Posts Tagged ‘Russia’

IS RUSSIA OUR ENEMY?

Monday, May 2nd, 2016

Note (16MAY2016): Russia is modernizing its military and fortifying its position in the Black Sea. What to do? Are we to go to war?

Consider these United States of America simultaneously conducting warfare in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria while going to war against China in the South Pacific, North Korea, and Russia. Currently, this nation on fire has launched economic warfare with 28 other countries in the form of sanctions — sanctions that punish American enterprise whilst rewarding foreign enterprise. Such is American foreign policy.

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible.” -George Washington’s Farewell Address (17 September 1796)

The government of these United States of America has characterized Russia as an enemy. It has done so by levying economic and political sanctions. Such sanctions are tantamount to a declaration of economic and political warfare. If Russia really is our enemy, in what way?

Economics
In contrast to China, Germany, Japan, and Mexico, economically what threat does Russia represent? Yes, it is the largest country geographically in the world. Yes, it contains immense natural resources, much of which remain undeveloped. Those natural resources comprise the substantial majority of Russian exports. Yet, a relatively small percentage go to these United States. Compared to the American trading deficit with China or even Mexico, they are negligible. So, does Russia represent an economic threat to these United States?

Politics
In contrast to our southern neighbor, politically what threat does Russia represent? Admittedly, yesteryear, cloaked in its garb of international socialism while waving the banner of the erstwhile Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, it did. The Communist Party USA, funded by the USSR and composed of those whom Lenin called “useful idiots”, boasted a sizable membership and influenced especially American academia and entertainment. Today, there remains no USSR. There remains only Russia — a Russia in political turmoil as it evolves from the chaos of collapsed Communism followed by ineffectual democracy heading towards the authoritative order of Fascism.

To what extent are the internal politics of Russia the official business of these United States, anyway? Cannot a case can be made that Russia needs a Tsar in whatever form, be it a Catherine the Great or a Stalin and that it now is getting a new one in the person of Vladimir Putin? So, does Russia represents a political threat to these United States?

Culture
In contrast to our own, homegrown, Marxist-oriented egalitarians, sociologically what threat does Russia represent? As these United States sink ever more deeply into a semi-psychotic, moral cesspool of abominations never before witnessed in history, Russia seems to represent something of the opposite. The government there has strengthened its ties to the Russian Orthodox Church and promotes traditional moral values based upon Judeo-Christian liturgy. Whereas ordinary Russians may not meet the standards set by church and government, the country remains one of the last bastions of those values. Meanwhile, Russia has intervened in American sociological affairs not at all. So, does Russia represent a sociological threat to these United States?

Military
Ah, but what about militarily? Does not a nuclear-armed, militarily modernizing Russia represent a direct threat to the stability of the world, let alone these United States?

It depends upon one’s point of view. From the point of view of the neo-conservatives, who never met a war, especially a losing war, that they didn’t love, the answer is yes. To the financial profits and power to the military-industrial complex about which President Eisenhower warned us two generations ago, the answer is yes. From the pont of view of the Founding Fathers, however, might not the answer be no?

Is Russia invading these United States? Is it threatening to invade these United States? Is it massing armaments and troops on our borders or even anywhere near them as this nation is doing to Russia?

Is not the irony that these United States may be under attack, but the attack is not from Russia? Are not the real invaders illegal aliens who may be unarmed but represent invaders, nonetheless? Are not the primary nations attacking these United States Mexico and some other Latin American countries? Do not the Mexicans label their particular invasion “La Reconquista”?

“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease, and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” -The Recital (The Koran), The Spoils 8:36

Also, what about the Mohammedans? Despite smaller numbers, no small matter is the invasion by Mohammedans, who soon will outnumber Jews in this nation on fire. Do not they label their aggression as “The Silent Invasion” although it is anything but silent in Europe?

So, to what extent does Russia represent a military threat as the aggressor to these United States? To what extent do these United States represent a military threat as the aggressor to Russia?

PART TWO

In discussing Russo-American relations, any defense of the Russian position automatically generates vituperative responses ad hominem from those who place opinion before knowledge. To adopt their myopic, biased viewpoint is to place this nation and the rest of the world in danger of a nuclear annihilation that nobody but a fanatical Mohammedan wants. Let us, therefore, attempt a more dispassionate analysis and offer an alternative to current American, foreign policy — an alternative consistent with advice of the father of this nation.

Who Is The Real Aggressor?
Is it not the fact of the matter that it is these United States that has acted as the aggressor toward Russia? Is it not we who instigated a successful plot to overthrow the legitimately elected government of Ukraine in order to prevent it linking closer to its historic ally, Russia? Is it not we who have levied international sanctions against Russia for retaliating against this American-inspired plot?

