole-when in fact, less would have been more. And it started the chain of events that led to our current dreary time.

Still, the flying was great.

Which, if the world looked the way I wished it would:

Would be a global holiday!

So I watched Gordon Brown throw in the towel on TV today.

And then later on, I had a chance to read a multitude of flawed commentary on the election by US observers who should know better-but don’t-draw conclusions based on the paradigm of US experience.

Britain’s election was about Britain-and it’s unique set of circumstances in Europe. Talking about how Obama “severed” the special relationship is to bluntly ignore the fact that our interests, and the interests of Britain came out of alignment many years before. It may be only now that American voters are waking up to that fact. British voters recognized it a long time ago.

It is important to set a few myths to rest.

1) Its all Obama’s fault that the special relationship is changed.  Not true. While it may be true that Obama and his handlers were in-artful towards Gordon Brown in their early visits-he’s tried to make up for it since. And that line of thinking ignores one really important event that did more than any other to fracture “the special relationship”-which even then- was on life support. The Iraq War. British voters are predominately opposed to it. And have been since 2003. At the time of the election 63% of the British voters felt Tony Blair had allowed Bush to mislead him-and Great Britain into the war-and some 37 per cent of people believe that Mr Blair should be put on trial for going to war with Iraq. 

The truth is-the US /British relationship has been going down hill since 1956, and it accelerated in the period 1995-2010.  Like two ships that start apart on a 2-3 degree course change, the distance of separation only becomes obvious as you go down the road a while.  In 1956 the US helped screw itself and Britain by failing to support them in the Middle East-and in the 90′s , through its rampant embrace of globalization and outsourcing work from traditional locations,  it created the pre-conditions that allowed economic damage to both the US and Britain to come home to roost. The economic change brought about by globalization and technological advances is not creating the happy, unified world of progress its promoters keep promising. Instead, it is splitting regions within nations that are fully part of the global market from those being left behind.

Britain,  caught between its need to be part of Europe and its real desire to maintain a distinct, historically British character, is on the front lines of this struggle. And its been coming on for a long time.

2) Conservatives are winning around the world. If they are, its not because they are trying to be like American Conservatives.  Cameron’s party won because it moved to the center-and even then it did not get a clear cut majority. Now that is a lesson today’s Republicans could learn,  but won’t.

Cameron’s genius was to accept that the future of conservatism lies in winning over moderately progressive voters in the classes doing reasonably well in this new economic world. In his post-election statement offering to form a governing alliance with the Liberal Democrats, he began by declaring victory for “a new, modern Conservative Party,” a socially concerned, open-minded and tolerant band you don’t have to be ashamed of supporting.

Cameron understands — as many Republicans in the United States seem not to — that conservatism needs to sand off its rough edges and present itself as a stabilizing, unifying force.

In other words, put the stupid signs and the tri-corner hats in the closets. Simply relying on the stupidity of the average American voter is not an effective strategy. Elections are about swaying the voters in the middle. Cameron understood that-tea partiers do not. Fat, angry, and stupid is no way to go through life,  son.

3) It is all about fiscal conservatism, tax cuts, and spending cuts. Not really. Otherwise the Tories would have won a clear majority.  The simple truth is -that life for the average British citizen has gotten worse in the past ten years-not better. And it was Labor holding the reins.  And even at that Labor still won in many areas they were expected to lose.  “In parts of the country that have never shared in the great metropolitan prosperity around London, mistrust of the Conservatives still runs deep.”   Inequality in the United Kingdom is now higher than at any point since records began. Furthermore-both parties ran on the idea of austerity measures are going to be necessary and like American politicians they declined to give any specifics. Cameron could actually end up in the position of the Democrats in the US-faced by an opposition whose only word will be no-and if he cuts things voters really care about could find himself back out on the street in front of 10 Downing Street. Serious budget cuts are  a losing proposition electorally and the Conservatives will try to delay making serious choices as long as possible. Especially since they know they can fall- if the Liberal Democrats decide to bolt the coalition.

Not that anyone will listen to  him-but from a purely American interests standpoint-he may be right:

U.S. forces are being increased by 21,000 to 68,000, bringing the coalition total to 110,000. About 9,000 are from Britain, where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent special forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck’s decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen’s, is squandered.

Sadly though, given the political pressures at home-and the perceived pressure not to look like a wimp that will come from those who are quite willing to pay for Paul’s war while robbing Peter’s cookie jar-we are not going anywhere anytime soon.

Exactly who won the Afghan election anyway?

About what a huge mistake it was to invade Iraq.

Because this is the future-and its not worth the price we paid, and are continuing to pay:

I don’t think Americans yet recognize that we’re not going to like the long-term result in Iraq. The best-case scenario is probably the emergence of another strong man, like Saddam, but younger, tougher, smarter.

The future government of Iraq is probably not going to be a democracy, is not going to be stable, is going to have violence, and is almost certainly going to be a closer ally of Iran than it is to Washington. The Americans haven’t taken that on board yet.

Especially all those guys who think its time to use the “V” word.

I finished Tom Ricks book The Gamble a couple of weeks ago. I’ve been going back and re-reading certain sections to make sure I understand exactly what he was trying to say. Here is my take on the book.

1) At first I was truly worried that Ricks had drunk the Petreaus kool-aid and allowed himself to be swallowed up by the myth that Petreaus can do no wrong-that he single handedy saved the nation of Iraq. It seemed that way to me at first-until I realized that he was pointing out that the decision to surge had many fathers.

2) I think he missed the boat on the disagreements about the surge between the other military leaders and the guys like Petreaus who, in my opinion, went native-worrying not about the cost to the US, but how to make Iraq work. The book makes the rest of the military leadership-particularly Fox Fallon out to be simple minded. I think that misses the point. The question that Fallon was trying to get across before he was squelched-and that Gen Casey and others were voicing in their opposition to he surge-was, “ at what cost does this come?”. Ricks never did an objective analysis of the opportunity cost the US paid in terms of: a) damage to overall military capability, b) decreased freedom of action in other, more important areas and c) whether it was really in our interests to be tied down for a people that still have not demonstrated an ability to take care of themselves.

3)  His conclusions about the end arounds required to convince the government to move ahead with the surge are disturbing. If Jack Keane was so hell bent to drive American policy in a particular direction-than he should have taken the Army Chief of Staff’s position when it was offered. Submarining his peers in retirement is unseemly at best, a terrible precedent at worst. Try to imagine this nightmare in a Taiwan scenario: Sestak and Obama-going around Naval Leadership. Its a bad road to go down and we will regret it someday.

I’m also kind of dissapointed that Ricks did not give much play to two other factors that played in the “success” of the surge: the ethnic cleasing of Baghdad was completed-and the Iraqi sheiks themselves had started turning long before troop levels went up. Ricks also says nothing about the fact that Pertreaus was a part of the problem before he became the solution-including passing out Kalsihnikovs like they were candy and paying lots and lots of bribe money for deals that are now starting to come apart.

All in all it is a great book and in his commentaries since, Ricks has pointed out again:  just because we try to rectify a mistake after it has been made-does not mean we were somehow right to have made that mistake in the first place. Ricks states emphatically that Iraq will rank as the greatest foreign policy mistake the US has made in 50 years.

Probably the saddest thing is that Ricks is right in his ultimate conclusion-that by executing the surge, without having the Iraqis accomplish the political change necessary, and was the ultimate rationale for the surge- we may have condemned ourselves to never being able to leave.

Which gets back to the question he never really answered-at what cost does that conclusion become too much pay?