North Korean Bingo

When I was in college, I took a class named the Art of Diplomacy. Taught by a gentleman who had been with the State Department for many years, and still worked with them from time to time, it was certainly an engaging class. Our major project for the semester was a mock diplomatic negotiation where the students formed delegations from various countries and we were expected to negotiate with other nations regarding a specific issue, keeping our nations interest in mind (part of this was determining what our national interest would be.) Where am I going with this personal history lesson, especially with a title like North Korean Bingo? My class's negotiations were regarding North Korean nuclear proliferation. Our North Korean team did a wonderfully theatrical job of negotiating; they threatened, cajoled, whined, and postured during all of the negotiations, the performance culminated in the team storming out of the negotiations on the last day of the project.

What do we have in the news over the past months? North Korea has imprisoned American journalists, launched ballistic missile tests, stated the willingness to use nuclear weapons, tested such weapons. BINGO! If you're using a game board with the free space in the center. Why do I find all of this interesting? I'm intrigued by how closely our mock negotiations five years ago reflect current events. This tells me one of two things. Either North Korea's unpredictability in juxtaposing diplomacy with brinkmanship is more predictable than I had thought, or my class was bad enough at what we were doing to create an incredible coincidence.

I would prefer to think that we just have a coincidence on our hands, since the result we had in class would be disastrous if it is played out in the real world. As a friend of mine once said, "Jimmy Carter's smile-and-apologize-and-give-out-hugs idea of diplomacy got us a North Korea with nuclear technology, we'll have to deal with that eventually." It looks like that "eventually" may be coming closer and I am of the sincere opinion that apologies and appeasement will only make things worse after (maybe) making them better momentarily.

I Meant to Do This Yesterday

So now I'm one day too late to remind everyone to commemorate Pearl Harbor Day.
But I can still give my thoughts on it. I am a member of what may be the last generation to have an opportunity to know some of the sailors who were at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. To have heard from their lips the vivid memories they carry from that day is a powerful thing. I cannot do their story justice and will not even try to convey the weight of what that day and its repercussions meant for the history of the world.

Would the United States have been drawn into World War II? That I can answer as a certain yes. Would the war have had the same end result? Probably, but it may have lasted longer and caused more suffering, or not, had we been more prepared to enter. We will never know. What we do know is that we must never let the loss of the members of our Armed Forces ever be forgotten or marginalized. For without those willing to fight for their country and against tyranny and the inspiration of those who have done so in the past, we will crush ourselves with an inability to act when it is necessary and even when it is hopeless but there is no other option.

As Winston Churchill once said,

Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without
bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so
costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds
against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse
case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is
better to perish than to live as slaves.

Finally, I would like to leave you with a transcript of the speech by Franklin Roosevelt from this day sixty-seven years ago.

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of
Representatives:
Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

Is There Truth in Правда?

It has been a little while since my last post, and quite some time since the last time I touched on the problem of Russia. With the recent invasion of Georgia, I decided to delve into that complicated subject. First, I want to know what Russian news is saying about it. Правда, the state run news service, has a number of stories on the matter. What I find most interesting about the writings in Pravda is the heavy handed style of reporting. For example, the article on overt US support of Georgian aggression seems less concerned with facts and more with stating the approved opinion, editorial style.

I also find some of the justification for Russia's actions, in their own words, a bit alarming.

"A[s] for history, the question of separatism – Georgia or Ossetia – is disputable. It was Georgia which decided to pull out from the USSR, whereas the Ossetians protested against such a decision. "

Where have we seen this sort of reasoning in recent history? It seems to me that the last time the world dissolved into conflict, one country had been touting the right and duty of all people of a certain national heritage to flock back to their "homeland" or the Fatherland... A country which stated after mediation that "We want no Czechs." Then proceeded to invade the whole of eastern Europe.

Russia's advance into Georgia has been mediated. They cry peace, pending the resolution of South Ossetia and Abkhazia's desires to secede. Desires which I am sure will be influenced by their rescuers and occupiers, the military of their neighbor to the north.

It seems to me that Russia's initial advance was a little too quick to be purely motivated by the idea of sparing Georgian citizens from the ravages of a civil war. Although there is international precedent for stepping in to halt civil war, it has generally only been done after human rights atrocities in the conflict, such as in the case of Bosnia. However, there is also a good case for allowing internal conflict to remain internal, especially when dealing with Russia stepping into a conflict outside its borders, e.g. Austria-Hungary. I hesitate to say that this conflict could ever escalate the way either of the history lessons earlier did, but that would also require knowing what the southern neighbors in the region will do in reaction to and/or in support of Russia.

In the interest of comparison, BBC and CNN have slightly different takes on what is happening in the region.

Side note: I just noticed this article from the BBC. A little something to further annoy the former Soviet Union when they are trying to consolidate the old lines of influence.

Increasingly Irate Iran

Today I found yet another example of Iran's (or the Iranian government's) distaste for America and a dangerous willingness to attempt teasing a tiger. Contained in this article MSNBC ran today is an account of Revolutionary Guard boats trying to play pin the tail on the donkey with American warships. According to MSNBC, Iran’s Foreign Ministry seemed to claim a case of ignorance on the part of its forces. For the men of these five boats to have deliberately tried to provoke a confrontation with U.S. military forces would be disturbing enough, but for them to have not realized the ships they were accosting were a United States Navy destroyer, frigate, and cruiser would be down right frightening. Iran has a history of trying to provoke responses from its neighbors, see Ahmadinejad's statements regarding Israel, and trying to provoke the militaries currently in the region, see the capture of fifteen British troops last year.

For a country that has behaved erratically in the international political arena and supports terror and tyranny to become so brazen spells out a recipe for another cataclysmic conflict, not only inside the borders of one Middle Eastern country, but one that boils out of the region and pulls in supporters from all sides and for all side. Russia, with its internal politics increasingly mimicking the politics of a generation ago, has already drawn its line in the sand by selling arms to Iran. China's shaky relations with Iran and burgeoning trade with America only puts a cloud over where that county's imposing military may find itself, should conflict erupt.

I'm afraid it's not so much an "if" Iran will cross the line, it's a "when." When that happens, the world must decide how to deal with this tyrannical state. Will we have the moral superiority of Chamberlain and achieve peace in our time? Ahmadinejad has consistently shown that he has very little respect for diplomatic measures. Why should we extend him that courtesy?