Russia has not been the only target in that regard. We have levied international sanctions against almost thirty other nations, as well. Who suffers most? American commercial enterprises.

Is not demanding other nations obey our economic and political dictates a form of extraterritoriality? Is it not we who have placed arms and troops on the Russian border, using an otherwise impotent NATO as camouflage?

After World War Two, we created NATO as an agency for the defense of Western Europe against an aggressive and hostile USSR. Today, there remains no USSR, but there still remains a NATO that we have expanded to include nations far from the Atlantic Ocean — nations bordering on Russia itself. Are we willing to engage in total, nuclear war with Russia, a war that will exterminate all aerobic life on Earth, to defend Estonia, assuming Estonia even needs defending?

Indeed, Russia may be attempting to expand its sphere of national interest to include nations historically under its influence. Do history and tradition justify such an attempt? Once again, the answer depends upon one’s point of view.

In its attempt to expand its influence, did Russia invade Ukraine? Did it not merely negotiate agreements with the freely elected government in Kiev? Was it not these United States that intervened, promoting rebellion to overthrow that legitimate government? The rebellion was successful. Had there been no American-inspired rebellion, would Russia have reclaimed Crimea militarily?

Hegemony
So, does not the issue become reduced to the quest by these United States to retain hegemony worldwide? Can we? Even if we can, is it in our interests? Can we afford it?

In the words of former Speaker of the House of Representative, John Boehner, “We’re broke!”

Does President Washington’s advice, as quoted above, mean to become isolationist? Does it not mean to become non-interventionist, intervening only when it is in our direct, immediate, national interest in a way that also is in our national interest? Should these United States not support republican liberty wherever we find it — support it in spirit but neither in blood nor coin?

An Alternative
“In matters of international diplomacy and foreign affairs, we shall return to the principles and guidelines laid down by our Founding Fathers.  The principles and guidelines are readily available for anyone to read in the Constitution of the United States of America, in the Federalist Papers, and in Washington’s Farewell Address.  Accordingly and effective immediately, the United States of America recognizes diplomatically the de facto existence of any nation with which we are not officially at war.  We shall withdraw our military forces from all bases outside the Western Hemisphere by the end of this year, including withdrawal from NATO … the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  If any nation wishes our military to remain or to establish installations, we shall review that request with regard to our national interests.  If we decide that specific installations are in our national interest, that nation will pay us for our helping it to defend itself.  It will pay all direct costs plus fifteen percent for administrative overhead.  No longer will Americans pay to protect others while they divert money from their own military defenses to commercial offensives against us, their protectors.  If others want American military protection, they must pay for it.  We re-affirm that the Western Hemisphere comprises the primary area of United States’ national interest.  In that regard, we also re-affirm the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 prohibiting the stationing of African, Asian, or European troops or bases in the Western Hemisphere outside Africa or Europe.”
-Excerpt from the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences.

-End-

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.

AN ACT OF WAR?

Monday, May 12th, 2014

In the context of the Russian:Ukrainian conflict of 2014, our American government has placed some admittedly minimal sanctions upon American companies, barring them from doing business with certain Russian entities. Moreover, it has created a climate of anxiety amongst stockbrokers and bankers in the USA such that they refuse to place orders on behalf of customers to buy or sell financial instruments on the Moscow-based stock-exchange.

Such sanctions do not constitute an act of war. As usual, they likely will harm American companies and individuals more than Russian and will benefit our foreign competitors. The sanctions may be foolish; but they are legitimate and, more importantly, constitutional.

In contrast, should enforcing sanctions via foreign companies, barring them from doing business with Russia, be considered an act of undeclared war, especially when threatening such companies and their native countries with American economic reprisals? Do such sanctions represent a form of blockade … economically if not militarily? Is such an economic blockade an act of war? Is it worse than foolish? Is it wantonly dangerous and clearly unconstitutional?

Over the past many decades, the federal government in all its three branches has trashed the U.S. Constitution. Full-scale trashing began  with FDR, followed by the Warren-Court, followed by LBJ, followed by Bush the First, followed by Bush the Second, now by Obama.

One of its most prominent features has been our entering into protracted military conflicts without declarations of war as demanded by the U.S. Constitution. Korea, then Viet Nam, then Iraq twice, then Afghanistan. Never since 1941 has a sitting-President sought a declaration of war, nor has the Congress passed one … only so-called resolutions. A congressional resolution, however, is not a declaration of war; it is a cowardly retreat from political responsibility now coupled with a full-scale loss of our liberty as embodied in the so-called Patriot Act . . . politicians, bureaucrats, and ideologues are partial towards euphemisms. Notwithstanding euphemisms, the loss of liberty by one is the loss of liberty by all.

