Friends, unsurprisingly, the moderates in Iran want to talk turkey with Trump. They say that the previous deal -- the U.S./Iranian "memorandum of understanding" -- was just fine, and we should go back to it. Well, that may or may not be the case, but since the hardliners won't accept any such deal, and will literally blow it up the first chance they get, what's the point? I believe Trump is right to rebuff these entreaties, despite the fact that he's probably hurting Republican chances in the midterms by doing so. Of course, Trump probably knows that, whatever he does vis-a-vis Iran, the press will say he's wrong. If he makes peace, they'll say he "surrendered". If he escalates the military conflict, they'll say he's a bloody-minded warmonger who picked a fight for no reason. Bottom line: the only deal that Trump should make with Iran is one that permanently neutralizes the Islamic Republic as a threat. Otherwise, let's tighten those screws until the Iranian people give the mullahs their walking papers... This is now a fight to the finish!
RAY TO DR. WADDY AND JACK
ReplyDeleteWe do know that the U.S. can hurt Iran much more than it has, and that is a fact. And of course, you are absolutely correct in that whatever he does, the media will say he's wrong. However, I doubt the Iranian people are going to "give the mullahs their walking papers". Whatever Trump decides, we know it is not going to be boring, and that is for sure.
Dr. Waddy, Ray, et al: There is some analogy in this I think: President Lincoln stayed the course during the carnage of 1864 even though he knew there was enough public revulsion to it to cost him the election and the Union its survival. In staying true to his conviction despite the unrelenting and terribly galling contradiction and castigation levelled at him by our professionally discredited and vicious far left media, President Trump shows a similar strength of character. He runs a very serious risk in his principled stand since it could help hand Congress to the DSA. But Lincoln's steadfastness earned him much electoral support, even while casualties and setbacks proliferated , especially among the soldiers who were of course suffering greatly. Perhaps President Trump's determination to see this necessary ordeal through may earn him comparable respect. It stands in vivid contrast to the America hatred at the heart of DSA intent.
ReplyDeleteRadical Islam despises America( maybe they were watching the tawdry MTV Awards spectacle , which , yes, does shame us before the world). They think us assertively heretic, frivolous and mercurial. They of course know all about the way the N. Vietnamese savages wore down our public with the indispensable aid of terribly mistaken Americans goaded on by domestic commie traitors. President Trump knows about it too! He has sand aplenty; he is an hombre willing to unapologetically put America toe to toe with neomedieval potentates determined to force their world back into the 7th century and terrorize humanity into doing them homage .
RAY TO JACK
ReplyDeleteNo such a thing as "radical Islam", period. The religion as it is, is ALREADY radical. When it was invented, everything, to include what is defined as radical was already built into it. I could say other things to describe why Islam is stark raving bonkers, but then I might have a fatwa put out on me.
Ray from Jack: No doubt 7th and 8th century animist North African tribes did find it radical to be expected to adhere to ways forced on them by Muslim conquerors. And European history manifests many occurrences of Islamic invasion.; when it succeeded it often brought radical change with it. After the Ottomans took Constantinople in 1453, they blithely converted Christendom's most glorious church , Sancta Sophia , into a mosque. And even today, where Islam and other religions coexist, when it has the power to do so, Islam actively dominates. Perhaps the term "militant Islam" would better fit that portion of Islam which chooses to be aggressive in support of any verities it holds to be vital to Islam , such as the "fundamentally corrosive and rightfully detested amorality of Western civilization".
ReplyDeleteRAY TO JACK
DeleteMore of my thoughts on this another time.
Ray, it always seems unlikely that a hated and ruthless regime can be displaced...until it is. I agree with you that the obstacles to regime change in Iran are massive, but I still believe that success is possible. It would require some of Iran's leadership to change their allegiances, and we'll see if that ever happens.
ReplyDeleteJack, President Lincoln won reelection in 1864, and Republicans solidified their control of Congress, partly because of the Union Army's successes in the field that year. What would have happened if the Civil War was seen as a lost cause, or a waste of time, instead? That's unfortunately how most Americans appear to view our conflict with Iran...
