Robert "Bob" Robinson: Why Nations Go to War

WHY NATIONS GO TO WAR 9/21/2010

THIS YEAR IS THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF MY MEMBERSHIP IN THE SUPPER CLUB. IT WAS TWENTY YEARS AGO LAST JANUARY THAT I MADE THE FIRST OF MY EIGHT PRIOR APPEARANCES BEFORE THIS AUGUST BODY. MY TOPIC FOR THAT FIRST SPEECH WAS “GERMAN UNIFICATION AND THE IMPACT OF THAT LONG, TORTURED PROCESS ON THE HISTORY OF MY OWN FAMILY.” IT WAS JUST AFTER THE FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL, AND GERMAN UNIFICATION WAS IMMINENT. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, FOR THE WORLD AT THAT TIME, IT SIGNALED THE END OF THE COLD WAR, AND OUR COUNTRY BEGAN THE DIFFICULT PROCESS OF DISENTANGLING ITSELF FROM THAT WAR AFTER FORTY YEARS OF PERSISTENT EFFORT.
TONIGHT OUR COUNTRY IS AGAIN INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF DISENTANGLING ITSELF FROM WARS – TWO OF THEM – ONE IN IRAQ AND ONE IN AFGHANISTAN. SO, I FEEL MY TOPIC TONIGHT WILL BE AS APPROPRIATE AND TIMELY AS WAS THE TOPIC I CHOSE TWENTY YEARS AGO.



WHY NATIONS GO TO WAR

TONIGHT'S TALK IS BASED – IN PART -- ON A BOOK BY JOHN G. STOESSINGER ENTITLED “WHY NATIONS GO TO WAR.” AND – IN PART – ON THE FACTORS THAT COME INTO PLAY WHEN ENDING A WAR. I WILL COVER SIX WARS: TWO IN EUROPE, ONE IN NORTHEAST ASIA, ONE IN SOUTHEAST ASIA, ONE IN SOUTH ASIA, AND ONE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. THIS WILL GIVE US A GREAT DIVERSITY OF DECISIONS RELATED TO HOW THE WARS STARTED, AND IN SOME CASES, HOW THEY WERE ENDED.
THE ONLY TIME I EVER PONDERED THIS SUBJECT IN ANY DEPTH WAS ON A SHORT FLIGHT IN A VERY SMALL AIRPLANE ALONG THE COAST OF SOUTH VIETNAM ONE DAY IN 1968. AS I WAS LOOKING DOWN AT THE LONG STRETCH OF BEAUTIFUL WHITE SANDY BEACHES I THOUGHT TO MYSELF: “IF THESE DAMN FOOLS EVER STOP KILLING EACH OTHER, THEY MAY FIND THAT THEY HAVE A FRENCH RIVERA DOWN THERE.” SO, WITH THAT INTRODUCTION, LETS GET STARTED.
DR. STOESSINGER'S PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF WAR MAKES HIM SPECIALLY PREPARED, I FEEL, TO WRITE THIS BOOK, AND TO DIG MUCH MORE DEEPLY INTO THIS SUBJECT THAN I EVER DID.
HE WAS AN AUSTRIAN JEW, LIVING IN PRAGUE WITH HIS PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS EARLY IN 1941. THE PARENTS AND HE ESCAPED THANKS TO A TRANSIT VISA FROM THE USSR, A VISA TO TRANSIT JAPAN, AND AN ENTRANCE VISA FROM CHINA. (HIS GRANDPARENTS STAYED BEHIND AND DIED IN THE HOLOCAUST). HE ARRIVED IN THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN SHANGHAI AT ABOUT AGE 14, AND ATTENDED SCHOOL THERE IN THE BRITISH PART OF THE INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENT. IN 1946 HE MET A YOUNG AMERICAN ARMY LIEUTENANT FROM IOWA, NAMED PETER DELEMATER, WHO WAS IN THE POST-WAR ARMY OF OCCUPATION, AND WHO WROTE A LETTER ON HIS BEHALF TO HIS ALMA MATER – GRINNEL COLLEGE – WHO GAVE HIM A SCHOLARSHIP. AND THE REST IS HISTORY.
HE TOOK A UNIQUE APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF WAR. IN HIS OWN WORDS: “WHAT INTERESTED ME MOST IN EACH CASE WAS THE 'MOMENT OF TRUTH' WHEN LEADERS CROSSED THE THRESHOLD INTO WAR. TO BLOW UP THAT FATEFUL MOMENT, TO CAPTURE IT IN FLIGHT, AS IT WERE, IN ALL ITS AWESOME TRAGIC MEANING.” BUT SOMETIMES, AS YOU WILL SEE, THERE ARE MANY DECISIONS THAT BLUR THAT “MOMENT OF TRUTH”.