The Western Hemisphere is the American sphere of direct national interest not the Russian. Ironically, in 2013 and not surprisingly waiting until after his reëlection, Obama renounced his responsibility therein by renouncing the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, a cornerstone of American foreign policy for more than one hundred-fifty years … a policy favored from the start even by Britain.

Ukraine, however, is not in the Western Hemisphere but is in the Russian sphere of direct national interest not the American. Yet it is in Ukraine that Obama is assuming responsibility despite having no basis even under so-called international law. Moreover, as President Putin has noted, given the American intervention into Kosovo, it appears dangerously hypocritical and is. Meanwhile, foreign powers locate military assets in South America whilst China essentially controls the Panamanian Canal.

Compounding the danger, some commentators create a straw-man by providing only two alternatives for the USA in foreign conflicts … active intervention or isolationism. There is, however, a third … interventionism outside the Western Hemisphere only under the strictest of terms and conditions coupled with strong defense inside the Western Hemisphere (www.inescapableconsequences.com).

Russia:Ukraine of 2014 is not Germany:Czechoslovakia of 1938. The context is different … potential nuclear war. The consequences are different … potential destruction of not only all humanity but of all aerobic life on Earth.

Accordingly, let us Americans act constitutionally, prudently, and accordingly. One mistake too many, intentional or unintentional, may be our last. Remember the incident at Sarajevo in 1914 and the bloody war that followed but nobody wanted.

UKRAINE 2014 : CZECHOSLOVAKIA 1938

Monday, March 31st, 2014

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” -George Santayana (1863 – 1952)

Contrary to current commentary, Ukraine in 2014 is not Czechoslovakia in 1938. The danger in the comparison is the consequence of making it.

1938. Nazi-Germany, a brutal dictatorship, launches an invasion of Czechoslovakia, a democracy. It’s an armed invasion with the prior assent of the UK and the rest of the West; that is, an armed invasion as opposed to, say, the current unarmed invasion of the USA by hordes from Mexico.

“Peace in our time,” had bleated British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain upon returning from Munich, waving a piece of paper . . . a Death Warrant for non-Germanic Czechs.

Meanwhile, German Chancellor of the Reich Adolf Hitler had been bluffing as he had been bluffing two years previously with his armed march into the Rhineland. In 1936, a well-armed France alone could have defeated a poorly-armed German contingent easily. In 1938, a still more well-armed France alone could have defeated a less well-armed Germany albeit less easily.

Even in 1940, contrary to subsequent popular myth . . . a myth perpetrated by French politicians after the war, France will remain better armed than Germany albeit poorly commanded. The French generals, however, will have forgotten history. The German generals will remember it.

As events will transpire, the short-lived peace to which Chamberlain had referred will prove merely the prelude to a long-waged war, firstly in Europe, then in much of the rest of the world. How will it happen?

1939. Germany launches another armed invasion . . . this time, Poland. Shortly before, Soviet General Secretary of the Communist Party Josef Stalin, trusting of Hitler, had signed a treaty with Nazi-Germany, a secret part of which was to divide Poland; the Soviet Union ostensibly would be rushing to the Polish rescue after the German invasion.

A curious consequence of his Polish invasion, unexpected by Hitler, is a declaration of war by a poorly-armed Britain united with a well-armed France against Germany but not against its co-conspirator, the Soviet Union. Historically, neither Britain nor France had considered Poland in their respective spheres of national interest … little wonder that Hitler was surprised unpleasantly.

1922. France signs an alliance with Poland . . . an alliance that Britain will join in 1939 at the urging of France. Ah, those French, continually inveigling others into war. Meanwhile, the consequence of the hasty, Anglo-Polish alliance in 1939 will be that Britain, like France, will declare war against Germany but essentially without an army . . . as it will demonstrate at Dunkirk in 1940. Treaties cheap to make; expensive to defend.

1939. His planning having gone awry, does Hitler withdraw his forces, using the time to be gained to strengthen his military . . . a military then-unprepared for prolonged, total war? No. A believer in Providence, he blunders forwards, forgetting that patience is the foremost virtue whilst pride is the foremost sin.

So, Britain declares war. The short-term consequences? Near defeat then carnage on a grand scale. The long-term consequences? Among others, bankruptcy, socialism, and loss of His Majesty and soon-to-be Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s  most prized possession . . . the British Empire.

So, France declares war. The short-term consequences? Total defeat, humiliation, and occupation with raging, French anti-Semitism. The long-term consequences? Among others, so-called social democracy and loss of the French Empire.

