PJB: Coming Home at Last?

[Winehole23]

Coming Home at Last? (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/07/29/coming-home-at-last/)

Posted on July 29th, 2010 by Patrick J. Buchanan


(http://digg.com/)
Asked if the United States might send still more troops to Afghanistan, if the Obama surge is not succeeding by year’s end, Vice President Joe Biden answered, “I do not believe so.”


So, that is it. Biden is saying the 100,000 U.S. troops in theater or on the way is our limit. If Kabul and the Afghan army fail with this investment of American forces, they will be permitted to fail. All the chips we are going to commit are now on the table.


And a series of critical deadlines is approaching.


By the end of August, all U.S. combat troops are to be out of Iraq. Only 50,000 “training troops” are to remain, but all U.S. forces are scheduled to be withdrawn by the end of 2011.


In December, a review takes place of Afghan war strategy. Next July, U.S. withdrawals are to begin, though, since naming Gen. David Petraeus as his field commander, President Obama and his cabinet have emphasized that the withdrawals will be “conditions-based.”


We will walk, not run, to the exit.


But if we are topping out in Afghanistan, and the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is already less than half of the 170,000 after the surge of 2007, it seems America is on her way out of both wars.


What did they accomplish — and at what cost?


Saddam and his Baathist regime were overthrown, the dictator was hanged, elections were held, and a government that reflects the will of a majority of Iraqis put in its place.


Cost to the United States: More than 4,200 U.S. dead, 35,000 wounded, $700 billion sunk. In the Islamic world, the Iraq War led to pandemic hostility toward America. At home, the war led to the rout of the Republicans and the election of an anti-war liberal Democrat.


If Obama is indeed leading America into socialism, the War Party that led us into Iraq can take a full measure of credit.


And what is the cost to the Iraqi people of a U.S. invasion and occupation and seven-year war, the end of which is nowhere in sight?


Perhaps 100,000 dead, half a million widows and orphans, 4 million refugees, half having fled their country, devastation of a Christian community that dated to the time of Christ and the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis from Baghdad.


Four months after elections, they have no government, and bombs that kill dozens still go off daily. And, when the Americans leave, a civil and sectarian war may return. The breakup of Iraq along ethnic and religious lines remains a possibility. The price of liberation is high.


And what did the Iraqis do to deserve this? Did they attack us?


No. They had nothing to do with 9/11 and had complied with the U.S. demand to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction years before the U.S. Army stormed in to discover and destroy those weapons.


And we wonder why these ungrateful people hate us.


The Afghan War was, at its inception, a just war.


If the Taliban would not turn over bin Laden and those who plotted the mass murder of 3,000 Americans, we had a right to go in after him, as Woodrow Wilson had a right to send Gen. John Pershing into Mexico to find and kill Pancho Villa after he murdered Americans in New Mexico.


But after the defeat of the Taliban by the Northern Alliance, the overthrow of Mullah Omar and our failure to capture or kill bin Laden at Tora Bora, we decided to stay on and convert the most tribalized and xenophobic land on earth into an Islamic democracy and strategic ally.


We will soon enter the 10th year of this war. And though 100,000 U.S. and 50,000 NATO troops are committed, the Taliban are winning — because they are not losing. They are more numerous, more deadly and more resourceful than they have been since their ouster in 2001.


Even Gen. Stanley McChrystal said the war was a draw. And Biden says we have reached the limit of our commitment.


Thus, what we are looking at is endless bleeding, now running at 60 dead U.S. soldiers a month, with no American military or political leader willing to say when the bleeding will stop or the war will end.


And the home front is visibly eroding. A majority of Americans now believe the war is unwinnable or not worth the cost, and a growing minority in Congress wants out. Some NATO allies are departing. Others are setting deadlines for withdrawal.


As for the Afghans we leave behind, who committed themselves to America’s war, they will, when we depart, suffer the fate of the “harkis” in Algeria, the South Vietnamese army and boat people, and the Cambodians we left behind to the tender mercies of the Khmer Rouge.


