Okay, its been a long while since I've written, but something said on the news has been bugging me.
I've been hearing a number of "talking heads" (mostly Democrats) comparing the "acceptableness" of a diplomatic negotiation with Iran regarding a nuclear weapon with the discussions between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
It is official: we don't teach enough history in schools. We're a nation of people who understand useless things like football and quadratic equations but have no idea about the danger of isolationism and the pointlessness of diplomacy without the threat of military force. Or, to be blunt, we are making ourselves stupid because we've placed math at the top and history at the bottom.
Education rant over, on to why POTUS and all his supporters are worse than wrong on this.
In the 1930s we, as a nation, were stupid. Officially its called isolationism. There were problems in the world in the name of Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin. But those threats were across oceans, so they could "never" hurt us, so we buried our heads in the sand. The "heroic" Charles Lindbergh was quasi-pro-Nazi, visiting Berlin and speaking with the architect of The Cataclysm. We had a president who was extremely reluctant to aid Britain in the early portions of the war. It took a dastardly attack to get us to wake up.
Right now we have a president who is emulating not Franklin Roosevelt (sadly) but Woodrow Wilson. There is no doubt, when you read history (not what's in the textbooks, throw those in the recycle bin) it is painfully evident that Wilson failed. He drug his feet to get the US to war, and had people in positions of authority who made stupid mistakes that left our boys ill-prepared for the trenches. He went to Versailles, not with military or political advisors, but fellow law professors and marketing advisors with the goal to create a world "safe for democracy." He preached the "14 Points," the League of Nations, and self-determination for nations. (Note: of all the nations once part of the German, Austrian, or Russian empires, there were some nations who did not get to be part of this. The nations of the Balkans were "gifted" to Serbia, the instigator of the war. Yugoslavia would go on to cause trouble for the next century. Thanks a lot Wilson.) His lackluster participation in the intervention against the Soviet Union resulted in nothing. In the end, the failing of the Treaty of Versailles is what established the Second World War.
Obama wants to be the next Wilson, thinking that "pen is mightier than the sword." Other than the third Indiana Jones movie, pen's are not useful as weapons at all. Diplomacy lead to the Munich Agreement, which was claimed to achieve peace.
Here's the quick version: British PM visited insane dictator who clearly stated (in a best selling book) what his intentions were. PM is sure he can discuss with dictator as equals with common goals and values. Dictator convinces PM that he and his people will behave. PM says diplomacy works. Dictator breaks his word.
Hmm... so far Obama is discussing with an insane dictator who has clearly stated (in everything) what his intentions are. And Obama is sure we can discuss with dictator as equals with common goals and values.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to 1938.
And this is the where the uneducated master-degree-holding liberal political "scientists" say "well, Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union. Weren't the Soviets evil, too?" They try to use the descriptions of the Iran regime and DAESH to describe the USSR. But they do not want to allow anyone to explain what the difference is. They think "oh, if I can convince people Reagan did it than Obama will be allowed to do it."
If Obama would do what Reagan did I'd be okay. (Note: what Reagan did was enlarge the military and force the Soviets to run out of money trying to keep up.)
While there is some truth to the liberals' lies (as usual), they've left out the cornerstone issue: religion.
What is the difference between communism and Islam? One is a political theory, the other is a religion. This means that there are different rules to how you deal with each. This is the same as the argument between science and religion or history. (Those of you who think you can use science to "disprove" Christianity, note, you can't any more than a peashooter can take out a battleship.)
The methods, philosophies, and rules governing these two schools of thought are very different, and even mutually exclusive at times. A diplomatic method that works for discussions between two political entities do not work when trying to discuss anything with a fundamentalist religion. You have to play by the rules of the academic discipline. What works to create treaties between two nations does not work regarding religion.
Suppose a religion believes that an alien made out of bacon told them that they can only wear wooden clogs on Tuesday, and that anyone who doesn't deserves to be flogged with a wet squirrel and beheaded. No one should expect to have a calm and rational discussion with this religion's leaders.
We have a better chance to convince North Korea to give up its military than to diplomatically deal with Iran and convince them to delay their nuclear program. That's one of the problems with diplomacy: compromise. Diplomacy only works as compromise, either with both parties as equals (or near equals) or with one party who is stronger and the weaker party must concede something. Regardless, both sides must be willing to compromise and negotiate.
Megalomaniacal dictatorships do not compromise. The Soviets were willing to compromise, because they were willing to take the "slow path" to victory by spreading their political system through diplomacy and aid programs (and small proxy wars). The Iranians are not willing to compromise because they desire to have victory now, through fear, terrorism, nuclear programs, and proxy wars.
What the president doesn't understand is that this is not about what the American people (along with most of the world) want. It is what we don't want. We don't want a bunch of lunatics who call themselves the leaders of Iran to be in possession of the most powerful military explosive or the ability to make one. Not "no nuclear weapon but peaceful nuclear power."
Historically speaking there is no such thing as "peaceful nuclear power." Chernobyl is a prime example of nuclear power gone wrong. And which came first, the nuclear reactor to create electricity, or the atomic bomb? If you can't answer that without looking it up, you obviously failed history class.
Our political leaders and their advisors believe that they can find a peaceful solution through diplomacy and compromise. I'm all for peace, but I know more about international politics than Obama. Any parent who believes in healthy discipline is smarter than Obama (and by extension the UN and Woodrow Wilson) regarding diplomacy.
Healthy discipline means I am not my child's best friend, or that I use appeasement (sticker charts, rewards) to convince him to do something. And I do not compromise. When I say "pick up your toys" there is no negotiations. He must pick up. Failure to do so results in consequences.
Obama is like the parent who is willing to say "okay, five more minute, then bedtime," each time the kids whine "but dad." There is a place for healthy fear, and that place is especially obvious in politics. Rogue nations who do not care for anyone's survival should be afraid that tomorrow an American carrier task force could be off their coast with planes loaded to strike. They should go to sleep at night wondering which vital portions of infrastructure will be targeted by American cruise missiles. They should be paranoid that we have listening devices in every meeting room and are recording every conversation. They should wake up every morning thankful we didn't send troops in the night to liberate their nation.
We should be taking the same position in the world that the Jedi had in the Star Wars universe. The Jedi were the "guardians of peace and justice." One Jedi was enough to send countless thugs, criminals, and warlords running. Those who did evil had every right to fear them. Those who sought protection from evil saw the Jedi as heroes.
America used to be like that. Our allies saw us as ready and willing to come to their aid against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Our enemies rightly feared us. Right now, though, our enemies laugh at us because they know that the American people are powerless to stop them. And we are powerless because our elected elders have relinquished power in the name of diplomacy.
Suppose you travel to Africa on a safari and a lion starts to chase you. Which one of these two items will be more likely to safe your life: a Hallmark card or a shotgun?
Right now there is some sort of sporting event happening. But which is more likely to win a championship game: skilled cheerleaders or a talented team? No victorious sports team has won because they spoke nicely to their opponents and compromised saying "you can have one goal, and we'll take two." No, in sports you win by being better than the other team. The better your players, the more you practice, the more likely you are to win. (Yes, I'm not counting "underdogs," but only because the example is the norm.)
But regarding Iran and its desire for nukes, we don't want them to play nice. We don't even want to play them "fairly" on the court. We want them to sit on the bench and forfeit.