So, Poland has war declared upon it. The short-term consequences? Total defeat, humiliation, occupation, and mass murder on a scale historically unprecedented. The long-term consequence? Among others, occupation for two generations by a Communist-tyranny of the Soviet Union supplanting a Nazi-tyranny of Germany.

Pity the poor Poles . . . situated in a geographically undesirable location between Nazi-Germany wanting Russia for lebensraum and Soviet-Russia wanting Europe for international Communism. Gallantry notwithstanding, Polish horses prove no match against German panzers.

What of the long-term consequences for Western Europe as a whole, even the neutrals? Among others, loss of empires by every European nation having one as well as subsequent, massive, unarmed invasion of Western Europe by hordes from Africa, the Middle Eastern, and the Asian sub-continent in decades to come.

As the Scotsman, Robert Burns, had said in 1785, “The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft agley, an’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain, for promis’d joy!”

2014. A violent, anti-Russian mob fills the central square in Kiev, shouting, “Freedom and democracy now!” Days later, it topples the democratically-elected albeit thugishly kleptocratic, reluctantly pro-Russian government of Ukraine.

What? Another violent mob shouting, “Freedom and democracy now!” Where else has the world recently witnessed such scenes? Tunisia? Libya? Egypt? Syria? Whatever did happen to “the Arab Spring”?

PART TWO

“I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings.” -Jeremiah 17:10

2014. After the anti-Russian, ethnically based coup in Kiev, a largely pro-Russian Crimea, with the connivance of Russia, votes to secede from Ukraine. Crimea then rejoins a problematically-democratic Mother Russia controlled by a semi-autocratic President Vladimir Putin.

“Can’t they all just get along?”

Get along? Hardly!

After all, historically, Crimea was an integral part of Russia. Currently, Crimea is the home of the Russian Southern Fleet and provides Russia its only port in warm water . . . a port ceded by the Ukranian Prime Minister of the erstwhile Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, to his native region in 1954.

A hypocritical USA and the impotent EU as its “peanut-gallery” initially are pleased with the violent coup. When Crimea non-violently votes to rejoin Russia, they go ballistic . . . verbally.

In a variety of languages, few of which have any international significance, loudmouthed demagogues compare the outwardly democratic, Crimean vote of 2014 to the armed, German invasion of 1938. Their logic, should it exist, gets lost in emotional but ludicrous outpourings symbolized by those of Barack Hussein Obama, humiliated once-again.

Yes, humiliated. Recall the disappearing “red line in the sand” that Obama proclaimed against the internationally-recognized Syrian government . . . on national television, no less?

Syria aside, Ukraine-Russia of 2014 is not Germany-Czechoslovakia of 1938. Recall, French myths to the contrary, the Germany of 1938 possessed a relatively thinly-armed military unsuited to prolonged, total warfare . . . as it demonstrated beginning in 1941. Can one say the same about the Russia of 2014?

“Okay, sanctions . . . levy sanctions to punish Russia . . . isolate it economically.”

With the smashing successes of sanctions against Cuba and Iran, not to mention against more than a dozen other countries, why not? In fact, the USA and its allies are imposing supposedly measured sanctions in a feeble, symbolic gesture of retaliation. Russia, however, is neither Cuba nor Iran. Russia can and likely will respond to punishment with punishment of its own.

As for economically isolating Russia, the Russian response may not be just economic. President Putin rightly may consider economic blockade equivalent to military blockade. If so, he may respond militarily, using the economic blockade as justification. Picture Russian troops moving into Eastern Ukraine, then Western Ukraine, then Moldavia, then . . . ? Will the USA and its impotent allies send their own troops to the rescue? If so, what will be the consequences? Behavior best is judged by consequences not intentions.

“Okay! You’re right . . . sort of. Sanctions may not be sufficient. Isolation may be impossible, especially given the unpredictable consequence of Chinese involvement. As for a military attack into Crimea or especially Russia, you’re right . . . definitely no ‘boots on the ground’. Even so, we still should move NATO (aka/American), military forces closer to Russian soil . . . say Poland, in a show of force. Let the Russians feel the pressure.”

What, Poland again? Ah, pity poor Poland . . . still so geographically undesirable. Difficult to move a country.

Perhaps, before further American actions, some collective, American recollection might be in order. Recall some not-so-distant history.

PART THREE

“What experience and history teaches us is that people and governments have never learned anything from history or acted on principles deduced from it.” -Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831)

1940. Campaigning for an unprecedented third term, the Democrat and then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) promises that he will “not send American boys into any foreign war”. FDR is lying. He knows that he is lying.

