Friday, September 01, 2006

The War is coming, no matter how hard we try to evade it

Robert Tracinski of The Intellectual Activist is simply stating the obvious:

have noticed a recent trend in war commentary, starting a few weeks after the beginning of the current conflict in Lebanon. The trend began with a series of analogies between recent events and the events of the 1930s, leading up to World War II.

In the August 2 Washington Times, for example, Kenneth Timmerman referred to the Lebanon War as "Islamofascism's 1936." Just as the Spanish Civil War that began in that year was a preview of World War II—the 1937 bombing of Guernica was Hermann Goering's test of the ability of aerial bombing to destroy cities—so Timmerman argues that the Lebanon War is a preview of a larger conflict: "Iran…is testing the international community's response, as it prepares for a future war." (TIA Daily readers may remember that Jack Wakeland made a similar point in the July 19 edition of TIA Daily.)

For others on the pro-war right, the preferred analogy is 1938, the year in which Western appeasement of Hitler emboldened him to further attacks. That year's Munich Agreement—the "diplomatic solution" to a German-fomented crisis in Czechoslovakia, abandoned Czechoslovakia to Hitler in exchange for promises that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain claimed would guarantee "peace for our time." On August 7, the headline of a Washington Times editorial asked: is the Bush administration's proposed diplomatic solution for Lebanon an attempt to secure "Peace in Our Time?"

Over at National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg picks 1939, wondering if Israel will fall to a Sunni-Shiite pact, just as Poland fell to a Nazi-Soviet pact, while John Batchelor, writing in the New York Sun, is more ecumenical, citing analogies to 1936, 1938, 1939, and even America in 1941.

British commentator David Pryce-Jones, in his blog at National Review Online, sums up the general sense of things:

I have often wondered what it would have been like to live through the Thirties. How would I have reacted to the annual Nuremberg Party rallies, the rants against the Jews, and Hitler’s foreign adventures which the democracies did nothing to oppose, the occupation of the Rhineland and Austria, Nazi support for Franco in the Spanish civil war, and the rest of it. Appeasement was then considered wise, and has only become a dirty word with hindsight….

Now Iran is embarked on foreign adventures in Iraq and Syria and Lebanon. It is engaged on all-out armament programs, and is evidently hard at work developing the nuclear weapon that will give it a dimension of power that Hitler did not have…. Appeasement is again considered wise.

What these commentators are picking up is not an exact parallel to any one event of the 1930s—hence their scattershot of historical analogies. Instead, what they are picking up is a sense of the overall direction of world events: we are clearly headed toward a much larger, bloodier conflict in the Middle East, but no one in the West wants to acknowledge it, prepare for it, or begin to fight it....


Read the whole thing here.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

the word/phrase mr. Tracinski is looking for is "the phony war".

as jacksonian as i am, i have never thought myself "pro-war". i don't think the right is either. that phrase and not the analogies were what caught my eye.

i believe if there is to be a war, and the analogies that are mentioned will come to pass, it will be due to the incompetence of our elected leaders. more interested in re-electing themselves to power than considering the best interests of the US. the US will continue to fund china and its' own war machine. the US will continue to support communism in the USSR and rebuild their military. why, because china and russia are our greatest allies and our friends that's why. wal-mart will move its' headquarters to beijing........ok, i'm making that one up.

if there is to be a war with iran it won't be a war but a correction. just as WWI was. the real war won't be fought in my lifetime, around 2035 i'd say. my reasoning..........
what event started WWII?
if you said the bombing at PH you would/will be wrong.
the event that started WWII occured in 1849, when commodore perry sailed into what was then tokyo bay and blasted the hell out of anything afloat. thereby ending over 400 years of japanese isolation. the sleeping giant that was awakened was not the US in 1941, but japan in 1849.
what event will start the great war to be fought in the latter years?
the establishment of the jewish state.
1948?
give it about a hundred years to simmer and there will be a war.
the only question to be answered then will be if the US still has the american ethos that gained/took our freedom from a tyrant, corrected the wrong that was slavery, and maintained the bigotry necessary to spread from ocean ot ocean, or are we a bunch of girly men.
i am and will be forever, jacksonian.
i will now go and finish my bottle of francis-ford-coppola's diamond series chardonnay.
and to ff and nazar a very restful labot day weekend. may you accomplish nothing. absolutely nothing.