Saturday, March 07, 2015

A Complex Allegiance

 

Recently Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the incredible journalism that no longer exists within the United States completely failed to address something.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and his speech brought about the expected results. Had God come down from on high and anointed him the new Moses, the left would still have hated the speech. He had spoken about the value of flatulence crowded elevators the right would have decreed his words to be a divine wind. People often accuse American politicians to change like the weather----untrue. The weather can be unpredictable. American politicians are not. It has been said that if brain eating zombies invaded our nation’s capital they would starve to death. It’s that bad.

Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to Congress, warned of Iran as a nuclear threat, and said that any agreements with them would be bad. We knew he was going to say it and he came and said it. He has said similar things to Congress before, namely about Iraq and that turned out to not be true. I don’t know if he’s right or wrong about Iran.

Some factors of importance are these:

First, the United States, and both of the major political parties, would agree that Iran having nuclear weapons would be a bad thing. It may be at question as to how to prevent this from happening, but I know, for certain that both the White House and Congress would agree on this.

Secondly, Israel does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons and both nations are in total agreement on this. President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu might not like each other or agree on many things, but this is a fact.

Thirdly, Israel is our ally and is one of our closest allies. It does not matter who the President or the Prime Minister is, the two nations are close allies. That has not changed and I do not see this changing. Prime Minister Netanyahu that if Israel is attacked tomorrow he will find an ally in President Obama. Personalities aren’t that important in national allegiances if you read history.

This is where the issue gets sticky and it has been completely ignored.

Historically allies support one another in war. In 1990 when Iraq unilaterally invaded Kuwait, they did so knowing that Kuwait was a strong ally of the United States. They invaded Kuwait anyway in one of the most classic and amazing blunders in history. Saddam Hussein was then warned, “Get out or you’ll be sorry.” Hussein did not get out and he was sorry. The United States with a strong coalition of other nations, swept Iraq out of Kuwait and put huge restraints on Iraq to ever be a Middle Eastern power again. President George H. W. Bush, love him or loathe him, was brilliant in how he executed this. He used military force judiciously and effectively.

In 1982 Argentina invaded the British Falkland Islands. Great Britain went to war and regained them in a brilliant and decisive military action. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her nation planned this and it was a judicious use of the military. She also knew that if Britain ran into problems, the United States was up the road, ready to help. Great Britain is a great ally and allies stick together.

But allegiances get sticky. In 1941 Germany and Italy were allied with their great friend Japan. Japan had grown increasingly bellicose and was at war with China and wanted more. In another one of the most amazingly blunders in world history, they decided to attack the American fleet at Pearl Harbor. It was tactically a brilliant assault but strategically beyond stupid. The United States, of course, declared war on Japan.

This put Adolf Hitler in an amazingly awkward position. He was ethically bound to declare war on the United States-----yes, I know using ‘ethically bound’ and Hitler in the same sentence is beyond strange. Strategically, however, Hitler declaring war on the United States would have been even more bovinous than bombing their fleet. Hitler was in a stalemate with Britain and had already attacked the Soviet Union----which was like a python swallowing an elephant. The absolute last thing Hitler needed was to have the critical mass of men and materials the United States could provide. In 1941 the United States was the world’s leading industrial powerhouse and could out manufacture anyone and everyone. The judicious move for Hitler was to condemn Japan and not declare war on the United States.

Alas, no one ever accused Adolf Hitler of being judicious and on December 11, 1941 he decided that the 1000 Year Reich was a pipedream and he declared war on the United States. He decided to assist his good friend and ally, Japan and support their blunder. By the end of 1945 both Germany and Japan were gigantic dustbins….

All of which brings me back to Prime Minister Netanyahu who can be rather bellicose himself.

If Israel gets attacked or invaded I believe the United States has a moral obligation to support them to the max. This, in fact, may mean going to war with someone. If Israel is in mortal danger, we have to help them and we should help them. We have an ethical obligation to do so.

But, what happens if Israel decides to attack someone and ends up in a perilous war? What is our obligation then? Do we have one? If Prime Minister Netanyahu proves not to be judicious, do we have to go to war to save his nation? Where are our boundaries?

These questions have not been asked. I think they should be. Allegiances are complicated and our allegiance with Israel is very complicated and our own leaders are too busy trying to one up each other that they are not asking the right questions, and neither is the news media.

No comments: