Tenth Anniversary of 9/11

This blog has been in existence for two previous 9/11 anniversaries. In 2009 I wrote my "Thoughts on the Anniversary of 9/11." And last year I attacked the ridiculous notion that the U.S. overreacted to 9/11 in the post, "The U.S. Did Not Overreact to 9/11." Reading back over my old posts, I think they still cover my thoughts today, on the tenth anniversary. Although I lived just twenty miles from Manhattan at the time, I was lucky enough not to lose any friends or relatives during the attack. My wife's niece, who has always been like a daughter to her, was in Manhattan for business, but escaped unharmed. Even though it was ten years ago, I still remember that day vividly, and just how traumatic and devastating it was to America. Unfortunately, as I wrote before, I think many have forgotten, despite all the remembrances.

They've forgotten the reaction and mood of the country at the time, and the horror that gripped most people as they watched the news on television. They've forgotten the complete shutdown of the civilian air transport system and the fear of follow-up attacks. They've forgotten the resolve of most Americans that this time we had to strike back hard against terrorism, instead of just launching a few cruise missiles and going about our business. And they've forgotten the strong consensus that we should stop waiting around to be attacked, and instead eliminate threats before they reached the potential to cause another 9/11.

I think what I wrote above in 2009 applies to all too many people, particularly among pundits.

Declaration of Independence Quiz

This one has some pretty tough questions. I got 9 of 12 right.

Chinese Naval Mines

Over at Strategy Page there is an interesting article called, "Where China is Mighty." It's an interesting historical summary that recounts the effectiveness of naval mines. I was unaware that China currently possesses the world's largest stockpile of naval mines. According to the article, it has 100,000 out of the world total of 250,000.

Mines are not glamorous, but they are deadly weapons, both on land and sea. Unfortunately, capacity to clear mines usually lags behind the ability to manufacture and deploy them.

The U.S., and other major navies, are hustling to improve their mine clearing capabilities. But based on historical experience, and technical advances, the smart money is still on the mines. ... While often ignored, naval mines, in general, are a formidable weapon. But they just don't get any respect. The historical record indicates that admirals should rethink their attitudes.

China ostensibly needs all those mines to protect its long coastline. But as the article points out, mines can also be deployed offensively. And China has a lot of them.

Greatest U.S. Military Victory?

National Review had a poll up yesterday asking readers to vote for the greatest U.S. military victory. I found that interesting, but I have problems with some of the selections and the results. I can't link the poll directly, but this was the list with percentage of votes:

• Trenton 8%
• Yorktown 12%
• Mexico City 1%
• Vicksburg 1%
• Gettysburg 9%
• Manila Bay 0%
• Belleau Wood 1%
• Midway 23%
• D-Day 34%
• The Bulge 5%
• Iwo Jima 5%
• Desert Storm 1%

Given those options, I voted for Yorktown. In my opinion it's difficult to argue with the victory that forced an end to Britain's reconquest attempt, and signaled that the U.S. would be established as an independent country. But looking at the two choices from the Revolutionary War reveals a glaring omission. Where's Saratoga? It was far more significant than Trenton and led to direct French involvement as an American ally, a development that was critical to U.S. success and crucial in the culminating victory at Yorktown.

Then there is the Civil War. I wouldn't nominate any battle of Americans fighting Americans as one of our greatest victories. That being said, 1% for Vicksburg vs. 9% for Gettysburg is ridiculous. In my opinion that just demonstrates that most people don't know much about military history. Gettysburg was a big important battle that turned back a heavy Confederate raid into Union territory. Arguably it crushed any chance for foreign intervention. But Vicksburg was not only a military masterpiece, it effectively severed the Confederacy into two pieces. At the very least it should be given equal weight.

I have no comment on the Spanish-American War or the WW1 selection, but then we come to WW2 and the biggest vote-getters. D-day? With the exception of Desert Storm -- which shouldn't have been included at all, given that it was a victory over a third-rate power that was completely outclassed -- all the other poll options are battles. Do they mean the entire Normandy Campaign, or just the landings? It is also worth pointing out that the Normandy campaign involved a massive British effort, and support from other allies including the Canadians, Free French, Poles and others. I wouldn't claim it as the greatest U.S. victory.