“So, another narcissistic politician lying. Big deal!”

Well, this lie is a really big deal, and it isn’t his first. FDR later will claim that this lie, however, was an especially noble one . . . noble in the Platonic sense. The truth and FDR are, at most, passing acquaintances. Forgetting 1932 and bringing its voting behavior under the control of verbal antecedents not behavioral consequences, the American electorate chooses not to care.

1932. FDR is campaigning; promising a balanced, federal budget; and accusing then-President Herbert Hoover of leading America down the road to socialism. FDR is lying. He is elected.

The consequence? FDR really will lead America down the road to socialism and, by doing so, will keep the Great Depression a really great depression until rescued by Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939.

1939. After seven years of FDR’s imperious and uneven rule, Henry Morgenthau, then-Secretary of the U.S. Treasury admits, “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before, and it does not work.” Words long forgotten in 2014.

1940. In the context of Morgenthau’s unusual candor the year previous, one might wonder if FDR, whilst campaigning, thinks, “Thank you, Adolf.”

So, FDR lies again. He is reëlected again for an unprecedented, third term. Yes, people prefer to hear pleasant lies rather than unpleasant truths.

As Hitler himself reportedly is fond of quoting albeit in German not Latin, “Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.” The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived. ‘Tis a sentiment that will be applicable to many Americans in 2014 and enthusiastically embraced by their self-serving politicians and pompous bureaucrats.

1941. In Asia, the Japanese foolishly attack Pearl Harbor, hoping to destroy the American fleet in the Pacific; however, they miss the aircraft-carriers en route. Japan, an island-nation, paradoxically brings its military behavior under the control of the Army and General, then-Prime Minister, Hideki Tojo.

In Europe, the Germans foolishly and needlessly declare war against the USA. Doing so allows them to unleash unrestricted, submarine-delivered warfare on American shipping in the Atlantic headed to Britain. Germany, a largely landlocked continental nation, paradoxically brings its military behavior under the control of the Navy and Admiral Karl Dönitz.

So, did FDR to the delight of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill provoke, at least in part, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor with its subsequent German declaration of war? If so, how?

Prior to the Japanese attack, FDR had applied severe economic sanctions against the Land of the Rising Sun (yesterday’s enemy) in retaliation to its armed invasion of China (yesterday’s ally) then had engaged in provocative military actions such as transferring American warships from San Diego to . . . you know where. Pearl Harbor in Hawaii is 2,500 miles closer to the Japanese homeland than San Diego in California.

The USA had imposed severe economic sanctions against a mighty, adversarial, military power then moved military forces towards its homeland. One consequence? The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

2014. “So what? Even if true, we Americans subsequently imposed sanctions against the erstwhile Soviet Union and stationed military forces in Europe during the ‘Cold War’. No hot war with Russia resulted. In fact, Russia is the only major power with which we’ve never had a hot war. All right, let our history with Russia be our guide. Besides, just as Hitler had violated the Treaty of Versailles signed in 1919, Russia has violated the Treaty of Budapest signed in 1994.”

Different context. Different consequences. The strength of behavior is a function of context and consequences. The context in the 1930s was non-nuclear; yet, the consequences of German violations of the Treaty were nil.

1933. Germany ceases making payments of reparations. Consequences? None.

1935. Germany begins rebuilding its air force and introduces compulsory, military service. Consequences? None.

1936. Germany reöccupies the Rhineland. Consequences? None.

1945. Change in context. The USA conducts its first test of nuclear weapons then uses them twice in actual warfare against Japan.

1948. The USSR blockades Berlin for almost one year. Consequences? The “Cold War” begins.

1949. The Soviet Union conducts its first test of nuclear weapons. Thereafter, during a now-nuclear “Cold War”, the controlling factor between the USA and the USSR will become mutually-assured destruction (“MAD”). It will resemble the game of “chicken”; a game that people get killed playing; in this case, all people . . . everywhere.

2014. To what extent is “MAD” still operative today as a deterrent with Russia? The Mohammedan fanatics in Iran boldly state that they can survive a nuclear war with Israel.

Do we believe that we can survive a nuclear war with Russia? Does Russia believe that it can survive a nuclear war with us? Decidedly, neither. Yet, could such a war happen . . . over Ukraine, no less?

1941. The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor with propeller-driven fighters carrying small, non-nuclear bombs.

2014. Russians aim rocket-driven ICBMs, each carrying multiple, nuclear warheads, at every major, American city. Also, the Russian, nuclear-armed quasi-ally, China, aims similar ICBMs at the USA.

Americans aim rocket-driven ICBMs, each carrying multiple, nuclear warheads, at every major, Russian city. Also, the American, nuclear-armed allies, Britain and France, have nuclear weapons.