WE WILL START WITH WORLD WAR I. IT WAS HARD FOR ME TO STAY FOCUSED ON STOESSINGER'S APPROACH, SO I REVIEWED BARBARA TUCHMAN'S WONDERFUL BOOKS “THE PROUD TOWER” AND “THE GUNS OF AUGUST.” THE FIRST DESCRIBING SINGULAR EVENTS IN EACH PARTICIPATING COUNTRY DURING THE QUARTER CENTURY PRECEDING 1914, AND THE SECOND DESCRIBING THAT FINAL FEW WEEKS IN THE SUMMER OF 1914 WHEN EUROPE SLID INTO THE ABYSS. WHEN RE-READING “THE PROUD TOWER” I HAD
THE WEIRD FEELING THAT I KNEW WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, AND THE POOR, MISGUIDED SUBJECTS IN THE BOOK WERE BLISSFULLY UNAWARE OF THE HORROR THEIR FUTURE HELD. I ALSO BOUGHT AND READ A NEW BOOK: GEORGE, NICHOLAS AND WILHELM – THREE ROYAL COUSINS AND THE ROAD TO WORLD WAR I. MY CONCLUSION AFTER READING THIS BOOK WAS THAT THESE THREE MONARCHS COMBINED LACKED THE TALENT TO MANAGE A MAID-RITE IN MARSHALLTOWN, LET ALONE GOVERN EMPIRES. BUT – BACK TO WORLD WAR I.
AS WE ALL KNOW, THE AUSTRIAN HEIR TO THE HAPSBURG THRONE, ARCHDUKE FERDINAND AND HIS WIFE SOPHIE, WERE MURDERED ON JUNE 28, 1914 IN SARAJEVO, BOSNIA BY A TERRORIST. BOSNIA, A FORMER PROVINCE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE HAD BEEN ANNEXED BY AUSTRIA A FEW YEARS EARLIER. AUSTRIA BLAMED NEIGHBORING SERBIA FOR THE OUTRAGE AND PRESENTED THEM WITH AN ULTIMATIM. AUSTRIA AND GERMANY HAD A MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY. ON JULY 5TH THE GERMAN KAISER TOOK THE FATEFUL STEP OF ASSURING AUSTRIA THAT SHE COULD COUNT ON GERMANY'S “FAITHFUL SUPPORT:” EVEN IF THE PUNITIVE ACTION SHE WAS PLANNING AGAINST SERBIA WOULD BRING HER INTO CONFLICT WITH RUSSIA.” IN OTHER WORDS, HE GAVE AUSTRIA A BLANK CHECK. THE KAISER USED A SPECIAL TERM IN HIS PLEDGE THAT WAS CRUCIAL TO THE OUTCOME: NIBELUNGENTREUE. THERE IS NO ADEQUATE ENGLISH TRANSLATION FOR THIS TERM. THE NIBELUNGENLIED WAS A COLLECTION OF GERMAN SAGAS PEOPLED WITH HEROES WHO HIGHEST VIRTUES WERE HONOR, COURAGE, AND LOYALTY. THE PLEDGE OF A NIBELUNG IS A BLOOD BOND THAT IS SACRED AND IRREVOCABLE: ONCE GIVEN, IT CAN NEVER BE RETRACTED. I CALLED THE DEPARTMENT OF MODERN LANGUAGES AT UNI AND TALKED WITH A PROFESSOR OF GERMAN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE TO DISCUSS THIS WORD NIBELUNGENTREUE AND HE CONCURRED THAT THIS, WAS INDEED, THE CASE. AND THE REST IS HISTORY. KAISER WILHELM RECEIVED INFORMATION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF HIS FRIEND WHILE ON BOARD HIS YACHT ABOUT TO DEPART FOR A SUMMER CRUISE. HIS OFF-HAND COMMITMENT TO AUSTRIA, CLOTHED IN LANGUAGE THAT BOUND HIS NATION TO AUSTRIA, WAS THE DECISION THAT, IN DUE COURSE,
DESTROYED EMPIRES AND KILLED MUCH OF A GENERATION OF EUROPEANS..
THE SECOND DECISION I WILL ADDRESS WAS HITLER'S FATEFUL DECISION TO INVADE THE SOVIET UNION. IN A MASTERPIECE OF UNDERSTATEMENT, DR. STOESSINGER SAID: “THE KEY TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF ADOLF HITLER'S INVASION OF RUSSIA IS MORE LIKELY FOUND IN THE REALM OF PSYCHOLOGY THAN IN POLITICAL SCIENCE OR STRATEGIC THOUGHT.” HIS DESIRE TO DESTROY RUSSIA PRECEDED HIS RISE TO POLITICAL POWER. IN MEIN KAMPF, PUBLISHED IN 1924, HE SAID: “WE TERMINATE THE ENDLESS GERMAN DRIVE TO THE SOUTH AND WEST OF EUROPE, AND DIRECT OUR GAZE TOWARDS THE LANDS IN THE EAST . . . IF WE TALK ABOUT NEW SOIL AND TERRITORY IN EUROPE TODAY, WE CAN THINK PRIMARILY ONLY OF RUSSIA AND ITS VASSAL BORDER STATES. THE COLOSSAL EMPIRE IN THE EAST IS RIPE FOR DISSOLUTION, AND THE END OF THE JEWISH DOMINATION IN RUSSIA WILL ALSO BE THE END OF RUSSIA AS A STATE.” SO YOU SEE, FROM THE EARLY DAYS OF THE NAZI MOVEMENT, WHILE HE WAS STILL IMPRISONED AND WRITING MEIN KAMPF, HIS HATRED OF RUSSIA AND THE SLAVIC PEOPLE WAS INTERTWINED IN HIS WARPED MIND WITH THE DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE. “AS A YOUNG ARTIST IN VIENNA, HITLER HAD ACCUMULATED A FAIR AMOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE OF ENGLISH, FRENCH, AND ITALIAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD THE SLIGHTEST ACQUAINTANCE WITH RUSSIAN CIVILIZATION OR THAT HE HAD EVER READ A BOOK BY A RUSSIAN WRITER.” IT WAS NEVER A MATTER OF “IF”, BUT ONLY OF “WHEN.” SO WHEN HE WAS FRUSTRATED IN HIS EFFORTS TO BRING DOWN BRITAIN IN THE SUMMER AND AUTUMN OF 1940, HE TURNED HIS EYES EAST. IN THE AUTHOR'S WORDS: “THUS HITLER'S BOUNDLESS HATRED FOR THE SLAVIC PEOPLES WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ONE OF THE GREATEST BLUNDERS OF HIS CAREER.”