How about the Pacific? At sea, where is Leyte Gulf, the greatest naval battle of all time? If you have Iwo, why not Okinawa or Saipan? And where is Guadalcanal? Unlike Iwo, which for all the savage fighting was a foregone U.S. victory, Guadalcanal was in doubt for a long time and was fought on much more equal terms, on land, sea and air. In my opinion it was our greatest island victory in the Pacific. At sea I would vote for Midway, for similar reasons. The U.S. was actually at a force disparity yet inflicted a crushing defeat on the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Memorial Day Medal of Honor Citation

The past two Memorial Days I've highlighted a Medal of Honor citation, here and here. All MOH citations are available online. They make fascinating reading and point out the amazing courage, will and endurance exhibited by recipients This year's citation comes from World War I, a war that seems largely forgotten except by historians.

Private First Class George Dilboy won his medal posthumously for single-handedly charging and destroying a machine gun position, despite being shot multiple times in the torso, and having his leg nearly severed above the knee by machine gun fire. Here's the full citation.

Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Army, Company H, 103d Infantry, 26th Division. Place and date: Near Belleau, France, 18 July 1918. Entered service at: Keene, N.H. Birth: Greece. G.O. No.: 13, W.D., 1919. Citation: After his platoon had gained its objective along a railroad embankment, Pfc. Dilboy, accompanying his platoon leader to reconnoiter the ground beyond, was suddenly fired upon by an enemy machinegun from 100 yards. From a standing position on the railroad track, fully exposed to view, he opened fire at once, but failing to silence the gun, rushed forward with his bayonet fixed, through a wheat field toward the gun emplacement, falling within 25 yards of the gun with his right leg nearly severed above the knee and with several bullet holes in his body. With undaunted courage he continued to fire into the emplacement from a prone position, killing 2 of the enemy and dispersing the rest of the crew.

George Dilboy is just one of many MOH recipients whose medal had to be awarded after he sacrificed himself to do something beyond the capacity of most people.

Kissinger Was Right

The release of Nixon era tapes involving comments by Henry Kissinger has unleashed a torrent of condemnation, including plenty from the right. I'm going to use this post at Right Wing News, which includes excerpts from Christopher Hitchens, as a prime example. Here's what Kissinger said, while discussing with Nixon an appeal from Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir for the U.S. to pressure the Soviet Union to allow Soviet Jews to emigrate.

The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.

For this comment, made during a private foreign policy discussion with the president, Kissinger is being labeled a "despicable," "evil" anti-Semite. Hitchens thinks he should be shunned.

Henry Kissinger should have the door shut in his face by every decent person and should be shamed, ostracized and excluded.

In my opinion, these attacks on Kissinger are ludicrous. Let's look at some excerpts from the linked post.

How can a Jew, who escaped from the Holocaust and had relatives who did not, knowingly turn his back on his fellow Jews who are being murdered in another country?

The U.S. Secretary of State's job should be to advance the foreign policy interests of the United States. It is not, and should not be his job to allow the plight of people of the same ethnicity and religion, no matter how sympathetic, to trump his focus on American interests.

What could be more evil than an elitist, Americanized Jew who sits fat and satisfied in safety and in a position of power where he could help, who would not move heaven and earth to get Jews to safety?

There's nothing at all evil about it. That wasn't his job, and it isn't the job of the U.S. to help everyone in the world who needs helping. By expressing his opinions on the foreign policy interests of the United States, he was giving exactly the type of advice a U.S. president needs to hear more of.

This is an endorsement of a second “Holocaust,” which thankfully did not take place. Kissinger fancies himself to be practicing “Realpolitik.” He is nothing but a preening opportunist.

It was obviously not an "endorsement" of anything. Kissinger wasn't advocating Soviet atrocities against Jews, he was merely pointing out -- correctly -- that doing anything about such a hypothetical event was not in the U.S. interest. The U.S. wasn't going to war with the nuclear-armed Soviet Union on behalf of Soviet Jews.

