Saturday, February 20, 2016

To appease or not to appease

Victor Davis Hanson is certain that the world is passing through a phase which resembles the 1920s, and predicts that the outcome of what's brewing in the world today will resemble what happened then. He believes that the “Western democracies” are treading what he calls “a lethal mix,” a term that is code to mean another calamitous World War is all but inevitable.

On the other hand, Benny Avni fears that because the Turks are not appeasing the Russians, a war between the two is likely. When this happens, says Avni, the NATO alliance will most likely not invoke the clause which says that all the members of the alliance will come to the aid of the one that's engaged with a foe. The result of this reluctance, says Avni, will bring about the end of NATO.

Rejecting appeasement when it is imagined to be there, and fearing it when it is believed to hover overhead – is a typical reaction of people who believe that the human race can never do anything right. Hanson and Avni are such people, and they expand on their thoughts. Each wrote an article, published on the same day February 18, 2016 in a different publication. Hanson's piece came under the title: “The Return of Appeasement, Collaboration, and Isolationism,” appearing in National Review Online. Avni's came under the title: “America's greatest alliance is about to end with a whimper,” appearing in the New York Post.

Hanson is a historian, and he tackles the matter from the historical angle, which is not surprising. What is dubious, however, is that he starts the analysis assuming that the “Western democracies” have a divine right to be policeman of the world. He sees them as having the duty to make sure everyone in the world is behaving as they must or be punished. Because this did not happen in the 1920s, he concludes that the Western democracies were derelict in the discharge of their duties.

Having made that point, he draws a parallel between the situation as it exists today and that era. He points to Iran, China, North Korea and what he calls the radical Islamic terrorist groups, with yesterday's Nazi Germany and the Axis nations. He goes on to say that now as then, the bad guys “all have particular contempt for Western democracies.”

But having narrated a past during which time the Nazis (1) “annexed Austria, dismembered Czechoslovakia and invaded Europe,” (2) “Josef Stalin attacked the Poles from the east,” and (3) “the two dictatorships divvied up the country [of Poland],” you wonder if today's display of contempt by Iran, China and the rest, rises to the level of violence that sparked the Second World War. So you look closely to see what exactly today's contempt has entailed, according to Hanson.

You find that he says this: “Various nations or organizations shoot off intercontinental missiles, board America boats, send millions of young male into the West, and issue unending threats. China is creating new artificial islands … Putin cuts deals with Iran, Syria, and most of the enemies of the West.” Well, if the allies armed themselves and fought against the Axis in the period that followed the 1920s, is Hanson suggesting that NATO, which is well armed now, should preemptively attack the foes he is naming?

As to Benny Avni, he begins by reminding the readers of the fact that Russia and Turkey had empires, and that they fought each other for something like four centuries. This said, he asserts that Putin of Russia and Erdogan of Turkey “dream of returning their countries to glories of empires past.” Because of this, Avni is certain that “everything” can go wrong in the current situation.

He goes on to explain that all the players in the Syrian conflict (Russia, Turkey, the United States, Syria, the Kurds and the Syrian Kurds) are angry with each other, and exchanging hot words. This is why, says Avni, “diplomats tell me France and other allies are warning the hot words will soon turn into a hot war.”

When this happens, says he, no one in NATO will rush to Turkey's aid because “We don't do wars anymore, remember?” He goes on to explain that NATO is the weakest link in the Syrian war, which he describes as being a mini-world war already.

But will Secretary of State, John Kerry be able to arrange a ceasefire? “No chance. Not as long as America chooses to sit this war out,” says Benny Avni. The consequence will be the demise of NATO, and the usual blaming of things that happened, and those that didn't happened on the peacemaker whom these people love to crucify: “The alliance may end with a whimper. When it does, Obama can add NATO's demise to his foreign policy legacy.”

That is, Benny Avni is warning that unless America gets hotly involved in the Syrian mini-war, Obama will not be able to prevent a confrontation from happening between Russia and Turkey. NATO will die, and Obama will have added another failure to his unending list of failures. Perfect logic; can't you see?