THE THIRD WAR I WANT TO TALK ABOUT TONIGHT – THE KOREAN WAR -- IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS TWO IN MANY WAYS, BUT FOR OUR PURPOSES TONIGHT, THE PRINCIPAL DIFFERENCE IS THAT WE DO NOT KNOW WHO GAVE THE FATEFUL COMMAND. THE AUTHOR DESCRIBED FOUR POSSIBLE ANSWERS IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PROBABILITY:
FIRST, THAT STALIN ORDERED A PROBING ATTACK AGAINST THE WEST. THE THREE PRECEDING YEARS HAD SEEN HIS SEIZURE OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA IN FEBRUARY 1948, THE FORMATION OF NATO IN 1949, SUGGESTING THAT HE COULD MAKE NO FURTHER INROADS IN THE WEST. IN JANUARY 1950, SECRETARY OF STATE DEAN ACHESON, IN A SPEECH BEFORE THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB IN WASHINGTON, OUTLINED THE “MILITARY DEFENSE PERIMETER” OF THE UNITED STATES; KOREA WAS NOT INSIDE THAT PERIMETER. THIS MAY HAVE ENCOURAGED STALIN TO ORDER THE NORTH KOREAN ATTACK.
A SECOND POSSIBILITY IS THAT STALIN WANTED TO CREATE A PROBLEM FOR CHINA. PERHAPS HE DID NOT TELL THE CHINESE ABOUT THE ATTACK IN ADVANCE, IN THE HOPE THAT THEY WOULD BECOME ENTANGLED WITH THE U.S. MAO HAD COME TO POWER WITHOUT STALIN'S HELP, AND PRESENTED STALIN WITH A RIVAL FOR LEADERSHIP OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT.
A THIRD, BUT UNLIKELY POSSIBILITY IS THAT THE CHINESE ORDERED THE ATTACK. MAO HAD BEEN IN POWER FOR LESS THAN A YEAR, AND HAD HIS HANDS FULL CONSOLIDATING HIS POWER AT HOME.
FINALLY, KIM IL SUNG MAY HAVE ORDERED THE ATTACK ON HIS OWN, IN THE HOPE OF BECOMING AN ASIAN “TITO” AND ACQUIRING STATUS AMONG ASIAN
COMMUNISTS COMPARABLE TO THAT ENJOYED AMONG EUROPEAN COMMUNIST PARTIES BY MARSHALL TITO IN YUGOSLAVIA. BUT, ONCE THE FIGHTING BEGAN, THERE FOLLOWED THREE MORE CRITICAL DECISIONS THAT DIRECTED THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE WAR: FIRST, PRESIDENT TRUMAN'S DECISION TO COME TO THE AID OF SOUTH KOREA, BUT ACTING THROUGH THE UNITED NATIONS. SECOND, STALIN'S DECISION TO BOYCOTT THE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE U.N. BECAUSE THE COMMUNIST CHINESE HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN THE CHINESE SEAT ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL AFTER CONQUERING THE MAINLAND THE PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THIRD, THE DECISION OF GENERAL MACARTHUR TO PURSUE THE DEFEATED NORTH KOREAN ARMY TO THE CHINESE BORDER, CONVINCED AS HE WAS THAT THE CHINESE WOULD NOT INTERVENE.
THUS, ASSUMING STALIN ORDERED THE INITITAL NORTH KOREAN INVASION OF THE SOUTH, THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME WAS LARGELY A RESULT OF BAD DECISIONS BY STALIN AND MACARTHUR, AND A GOOD DECISION BY TRUMAN. WHY DID IT END IN JULY 1953? THE ELECTION OF EISENHOWER? THE DEATH OF STALIN? WE DON'T KNOW.
THE NEXT AMERICAN WAR TO INFLICT ITSELF UPON US WAS VIETNAM. THE AUTHOR TITLED THIS CHAPTER OF HIS BOOK: “A GREEK TRAGEDY IN FIVE ACTS”. AT THE TIME, IT WAS THE LONGEST WAR IN AMERICAN HISTORY, THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL SINCE THE CIVIL WAR, AND EXTENDED OVER FIVE PRESIDENCIES. I AM ONLY GOING TO ADDRESS THE DECISIONS MADE BY THE FIRST AND LAST PRESIDENTS INVOLVED IN THIS WAR: TRUMAN AND NIXON. IN NIXON'S CASE, WE WILL BE ADDRESSING DECISIONS MADE TO END THE WAR; AND THIS – AS WE KNOW IN TODAYS WORLD – IS OFTEN MORE DIFFICULT THAN ENTERING A WAR. PERHAPS WE CAN DISCUSS THE OTHER THREE: EISENHOWER, KENNEDY AND JOHNSON DURING THE DISCUSSION PERIOD, SINCE SO MANY OF OUR LIVES WERE IMPACTED BY DECISIONS MADE BY THESE THREE.
FIRST, THE TRUMAN INVOLVEMENT. WHEN THE FRENCH WENT TO WAR WITH HO CHI MINH IN 1945 TO RECLAIM
THEIR COLONIAL POSSESSIONS IN INDOCHINA AFTER THE DEFEAT OF JAPAN, PRESIDENT TRUMAN OPPOSED THEM, AND REFUSED TO AID THEM IN ANY WAY. BUT BY 1952 HIS ATTITUDE HAD CHANGED DRAMATICALLY. WHAT HAPPENED DURING THOSE SEVEN YEARS FROM 1945 TO 1952 TO CHANGE HIS ATTITUDE? AND PERHAPS THE SUPREME IRONY IS THAT THIS CHANGE IN ATTITUDE WAS UNRELATED TO EVENTS IN ASIA. IT WAS ALL ABOUT SOVIET EXPANSION IN EUROPE. SO LETS REVIEW THOSE SEVEN YEARS. THOSE OF YOU OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER MAY RECALL HOW TRUMAN FACED DOWN STALIN IN IRAN AND FORCED THE SOVIET WITHDRAWAL FROM THAT COUNTRY IN 1946. THAT SAME YEAR CAME CHURCHILL'S IRON CURTAIN SPEECH, AND KENNAN'S FAMOUS “LONG TELEGRAM” DEFINING A POLICY OF CONTAINING THE SOVIET UNION. IN 1947 CAME THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE TO SAVE GREECE AND TURKEY FROM SOVIET TAKEOVER. IN FEBRUARY 1948 CAME THE SHOCK OF THE SOVIET TAKEOVER OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA. THAT SUMMER CAME THE BLOCKADE OF BERLIN AND THE BERLIN AIRLIFT. IN 1949 NATO WAS FORMED AND THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS WON THE CHINESE CIVIL WAR. AND THE NEXT YEAR CAME THE KOREAN WAR. ALL OF THIS LED TRUMAN TO EXTEND THE CONTAINMENT POLICY IN EUROPE TO THE WHOLE WORLD, AND START THE CREATION OF THE ALLIANCE SYSTEM THAT WOULD ENCIRCLE ALL COMMUNIST STATES, INCLUDING SOUTHEAST ASIA. THUS, THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT IN VIETNAM WAS REGARDED AS SIMPLY AN EXTENSION OF THE SOVIET LED EFFORT TO SPREAD THEIR IDEOLOGY. AND AT NO TIME WAS THERE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS THESIS. BUT ONCE STARTED, HOW COULD IT BE ENDED? IN SOME WAYS, THE TWENTY YEARS FROM THE FRENCH ATTEMPT AT RECONQUEST OF VIETNAM IN 1945 TO THE AMERICAN COMMITMENT OF GROUND TROOPS IN 1965 HAS AN EIRIE SIMILARITY TO JULY 1914 – THAT MONTH -LONG SLIDE INTO THE ABYSS OF WORLD WAR I IN EUROPE STRETCHED
TO THE AMERICAN TWENTY YEAR SLIDE INTO THE ABYSS OF VIETNAM. AFTER OUR TROOP COMMITMENT, IT CONTINUED FOR ANOTHER TEN YEARS, UNTIL 1975.
SO – HOW COULD IT BE ENDED? THIS BECAME THE FATE OF PRESIDENT NIXON, AND PERHAPS WAS A MAJOR FACTOR IN THE ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION OF HIS PRESIDENCY. SO, WHAT DECISIONS AND EVENTS SET THE STAGE FOR PRESIDENT NIXON'S APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF VIETNAM, AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, HOW TO CARRY OUR HIS CAMPAIGN PLEDGE TO GET US OUT OF THERE?
IN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF 1968, THREE HISTORIC EVENTS OCCURRED THAT SET THE STAGE FOR THE DECISIONS THAT LED TO THE TERMINATIION OF THE VIETNAM WAR.
THE FIRST OCCURRED IN LATE JANUARY, WHEN THE USS PUEBLO, AN INTELLIGENCE GATHERING SHIP OPERATING NEAR THE NORTH KOREAN COAST, AND LOADED WITH THE MOST HIGHLY CLASSIFIED EQUIPMENT, WAS SEIZED BY THE NORTH KOREANS AND HELD FOR A YEAR. OUR INTELLIGENCE GATHERING ABILITY WAS COMPROMISED AND IT TOOK YEARS TO REBUILD IT. BUT THE REAL SHOCK WAS THAT WITH ALL OUR POWER IN THE PACIFIC, THERE WAS NOT ONE, SINGLE AIR OR SEA ASSET THAT COULD GO TO THE RESCUE OF THE PUEBLO. WE WERE JUST THAT OVEREXTENDED. ONLY DAYS LATER THE TET OFFENSIVE BEGAN, AND ALTHOUGH IT WAS A MILITARY DEFEAT FOR THE VIETNAMESE COMMUNISTS, IT WAS A POLITICAL DEFEAT FOR THE UNITED STATES. AND FINALLY, ON 31 MARCH 1968 PRESIDENT JOHNSON WENT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION AND ANNOUNCED HE WOULD NOT RUN FOR REELECTION. IT WAS THESE THREE EVENTS THAT SET THE STAGE FOR THE ELECTION OF RICHARD NIXON AND SADDLED HIM WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENDING THE WAR, AND FOR MAKING THE DECISIONS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL..
NIXON AND HIS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, LATER, SECRETARY OF STATE – KISSINGER – THEIR GOAL WAS EXTRICATION FROM COMBAT, WITHDRAWAL OF OUR GROUND TROOPS, BRINGING OUR PRISONERS OF WAR HOME FROM HANOI, AND “PEACE WITH HONOR”. IN ADDITION, NIXON WAS FACED WITH THE CHALLENGE OF REBUILDING OUR RELATIONS WITH MOST OF THE WORLD, WHICH HAD BEEN SOURED BY JOHNSON'S HANG-UP IN VIETNAM– ESPECIALLY WITH CHINA AND THE USSR. (THIS MAY REMIND US OF THE CHALLENGE FACED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA TO REBUILD THE RELATIONSHIPS WRECKED BY THE BUSH POLICIES IN IRAQ) . NIXON BEGAN IN 1969, IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS INAUGURATION, BY WITHDRAWING GROUND FORCES AT THE SAME TIME WE INCREASED AIR SUPPORT FOR THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE ARMY. BY 1971 WE HAD REDUCED AMERICAN GROUND FORCES TO THE POINT THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD DESIGNATE 1971 AS THE “YEAR OF VIETNAMIZATION”. I WENT BACK TO VIETNAM THAT SPRING FOR A FEW WEEKS WITH A GROUP OF NAVAL
OFFICERS PLANNING THE TRANSFER OF LOGISTIC AND TRANSPORTATION ASSETS TO THE VIETNAMESE NAVY. NIXON ORDERED THE AIR WAR EXTENDED TO CAMBODIA AND LAOS, AND ACTUALLY SENT TROOPS INTO CAMBODIA, LEADING TO KENT STATE. BUT NOTHING WORKED OUT AS PLANNED. LETS HOPE THE CURRENT WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ ENDS DIFFERENTLY.
BUT JUST AS EVENTS IN EUROPE LED TRUMAN TO ENTANGLE US IN VIETNAM, SO EVENTS ELSEWHERE LED THE VIETNAMESE TO RECOGNIZE THEY BETTER END THE WAR SOMEHOW. AND THESE EVENTS WERE NIXON'S SUCCESSFUL OPENING TO CHINA IN 1972, FOLLOWED BY HIS SUCCESS IN PURSUING THE RUSSIAN INTEREST IN DETENT. NIXON ORDERED THE ROUND THE CLOCK BOMBING OF HANOI AND HAIPHONG IN DECEMBER 1972 AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS IN MOSCOW SIGNING AN ARMS LIMITATION TREATY. THUS, THE VIETNAMESE FEARED THEY WERE ABOUT TO BE ABANDONED BY THEIR TWO MAJOR SUPPORTERS, AND IN JANUARY 1973 AN ACCORD WAS REACHED. AND SO THE WAR WAS ENDED BY DECISIONS MADE BY NIXON AND BRESHNEV AND MAO, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO HO CHI MINH OR TO THE EVOLVING SITUATION ON THE GROUND IN VIETNAM.

SO NOW WE MOVE ON – TO OTHER PEOPLE'S WARS. TO SOUTH ASIA. THE TITLE OF CHAPTER FIVE OF DR. STOESSINGER'S BOOK IS: “FOUR BATTLES OVER GOD.” HE CONTINUES – THE MOST SAVAGE RELIGIOUS WAR IN HISTORY WAS NEITHER THE CHRISTIAN CRUSADES AGAINST ISLAM NOR THE THIRTY YEARS WAR THAT PITTED CATHOLIC AGAINST PROTESTANT. IT WAS THE WAR OF HINDU AGAINST MOSLEM IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY. TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE – ONE HISTORIAN I READ ESTIMATED THAT THE THIRTY YEARS WAR SET BACK THE ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT OF GERMANY BY ABOUT 100 YEARS. WHAT PRICE HAVE INDIA AND PAKISTAN PAID FOR SEVEN DECADES OF MUTUAL HOSTILITY AND MINDLESS HATRED?
INDIA AND PAKISTAN FOUGHT FOUR WARS IN 1947, 1965, 1971, AND 1998. I WILL TALK ABOUT THE SECOND ONE, 1965, BECAUSE THERE IS NOT TIME TO DISCUSS ALL OF THEM, AND BECAUSE THE ISSUES DIVIDING THE TWO COUNTRIES IN THE 1965 WAR ARE PRETTY MUCH REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ISSUES IN ALL OF THEM.
FIRST, SOME BACKGROUND. WHEN THE BRITISH WITHDREW FROM INDIA IN 1947 AND GRANTED INDEPENDENCE, THE COUNTRY IMMEDIATELY DIVIDED INTO TWO COUNTRIES: INDIA AND PAKISTAN. THOSE PRINCELY STATES THAT WERE NOT UNDER DIRECT BRITISH RULE WERE GIVEN A CHOICE OF ADHERING TO EITHER COUNTRY, OR GAINING INDEPENDENCE. ONE OF THOSE STATES WAS KASHMIR. AT THE TIME OF INDEPENDENCE THE RULER OF KASHMIR WAS A HINDU, BUT THE POPULATION WAS ABOUT THREE QUARTERS MOSLEM. THE RULER CHOSE TO JOIN INDIA. THIS SET THE STAGE FOR THE RECURRING CONFLICT WHICH CONTINUES TO THIS DAY.
SO, WHAT EVENTS OR DECISIONS BROUGHT THEM INTO CONFLICT IN 1965? IN THE FALL OF 1962 – WHILE WE AMERICANS WERE DISTRACTED BY OUR CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS – A SHORT, VIOLENT BORDER WAR BROKE OUT BETWEEN INDIA AND CHINA IN THE DESOLATE, FROZEN MOUNTAINS WHERE THEIR BOUNDARIES MEET. THE INDIANS SUFFERED A SHARP DEFEAT. IN 1965 A BRIEF CONFLICT BROKE OUT BETWEEN INDIA AND
PAKISTAN, AND THE INDIANS WERE AGAIN DEFEATED. THESE DEFEATS ENCOURAGED THE PAKISTANI LEADER A THAT TIME, A GENERAL AYUB KHAN, TO BELIEVE THAT NOW WAS THE TIME TAKE OVER KASHMIR. HE INVADED KASHMIR WITH 90 PATTON TANKS AND ALL THE NECESSARY SUPPORTING TROOPS AND EQUIPMENT, BUT THE INDIANS HELD THE LINE, AND IN A FEWS WEEKS OF VICIOUS FIGHTING, FOUGHT THE PAKISTANIS TO A STANDSTILL, AND IN DUE COURSE FORCED THEM FROM KASHMIR. THE WAR ENDED WHEN THE SOVIET PREMIER, ALEKSEI KOSYGIN, BROUGHT BOTH COUNTRIES TO A PEACE CONFERENCE IN TASHKENT AND ENDED THE CONFLICT.
SO HERE WE HAVE AN IMPROBABLE SCENARIO: A RELIGIOUS CONFLICT STEMMING FROM THE OVERCONFIDENCE OF A PAKISTANI GENERAL, ENDED BY THE RESILIANCE OF A HINDU ARMY AND FINALLY SETTLED BY AN ATHEIST POLITICIAN. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO BELIEVE IN DIVINE PROVIDENCE, WHAT DO YOU SUPPOSE GOD WAS THINKING ABOUT ALL THIS?
NEXT I WILL ADDRESS WHAT THE AUTHOR TITLED: “THE FIFTY YEARS' WAR IN THE HOLY LAND: ISRAEL AND THE ARABS. AND AS THE AUTHOR PUTS IT: “HISTORICAL TRAGEDIES DO NOT ARISE FROM ENCOUNTERS IN WHICH RIGHT CLASHES WITH WRONG. RATHER, THEY OCCUR WHEN RIGHT CLASHES WITH RIGHT.”
SO, RATHER THAN FOCUS ON A SINGLE DECISION AND DECISION MAKER, I WILL REVIEW DECISIONS OVER TIME THAT SET THE STAGE FOR THE ARAB AND ISRAELI WARS. AND AS YOU WILL SEE, AGAIN, SO MANY DECISIONS ARE TAKEN OUTSIDE THE AREA IN QUESTION, AND FOR REASONS OFTEN UNRELATED TO EVENTS IN THE CONTESTED AREA.
BY THE THE END OF WORLD WAR I THE JEWS HAD PURCHASED AND SETTLED ON OVER 100,000 ACRES OF PALESTINIAN LAND. AT THE SAME TIME, THE BRITISH HAD DRIVEN THE OTTOMAN TURKS OUT OF PALESTINE AND WOULD SHORTLY RECEIVE A LEAGUE OF NATIONS MANDATE TO GOVERN THE AREA. THE LEADERS OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT PRESSURED THE BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY AT THAT TIME – LORD ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR – TO ISSUE A PLEDGE TO SUPPORT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE. ACCORDINGLY, THE BALFOUR DECLARATION WAS ISSUED IN 1917.
I WANT TO READ IT IN ITS ENTIRETY. IT IS ONLY ONE, LONG, AMBIGUOUS, SENTENCE THAT BEAUTIFULLY ILLUSTRATES THE IDEA MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO ABOUT RIGHT CLASHING WITH RIGHT.
“HIS MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT VIEWS WITH FAVOR THE ESTABLISHMENT IN PALESTINE OF A NATIONAL HOME FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE, AND WILL USE THEIR BEST ENDEAVORS TO FACILITATE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THIS OBJECT, IT BEING CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT NOTHING SHALL BE DONE WHICH MAY PREJUDICE THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF EXISTING NON-JEWISH COMMUNITIES IN PALESTINE, OR THE RIGHTS AND POLITICAL STATUS ENJOYED BY JEWS IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY.” THIS DECISION SET THE STAGE FOR THE JEWISH EXPECTATION THAT THEY WOULD ONE DAY HAVE A STATE OF THEIR OWN IN PALESTINE.
THE SECOND DECISION OCCURRED IN 1947 WHEN THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT CAME TO THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND TOLD US THAT THEY COULD NO LONGER AFFORD TO SUPPORT GREECE AND TURKEY IN THEIR RESISTANCE TO A COMMUNIST TAKEOVER, AND FURTHERMORE, THAT THEY WOULD WITHDRAW THEIR FORCES FROM PALESTINE IN MAY 1948 AND RETURN THEIR MANDATE TO THE UNITED NATIONS. PRESIDENT TRUMAN PROMPTLY ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR GREECE AND TURKEY. BUT HE RESISTED SUPPORTING THE JEWS IN PALESTINE, AND FOR GOOD REASON. THE MARSHALL PLAN TO REBUILD EUROPE WAS JUST GETTING UNDERWAY, AND MIDEAST OIL WAS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO ACHIEVE THIS PURPOSE. ANYTHING THAT CREATED CONFLICT WITH THE ARAB STATES MIGHT WRECK HE MARSHALL PLAN. IN DESPERATION, THE JEWISH LEADERS CALLED ON TRUMAN'S OLD BUSINESS PARTNER – EDDIE JACOBSON – TO INTERVENE WITH THE PRESIDENT. JACOBSON MET WITH THE PRESIDENT, AND ACCORDING TO ONE ACCOUNT, PRESIDENT TRUMAN, AFTER A LONG SILENCE, LOOKED JACOBSON STRAIGHT IN THE EYE AND SAID: “YOU WIN, YOU BALDHEADED SON-OF-A-BITCH.” TRUMAN MET WITH DR.
WEIZMANN, THE ZIONIST LEADER AT THAT TIME, AND PROMISED THE JEWISH LEADER THAT HE WOULD WORK FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND RECOGNITION OF A JEWISH STATE.”
THE NEXT DECISION WAS BY THE ARAB STATES. THE U.N. HAD APPROVED A PLAN TO PARTITION PALESTINE INTO TWO STATES, WITH JERUSELUM UNDER A U.N. TRUSTEESHIP. THE JEWS ACCEPTED; THE ARAB STATES ALL REJECTED. THIS MEANT WAR, WHICH BROKE OUT ON THE DAY THE BRITISH MANDATE ENDED – MAY 14, 1948.
SO YOU SEE – IT TOOK FOUR DECISIONS TO START THE 1948 WAR: FIRST, THE BALFOUR DECLARATION THAT GAVE THE JEWS HOPES OF A NATIONAL HOME; SECOND, THE DECISION BY AN IMPOVERISHED BRITISH EMPIRE TO GIVE UP ITS MANDATE OVER PALESTINE AND WITHDRAW ITS FORCES FROM THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN; THIRD, A DECISION BY AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT TO FILL THIS VOID AND SUPPORT THE CREATION OF A JEWISH STATE; AND FOURTH; A DECISION BY THE ARAB STATES TO REJECT THE UNITED NATIONS PARTITION PLAN.
THERE WERE THREE MORE ARAB/ISRAELI WARS AND MANY OTHER SKIRMISHES AND CAMPAIGNS, BUT I WILL ONLY TALK ABOUT ONE MORE: THE 1956 SINAI CAMPAIGN AND THE SUEZ CRISIS OF THAT YEAR, BECAUSE IT ILLUSTRATES JUST HOW COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT THINGS CAN GET FOR THE UNITED STATES. IN 1952 GAMEL ABDUL NASSER BECAME PRESIDENT OF EGYPT AND IN DUE COURSE, BLOCKED ISRAELI ACCESS TO THE SUEZ CANAL. THIS VIOLATED THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION THAT GUARANTEED FREE ACCESS TO THE CANAL BY THE SHIPS OF ALL NATIONS. LATER HE NATIONALIZED THE CANAL AND SEIZED THE PROPERTY. THE BRITISH AND FRENCH, WHO OWNED THE CANAL, SENT IN FORCES TO RECLAIM THE CANAL. THE ISRAELIES, SEEING AN OPPORTUNITY TO HURT THEIR ARAB ENEMIES, JOINED THE CAMPAIGN
AND SEIZED THE SINAI. AT THE SAME TIME, THE HUNGARIANS REVOLTED AGAINST THEIR SOVIET MASTERS, AND THE RED ARMY SENT IN THE TANKS. IF PRESIDENT EISENHOWER CAME TO THE AID OF HIS BRITISH AND FRENCH NATO ALLIES, HE WOULD APPEAR TO BE DOING TO THE EGYPTIANS WHAT THE RUSSIANS WERE DOING TO THE HUNGARIANS. TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT, HE ORDERED THE BRITISH, FRENCH AND ISRAELIS TO GET OUT OF EGYPT, WHICH THEY DID, AND SENT IN A U.N. PEACE FORCE TO PATROL THE BORDER BETWEEN EGYPT AND ISRAEL.
AND SO, ONCE AGAIN, THE OUTCOMES ON THE GROUND IN THE MIDDLE EAST WERE DICTATED BY EVENTS FAR AFIELD – BY AMERICAN REACTION TO AN UNRELATED BUT COINCIDENTAL SOVIET ACTION IN HUNGARY.
AS A PERSONAL ASIDE, TWO YEARS LATER, IN 1958, I WAS SUPPLY OFFICER ON AN LST IN THE SIXTH FLEET. WE ENTERED VALETTA HARBOR IN MALTA ONE DAY AND PASSED A BRITISH TROOP TRANSPORT TIED UP TO A WHARF, WITH HUNDREDS OF TROOPS STANDING ALONG THE RAILS. THEY BOOED US AS LONG WE WERE WITHIN EARSHOT. THE BRITISH WERE STILL STUNG BY OUR FAILURE TO BACK THEM AT SUEZ TWO YEARS EARLIER.

I COULD GO ON AND ON ABOUT OTHER RECENT WARS – SADAM HUSSEIN'S WARS WITH IRAN AND KUWAIT, AND THE WARS THAT TERMINATED THE EXISTENCE OF YUGOSLAVIA. BUT TIME DOES NOT PERMIT. SUFFICE IT TO SAY – THEY WERE, AS WERE ALL THE CASES I HAVE DISCUSSED, LARGELY THE RESULT OF LEADERS MISUNDERSTANDING THE INTENTIONS AND THE CAPABILITIES OF THEIR OPPOSITION.
DR. STOESSINGER DESCRIBES AMERICAN PRESIDENTS AS BEING ONE OF TWO PERSONALITY TYPES: CRUSADERS AND PRAGMATISTS. THE PUREST CRUSADER WAS WOODROW WILSON. THE PUREST PRAGMATIST WAS JOHN KENNEDY. PRESIDENT BUSH STARTED OUT AS A PRAGMATIST AND ENDED AS A CRUSADER.
TO GIVE YOU SOME IDEA OF A CRUSADER IN ACTION – WHEN WILSON ARRIVED IN PARIS IN 1919, HERE IS WHAT HE SAID TO THE ASTOUNDED EUROPEAN DIPLOMATS:
“WHY HAS JESUS CHRIST SO FAR NOT SUCCEEDED IN INDUCING THE WORLD TO FOLLOW HIS TEACHINGS IN THESE MATTERS? IT IS BECAUSE HE TAUGHT THE IDEAL WITHOUT DEVISING ANY PRACTICAL MEANS FOR ATTAINING IT. THAT IS WHY I AM PROPOSING A PRACTICAL SCHEME TO CARRY OUT HIS AIMS.”
COMPARE THIS TO PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S THOUGHTFUL AND MEASURED ANALISYS OF SOVIET INTENTIONS AND CAPABILITIES, AND HIS THOUGHTFUL AND MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS. A PRAGMATIST ALL THE WAY.
PRESIDENT – BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN -- BUSH'S RESPONSE TO 9/11 WAS MUCH MORE LIKE WILSON THAN LIKE KENNEDY. TO ILLUSTRATE THIS POINT, I WILL NOW READ AN EXCERPT FROM THE BOOK “AGAINST ALL ENEMIES” BY RICHARD CLARKE, ANTI-TERROISM CZAR UNDER CLINTON AND BOTH BUSHES.
:LATER ON IN THE EVENING OF THE 12TH OF SEPTEMBER 2001, I LEFT THE VIDEO CONFERENCING CENTER IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AND THERE, WANDERING ALONE AROUND THE SITUATION ROOM, WAS THE PRESIDENT. HE LOOKED LIKE HE WANTED SOMETHING TO DO. “LOOK”, HE TOLD US, 'I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT TO DO AND ALL …. BUT I WANT YOU, AS SOON AS YOU CAN, TO GO BACK OVER EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING. SEE IF SADDAM DID THIS. SEE IF HE'S LINKED IN ANY WAY....'.
I WAS TAKEN ABACK, INCREDULOUS, AND IT SHOWED. 'BUT MR. PRESIDENT, AL-QAIDA DID THIS.' ' I KNOW, I KNOW, BUT …. SEE IF SADDAM WAS INVOLVED. JUST LOOK. I WANT TO KNOW ANY SHRED.' 'ABSOLUTELY, WE WILL LOOK AGAIN.' 'LOOK INTO IRAQ, SADDAM. THE PRESIDENT SAID TESTILY AND LEFT US.”
DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A MAN WHO WANTS TO START A CRUSADE? DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A MAN WHO IS ABOUT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION: WHY DO NATIONS GO TO WAR?
AND WITH THAT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN – I YIELD THE FLOOR.