I agree with Christopher Hitchens about Kissinger’s rightful place in history and society given this final revelation of anti-Semitism. There must be consequences in history. Henry Kissinger should be made persona non grata everywhere.

There was nothing at all anti-Semitic about Kissinger's comments. And Hitchens has allowed his hatred of Nixon and Kissinger to color his usually more rational analysis. Saying that Kissinger is an anti-Semite because he didn't think intervening to help Soviet Jewry was in the U.S. interest is flat-out idiotic.

The reaction to the Kissinger tape illustrates that many people are clueless about how foreign policy is conducted, what realism means, and that the interests of a state are often different from personal interests. Having leaders who put aside their personal attachments such as ethnic or religious solidarity, and coldly and rationally calculate policy on the basis of U.S. national interests is a good thing. We have far too few such leaders directing our foreign policy. There is also a strong element of hypocrisy present in this criticism. What if President Obama advocated a policy of massive help for Africans because he has African ancestry and relatives living there? Many places in Africa are in desperate need greater than that of Soviet Jewry. Would the same people condemning Kissinger for putting the interests of the U.S. above sympathy for Soviet Jews applaud Obama for doing everything possible to help suffering Africans? Somehow I doubt it. The foreign policy of the United States should be directed at advancing U.S. interests. Although I don't agree with all of his decisions and opinions, Kissinger understood that. He's being condemned by fools who in large part don't even understand why their outrage makes them look foolish.

American Empire?

On Friday Robert Kaplan wrote a fascinating article in the Washington Post that I've been meaning to comment on. It's called, "Where's the American empire when we need it?" My problem with this article is that I agree with some of Kaplan's specific observations, yet disagree with his main underlying assumptions. First, there is no American empire unless you distort the meaning of the word empire. A network of alliances based primarily on mutual interest is not the equivalent of a system based on conquered terroritories linked together and maintained by force.

During the Cold War, the world was divided between the Soviet and U.S. imperial systems. The Soviet imperium - heir to Kievan Rus, medieval Muscovy and the Romanov dynasty - covered Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia and propped up regimes in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. The American imperium - heir to maritime Venice and Great Britain - also propped up allies, particularly in Western Europe and East Asia. True to the garrison tradition of imperial Rome, Washington kept bases in West Germany, Turkey, South Korea and Japan, virtually surrounding the Soviet Union.

This is a terrible analogy that only makes sense if you look at the surface. Was the U.S. relationship to its western European allies similar to that of the Soviet Union toward Eastern Europe? I don't recall U.S. troops suppressing dissenting political movements in Britain, France or West Germany the way Soviet forces put down Czechoslovakia and Hungary. 

Kaplan is correct when he points out that the collapse of the Soviet Union gave rise to much chaos, and that problems developed which might not have if Soviet control had still been in force. But should we long for a return to the days of the Soviet Union? Although Kaplan doesn't say we should, his argument seems to call for that question. He appears to conveniently ignore the many crises and threats of war that took place during the Cold War -- not to mention the ever present threat of World War 3 and nuclear war.

Then there is the whole matter of supposed American decline. This is another fundamental assumption that I strongly disagree with. The collapse of the Soviet Union increased American power. Like many people, Kaplan mistakes a lack of U.S. will to use its power with absolute decline. And one of his specific examples is severely flawed.

The U.S. Navy has gone from nearly 600 warships in the Reagan era to fewer than 300 today, while the navies of China and India grow apace. Such trends will accelerate with the defense cuts that are surely coming in order to rescue America from its fiscal crisis. The United States still dominates the seas and the air and will do so for years ahead, but the distance between it and other nations is narrowing.

The reason the U.S. fleet has shrunk from the days of Reagan is precisely because we no longer face the threat of the huge Soviet navy. U.S. naval supremacy, with less ships, is now greater than it ever was during the Cold War.

But the headlines of our era are written in a specific context - that of one deceased empire that used to be the world's preeminent land power and of another, the world's preeminent sea power, that finds itself less able to affect events than ever before, even as it is less sure than ever of the cause toward which it struggles.

Is the U.S. really less able to affect events than before? I think that's a false assertion.

there is simply no doubt that the post-imperial order we inhabit allows for greater disruptions than the Cold War ever permitted.