Given such a context and the catastrophic consequences of total nuclear war, could such a war happen . . . over Ukraine?

1962. The Soviet Union transfers nuclear-tipped missiles to a Communist-Cuba. The American response? Military blockade of Cuba . . . an explicit act of war! Soviet vessels head towards the blockade. Will the U.S. Navy fire? Yes.

Only a last-minute initiative by Chairman Krushchev via an American reporter averts a potential, nuclear conflict. In the 1960s, the context is nuclear; yet, America clearly is willing to risk war as a consequence of Soviet violation of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, subsequently to be disavowed by Obama in 2014.

PART FOUR

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible.” – George Washington Farewell Address (17SEP1796)

2014. If such was the American response in 1962 to Soviet nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba, what might be the Russian response to American, nuclear-tipped missiles in Poland in 2014? Perhaps, a nasty letter to a John Kerry busy bullying Israel to cede its Biblical territory to its Mohammedan enemies who want to annihilate it and exterminate all its Jews? Perhaps, an even nastier letter to Obama himself busy golfing or vacationing at taxpayers’ expense in the same Hawaii bombed in 1941?

“Never mind! We Americans have an obligation to defend nations even outside our sphere of national interest. What are we . . . the isolationists of the 1930s?”

No, however, isolationism has become confused with non-interventionism. It should not be. There is a difference. Besides, where is it written that we Americans have such an obligation? Our Founding Fathers clearly believed otherwise.

“That was then. Now is now. As former-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said recently, ‘Vladimir Putin does not care about words . . . only actions.’ Actions! We Americans want actions . . . actions in the form of economic sanctions and a show of military force. We don’t want another Czechoslovakia 1938!”

So, you still want escalating, economic sanctions against Russia? You still want escalating, military force, perhaps even nuclear, moved into poor Poland and adjoining states as Obama currently is doing?

Well, the year is 2014 not 1938. Consider that we entered the Nuclear Age in 1945. Then, consider the consequences of the Franco-Polish Treaty of 1922 and the Anglo-Polish Treaty of 1939.

Consider that severe, economic sanctions against Russia can lead to non-nuclear war with Russia. Consequence? Tactical nuclear war? Consequence? Strategic nuclear war? Consequence? Total nuclear war?

Are you willing to sacrifice the entire human species and all other aerobic life on Earth in a total nuclear war with Russia and possibly China in order to rescue an illegitimate government in Ukraine from the return of its democratically-elected President, thuggish rogue though he may be, or a return of Eastern Ukraine to its historical homeland, Russia? Do you really believe that the Ukrainian-Russian matter in a nuclear 2014 is comparable to the German-Czechoslovakian matter in a non-nuclear 1938? If so, the consequences of even making the comparison ultimately may be more horrifying than any nightmare that you possibly can imagine.

Recall the responses of seasoned and well-intentioned British and French politicians in 1939 and the consequences. As Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153) said, “Hell is full of good intentions or desires.”

Recall the foolish responses of the determined albeit misguided, German and Japanese politicians in 1941 and their consequences. As stated in Proverbs 9:13, “The woman Folly is riotous; She is thoughtlessness and knoweth nothing.”

Given the dismal quality of our current, American leadership and the determined quality of the current, Russian leadership, ill-conceived policies based upon ill will combined with ill-executed responses based upon good intentions can occur again. Should they do so, it truly may be for the last time.

Hopefully, by some good fortune, America will navigate these dangerous waters successfully. After all, Otto von Bismark quipped, “There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America.”

Even so, one time Providence may fail us at a most inopportune moment. Then, what?

In your heart, do you trust the community-organizer Obama, the turncoat Kerry, and the rest of Obama’s minority-laden cabal to guide the USA successfully in such a treacherous context? Through ineptness, might not they drift into political rapids then over a military waterfall . . . a nuclear war that nobody wants but in which all will suffer?

1914. Increasing political tensions throughout Europe. The so-called Allies versus the so-called Central Powers. In Sarajevo, two assassinations. Seven Bosnians fire shots that murder Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife, Sophia . . . shots that, some will say later, proved fatal to Western Civilization.

“One day, the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.”  -Otto von Bismarck (1888)

Total war. Nobody wanted it. Nobody intended it. Even so, it happened. Europe slid into a war with horrific consequences that nobody imagined.

2014. Now a century later, is it not time . . . now . . . right now . . . to begin considering some major, societal changes before, notwithstanding von Bismark’s quip, Providence becomes disgusted by our continuing, self-centered greed and arrogance and by our poor choice of leaders who promise sweetness and light but deliver bitterness and darkness? Fortunately, there is a better way . . . a scientific way embracing the U.S. Constitution and traditional American ideals and values . . . a way valid today, valid tomorrow.

