Cohen Just Misses...Again

Mideast Echoes Of 1938

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, August 22, 2006; Page A15

In his upcoming book about the horrors of the 20th century, "The War of the World," the British historian Niall Ferguson has a chapter called "The Pity of Peace." It is about 1938, when World War II loomed, and Britain -- especially and importantly Britain -- did precious little to stop it. The warnings of Churchill -- "believe me, it may be the last chance . . ." -- were ignored, and the government under Neville Chamberlain obstinately pursued a policy that forever after made the word appeasement one of the most odious in history. Somehow, though, it looks like 1938 all over again.

The events in the Middle East are often compared to 1914 and the start of World War I. That war -- the Great War, the war to end all wars -- is actually the all-purpose war. It not only began for what seemed like a trivial reason (the assassination of someone who wasn't a head of state) but it was fought with tenacity and brutality for what now seems no reason at all. In the end, millions died and the world was utterly changed. Why?

But when it comes to the Middle East, 1938 is also a pretty instructive year. At the moment, the United Nations has committed itself to maintaining peace in Lebanon. It has done so by saying it will interpose an armed force between Israel on the one hand and Hezbollah on the other. At the same time, the Lebanese army will -- as it has already started to do -- invade its own country (gasp!), securing the south for the first time in decades.

A critical part of that plan is the establishment of the international peacekeeping force. It is supposed to have 15,000 troops, who will join 15,000 Lebanese troops to ensure that Hezbollah is not rearmed with Iranian and Syrian missiles and that Israel not only pulls out of Lebanon but stays out. The backbone of the international force is supposed to come from Europe, particularly France. It was France, in fact, that was most insistent on the establishment of the force.

Now France is having second thoughts . . . or cold feet . . . or mere questions. If it is the last, that's understandable. The French military is said to worry about the command structure, since this was a problem with the U.N. force in Bosnia in the 1990s. Command structure, though, was not nearly the whole problem in the Balkans. After all, Dutch soldiers were on the spot when Bosnian troops massacred Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica. It is hard to this day to account for what happened.

Gee Richard, are you finally snapping to reality? Has your Liberal pea-sized brain finally figured out that the French have been actively working against the United States and our diplomatic efforts in the Middle East? Have you finally figured out that anti-Semitism is rampant and growing in France and the rest of Europe? Has this finally opened your eyes to the world that we Conservatives have been talking about for years? I kind of doubt it.

Your Liberalism is stronger than your support for Israel. You just couldn't avoid blaming the President and the Iraq war for the troubles in Lebanon. Oh, I agree that this "truce" promoted by the US and the Useless Nations is a bad mistake; one for which Condi and the President bear a great deal of fault. But I would hardly say that the US has been "preoccupied" in this affair, rather say that our President's overwhelming desire to be seen as the "good-guy" has led him to pursue once more the futile path of working with the French.

It is precisely because of the constant venom you and people in the press have been spewing at the President for "going it alone" that we now find ourselves in this situation. For you to now attack the President for working with the French is the height of Liberal hypocrisy. Ya joik!

Full Story: Cohen's Liberalism Trumps His Understanding

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below