An important word from Mike Walker, Col., USMC (retired)

All,

By now you have heard of the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that is to begin in New York. Some may think this is simply a trial of a terrorist tied to 9/11.

No thought could be more wrongheaded. This fight is as important as the decision to invade Afghanistan in 2001 or Iraq in 2003 or the Iraq War surge of 2007 or the current strategic review of the campaign in Afghanistan in 2009.

In fact, one could argue that the decision already made to enter this battle was more important than the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. This is a strategic battle in which the lives of thousands, tens of thousands, of innocent civilians hangs in the balance.

It is not simply a court case dealing with terrorists. It is a nation, my Country, which has crossed the Rubicon. There is now no looking back.

What is at stake is the viability of the rule of law as it has been understood for centuries in western civilization. What is at stake is a contest between two radically divergent visions of the future for humanity.

On our side are the proponents who argue that a legal system can be founded on the principal that free and reasonable citizens can create a just and progressive society. On the other side are the nihilists who believe that the seeds of destruction of that free and reasonable society lie in exploiting and perverting its judicial system.

Again, on the one side you have a society that strives to remain within the parameters of civilized behavior, all the while failing imperfectly as any human endeavor will. On the other side you have an organization that systematically attacks every tenet of the free and rational society concept. It is an enemy the embraces and revels in the violation of every concept of civil liberties as we in America know them and stridently seeks to use those selfsame values to destroy us.

As our side enters the slippery slope of demanding perfection in the most imperfect of all undertakings, war, we have an enemy who is equally determined to make gains by violating every rule and law of civilized behavior in making war.

The goal of the enemy is clear, if they so totally destroy the rules of warfare then they hope to escape entirely the consequences of their perfidious deeds. The path is clear, if the enemy violates each and every law then the enemy creates a state of chaos where the disciplined mind will, for sake of sanity, ignore their countless sins.

In its stead and in frustration born of chaos, the bewildered rationalists will seize on and lash out at the more manageable sins of those who share, rather than reject, their free and reasonable society worldview. They would rather retreat to the safety of their comfort zone by trying one of the their own then stand in the violent chaos created by the enemy and confront the enemy's wrongs.

The lesson is clear, if you try to embrace a civilized behavior in making war then you will eventually err as all humans do. At that point, having failed to be perfect, you will be criminalized and suffer the consequences.

If, on the other hand, you behave as the enemy and liberate yourself of the norms of civilized behavior in making war by deliberately killing innocents such as strapping bomb vests on the mentally disabled and sending them into a crowed market to explode (al Qaeda really did this) and are willing to lie about all your evil deeds and kill and intimidate any witnesses then, if captured, your freedom may well be assured. That is an abomination.

What must be powerfully empowering to the enemy is to witness the energies of our more civilized souls to divert their failure in reining in the enemy's terror by targeting, out of ineptitude, those who strive yet fail to obey the civilized laws of warfare.

The ramifications of the outcome of this trial are simple. In no small part, this trial will decide whose strategy is more powerful. It will partially decide if the future of civilization rests in the hands of those who adhere to a principle of removing all restraints in fighting a war or with those who imperfectly try to limit the pain and suffering to the combatants, to those who actively engage in the battle like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

For those who prefer the former, then set Khalid Sheikh Mohammed free. For those who believe in the later then give this man the punishment he deserves.

In no small degree, the fate of progressive civilization for at least a billion of human beings, fortunately overwhelmingly not Americans, hangs in the balance.

Semper Fi,

Mike

OBAMA'S DECLINE

November 1, 2009 Posted by John Hinderaker, Powerline

Rasmussen Reports charts the decline in President Obama's approval index--the difference between those likely voters who strongly approve and who strongly disapprove of his performance--from his inauguration to the present, on a monthly basis. What is striking is how stable the electorate's views of Obama have been. There isn't a lot of volatility or noise; the approval index has declined in steps as basic facts about the Obama administration have become evident:

Michael Barone, responding to a liberal's question, tries to explain where all the Obamamaniacs have gone. In a summer and early fall that were dominated by popular expressions of opposition to the Democrats' legislative agenda, why couldn't Obama mobilize the supporters who were so visible last year?

As the above chart suggests, some of them may find their enthusiasm waning. Michael adds:

Where have all those Obamenthusiasts who were so visible in 2008 been hiding this year? ...