Really? I don't think so. Again, Kaplan seems to have forgotten world history and become fixated on present events. The Korean War, Vietnam, Cambodia, multiple wars in the Middle East, the Cuban missile crisis, interventions in Latin America, the Algerian war, India-Pakistan wars, numerous conflicts in Africa, etc, etc. All of these things took place during the time when Kaplan seems to think the U.S. and the Soviet Union kept a lid on things.

I could continue to go through Kaplan's article point by point, as there are also points of agreement. But overall, I think he is operating based on a couple of major false assumptions which undermine his argument that the U.S. needs to maintain its leading role as world policeman. Here's his conclusion. 

Americans rightly lack an imperial mentality. But lessening our engagement with the world would have devastating consequences for humanity. The disruptions we witness today are but a taste of what is to come should our country flinch from its international responsibilities.

The other problem with this argument, aside from the bad assumptions I already pointed out, is that American interventionism itself is also a source of "disruptions." It is always possible that in an attempt to maintain order, the U.S. can instead create greater problems. Many make that argument with regard to our actions in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Kaplan is always a good read, and the article is certainly provocative. But ultimately it rests on a bad foundation.

Blow-up Weapons

Not exploding ones, weapons that are filled with air. There's an interesting article at BBC News about Russian inflatable weapons.

A turret appears, then out pops a long plastic gun barrel. This is an inflatable Russian tank. ... When the men pump up their next piece of plastic, this one expands into a S-300 rocket launcher, complete with giant truck and inflatable rockets. ... waiting to be blown up are inflatable MiG fighter jets - even entire Russian radar stations. ... They are made of a special material that tricks enemy radar and thermal imaging into thinking they are real weapons.

One thing that the Soviet military was very good at in World War Two was deception. They call it maskirovka, and it has been a fundamental feature of Soviet and now Russian military doctrine. As Globalsecurity.org points out,

The goal of maskirovka is to make the enemy concentrate his forces against false threats and uselessly expend his means of destruction on them. ... they also do it actively, through the use of dummy structures, electronic warfare, false maneuvers, and various other methods.

These blow-up dummies are cheap and have the potential to be extremely effective, not just in manipulating enemy intelligence/observations, but in causing significant diversions of resources away from real threats. These dummies might actually cause more problems for an opponent than some real weapon systems.

The U.S. Did Not Overreact to 9/11

Here on the anniversary of 9/11, we are regularly reminded that many people have basically forgotten the event. They've forgotten the reaction and mood of the country at the time, and the horror that gripped most people as they watched the news on television. They've forgotten the complete shutdown of the civilian air transport system and the fear of follow-up attacks. They've forgotten the resolve of most Americans that this time we had to strike back hard against terrorism, instead of just launching a few cruise missiles and going about our business. And they've forgotten the strong consensus that we should stop waiting around to be attacked, and instead eliminate threats before they reached the potential to cause another 9/11.

As the years after 9/11/2001 passed, there has been an ongoing effort to minimize the attack, to pretend that it just wasn't that bad, and to argue that the U.S. overreacted. The contention that the U.S. overreacted to a devastating surprise attack on its greatest city is both idiotic and historically ignorant. Far from overreacting, the U.S. unleashed a limited, measured war in Afghanistan. It even identified elements within Afghanistan that it could work with, rather than holding the entire country collectively responsible for hosting Al Qaeda -- which would have been standard procedure in earlier eras. Even with the desire for vengeance fresh, and with America largely united behind the president, we did not exert anywhere near the full power of the U.S. military. Instead we took great pains to protect the innocent and minimize collateral damage.

And then there was Iraq. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was an open enemy of the U.S. Regime change in Iraq was supported by major figures and presidents from both parties well before 9/11. Before 9/11 we were conducting an aerial blockade of Iraq, and bombing targets in the country on a regular basis. Attacking Iraq was not only not a overreaction to 9/11, it was a reasonable decision based on intelligence at the time, the fact that Iraq was already an enemy of the U.S., and the aforementioned consensus that the U.S. needed to act in order to eliminate threats before it was too late.

