While perusing the news today, I noticed an article on representatives from Jordan and Egypt going to Israel to extend the hand of peace from the Arab League.
Could it be? It is a first for the Arab League to enter into direct talks with the Israelis. Now, Jordan and Egypt both have signed peace treaties with the Jewish State, but the rest of the Arab world still was advocating the elimination of the Zionist entity on the ancient lands known as Palestine the last time I looked. Of course, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah still are trying to wipe the Jews of the map ... or at least harass them to death.
The plan being offered by the Arab League apparently is the same one put forth by the Saudis not to far back ... which basically was to return to the borders prior to 1967, which basically were the borders offered the Arabs when the old British Palestinian Mandate was partitioned by the United Nations in 1948. Ironic, in a way, trying to return to the status quo ante of some 60 years ago.
Of course, the Arabs want the "right of return" of the displaced Palestinians (who the Arabs have kept as their pet refugees for the last six decades) to their old property in Israel. I am not sure the Israelis will accept that, not being privy to their councils, but I am not sure they should. The corollary would be for the Arabs to allow all the displaced Jews from their countries who found refuge in the Jewish State after 1948 to return to claim their properties and fortunes they had to leave behind when they left their homes.
The tragedy of the Middle East is that the Holy Land is a trice-promised place and holds places sacred to three of the world's largest religions (actually more, if you split the Christian church into its various denominations and Islam into its two major camps) which makes it difficult, if not impossible to resolve disputes over who should control what and where.
Many times I have felt that the U.S. should just step back and then let the residents on both sides fight themselves to a standstill and God sorts it all out. Sort of the old warrior motto; "Kill them all and let God sort it out."
The other thought I have on the Middle East peace process ... is why is the U.S. even involved in it (I know, OIL). No matter what we do, we are damned if we do and we are damned if we don't. Just look at Iraq and you can see it is a classic illustration of that. The world expects the U.S. to lead, but rarely wants to go where the U.S. leads ... it would be a sign of weakness if they did and would "compromise their independence." Yes, Virginia, the U.S. is the 900 pound gorilla in the room. We do have the largest economy that pretty much acts as a primer pump for the rest of the world ... if it wasn't for the U.S. economy soaking up so much commerce, much of the rest of the world would be broke. For instance, if the U.S. didn't buy so much oil from countries like Venezuela, then people like Hugo Chavez wouldn't have the funds to play petty socialist king. So, the U.S. whether it likes it or not, is stuck ... it has to lead.
And it doesn't help that the U.S. military stands literally head and shoulders above all the others when it comes to training, equipment and professionalism. Thank you FDR and the Japanese for that. Before WWII, the U.S. didn't have much of a military, just a cadre of brilliant strategic and tactical thinkers. As a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR, Truman and those who have followed them have vowed that the U.S. never would let its strength flag militarily and our armed forces would be second to none. And that pretty much has been the case ... well sort of ... we weren't prepared for the Korean War because we put all our eggs in the nuclear response basket. Pretty much the same can be said for Vietnam ... we had the wrong force for the wrong war. The 1970s were pretty grim and had a conventional war broken out in Europe, we and our NATO allies would have been hard pressed to hold back a Warsaw Pact onslaught ... although there are a myriad of questions whether the Warsaw Pact ever was a strong as we thought.
In fact, the last 60 years have been an aberration in that we have invested so much of our resources into maintaining military capabilities. You see, the distaste with which much of the progressive side of the political spectrum holds the military and military service is pretty much a time honored American tradition. It reminds me of a Rudyard Kipling poem that ends:
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
(Tommy being the equivalent of GI Joe)
Americans have never be happy with a large standing military, but then there was a time when if you weren't a member of the local militia unit, you were really looked down upon; and there was a time when the elites saw military service (as a commissioned officer) had a noble obligation that was sort a requirement (at least hold a reserve commission). But the Regular Army or the regulars never have gotten much respect (and still don't).
I wouldn't go into my paean to today's young service men and women ... I will just say they truly are the best.
No comments:
Post a Comment