Have the politicians, journalists and think-tank geniuses who dreamed up these wars suffered ignominy and disgrace?


Not at all. They are debating and devising a new war — with Iran.

[Parker2112]

http://www.bendib.com/labor/9-8-War-Profiteering.jpg

[Parker2112]

Where are all the snappy wardrums to beat my cartoon to death?

[LnGrrrR]

The artist did misspell "yachts".

[Winehole23]

Try changing the subject to Iran. Reality seems to (have) bled through all the happy talk and wishful thinking on this one.

[Parker2112]

damn i hope so...

[EVAY]

WH...
Cogent, articulate, well-reasoned arguments.

Just about says it all, as far as I'm concerned.

Well done, sir!:toast

[EVAY]

And authored by Buchanan. Who knew?

[Winehole23]

PJB's historical narrative is often cogent and persuasive but his nativist bias almost always shows through.

[Winehole23]

(Perhaps it's meant to.)

[Winehole23]

and the Cambodians we left behind to the tender mercies of the Khmer Rouge.The fruit of Kissingerian realpolitik. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Winehole23]

Where are all the snappy wardrums to beat my cartoon to death?2001-2006 forums.

[EVAY]

PJB's historical narrative is often cogent and persuasive but his nativist bias almost always shows through.

Yes, I believe that his nativist bias is, in fact, intentional. My problem with him generally is that nativism is not his ONLY bias.

His fantastical and overreaching polemic on the The Unnecessary War, by which he appeared to intend to rewrite the history of the causes of World War II was unconscionable, IMHO.

[Marcus Bryant]

Therein lies the problem with Buchanan. Just when you start to agree and wonder why his popularity is limited he does something like claim that WWII was an unnecessary war and make Churchill out to be a warmongering villain, with the implicit exoneration of Hitler and the minimalization of the Holocaust.

[EVAY]

Therein lies the problem with Buchanan. Just when you start to agree and wonder why his popularity is limited he does something like claim that WWII was an unnecessary war and make Churchill out to be a warmongering villain, with the implicit exoneration of Hitler and the minimalization of the Holocaust.

Yeah, that pretty much says it.

[Winehole23]

Therein lies the problem with Buchanan. Just when you start to agree and wonder why his popularity is limited he does something like claim that WWII was an unnecessary war and make Churchill out to be a warmongering villain, with the implicit exoneration of Hitler and the minimalization of the Holocaust.It has to do with his intended audience, I think.

PJB at first blush is not an unreconstructed bigot, but his rump of support is largely unreconstructed white bigots, whom he seldom disappoints, even if the message must be somewhat "implicit" at times.

[Winehole23]

PJB's coded (formerly more straightforward, I seem to recall) distaste for Jews is a particular sore point with me.

[Winehole23]

Therein lies the problem with Buchanan. Just when you start to agree and wonder why his popularity is limited he does something like claim that WWII was an unnecessary war and make Churchill out to be a warmongering villain...Sure.


with the implicit exoneration of Hitler and the minimalization of the Holocaust.I'm not sure I ever bought this, but then again I only read the reviews. How does pointing out that the way WWII started might have been a strategic blunder minimize Hitler's crimes?

[Winehole23]

Yes, I believe that his nativist bias is, in fact, intentional. My problem with him generally is that nativism is not his ONLY bias.Agreed, as mentioned above. Or were you referring to something else?


His fantastical and overreaching polemic on the The Unnecessary War, by which he appeared to intend to rewrite the history of the causes of World War II was unconscionable, IMHO.Unconscionable perhaps, but doesn't intellectual freedom still include the freedom to be wrong?

[Winehole23]

In Europe, it doesn't. Leastwise not about the Holocaust. That's one of the big remaining differences between us and them.

[Winehole23]

We're still free to be jackassedly wrong. They aren't, anymore.

[EVAY]

Unconscionable perhaps, but doesn't intellectual freedom still include the freedom to be wrong?

Of course it does. It includes the freedom to be unconscionably wrong.

He exercizes that freedom with such regularity that a clear and well-reasoned argument like the one in the article which you posted is a surprise.

Doesn't mean that the article is bad, the arguments are not reasonable, or anything else, WH. I have said all that in my earlier posts. I was trying to explain why I was surprised to hear sanity and reason from a guy who would also take the position he does on WWII, Churchill, Hitler, etc. etc. etc.

I have heard several Irish patriots take the same position that Buchanan takes regarding Hitler and WWII, mostly because of their acceptance of the proposition that "my enemy's enemy is my friend", and since England was Ireland's enemy, they contort reason to find something to support in Hitler and the causes of WWII.

[Winehole23]

He exercizes that freedom with such regularity that a clear and well-reasoned argument like the one in the article which you posted is a surprise.Fair enough.



I was surprised to hear sanity and reason from a guy who would also take the position he does on WWII, Churchill, Hitler, etc. etc. etc.What are those positions, in your view?


I have heard several Irish patriots take the same position that Buchanan takes regarding Hitler and WWII, mostly because of their acceptance of the proposition that "my enemy's enemy is my friend", and since England was Ireland's enemy, they contort reason to find something to support in Hitler and the causes of WWII.That's a brand new angle on me but sure, why not?

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134253&highlight=Buchanan

[EVAY]

Fair enough.


What are those positions, in your view?

That's a brand new angle on me but sure, why not?

While I will not engage in a "prove something in a certain way or I reject your conclusion" argument, I will tell you what positions he takes that are unsupported by the facts that he chooses to interpret in ways that are
not reasonable according to academic research on the period.

Fact: Churchill answered a question from Rooosevelt about 'what should this war be called' with the answer:"It should be called 'The Unnecessary War'.

Churchill's response reflected his belief that, had Britain and France dealt more firmly with Hitler when he was repeatedly making and then breaking treaties regarding non-aggression toward his European neighbors that perhaps Hitler would have actually believed them when they told him that they would honor their treaty with Poland. Churchill believed that Hitler understood power, and that had England and/or France re-armed when Hitler did, or even moved against Hitler militarily before Poland, the war would not have gotten to the point it did. For more info. see Churchill's The Gathering Storm.

In no way does the above mean that Buchanan and Churchill thought the war was unnecessay for the same reasons, or that, had England and France allowed Hitler to subjugate Poland without declaring war, that Hitler would have stopped there, as Buchanan strongly implies.

[EVAY]

Fact: The Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I was onerous and required Germany to pay reparations to the combatants.

What Buchanan interprets from this is that the Treaty was 'out-of-bounds' in its vengefulness and essentially 'caused' World War II because no country could be expected to 'accept' such mistreatment.

This is hogwash. Although it was extremely vengeful, it was along the same lines that germany had imposed on France following the War of 1870. It was in the same vein that all European wars had been resolved. What was extremely difficult for Germany was that they were trying to rebuild from WWI at the same time the Great Depression was taking its toll on them, and it was easier to blame the allies from WWI and their treaty (to say nothing of the Jews, of course) for the economic woes besetting the nation than it was to face the rebuilding effort without relying on scapegoats. (see current U.S. and the immigration issue).

[EVAY]

Fact: WWII lost Europe for Capitalism and turned it over to Russia.

This fails to account for so many contributing factors to this it is phenomenal.
1. The democratic allies (particularly the U.S.) were happy to turn over the fighting to Russians because we were unwilling to allow all of our soldiers to die in battles in the way that Stalin and Hitler were. The fact that this strategy resulted in Stalin being in the eastern European nations at the end of the war and that he didn't want to give them up just means that Stalin rather than Hitler was in charge. Both were totalitarian dictators who killed their own people by the millions.
2. WWII followed the great depression almost immediately. So many people worldwide were disillusioned with capitalism that, even in the non-Soviet dominated countries, Communism was popular after WWII. (see Italy, France, England). The war was not the cause of the West losing eastern Europe.
3. America was unwilling to continue fighting in 1945. Churchill was. That's why he was voted out of office. The Brits knew damn well that he was willing to take on Russia and they wanted no part of it, and neither did America.