Mistakes, bad assumptions, and all the hindsight about whether different strategies should have been pursued, whether or not Iraq could have been contained without war, and the wisdom of nation-building do not equal an overreaction. If the U.S. had reacted in similar fashion to another lethal surprise attack, Pearl Harbor, there would now be millions of dead Afghans and Iraqis, cities burned to ruins, and huge U.S. armies occupying the region. Pakistan might have millions more dead, and might be dismembered and partially occupied. Iranian interference would have been met with overwhelming force. Syria would probably have been bombed and intimidated into complete cooperation. Here at home, security restrictions would be far tighter; the press would be censored; a draft would have been reinstated; Arab-Americans and other predominantly Muslim minorities would be sitting in internment camps. That's what something that might reasonably be called an "overreaction" might look like -- and that's not even considering the possible use of America's nuclear arsenal.

Worst Worst List

No that's not a typo. Over at Right Wing News there is a post called, "Conservative Bloggers Select The 25 Worst Figures In American History." Here's the intro.

Out of all the gangsters, serial killers, mass murderers, incompetent & crooked politicians, spies, traitors, and ultra left-wing kooks in all of American history -- have you ever wondered who the worst of the worst was? Well, we here at RWN wondered about that, too, and that's why we decided to email more than a hundred bloggers to get their opinions.

That sounded interesting. Then I read the list. Here's the top 10:

9) Aldrich Ames (11)
9) Timothy McVeigh (11)
7) Ted Kennedy (14)
7) Lyndon Johnson (14)
5) Benedict Arnold (17)
5) Woodrow Wilson (17)
4) The Rosenbergs (19)
3) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (21)
2) Barack Obama (23)
1) Jimmy Carter (25)

That's right, incompetent one-term president Jimmy Carter is the worst figure in American history, followed by incompetent one-term ( hopefully) president Barack Obama. They are somehow not only in the same league with, but worse than Aldrich Ames, Tim McVeigh and Benedict Arnold. This is the kind of "thinking" that gives ammunition to those who want to paint conservatives as a bunch of crazies.

The rest of the list is no better. Here's just one example: Hilary Clinton. What has Hilary done that could conceivably justify including her on a list of the worst Americans of all time? Hilary has been a first lady, an unremarkable senator from New York, and a largely ineffective Secretary of State. I'm no fan of Hilary, but in what universe is she somehow one of the worst Americans in history? This list is good for one thing and one thing only: making right-wing bloggers look bad. Thanks a lot.

Gladiator Remains Found in York

The British newspaper The Independent has an interesting article today regarding an important  historical find.

Eighty skeletons have been unearthed at the site in Driffield Terrace, south west of the centre of York, over the past decade. One man appears to have been killed by a large carnivore – almost certainly a lion, tiger or bear. Others have weapon impact damage and many of them have specific features, including marks on their bones, consistent with tough training regimes.

It appears that they have uncovered a Roman gladiator cemetery containing the "world's best preserved remains of gladiators and other arena fighters." Some of the findings may change common beliefs about certain aspects of gladiatorial combat, particularly the method of execution used to finish off defeated combatants.

One of the most puzzling aspects of the cemetery is that most of the men were decapitated. Although some may have sustained injuries in the period immediately before death, in most cases decapitation appears to have been the act which killed them.

It is known that defeated gladiators were often "executed" in the arena by their opponents – but scholars have always thought that it was done by a sword stab to the throat. The York decapitations are from the back of the neck, suggested that a wider range of arena coups de grâce were employed.

The whole article is fascinating for anyone interested in that historical period, and how  the study of human remains can illuminate events which happened long ago.
 

Stupidity in Virginia

When I first saw the flap regarding Confederate History Month in Virginia, I thought it was probably much ado about nothing. After all, most of the people hyperventilating about it were the usual whining leftists, always ready to be offended by any Republican action. But then I read the actual declaration. As many others have pointed out, not only does it make no mention at all of slavery, but it seems awfully celebratory in tone.  Governor Robert McDonnell's lame explanations demonstrate historical ignorance, and a high level of general cluelessness.

It would be one thing if Confederate History Month was already established in Virginia, and McDonnell were simply defending a tradition. But the tradition had already ended. Why bring it back? Why revive this issue and give ammunition to Democrats looking to paint Republicans as racist? Why anger the vast majority of black voters in Virginia, and everyone else who doesn't view the Confederacy as a glorious lost cause? Was it really worth the cost politically, just to gain the support of groups like the Sons of Confederate Veterans? 

Is it possible that McDonnell really didn't understand that this would generate a firestorm? McDonnell ran a smart campaign and put Virginia back in the GOP column. But this action is sheer stupidity that makes Republicans look bad, and gives ammunition to our opponents. Thanks a lot Bob.

Place in History

Jonathan Chait, of The New Republic occasionally writes something worth reading. But in the aftermath of the health care bill, he has written a piece so laughable it must be noted. It's called, "Obama's Place in History." Chait starts off with this...

Let me offer a ludicrously premature opinion: Barack Obama has sealed his reputation as a president of great historical import.

That's not the only thing ludicrous in the article. Before I comment further, one aside. The word "historic" has been beaten to death with regard to the health care bill. In some quarters, historic seems to be used as a synonym for progress. But history is neutral. It's just as possible for something to be historically bad as to be historically good. Ok, moving on.

Chait, a major fan of big government who has been cheerleading the health care bill, concludes that Obama's success in getting it passed is so significant that he "will never be plausibly compared with Jimmy Carter." He's already been compared to Carter, and may be in the future. Even leaving aside the years to come, it is quite possible that historians might draw such comparisons.

Historians will see this health care bill as a masterfully crafted piece of legislation.

That's possibly one of the dumbest things Chait has ever written. He goes on to rave about how great the bill is, making all sorts of unsupported assertions. I seriously doubt historians are going to see the complicated mess that is this reform bill, which was forced through by sleazy parliamentary tactics, unable to attract the support of a single member of the opposition, barely enacted, and facing multiple lawsuits, as any sort of "masterfully crafted" legislation -- just the opposite. 

Republicans have spent a year chortling over the inevitable collapse of Obama, and they seem to cling even more tightly to that fantasy--"Incompetence"? "Out of his depth"?--as it slips further away.

Chait is the one living in a fantasy world. The entire process involved in the health care reform bill has further demonstrated Obama's incompetence and lack of experience. Chait is blinded by his Obama-worship. The fact that Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership barely saved Obama from a crushing defeat -- despite having an overwhelming Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, is not exactly a sign of Obama's greatness. And if the health care bill helps lead to a major Republican revival in 2010, that repeals significant parts of the legislation, even this narrow victory is going to look pretty hollow.

It's entirely possible that Republicans will gain control of the House in November and block any further domestic progress, unemployment will stay high, and Republicans will win the White House in 2012. Yet he's already left his imprint on history.

So what? Every president leaves an "imprint on history." So far Obama's is more like a stain.

 

The Last U.S. Veteran of World War I

I was unaware that any U.S. WWI veterans were still alive, but just saw a story at CNN about Frank Buckles -- the last survivor. According to his Wikipedia entry, he enlisted in the U.S. army at age 16. That was in 1917.  He turned 109 today. Happy birthday Mr. Buckles! 

French-bashing from the 12th Century

The Telegraph has an entertaining article up about a recently translated poem by Andrew de Coutances, an "Anglo-Norman cleric," writing between 1180 and 1194.  He describes the French as, among other things,

godless, arrogant and lazy dogs... cowardly...heretics and rapists

He also disparages their eating habits, greed and gluttony. Here's one noteworthy stanza from the translation,

The English went on the attack, 

And the French defended like cowards, 

They gave up at the first onset 

And shamefully ran away.

The next time you see someone refer to the French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys," or use some other insult to the national character of France, just remember that it's part of a long tradition going back over 800 years.

An Irony of History

China executed a British citizen today for heroin smuggling, despite strenuous protests from the British government, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown. China responded as follows,

Beijing called the British criticism groundless interference in its judicial sovereignty. ... "Nobody has the right to speak ill of China's judicial sovereignty," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said. "We express our strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition over the groundless British accusations."

It's a measure of just how far Britain has fallen in the world, that China can execute a British citizen and just brush off criticism -- and not just brush it off, but actually condemn the UK for daring to offer any criticism at all.

In the mid-19th century, the British actually fought two wars with China, the Opium Wars, in order to force the Chinese to allow the opium trade -- which was against Chinese law -- and to protect British smugglers. They succeeded. Now in the 21st century, they are powerless to protect a single smuggler from execution. It's yet another measure of how far Britain has fallen, and how far China has risen.

Greatest Foreign Policy Gifts

Earlier today I linked Stephen Walt's article, "The Greatest Gifts: A Christmas Post," in which he picks "ten of the 'greatest gifts' in modern foreign policy." I thought I'd put up a list of my own, although given my historical background, not all of these are "modern" foreign policy. In no particular order:

1. Sobieski Breaks the Siege of Vienna.  In 1683, Polish king John Sobieski led a multi-national force, spearheaded by Poland's elite cavalry, that broke the Ottoman Empire's siege of Vienna. Sobieski then returned home, without any particular compensation or advantage. It was probably the last gasp of glory for the once powerful Polish state. 89 years later, Austria, whose capital had been saved, participated in the first partition of Poland.

2. The Miracle of the House of Brandenburg.  At the beginning of 1772, Frederick the Great's Prussia was beaten down by an enemy coalition, with Russian forces approaching Berlin. All appeared lost, but the death of Russian Empress Elizabeth brought Peter III, an admirer of Frederick, to power. Peter withdrew Russian troops and pulled out of the war, giving up Russian gains without compensation.

3. Lend-Lease.  Although called loans and lease, lend-lease's scale, scope, and lack of repayment by most make it one of the greatest gifts ever. The list of supplies given to the Soviet Union from the U.S. alone is staggering, and too long to reproduce here. Just a few examples: 15 million pairs of boots, 14,795 aircraft, 375,883 trucks, and 51,537 jeeps. It is difficult to envision the course of World War 2 in the east without lend-lease.

4. Operation Citadel.  Before July 1943, the situation on the German-Russian front had stabilized, allowing Germany to build up a strong armored reserve. But in July the Germans launched a major offensive against the Kursk salient, the exact place the Soviets wanted them to attack -- a salient in the lines that they had spent months fortifying and preparing. The German assault broke against the immensely strong in-depth defenses of the Red Army, erasing the irreplaceable German armored reserve, and putting Hitler on the strategic defensive in the east for the rest of the war.

5. The Will of King Attalus III. In 133 BC, Attalus, King of Pergamum, a rich country located in what is today western Turkey, died without heirs. In his will, he left his entire kingdom to the Roman Republic. Without fighting a war, or spending any money, Rome acquired a major new, wealthy province.

6. The Rebuilding of Japan. After overrunning much of the Japanese Empire, destroying its fleet, devastating its merchant marine, reducing its cities to rubble, and bringing it to its knees in surrender, the U.S. not only gave Japan a lasting democratic constitutional system, it undertook the long-term military protection of its former enemy, and helped rebuild it as an economic power to rival America.

7. Independence for India. In 1947 the British peacefully relinquished their hold on India, giving up one of the greatest imperial possessions in history without an armed struggle, and allowing the emergence of multiple independent nations.  

8. Portugal, Genoa, Venice and England Reject Christopher Columbus.Before he turned to Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castille, Columbus approached these other states with his plans for a western route to the orient, but was turned down. Their rejection was an amazing gift to Spain, which would claim the new world empire that might have been theirs.

9. The Death of Ogedei Khan.  By 1240 all Russian lands had been overrun by the disciplined armies of the Mongols, one of the greatest conquering forces in history. The Mongols advanced into Eastern Europe crushing larger European armies at Liegnitz and Sajo River in 1241, and moving toward Vienna. But on the death of Ogedei, the Mongols abandoned their invasion of Europe to return home and choose a successor to the Great Khan, possibly sparing large sections of Europe the Mongol rule endured by Russia. 

10. The Spanish Inheritance.  In 1700, Charles II of Spain, the last member of the Spanish Hapsburg royal family, died without direct heirs. In his will he left the Spanish throne, and with it the vast Spanish empire, to the grandson of Louis XIV of France, Philip of Anjou, who would become Philip V of Spain. This will, possibly the most valuable inheritance gift of all time, touched off the world war known as the War of the Spanish Succession. 

Should Africans Apologize for Slavery?

That's the question asked in a BBC article. A Nigerian Civil Rights Congress has called on traditional African rulers to apologize for their role in the slave trade.

"We cannot continue to blame the white men, as Africans particularly the traditional rulers, are not blameless," said the Civil Rights Congress.

As the organization points out, African rulers collaborated in the slave trade, selling other Africans to Europeans.

I have talked with people who have a picture of advanced Europeans swooping down on Africans, capturing them, and taking them off into slavery. But such was not the case. At the beginning and through the height of the slave trade, Europeans held mostly coastal enclaves in Africa, many of which existed at the mercy of local rulers. Europeans didn't have the manpower to seize the massive numbers of slaves that would be transported to the Americas, nor did they have the drugs that would later allow them to penetrate the African interior without being struck down by tropical diseases against which they had little resistance. Slaves were procured through local rulers, many of whom sold their captured enemies, or hunted down less advanced people from the interior and sold them to the Europeans.

It is interesting that an African organization has the courage speak out on the shared complicity of Africans in the slave trade. It's obviously a touchy subject, and it would be far easier to just blame Europeans. I applaud the intellectual honesty of the Nigerian Civil Rights Congress.

Good Article on Communism

There's is an excellent short piece in the Washington Post today called, "Murderous idealism." One of the main things the author, Paul Hollander, notes is how communism was and is perceived in the west. During the Cold War, and even today, communism had many sympathizers and apologists on the left, particularly among intellectuals. Those of us on the right called them "useful idiots" for communist propaganda.  In the the late 1980s in graduate school, I myself took a seminar with a professor who was a big admirer of Lenin, and actually an apologist for Stalin. Others were openly sympathetic to Marxist ideals. As Hollander writes,

There is little public awareness of the large-scale atrocities, killings and human rights violations that occurred in communist states, especially compared with awareness of the Holocaust and Nazism (which led to to far fewer deaths)

Those who were aware, such as that particular professor I mentioned, chose to minimize communist atrocities or even justify them. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, and the opening of previously secret archives, we found that the horrors of communism were every bit as bad as we thought, if not worse. The admirers, sympathizers, and apologists for the Soviet Union should have been thoroughly discredited. But, as Hollander points out,

In the aftermath of the fall of Soviet communism, many Western intellectuals remain convinced that capitalism is the root of all evil. There has been a long tradition of such animosity among Western intellectuals who gave the benefit of doubt or outright sympathy to political systems that denounced the profit motive and proclaimed their commitment to create a more humane and egalitarian society, and unselfish human beings

Even today, people who would be horrified at anything less than total condemnation of Nazism act as if communism really isn't such a bad thing, and sneer at forthright anti-communist sentiments.

In Defense of Columbus Day

Every year at this time we have to listen to people whining about the horrors of the Age of Discovery, and the plight of indigenous peoples, wiped out by the evil Europeans like Columbus. There are always attacks on Columbus Day, mostly by those who see only the negative impact of Columbus' voyages, missing the fact that his discoveries helped set in motion a chain of events that eventually led to the creation of this country. It is impossible to say what would have happened without Columbus, but it's likely that the world would be very different, and there's no good reason to think it would be any better.

Those of us that actually like the United States, and believe it is the greatest country in the world, would rather not have the past altered so that the U.S. never appeared. There's no need to gloss over or minimize the magnitude of the disaster that the Spanish & other European conquests brought to native American peoples. But that's not what Columbus Day is about, or it shouldn't be. We aren't Tainos or Arawaks, we are Americans. That includes those of native American heritage who identify as Americans. We are part of the modern United States which has a its own historical heritage, a history that includes both good and bad. Without Columbus and his remarkable achievements, our heritage and country might not even exist. That is why we celebrate Columbus Day, and should do so without apology.