PART FIVE

“The men of blood hate him that is sincere; And as for the upright, they seek his life.” -Proverbs 29:10

Complaints are many. Solutions are few.

How can we Americans reverse our current course leading us as a nation towards mounting debt; recurrent defeats; sordid degradation; and morbid anxiety and despair? In the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences, a farmer from the Midwest reluctantly assumes the presidency of the United States of America. Soon thereafter, he addresses the nation. The following are some excerpts from that address:

“BACKGROUND:  In violation of the admonitions by our Founding Fathers, in recent years, the federal government of the United States has pursued an aggressive policy, best labeled ‘Pax Americana’. Ostensibly promoting democracy abroad, we have gained American hegemony by imposing our will, explicitly and implicitly, upon other nations — large and small; developed and undeveloped. Overall, the consequences have been sustained successes mingled with a few, colossal failures. Unfortunately, in our maintaining American hegemony, we have alienated a significant percentage of the population of the world, American pop-tunes and Levi® blue-jeans, notwithstanding.

“We have based this international policy upon what once was our overwhelming wealth and our military might gained primarily as a consequence of World War II. Paradoxically, our might may have hobbled us more than helped us, given our newly-found attitude that no American be injured in combat, let alone killed. That attitude was a legacy of fighting wars not to win, such as the one that we fought not to win in Viet Nam. Subsequently, against Serbia, in order to avoid American casualties, we intentionally engaged in civilian bombing while labeling our opponents ‘war-criminals’. Most telling, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and in spite of our military actions against other nations, we have not declared a state of war since 1941, allowing our most dangerous enemies to manipulate domestic public opinion to their advantage via our own mass media.”

╫   ╫   ╫

“In 1787, our Founding Fathers created a new nation, the United States of America. They wove a new fabric — binding together thirteen, semi-independent states that had been thirteen, British colonies. That fabric was our Constitution.

“The new nation was Anglo-Christian, trusting in God and basing itself on Judeo-Christian values as well as English traditions and language. It promoted individual liberty, individual rights, and individual responsibility. Its character was paternalistic in that it combined justice with mercy but placed justice before mercy. Its stated policy was to remain free of foreign entanglements while defending its own legitimate interests. It recognized other governments, good and evil, as they were — not as it wished them to be.”

╫   ╫   ╫

“In creating the Unites States of America, the Founding Fathers also fostered a daring vision that came to be known as ‘Manifest Destiny’. It unified and energized the country — a vision that encouraged those who followed it to build America into the greatest nation in the history of the world — a model for other nations to imitate, and they did. The result was a strong, forceful nation stretching from ocean to ocean and from Canada to Mexico.

“The vision was paternalistic not maternalistic. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, however, the fabric binding America together began to fray. The firm resolve of paternalism began to disintegrate into a soft ambivalence of maternalism.

“Optimally, society tempers paternalism with maternalism to achieve a balance of justice tempered by mercy — strength tempered by compassion. A paternalistic society without maternalism is strong but harsh. A maternalistic society without paternalism is compassionate but weak.

“During the first part of the twentieth century, American society and its government began to embrace maternalism with the federal government increasingly playing the role of mother. In the latter part of the century, America began to surrender to the demands of radical feminism, if not to embrace them.

“Do not confuse radical feminism with genuine maternalism. They are antithetical. Genuine maternalism, for example, does not kill babies about to be born — radical feminism does. Over the years, increasingly radical feminism contaminated genuine maternalism, transforming it into what I call ‘radical maternalism’, giving us the worst of the worst in the form of weakness with an attitude.

“The strength and certainty of Manifest Destiny progressively have wilted into the weakness and uncertainty of a society increasingly turned against itself. At home, the radical maternalists may view themselves as strident and strong. Abroad, our enemies view them as strident but weak. Our embrace of radical maternalism has emboldened these enemies. I submit that the recent attack America suffered was a consequence.

“The ominous trend toward radical maternalism has not been confined to the United States alone. It is current in Canada and Europe. It signals the decline and death of Western civilization. Make no mistake, Western civilization, with its faults, historically has offered mankind worldwide far more benefits than has any alternative. It still does.”

╫   ╫   ╫

“Spiritually, we have become self-absorbed in immediate gratification of our basest, our most animalistic lusts. We have lost the strength and the sense of certainty that characterized the days of Manifest Destiny. The spiritual loss is illustrated most vividly by our conflicted attitude toward our own military.