[EVAY]

The worst thing about all of the Buchanan position on WWII is his implication that Hitler would EVER have stood by his word, that he DIDN'T want world domination, and that Roosevelt and Churchill were somehow as responsible for the war as Hitler.

Churchill was a lot of things that were not nice, including an unrepentant imperialist. But he was right about Hitler, right about the need for Britain to rearm, right about America's eventual need to enter the war, and right about Stalin's post-war ambitions.

Among the things he was, was the greatest visionary of geo-politics in the 20th century.

Among the things he was NOT was war-monger.

Roosevelt understood the American people far better than Churchill understood the British people. Roosevelt understood, with Churchill, that America would eventually have to enter the war. But, a point that Buchanan seems to overlook repeatedly:

GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA 4 DAYS AFTER PEARL HARBOR!!!

Roosevelt did NOT declare war on Germany.

[Winehole23]

In no way does the above mean that Buchanan and Churchill thought the war was unnecessay for the same reasons, or that, had England and France allowed Hitler to subjugate Poland without declaring war, that Hitler would have stopped there, as Buchanan strongly implies.Interesting. Where (or how) does he strongly imply it, please?

[Winehole23]

Fact: WWII lost Europe for Capitalism and turned it over to Russia.

This fails to account for so many contributing factors to this it is phenomenal.

[QUOTE]1. The democratic allies (particularly the U.S.) were happy to turn over the fighting to Russians because we were unwilling to allow all of our soldiers to die in battles in the way that Stalin and Hitler were. The fact that this strategy resulted in Stalin being in the eastern European nations at the end of the war and that he didn't want to give them up just means that Stalin rather than Hitler was in charge. Both were totalitarian dictators who killed their own people by the millions.True. We were happy to let the Russians do it.

Hitler and Stalin were willing to pay a higher price. Russia was bled white. 20 million in WWII, wasn't it, wholly apart from Stalin's purges?


2. WWII followed the great depression almost immediately. So many people worldwide were disillusioned with capitalism that, even in the non-Soviet dominated countries, Communism was popular after WWII. (see Italy, France, England). The war was not the cause of the West losing eastern Europe.Capitalism had lost its credibility. Now everybody prays to it, while immolating the public purse. Is that so much better?


3. America was unwilling to continue fighting in 1945. Churchill was. That's why he was voted out of office. The Brits knew damn well that he was willing to take on Russia and they wanted no part of it, and neither did America.WRT the present: either we haven't reached that point yet with our current wars, or power does not respect that we already have. That could be a key difference.

WRT what you said: that we were exhausted did not preclude giving the USSR half of Europe at Yalta. On the contrary: it may have been a precondition of the gift. I don't really see how that undermines Buchanan. From my vantage it supports him.

[Winehole23]

(Granted, the USSR already occupied it.)

[Winehole23]

The worst thing about all of the Buchanan position on WWII is his implication that Hitler would EVER have stood by his word, that he DIDN'T want world domination, and that Roosevelt and Churchill were somehow as responsible for the war as Hitler.See, I thought Buchanan was saying Churchill picked the wrong time and place for the fight, with minor concurrence from Churchill himself.


Churchill was a lot of things that were not nice, including an unrepentant imperialist. But he was right about Hitler, right about the need for Britain to rearm, right about America's eventual need to enter the war, and right about Stalin's post-war ambitions. I doubt even PJB would disagree.


Roosevelt understood the American people far better than Churchill understood the British people. Roosevelt understood, with Churchill, that America would eventually have to enter the war. But, a point that Buchanan seems to overlook repeatedly:

GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA 4 DAYS AFTER PEARL HARBOR!!!

Roosevelt did NOT declare war on Germany.Of course. I am well aware of it, I feel sure PJB is well aware of it too. Did he contradict it?

[Winehole23]

IMO it his characterization of Hitler as a semi-rational political agent that has gotten people's goats.

There is a faint humanization of the villain the community finds repulsive here. It is used to construing Hitler as an abstract bulwark of evil, rather than as a subject and agent of history, with certain human attributes.