Sure, there's plenty of history of radicalism and violence in Islam, but I challenge both of you to visit Dubai, the Las Vegas of the Middle East, and then defend the notion that Islam is, by definition or by its very nature, hostile to the West. The vast majority of Muslim countries, and the vast majority of Muslims, may despise Israel, but they aren't crazed anti-Western zealots. The Muslims who would like to MOVE to the West probably outnumber those who would like to destroy it.
Dr. Waddy: Your comments above on the Civil War have much merit ; here are some other factors to consider:
ReplyDeleteIn Grant's Spring and Summer campaign in '64, the Union casualties were staggering; the unsuccessful charge at Cold Harbor was more mortal than "Pickett's Charge" at Gettysburg. The campaign was an appalling shock to public sensibilities. The Army of the Potomac was repeatedly savagely mauled by Lee's Army but did advance and keep Lee under constant pressure. By mid October the salient Union successes were the fall of Atlanta and the largely uncelebrated Battle of Cedar Creek , which closed the Shenandoah Valley to the Confederacy. Neither was won by the Grant led Army of the Potomac, the progress of which most engaged public attention. Grant had manuvered Lee into the siege of Petersburg and military minds knew that this meant the inevitable fall of Richmond but this too was agonizingly costly in casualties and discouragingly prolonged. So many Union commanders had wilted in the face of Lee and the general public could not be sure of his steadfastness. Too, the Union victory at Gettysburg in July '63 had raised public hopes for a summary conclusion to the war which were terribly unrequited by the failure to reenage Lee in '63 decisively after Gettysburg.
Yes,the Civil War soldier's morale was bolstered by success and the Army of the Potomac was grimly impressed by Grant's constancy in advancing despite the terrible pummeling they took at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor. Too, though they had liked Dem.Presidential candidate George McClellan very much for his obvious regard for them when he commanded them, they knew by then that he was a feckless battlefield commander. Also, they wanted victory after all they had endured and rightfully feared McClellan would settle with the Confederacy and waste their sacrifices.
In the regiment I reenact, the 42 Pennsylvania, "The Bucktails" the high reenlistment rate after their three year enlistments ended in May '64 was astonishing. Yes, high casualty rates did make a draft necessary but to see men who had endured the crucible of 19th century camp life , combat, home sickness and fearful medical care stick it out speaks to their ruggedness and determination. In November,despite being enmired in a terribly trying siege with no obvious end in clear sight and a continuing march through the hostile South in Georgia and South Carolina they may well have provided Lincoln the winning margin in the election, both through their own votes and that of citizens they urged to vote for him. I believe Lincoln did credit the Army with a reelection he thought as late as October was doomed. The soldiers and sailors saw in Grant and Lincoln's perseverance a kind of progress perhaps largely unappreciated by a public appalled by such an unprecedented calamity.
DSA/Dems control of Congress and their certain resolve to spavine the war effort may be preventable only by a similarly apparently unlikely fillip in favor of President Trump in these midterms.
Thanks for the added context, Jack. Very interesting! GOP victory in 1864 was not as assured as I thought. Has anyone documented the strong support for Lincoln in the army itself, I wonder? Was there a significant class dimension to support for the war? Frankly, it's interesting that a country would even hold an election in the midst of a Civil War!!!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Sorry for ignoring your questions for so long. Bruce Catton described the Union army's electoral support for President Lincoln in his superb A Stillness at Appomatox, vol.3 of his The Army of the Potomac on pages 322 -24. Catton wrote with almost lyric eloquence and beauty , so this account is well worth reading. The Life of Billy Yank: the Common Soldier of the Union by Bell Irvin Wiley is a classic source though I do not recall it directly addressing the army's role in the 1864 election. But it manifests a detailed sociological study in its history.
ReplyDeleteI know that there was often a social and cultural gap between the officer and the enlisted man in that time . I have even seen that gap sometimes reprised in the Civil War reenactment in which I was active for 20 years.( I always portrayed a Private). It might have had some consequence in an election with a former General as one candidate. And Lincoln did serve briefly in the Illinois militia.