“Militarily until 1950, America had not not won a war since the War of 1812 with the British. Since 1950, repeatedly we have courted defeat by cowering cravenly at the feet of weaker nations. They have resolve — we do not. Their people are willing to die — we are not willing to fight. We rationalize our weakness by characterizing military attacks against us as if they were crimes committed by misunderstood victims of Western ‘tyranny’. In actual battle, our misguided radical maternalism reveals itself in misplaced concern for the welfare of our enemies. This concern empowers lawyers not soldiers to define rules of engagement during the heat of battle — thereby, exposing our own troops to reckless, needless slaughter. After the battle, we ignore those selfless heroes who fought in combat at the front while honoring, for purely political purposes, those unworthy of such recognition who stayed far behind.”

PART SIX

“I have pursued mine enemies and destroyed them; Neither did I turn back till they were consumed.” -Second Samuel 22:38

Excerpts continued . . .

“1) International Diplomacy — A return to the principles and guidelines laid down by the Founding Fathers;
“2) Military Affairs — A pledge to ourselves never again to fight a war not to win;”

“One. In matters of international diplomacy and foreign affairs, we shall return to the principles and guidelines laid down by our Founding Fathers. The principles and guidelines are readily available for anyone to read in the Constitution of the United States of America, in the Federalist Papers, and in Washington’s Farewell Address. Accordingly and effective immediately, the United States of America recognizes diplomatically the de facto existence of any nation with which we are not officially at war. We shall withdraw our military forces from all bases outside the Western Hemisphere by the end of this year, including withdrawal from NATO … the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. If any nation wishes our military to remain or to establish installations, we shall review that request with regard to our national interests. If we decide that specific installations are in our national interest, that nation will pay us for our helping it to defend itself. It will pay all direct costs plus fifteen percent for administrative overhead. No longer will Americans pay to protect others while they divert money from their own military defenses to commercial offensives against us, their protectors. If others want American military protection, they must pay for it. We re-affirm that the Western Hemisphere comprises the primary area of United States’ national interest. In that regard, we also re-affirm the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 prohibiting the stationing of African, Asian, or European troops or bases in the Western Hemisphere outside Africa or Europe.

“Also, effective immediately, the United States is withdrawing from the United Nations. I hereby am instructing that organization to remove its activities from our soil by the end of the year. The days of Americans paying for anti-American antics by petty tyrants are over. In its stead, the United States invites all democratic countries to join a renewed League of Nations with headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri. Its only purposes will be discussion and consultation. Democracy and payment of modest dues as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product will be the sole criteria for gaining and maintaining membership.

“With regard to our previous policy of employing economics as a tool of diplomacy, effective immediately, we are removing all embargoes and sanctions prohibiting American companies selling to other countries with which we are not formally at war. Such restrictions are ineffective and harm mainly American commercial interests while often benefitting those of our international competitors. The only exceptions are goods, services, and intellectual properties having military value for which the American government has paid all or part.

“Two. In the matter of military affairs, the United States never again will fight a war not to win!  Furthermore, we shall fight wars using only male troops qualified to engage in direct, hand-to-hand combat, if need be. Accordingly and effective immediately, women will not serve with men under conditions of training or combat — medical duties excepted. Women will serve in supporting roles only — primarily administrative and clearly out of the line of direct engagement with enemy forces.

“To ensure American, military preparedness, boys of high school age will serve three months with pay for each of three successive summers, receiving basic military training. Boys physically disabled but mentally fit will receive training in hospital duties. As was the case until recently, homosexuals are barred from military duty and will receive training only in hospital-based duties — I give no explanation. Any normal man who mistakenly entered a bar patronized by homosexuals understands my reasoning. Girls are exempt from involuntary military training.”

Final Comment

Whereas you, the reader, may not agree with some or any of that which the fictional, new President asserted, the challenge is for you to put forth positive alternatives that are specific, objective, and measurable. Many voice complaints. Few offer solutions. The fictional President offered solutions. Can you, the non-fictional reader, do the same?

Ask yourself regarding matters of governmental policy including foreign policy, “Who gains? Who loses?” Remember, the strength of a behavior is a function of its consequences in a given context. B = f(x) under c.

“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

Forget not history. Believe not propaganda.

“You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” -John 8:32

Seek the truth through science not polemic . . . through fact not fiction. Remember, however, that science can be a blessing or a curse, depending upon whether the hands in which it rests use it as a tool to build or as a weapon to destroy.

Stop. Look. Listen. Analyze. Synthesize. Then, act . . . not just react. Your future will be in either your hands or others’. Weakness and cowardice versus strength and bravery. The choice is yours (www.inescapableconsequences.com).

-END-