Many Obamenthusiasts were thrilled by the idea of putting Obama in and getting George W. Bush out. They achieved their goal a year ago. What more is left? Did these people really expend all this energy to reduce the percentage of people without health insurance? "We are the change we are seeking," Obama said during the campaign. Well, the Obamenthusiasts got that change. Now they can go back to gardening or Sudoku.

I suspect that most gardeners are Republicans, but otherwise I think Michael is right. That's one of the problems with the politics of self-validation: when the election and ensuing self-congratulation are over, there isn't necessarily a lot of energy left for the nuts and bolts of public policy.

Gee, maybe you can get the Obama seal of approval too.... just by being his buddy and turning a blind eye on cue!

Image from HotAir

How Chicago culture affects and offends...

A WORD FROM KRISTOFER HARRISON

Posted by Scott Johnson, Powerline

Kristofer Harrison served as the Chief of Staff to the Counselor of the Secretary of State during the Bush administration. Mr. Harrison writes to comment on Paul Mirengoff's post "No class, bad character" on Dick Cheney's speech this past week, Stephen Hayes's Weekly Standard article "Obama's minions are ingrates," and my post on both of them, "No class, bad character: The inside story." Mr. Harrison writes:

You, Paul and Stephen have the story dead to rights. I was involved in the the Bush administration's 2008 Afghanistan review and it was every bit as in depth and serious as the one several years earlier for Iraq. It involved many of the same people who helped conduct Gen. McChrystal's recent review and included Democrats, Republicans, our British allies, Afghans, etc. The strategy put forward was sound and competent, and carbon-copy similar to the one that President Obama announced in March.

It is also true that team Obama was briefed on this review before assuming office. In fact, we began briefing both campaigns even before the election. I don't remember the dates, but well before the election we began bringing together the national security teams from both campaigns for in-depth briefing sessions under the auspices of the Aspen Institute. These were long events where Bush administration cabinet-level officials spent days -- yes, days -- briefing the two candidates' advisers. After the election we began spending hours with the transition team on the details of the plan and the situation on the ground.

It is also true that Obama's transition team asked us to hold the Afghanistan review findings, a request to which President Bush acquiesced because (as it was relayed to me) he did not want to box the new president into a narrow set of options. In March, when Obama announced his new Afghanistan strategy, I did not notice a single change from the new plan that we had given him...only Obama did not resource it with enough troops.

The Chicago mob's behavior is unbelievably unseemly. Here they were given an immense amount of material, a complete strategic review and plan with the author's heading left blank. President Bush felt it was his duty to do so. And all Obama can do is smear president Bush, even after he filled his own name into the author's column.

Obama seems not to understand that it is not President Bush who is suffering here. Rather, it is our under-resourced soldiers in Afghanistan who are suffering. Obama has had his hands on this plan for a full year now, and he's done virtually nothing except play politics. He needs to give our soldiers the resources to succeed, and then help create the political atmosphere so that they have time to succeed. It seems he has the intestinal fortitude to do neither. Weak, weak, weak.

Thoughts on Health Care Reform from Mike Walker

It is sad that some politicians are cutting special deals and some rich lobbying groups are drooling at the prospect of how much money they are going to make out of health care reform, but I have never lived in a perfect world and never expect perfection out of Washington D.C.

Just don't tell me that the politicians and lobbyists for the health insurance companies or the trial lawyers are putting our Country ahead of their own selfish interests. Be assured, probably sooner rather than later, the rest of are going to be taking money out of wallets and handing it to the lobbyist's minions with the blessing of our elected officials.

But I also refuse to make a demand for perfection the enemy of doing a good. And we are on the verge of doing a wonderful good.

It is such a fine thing to know that in the very near future, millions of American who need but cannot afford health care will be protected. It also renews my faith in our great Country that good and decent people will no longer be denied health care coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

The comfort in that outweighs my anger over the fat cats getting richer and there is always the chance that they may someday get their just deserts.

After that, I lose my enthusiasm for the political nabob’s agendas. This is especially true in the case of a proposed government-run health insurance company, some "Halloween-esque" morph of Fannie Med or Freddie Doc. It will be a disaster.

From a fiscal perspective, a government-run health care company will behave like the old schoolyard bully who is hungry and wants the other kid’s lunch money.

He will come up on the unsuspecting and defenseless kids at the playground and offer two options: Give me your lunch money now or I will beat it out of you (through punitive legislation) and then take your lunch money anyway. Fork it over, kid.

The bully cares not if it is a boy or girl, happy or sad, good or bad, because when he is hungry it is all a matter of “mind over matter.” The bully does not mind stealing the lunch money and the poor kid does not matter.

So at the end of day, the government bully will be getting fatter and fatter and the other kids will be going home hungry.

A government-run health care business is not good for Americans. It is not good for America.

We can and must do better

Warm regards,

Mike

Obama Hits Opponents With Chicago Brass Knuckles

by Michael Barone, Townhall.com

"His father was a great friend of my father." The reference to William Ayers' father was how Mayor Richard M. Daley began his defense of Barack Obama for his association with the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist. Daley's father, of course, was Richard M. Daley, mayor of Chicago from 1955 until his death in 1976. Ayers' father was head of Commonwealth Edison, the Chicago-based utility, from 1964 to 1980.

You bet they were great friends. That's governance, Chicago style. The head of government is friends with the heads of every big business, lobby and union, and together they make decisions on how everyone else will live. Those on the inside get what they want. Those on the outside -- well, they get what the big guys want them to have. That's life in the big city.

It's not the worst way to run a city. I know -- I'm from Detroit, which might be better off if it had mayors named Daley for 41 of the last 54 years. But it's not the optimal way to run a national administration, at least if you've promised to bring in a new era of bipartisanship and mutual respect. Even so, it appears to be the way that Barack Obama, who once aspired to be mayor of Chicago, has decided to run his administration.

We can see that nowhere better than on the health care issue. Over the spring and summer, the White House door has been wide open to lobbyists from health care businesses. The doctors' lobby has gotten promises that physician payments won't be knocked down too much. In return, they are expected to lobby for whatever bill the congressional Democrats come up with.

The pharmaceutical firms' lobbyist, former House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, has gotten assurances that his clients' business model won't be wrecked any more than it already has been by stringent regulation. In return PhRMA is running TV ads for health care reform.

The health insurance companies were on board, too. Until, that is, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus presented his bill requiring them to cover anyone who applies but exacting only small fines from healthy individuals who decide not to buy insurance until they get sick. Since this looked like a quick road to bankruptcy, the health insurers' lobby commissioned a study that pointed out, correctly I think, that the Baucus bill would increase the cost of insurance to those who already have it.

The response of the Chicago-style Obama White House was reminiscent of the response of the late Mayor Daley when asked an inconvenient question by a reporter whose father and brother were Democratic precinct committeemen. "Sometimes in the best of families, there's a bad apple," replied Daley, to the bewilderment of reporters from out of town. A bad apple is, in Chicago, a former great friend who is not playing team ball.

So the health insurers have been denounced by White House spokesmen and Democratic congressional leaders as foul fiends and gougers of working families. Prominent Democrats have been talking about revoking insurance companies' exemption from the antitrust laws (granted so that small firms would have access to data needed to compete with the giants). Translated into Chicagoese: Nice little insurance company you got there. Too bad if something happened to it.

The same treatment is being given to Fox News, which according to White House spokesmen, "is not a news organization." "Other news organizations, like yours," Obama consigliere David Axelrod told ABC News, "ought not to treat them that way."

In other words, when Fox breaks the news that the White House green czar is a self-proclaimed "Communist" or that operatives of pro-Obama ACORN have been aiding and abetting child prostitution, other news outlets should spike the story. Or risk being demoted from great friend to bad apple.

Last February, Obama told Fox News (to which I am a contributor), "I don't always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that's part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we're not supposed to all be in lockstep here."

Now we are. Maybe Obama thought everyone in Washington would be his great friend. Having encountered un-Chicago-like dissent and disagreement, he has responded with classic Chicago brass knuckles. We'll see how far this kind of thuggery gets him.

Petroleum is a major part of America’s energy picture. Shall we get it here or abroad?

By Sarah Palin

Given that we’re spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we’ll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences. That means we need to drill here and drill now.

We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. Ac­cord­ing to the Energy Information Ad­min­is­tra­tion, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent.

Those who oppose domestic drilling are motivated primarily by environmental considerations, but many of the countries we’re forced to import from have few if any environmental-protection laws, and those that do exist often go unenforced. In effect, American environmentalists are preventing responsible development here at home while supporting irresponsible development overseas.

My home state of Alaska shows how it’s possible to be both pro-environment and pro-resource-development. Alaskans would never support anything that endangered our pristine air, clean water, and abundant wildlife (which, among other things, provides many of us with our livelihood). The state’s government has made safeguarding resources a priority; when I was governor, for instance, we created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for any potential environmental risks.

Alaska also shows how oil drilling is thoroughly compatible with energy conservation and renewable-energy development. Over 20 percent of Alas­ka’s electricity currently comes from renewable sources, and as governor I put forward a long-term plan to increase that figure to 50 percent by 2025. Alaska’s comprehensive plan identifies renewable options across the state that can help rural villages transition away from expensive diesel-generated electricity — allowing each community to choose the solution that best fits its needs. That’s important in any energy plan: Tempting as they may be to central planners, top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions are recipes for failure.

For the same reason, the federal government shouldn’t push a single, uni­versal approach to alternative-powered vehicles. Electric cars might work in Los Angeles, but they don’t work in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. And while electric and hybrid cars have their advantages, producing the electricity to power them still requires an energy source. For the sake of the environment, that energy should be generated from the cleanest source available.

Natural gas is one promising clean alternative. It contains fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels, it’s easier to collect and process, and it is found throughout our country. In Alaska, we’re developing the largest private-sector energy project in history — a 3,000-mile, $40 billion pipeline to transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to markets across the United States. Onshore and offshore na­tural gas from Alaska and the Lower 48 can satisfy a large part of our energy needs for decades, bringing us closer to energy independence. Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars — or ideally for both — natural gas can act as a clean “bridge fuel” to a future when more renewable sources are available.

In addition to drilling, we need to build new refineries. America currently has roughly 150 refineries, down from over 300 in the 1970s. Due mainly to environmental regulations, we haven’t built a major new refinery since 1976, though our oil consumption has increased significantly since then. That’s no way to secure our energy supply. The post-Katrina jump in gas prices proved that we can’t leave ourselves at the mercy of a hurricane that knocks a few refineries out of commission.

Building an energy-independent Amer­ica will mean a real economic stimulus. It will mean American jobs that can never be shipped overseas. Think about how much of our trade deficit is fueled by the oil we import — sometimes as much as half of the total. Through this massive transfer of wealth, we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could be invested in our economy. Instead it goes to foreign countries, including some repressive regimes that use it to fund activities that threaten our security.

Reliance on foreign sources of energy weakens America. When a riot breaks out in an OPEC nation, or a developing country talks about nationalizing its oil industry, or a petro-dictator threatens to cut off exports, the probability is great that the price of oil will shoot up. Even in friendly nations, business and financial decisions made for local reasons can de­stabilize Amer­i­ca’s energy market, since the price we pay for foreign oil is subject to rising and falling exchange rates. Decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy will reduce the impact of world events on our economy.

In the end, energy independence is not just about the environment or the economy. It’s about freedom and confidence. It’s about building a more secure and peaceful America, an America in which our energy needs will not be subject to the whims of nature, currency speculators, or madmen in possession of vast oil reserves.

Alternative sources of energy are part of the answer, but only part. There’s no getting around the fact that we still need to “drill, baby, drill!” And if those in D.C. say otherwise, we need to tell them: “Yes, we can!”

— Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009, and the Republican candidate for vice ­president in 2008. This article appears in the November 2, 2009,

Is Obama a Fool!

October 14, 2009 Posted by John Hinderaker, Powerline

Scott is on record as believing that he is; I have reserved judgment. President Obama's apparently unilateral concession to Russia in abandoning our anti-missile defense system in central Europe, with no publicly-acknowledged quid pro quo, may support the view that in international relations, at least, Obama is a fool. But we need to be fair here: it is possible that this seemingly unilateral giveaway was, in fact, a bargain, and that Obama got something from the Russians, presumably in relation to Russia's client Iran, that has not yet become public.

So this report on Hillary Clinton's trip to Russia is worrisome:

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned major powers on Wednesday against intimidating Iran and said talk of sanctions against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear programme was "premature". ...

Clinton failed to secure any specific assurances from Russia on Iran during her visit, leaving her open to criticism at home that she had not received anything from Moscow after earlier U.S. concessions on missile defence.

I'm not giving up hope yet. Maybe Obama didn't really give away the store for nothing. So far, though, there is no evidence that he got anything from Russia in exchange for his abandonment of European missile defense. Could Obama possibly be that inept a negotiator? Time will tell.

NOT BUYING IT, EVEN IN NORWAY

October 10, 2009 Posted by John Hinderacker, Powerline at 10:53 AM

Reader Alan Macomber writes:

Got curious about how the media in Norway is playing the Nobel Peace Prize decision (I read/write Norwegian fluently), so I check out the Aftenposten (largest daily) this morning. Found one of those opinion poll widgets on their site- vote on if you think the prize to Obama was correct. 62% of Aftenposten's own Norwegian readers voted not vs 37% who voted yes. Just thought you'd be interested in how it plays out over there. Swedish dailies are pretty much skewing this as a stupid joke the Norwegians have created (to be expected...Swedes love to laugh at dumb stuff their next door neighbors do).

It's time to act, cut through the "study sessions", "PR scenarios", endless ruminations and act, now. Have faith in your hand-picked General.

KEEPING THE VOTERS IN THE DARK

September 25, 2009 John Hinderaker, Powerline

Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee have refused to allow the final text of their health care bill to be posted online prior to their vote on it. The Democrats claim it's too technically difficult; in reality, of course, they don't want voters to have an opportunity to see the bill and react to it before it becomes a fait accompli. The Democrats have brought a lack of transparency to Washington that may be unprecedented in our history.

The Examiner quotes Max Baucus, the bill's principal sponsor:

Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., himself admitted that "This probably sounds a little crazy to some people that we are voting on something before we have seen legislative language." Indeed.

The only Democrat to allow voters to get a look at the bill was Blanche Lincoln. No surprise there: she is up for re-election in 2010, and scoring poorly in the polls.

Missile Defense and the (Old) New The Russian Empire

A must read.

From Mike Walker, Col. USMC (retired), with a footnote from Mike and an introduction of a companion piece by Dr. Wayne Downing.

All,

Another contrarian view to make you think:

To try to figure out the ramifications of the recent abandonment of our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic, it may be worth pointing out that you could learn more about modern Eastern European history by reading up on what was happening in 1839 or 1909 or even 1929 than by looking back to 1999 or 1989.

You may also like to read up on Russian-Persian history and skip all the cold war Soviet-Iran stuff - too politicized to be of much value.

The so-so news is that we have a decade or so reestablish the defenses in Eastern Europe. The bad news is that we have helped to potentially destabilize the region if we are seen by the Russian Empire to be passively accepting a new and politically correct version of the "iron curtain."

Let there be no doubt about the goal of the Russian Empire, they want suzerianty over Eastern Europe. They will achieve this goal through a campaign launched along three simultaneous lines of operation: political, economic, and through their military.

They would prefer to achieve it through economic and political warfare alone but Putin knows that none of these states will willingly knuckle under to the Kremlin unless the military threat is real.

Now I am not (yet) talking about a Russian military move against any state in Eastern Europe. That is too crude even for Putin as he prefers to limit that option for Central Asia and the Caucasus for now.

No, the military threat I am referring to is from Iran. It is in the strategic interests of the Russian Empire to have Iran armed with medium range ballistic missiles topped with nuclear warheads.

At that point Russia will make Eastern Europe an offer they cannot refuse: Accept Russian hegemony and protection or face political isolation and economic ruin, all the while living under the constant fear of a nuclear attack by Iran. At least you can forget about Israel as a problem.

And how about the latest "good" news being foisted by the US media that Russia announced it will NOT deploy missiles near Poland?

What the heck does that mean? Let me see if I can try to get this: If we agree not to deploy DEFENSIVE missiles in order to protect Poland from missile attacks by aggressor rogue states such as Iran then Russia agrees to cancel the deployment of its OFFENSIVE missiles intended to attack peaceful Poland?

That gives Realpolitik quid-pro-quo a whole new meaning because at the end of the day Poland is left defenseless. Hey, with friends like the United States, who needs enemies? Putin is playing the US like a bunch of amateur hayseeds.

Perhaps wars in Europe are not so much a thing of the past as we once thought.

Semper Fi,

Mike

Part 2 (Col. Walker)

All, A short note from Dr. Downing, Ph.D, on the situation in Eastern Europe. It is as subtly brilliant as it is succinct. By the way, when I was in Iraq the Poles still had the heart of lions in combat. The overwhelming majority had their hands tied by an all too common Coalition "domestic appeasement" government which would brook no casualties. Make no assessment as to the fighting spirit of the Poles based upon that constraint. The Polish special forces and paratroopers are as "tough gunslingers" as you could hope to have on your flank in combat. They are every inch the same steely-eyed warriors who crossed the Rhine under deadly Nazi fire to help the Brit "Paras" at Arnhem in September 1944. Semper Fi, Mike Part 3 (Dr. Downing) Hi Mike, An interesting missive on the recent decision to drop the missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. This is my take on the situation based on my understanding of the historical realties of this part of Europe. There were three conflicts that dominated world affairs throughout the 20th century and all had their origins in Eastern Europe. These are the Great War of 1914-1918, World War II 1939-1945 and the Cold War 1945-1991. What dominates my thinking is the central role of Russia in all three of these contests. Historians call World War I (or the Great War) the graveyard of empires. German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and Russian Empires collapsed as a result of this war or so the conventional thinking goes. The Russians were withdrawn from the war 8 months before the war ended by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany in March, 1918. Since the Russians were not around for the finish their new czar and his boyars (Lenin, Trotsky and the like) were allowed to consolidate their grip on the country they had seized the previous October from the weak Provisional Government that had succeeded the Romanovs. Wrapped in Marxist-Leninist propaganda the old Russian Empire suffered a grievous Civil War but the communists emerged triumphant and under Stalin the newly named USSR quickly adopted the old imperialist ideas of the czars. Faced with a newly rearmed and reinvigorated Germany in 1939 Stalin moved to reacquire much of Poland and the three Baltic republics after having seized the Finnish border regions the previous winter. Only Russian complicity allowed Hitler to crush Poland from the west while Stalin's Russians seized the eastern third of Poland for themselves. Sounds like recreating the Russian Empire to me. After having been betrayed by Hitler in 1941, the Russians bore the brunt of Germany's military onslaught for most of the rest of the war. There was almost no cooperation with the western Allies throughout the war. Stalin urged his troops to fight for holy mother Russia, not communism. As the war was reaching its conclusion Stalin seized another opportunity at Yalta to seize all of eastern Europe and thoroughly communize the nations his forces had overrun and seized from the Germans. I'm sure that eastern Europeans have not forgotten any of this. The betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich by France and Great Britain, the refusal of the democratic nations of the world to assist the Spanish republic during Spain's civil war would cause the (now) democratic nations of eastern Europe to doubt the commitment of western democracies to their defense. What other conclusion is possible? FDR sold out Poland and the eastern Europeans at Yalta in 1945. The Russians saw this weakness and took full advantage of it. The British and French abandoned the Czechs in 1938 and allow Hitler to absorb what was left in 1939. No democratic power lifted a finger. When Czar Nicholas II promulgated his absurd policy of "Pan-Slavism" in the decade before World War I the allies of Russia (the democratic nations of France and Great Britain) did nothing to restrain the dangerous policy of the ally they were bound to defend if attacked. If you were a Pole or a Czech and remembered this rather sordid past what would you expect from the successor to the Triple Entente, now known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? When has any nation marched to the defense of eastern European democracies prior to the commencement of hostilities? Worse yet, what will conclusion will the democratic government of Ukraine draw from this? Will they drop their prospective membership in NATO? Why shouldn't they when they know better than anyone the character of the Russian regime and its ex-KGB chief who is now Russia's prime minister and is still president in all but name only? My final point is to ask why would the Obama Administration renege on its promise to deploy the defensive missile shield in Poland and its radar network in the Czech Republic? As Secretary of State Clinton once stated was he "hitting the reset button on our relationship with Russia" or was he was cravenly abandoning (yet again) the democracies we are also treaty bound to defend? Or, and this is even more disconcerting, was he courting favor in Iran, a rogue state that is built on anti-Americanism and hostility to us, our interests and our friends, especially Israel? Will this decision encourage Iranian adventurism? What will the Netanyahu government do in the face of a newly recalcitrant Iranian regime of Islamic fanatics? Does this make an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities more or less likely? What will Obama do to support Israel if the Israelis feel they must strike first rather than absorb an Iranian nuclear, chemical or biological attack? Why would any American administration send such a message to the world's number one supporter of Islamic terrorism? The reversal of our commitment to defend eastern Europe is just another form of appeasement. It didn't work at Munich in 1938, it didn't work at Yalta in 1945 and I can only shudder at what may happen in 2009. Turning the defense of the democratic world over to a man with absolutely no experience or credibility in either foreign policy or national security affairs only invites our enemies to become even bolder than they have been thus far. It seems the slogan "Yes We Can" now means "No We Won't." Just some ramblings on a September afternoon. Wayne D.