World war I is generally said to have begun in August, 1914, when Germany advanced into Belgium. This is technically correct but very incomplete. Europe had been tense for ten years, and war had nearly broken out twice in that span, most recently in 1913. When war did finally happen it was not quite by accident but by a terrible set of mutual obligations and a sense of national pride expressed by arms that led to a war felt to be inevitable but that no one wanted and all dreaded.
A Serb nationalist assassinated Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo (then part of Austria). For inexplicable national threat concerns this led Austria to demand an apology from Serbia, which Serbia provided. Austria asked for further concessions, wanting to punish Serbia for its assumed tacit support for Austrian Serb rebels. Serbia refused, and Austria mobilized to attack Serbia.
But wait...Serbia had as its protector its fellow Orthodox nation, Russia, and Russia mobilized against Austria. This automatically set off German mobilization, because to fail to mobilize was to lose precious time in concentrating armies. In return for German mobilization the French mobilized as well. Germany had long since decided for strategic reasons to attack France first rather than Russia. At the last moment the Kaiser asked if Russia could be attacked, but the Kaiser had refused such an offer from Moltke earlier, and a French oriented mobilization was in progress. Moltke said he could not change the order of armies, and left devastated that he should have attacked Russia first. The German minister to Russia left the interview declaring war in tears, as did his Russian counterpart.
And Germany attacked France, and got tagged with the label 'aggressor'. All they did was honor their alliances with Austria and respond to conditions. Germany could not fight a two front war against France and Russia at the same time, and felt they could defeat France before Russia could mobilize. Oddly, in the end they were wrong, defeating Russia and gaining an enormous amount of territory. But in the meantime a pride argument between Austria and Serbia became a brutal war between Germany and France.
That couldn't happen again, could it? Oh yes it can.
Obama has foolishly drawn a red line against use of chemical weapons. He can try and wiggle out of what he said, but we all heard him. Now he says it is the world's line and humanity's line. Except no one else is threatening an attack on Syria. No one else cares. And Obama foists the whole thing off on Congress, whose agreement he said he did not need. Putin, a clever and ruthless man, sees the weakness of the position and threatens retaliation against Syrian rebels if the US attacks Assad. Iran threatens Israel if the US attacks Assad. What an impressive trap. Just like in chess, where an opponent sets up a choice where no matter what you do you lose a piece.
If Obama blinks, and he is acting like he has sand in his eyes he is blinking so fast, he loses credibility severely. The US will be seen as a loud mouth coward, which is just how we are behaving. If Obama attacks the Syrians he risks attacks against the rebels, terrorist retaliation against the US, worse hatred throughout the Arab world, and an attack on Israel. Israel would have to retaliate, creating a conflict with both parties armed with nuclear weapons and supported by larger state actors.
What an idiot. This is just like the interlocking interests prior to WW I, and risky no matter what is done. Obama is asking congressmen in essence to 'take one for the team', and vote for an attack 81% of Americans don't want. It is Obama who should take one, accepting public humiliation rather than set off a potential mess.
A local rebellion leads a major power to threaten them. This leads another power to also threaten an attack, and ultimately allies of the two nations fight each other. Just substitute Syria for Serbia, America for Austria, Russia for Russia, Israel for Germany and Iran for France. The essence of the action is the same.
Oh, and on the home front, the NYT manages to blame this mess on...ready....BUSH!! Yes, he made the war weariness that prevents us from being the noble attackers of poison gas killers. Please. The Iraq War, no matter how oversold, was against a threat against us. In Syria, no one is threatening us. In fact, the Syrian government is killing al Qaeda militants. Let them kill each other. Why should we care? The NYT is full of BS, as usual. There is nothing similar about the war in Iraq and the proposed strikes in Syria. Those are pointless and potentially very dangerous.
Please, Mr. 'President'. Either have the guts to fight on your own recognizance or the guts to see you've made a fool of yourself.
Ted
A Serb nationalist assassinated Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo (then part of Austria). For inexplicable national threat concerns this led Austria to demand an apology from Serbia, which Serbia provided. Austria asked for further concessions, wanting to punish Serbia for its assumed tacit support for Austrian Serb rebels. Serbia refused, and Austria mobilized to attack Serbia.
But wait...Serbia had as its protector its fellow Orthodox nation, Russia, and Russia mobilized against Austria. This automatically set off German mobilization, because to fail to mobilize was to lose precious time in concentrating armies. In return for German mobilization the French mobilized as well. Germany had long since decided for strategic reasons to attack France first rather than Russia. At the last moment the Kaiser asked if Russia could be attacked, but the Kaiser had refused such an offer from Moltke earlier, and a French oriented mobilization was in progress. Moltke said he could not change the order of armies, and left devastated that he should have attacked Russia first. The German minister to Russia left the interview declaring war in tears, as did his Russian counterpart.
And Germany attacked France, and got tagged with the label 'aggressor'. All they did was honor their alliances with Austria and respond to conditions. Germany could not fight a two front war against France and Russia at the same time, and felt they could defeat France before Russia could mobilize. Oddly, in the end they were wrong, defeating Russia and gaining an enormous amount of territory. But in the meantime a pride argument between Austria and Serbia became a brutal war between Germany and France.
That couldn't happen again, could it? Oh yes it can.
Obama has foolishly drawn a red line against use of chemical weapons. He can try and wiggle out of what he said, but we all heard him. Now he says it is the world's line and humanity's line. Except no one else is threatening an attack on Syria. No one else cares. And Obama foists the whole thing off on Congress, whose agreement he said he did not need. Putin, a clever and ruthless man, sees the weakness of the position and threatens retaliation against Syrian rebels if the US attacks Assad. Iran threatens Israel if the US attacks Assad. What an impressive trap. Just like in chess, where an opponent sets up a choice where no matter what you do you lose a piece.
If Obama blinks, and he is acting like he has sand in his eyes he is blinking so fast, he loses credibility severely. The US will be seen as a loud mouth coward, which is just how we are behaving. If Obama attacks the Syrians he risks attacks against the rebels, terrorist retaliation against the US, worse hatred throughout the Arab world, and an attack on Israel. Israel would have to retaliate, creating a conflict with both parties armed with nuclear weapons and supported by larger state actors.
What an idiot. This is just like the interlocking interests prior to WW I, and risky no matter what is done. Obama is asking congressmen in essence to 'take one for the team', and vote for an attack 81% of Americans don't want. It is Obama who should take one, accepting public humiliation rather than set off a potential mess.
A local rebellion leads a major power to threaten them. This leads another power to also threaten an attack, and ultimately allies of the two nations fight each other. Just substitute Syria for Serbia, America for Austria, Russia for Russia, Israel for Germany and Iran for France. The essence of the action is the same.
Oh, and on the home front, the NYT manages to blame this mess on...ready....BUSH!! Yes, he made the war weariness that prevents us from being the noble attackers of poison gas killers. Please. The Iraq War, no matter how oversold, was against a threat against us. In Syria, no one is threatening us. In fact, the Syrian government is killing al Qaeda militants. Let them kill each other. Why should we care? The NYT is full of BS, as usual. There is nothing similar about the war in Iraq and the proposed strikes in Syria. Those are pointless and potentially very dangerous.
Please, Mr. 'President'. Either have the guts to fight on your own recognizance or the guts to see you've made a fool of yourself.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment