Here is an opportunity for President Obama to crucify his
crucifiers. Ever since he came to office, they have been saying he proceeded to
do this thing or that one the wrong way. They kept doing this, having never
anticipated something before it happened and, of course, having never said how
the thing should be dealt with if and when it happens. In other words, they
have been the void that constantly attacked what is there because it is there,
yet remained immune to attacks because the void cannot be attacked.
Well, the void is not a void anymore because it now contains
the mysterious word “revanchism;” a word they cannot deny is theirs and theirs
alone. Yes, someone else may have invented it, but they were the ones to bring
it into this debate. Among the few that used it have been the editors of the
Wall Street Journal who wrote the editorial: “Obama's Uncertain Trumpet” which
also came under the subtitle: “The American bows to European passivity on
Putin.” It was published in the Journal on March 27, 2014.
A quick check on the word revanchism shows that it does not
exist in most English dictionaries, and is not known to nearly 100 percent of
Anglophones. But I recognized it because I speak French, and the word “revanche”
is commonly used in the Francophone world. It is derived from the word revenge
but does not necessarily convey the sense of vendetta. For example, in a game
in three rounds where the winner of two of them wins the game, the second round
is called: la revanche. Also, when talking about any subject, the term “en
revanche” is often used to mean: on the other hand.
And the way that the word is used in the context of the
geopolitical game being played at this time between America and Russia, conveys
the sense that America won the first round when it caused the Soviet Union to
dissolve, and that Putin has delivered the punch that won him the return round
or “la revanche.” And this is the act of revanchism that President Obama should
have anticipated, say his crucifiers. But now that they are using a word they
never used before, Mr. Obama can say to them: Show me where you used that word
before, and I'll accept that you correctly predicted what I did not see coming.
And because they cannot show they used the word before, they
will not be able to criticize Mr. Obama for not being the prophet or the god
they wish their President to be. Having crucified him before and having won the
first round by ignoring the rules of the game, he has the opportunity to
crucify them now, and score big in the return round. He can have his own
revanche.
So now you think they learned their lesson and will
anticipate what will happen next, describing it in precise terms so that when
it happens, they will be able to say to their President: we told you so. But
no, that's not what they do in their editorial. Instead, they criticized Mr.
Obama for doing no more than deliver an address in Europe
based on lawyerly logic, and for failing to argue for a robust strategy that
would have the effect of deterring Russian aggression.
They do admit that President Obama had a plan to impose
sanctions on Russia that
would have been gradually ramped up as warranted by Russia 's
responses, but that the Europeans refused to go along with it in view of the
wide ranging business dealings they have with Russia . So the question: What can
an American president do in such circumstances? Well, Obama cooled matters
without backing down on principles, yet the editors of the Journal lamented
that he “yielded to European passivity.” But did they say in precise terms what
else he should have done so that they may remind him later of what they told
him? No, they did not say what could be done under the circumstances; they only
had the gall to criticize Obama.
At this point, anyone with an average IQ would see that the
situation has boiled down to this question: Should America risk a shooting war
with Russia
to defend European interests that the Europeans will not defend? This is what
the new debate should be about, but what do the editors of the Journal do? They
froth at the mouth all kinds of histrionics, lamentations, bellyaching,
conjectures, speculations and what have you to end with this: “The Kremlin
isn't dumb. If the off-ramp is always available and nothing stands in the road
ahead, why get off the road at all?”