[EVAY]

Interesting. Where (or how) does he strongly imply it, please?

By his position that Hitler would have stopped his territorial grabs if the allies had allowed Hitler to take Poland. There is simply no basis for this belief, and the fact that Hitler attacked Russia and declared war on America AFTER England and France had entered the war, that he went after the Caucasian oil fields and tried to go after the middle eastern oil fields after he invaded Russia, all suggests that no one knows where his territorial ambitions would end.

Buchanan suggests that Hitler was at least semi-rational, and that there were reasons for his early territorial grabs that were grounded in other causes ( Versailles treaty, etc. etc.). Therefore, according to Buchanan, the land grabs would have stopped at some point and a different 'sphere of influence' that included German interests as opposed to Russian influence in Europe would have resulted. He posits that the result of the war was Russian hegemony, which might have been avoided if the war had been avoided.

There is very little evidence that Hitler was semi rational.

The fact that he could appear rational is a testament to his psychopathy, not his reason.

[Winehole23]

By his position that Hitler would have stopped his territorial grabs if the allies had allowed Hitler to take Poland. There is simply no basis for this belief, and the fact that Hitler attacked Russia and declared war on America AFTER England and France had entered the war, that he went after the Caucasian oil fields and tried to go after the middle eastern oil fields after he invaded Russia, all suggests that no one knows where his territorial ambitions would end.A very suggestive point. Does it irresistably suggest world domination? I wonder.


Buchanan suggests that Hitler was at least semi-rational, and that there were reasons for his early territorial grabs that were grounded in other causes ( Versailles treaty, etc. etc.). Therefore, according to Buchanan, the land grabs would have stopped at some point and a different 'sphere of influence' that included German interests as opposed to Russian influence in Europe would have resulted. He posits that the result of the war was Russian hegemony, which might have been avoided if the war had been avoided.Mightn't this be correct? We're in the area of counterfactuals here. I don't really see what permits you to rule it out definitively, or to claim world domination as an inevitability.


There is very little evidence that Hitler was semi rational.

The fact that he could appear rational is a testament to his psychopathy, not his reason.I was unaware psychopaths were incapable of rational calculation. That's another brand new one on me.

[EVAY]

A very suggestive point. Does it irresistably suggest world domination? I wonder.

Mightn't this be correct? We're in the area of counterfactuals here. I don't really see what permits you to rule it out definitively, or to claim world domination as an inevitability.

I was unaware psychopaths were incapable of rational calculation. That's another brand new one on me.

It is one of the defining characteristics of a psychopath that they "can appear rational, even charming" all in an advancement of their psychopathic goals. That is why I wrote that Hitler's apparent rationality was more a symptom of his psychopathy than his reason.

I don't claim world domination as an inevitability. I claim the desire for world domination to be Hitler's aim. There is zero evidence that world domination was NOT his aim. There is ample evidence that he believed it to be the destiny of the 'aryan race', as personified by the German peoples, to
control the world. He made no bones about the fact that he believed that peoples 'other than Aryans' were less than human. In fact, he believed that Americans would not/could not fight his German armies because we were a "race of mongrels". Slavs were also 'subhumans', as were Russians, Africans, and many Europeans who were not Aryan.

Hitler consistently acted irrationally after France and England declared War against him, even though he "rationalized" his every action, both before and after.

WH, the man truly was evil. Buchanan trying to make Roosevelt and Churchill seem lesser men by trying to make Hitler seem semi-rational is a bias of the first order, IMHO.

More to the point, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Winehole23]

Well, we're trading more or less unvarnished opinions here.

Without any specific attributions at all, we are asked to accept a whole train of hostile inferences about PJB, based on his supposed humanization of Hitler.

[EVAY]

Well, we're trading more or less unvarnished opinions here.

Without any specific attributions at all, we are asked to accept a whole train of hostile inferences about PJB, based on his supposed humanization of Hitler.

I've always tried to make sure that my opinions are heavily varnished.:p: