Hiroshima, absent history

August 6^th marked the 65^th anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.  For the first time since the end of World War II, an American representative attended the official commemoration ceremony of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial.  President Obama sent U.S. Ambassador John Roos to “express respect for all the victims of World War II” – a benign sounding olive branch that was designed to convey empathy to the Japanese.  This is consistent with Obama’s desire to “reset” American diplomacy by showing the world that America is not the global bully of the past. Unfortunately, compassion in the absence of context can be meaningful -- in unintended ways.   Sending the U.S. Ambassador to the Hiroshima ceremony as an act of “respect” provides fuel to the revisionist case that the U.S. was wrong to drop the atomic bomb on Japan on August 6, 1945, and plays into the hands of those who now increasingly believe that America was the aggressor in the Pacific War.  Even actor Tom Hanks – the Executive Producer of the HBO mini-series “The Pacific”, referred in a recent interview to the war against Japan as one of “racism and terror” on both sides, and that the U.S. wanted to annihilate the Japanese simply because “they were different”.

Hanks comments essentially reflect what is fast becoming a lost history among newer generations – particularly as taught by left-wing academics and reported by the left-leaning media.   The reality is that the Japanese war machine was ferocious, fanatical and fought to the death in every major naval and land engagement of the Pacific war.  At the battle for Okinawa in 1945 – the last major land battle of the war when the Japanese empire knew that defeat was inevitable – some 12,000 American soldiers and marines were killed in brutal cave-to-cave fighting that left over 100,000 Japanese soldiers dead.  Only 7,000 soldiers surrendered to U.S. forces.   At sea in Iron Bottom Sound, Okinawa saw the deaths of almost 5,000 navy personnel and the sinking of more than 30 American ships – many at the hands of over 1,500 Japanese suicide “Kamikaze” attacks.  Even more disturbing, the Japanese military actively encouraged the Okinawa civilian population to commit mass suicide rather than be captured by U.S. forces.  Over 100,000 Okinawan civilians are believed to have died during the two month battle.

It was this experience that colored the thinking of President Truman and the American military as they approached the events of August 1945.  The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki avoided tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of casualties that were virtually certain in an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

The presence of Ambassador Roos at Hiroshima neglects a very important context which the left tends to routinely ignore: Japan was an expansionist imperial power that brutally invaded China and South Asia and attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor without provocation.  By offering respect for “all victims”, Roos gives rise to a moral equivalency of responsibility which only further removes history from the discussion, and will in time lead to more strident requests for a formal U.S. apology – something this administration may be quite predisposed to do.

This anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing was a missed opportunity for one of Barack Obama’s “teachable moments”; but rather than being something for America to apologize for, it should provide the basis for an honest discussion of Japan’s actions during the Second World War.  Doing so would put the U.S. decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan in its proper light: as a wise and prudent choice that spared innocent lives on both sides.

Appeasement is in Dems' DNA

Poor Bubba. Not only is he exposed as Obama’s messenger boy in the sleazy Sestak affair, but now friends report he is absolutely livid over the devastating portrayal of him in the new HBO drama “The Special Relationship” in which Dennis Quaid’s spot on Clinton tries hiding behind every international institution- U.N., NATO, EU – to avoid a decision on the Kosovo genocide until he is shamed into action by a decisive and principled Tony Blair. This fact-based revelation of Clinton’s proclivity for appeasing dictators- in this case the murderous Serbian Milosovic- eerily parallels Jimmy Carter’s contemplated sell-out of West German and South Korean freedom in response to rampant Soviet aggressiveness until a leaked White House document (Presidential Review Memorandum-10) caused a Congressional uproar that sent Peanut Man ducking for cover.

Clinton and Carter however were minor leaguers compared to their ideological descendent Barack Obama who has taken appeasement to unimagined new heights. Just a glance at current headlines suggests just how much damage this multitasking appeaser can do in a very short time.

Iran – Americans were incredulous when Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad arrogantly announced he would no longer discuss his nuclear program until the United States agreed to discuss giving up its own nuclear weapons. Now just a few months later the United States voted with Iran to hold a United Nations conference on a “Nuclear Free Middle East”. The wording of the resolution however makes clear that the real problem is not Iran getting nuclear weapons but Israel having them.

Korea – When a North Korean submarine sent forty-six South Korean sailors to a watery grave the United States promptly demanded that “something be done” – by someone else. Hillary Clinton spoke ominously of a “possible U.N. resolution” and swiftly high tailed it to Beijing to petition the Chinese for help. China as is their recent habit simply said “No” and declared that things should be resolved by the two Koreas “without outside interference”. Happy to cede this wobbly stage to Hillary, Obama much preferred acting tough with British Petroleum than with North Korea’s lunatic dictator Kim Jong-Il.

Mexico – Just so we won’t think Obama only apologizes for the U.S. when abroad, he stood beside visiting Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the White House and decried Arizona’s “misguided” illegal alien control law. To add insult to injury Calderon the next day had the temerity to stand before a joint session of the U.S. Congress and add his own denunciation of Arizona while omitting to mention Mexico’s far more draconian treatment of illegal aliens. For this shocking breach of diplomatic protocol Calderon received a standing ovation from Democratic lawmakers.

To round out the picture that same week Assistant Secretary of State Richard Posner- former head of an Open Borders advocacy group- told visiting Chinese officials that “abuses” like the Arizona law demonstrated that China wasn’t the only country guilty of human rights violations.

Syria – Touting the virtues of “engagement” with this charter member of the “Axis of Evil” Obama appointed a U.S, Ambassador to Damascus for the first time in five years at the very same time Syrian dictator Bashar Assad was busy shipping advanced rockets capable of reaching Tel Aviv to the Lebanese terrorists of Hezbollah.

Israel – As if the above item wasn’t enough to justify Israeli citizens booing Rahm Emanual in Jerusalem just days later when a Hamas affiliate in a purposeful provocation attempted to run Israel’s blockade of Gaza Obama promptly expressed his “regrets” and joined the usual leftist suspects at the U.N. in calling for an investigation.

What’s next- a joint Obama-Chavez family vacation on Martha’s Vineyard? What will it take to make the mainstream media see that for Obama and the Democrats “engagement” is simply a synonym for “appeasement”? Is it not obvious that this serial apologizing and appeasing has gained us absolutely nothing by way of gratitude or cooperation, but has instead earned us what such weakness has always merited: contempt and ever bolder provocations?

Americans, however, should not view this sorry record as random blundering, or simple incompetence. What we are seeing is a consistent, carefully thought out realization of a long held Progressive/Liberal vision of the way the world ought to be: All global problems- legal, political, or military- should be handled in a collectivist manner by the long yearned for World Government. Liberals have long understood that reasons of short term political safety precluded openly advocating this vision, but any objective analysis of the historical and intellectual underpinnings of the Progressive Movement show that such is their goal.

In keeping with this vision, Progressives have always given the highest priority to the “transformation” ( a favorite Obama word) of American society as a necessary precondition for the New World Order. The United States historically as a sovereign independent country pursuing its own national interests is seen as a Bad Thing – spawn of war, racism, imperialism etc- and a major obstacle to the evolution of the Better World to Come.

Thus appeasement abroad is no more an aberration than the entire Obama domestic program of fast-tracking America toward dramatically expanded government, ever shrinking private sector, wealth redistribution, and the conversion of the population from freedom loving entrepreneurial individuals into a collectivist mass of dependents.

Recall those words of long ago: “None So Blind as Those Who Will Not See.

William Moloney is a Centennial Institute Fellow and former Colorado Education Commissioner (1997-2007). His columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Human Events.

US weak on purpose: Why?

In the 1930s Franklin Roosevelt realized that U.S. leadership and power were the indispensable elements in any acceptable world order and with extraordinary skill and courage overcame the forces of isolationism in his own country and moved America to the forefront of the titanic struggle against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Ever since then the United States has accepted its role as the world’s principal champion of freedom and chief guarantor of international stability. In pursuing this mission the United States has made many mistakes both large and small, but any credible historical analysis recognizes that on balance America has been the world’s greatest force for good throughout the period in question.

There is however an alternative narrative originating in the left wing of the American and European political spectrum first coming to prominence in the Vietnam Era that sees the mistakes as far outweighing the good, and regarding the exercise of American power as a negative rather than a positive force in world affairs.

For forty years this alternative narrative has been essentially a minority viewpoint able to carp and criticize but only rarely able to dominate the main thrust of American foreign policy. In the last fifteen months however this minority viewpoint has become the reigning orthodoxy of the regime now dominating both the Executive and Legislative branches of American government. Accordingly this ruling majority has boldly moved to reshape American foreign policy in ways consonant with its long held world view.

Evidence steadily mounts that the broad theme of the New American Foreign Policy is best described as “Abuse your Friends, while Kow-Towing to your Enemies”. A major corollary of this policy is that America makes concessions to its enemies in return for nothing, while demanding that our friends also grant concessions to their enemies in return for nothing. A further theme is making serial apologies for imagined American arrogance and misuse of power while blithely ignoring the very real transgressions of our enemies.

The background music to all of this is endless talk from an Administration that believes no world problem is so great that it cannot be solved by yet one more speech by President Obama.

For some specifics in this indictment, let us first look at how we have been treating our friends.

Poland and the Czech Republic- After both at considerable risk to themselves agreed to SDI installations on their soil despite Russian bluster and bullying, the U.S. on the flimsiest excuse abruptly cancelled the whole project.

Israel - While West Bank settlement freezes have never been a precondition of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, on Day One the Obama Administration made that demand, while asking no similar up front concession from the Palestinians. When Netanyahu refused what no Israeli Prime Minister could agree to, the U.S. began a serial campaign of very public sulking and petulant verbal abuse of our only ally in the volatile Middle East while at the same time signaling clearly that regarding the existential threat from Iran the only U.S. support for Israel would be empty rhetoric.

Iraq- The leaders of this fledgling democracy and their enemies see very clearly that the overriding imperative of the new Democratic Administration is rapid withdrawal. They know that U.S. caveats about “conditions on the ground” and residual “technical advisors” are a very small counterweight to the obsessions of Obama’s political base.

Britain- Secretary Clinton’s public pressure on Britain to open talks with Argentina regarding the Falkland Islands- heretofore a settled matter of international law- was a stunning slap in the face to the one great power that has consistently expended its blood and treasure on foreign battlefields in support of U.S. Troops.

Afghanistan- Brought to power by Americans who valued his inclusiveness President Karzai within the last year has been subjected to a steady barrage of public pressure, threats, and insults regarding corruption, electoral practices, and military performance. Karzai who faces daily risk of assassination because of his association with Americans, must increasingly see the U.S. as a distant power that entered his country without invitation in pursuit of its own interests, suffered far fewer casualties than the Afghan army, and now has loudly announced that its soldiers will begin leaving in July. Like his Iraqi counterparts Karzai regards the Obama administration as of most dubious reliability and cannot be blamed for recognizing that he must deal seriously with those who aren’t leaving i.e. Iran, Pakistan and the Taliban.

In contrast to this back of the hand treatment of our friends, the Obama administration has bent over backwards to be generous to our opponents. Principal examples to date include:

China- Beijing has just said “No” to the U.S. on appreciating their currency, sanctioning Iran, curbing North Korea, reducing carbon emissions, promoting human rights, and moderating unfair trade practices, while undiplomatically giving us blistering lectures on Taiwan arms sales, meeting with the Dalai Lama, and our fiscal policies.

The Obama Administration’s response has been an embarrassingly supine Presidential visit to China, delaying the Treasury report on currency manipulation, disrespecting the Dalai Lama, repeatedly announcing imagined “ signs of progress” ( a great conference call!), and an increasingly obvious willingness to settle for just about anything- however hollow- that could be portrayed as Chinese support for Iran sanctions.

Iran- The mullahs’ unrelenting march to nuclear weapons, brutal suppression of democratic opposition, sponsorship of murderous attacks on Israel, and continuing export of sophisticated weapons to kill American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan has done little to curb the Obama administration’s feckless talk of “outreach” and “engagement” regarding Iran. The endless series of unmet “deadlines” concerning nuclear development does much to justify Teheran’s contemptuous mockery of U.S. resolve.

Russia- Moscow has followed up its victory on SDI by toying with the U.S. regarding Iranian sanctions while continuing to sell Teheran arms and technology for their “peaceful” nuclear projects. Similarly they have disingenuously partnered with China in frustrating U.S. efforts to rein in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. The real stunner however is Russia’s success in persuading the U.S. to sign a nuclear arms treaty that will have no practical effect on Moscow’s decrepit nuclear arsenal but require significant reductions in American nuclear armaments. This treaty in tandem with the bizarre and baffling public announcement that future U.S. policy bans any use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states even if they attack us with biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction, overturns a fundamental American defense doctrine that for over sixty years has been absolutely central to world peace and stability.

All of the above has greatly emboldened our enemies and certainly encourages them to push their new advantages even harder in the future. Conversely our friends are discouraged and alarmed.

The emerging profile of the new American foreign policy is an amalgam of wrong-headed ideology, naiveté, and incompetence. When added to America’s domestic economic and political disarray, we see a United States weaker than at any time in living memory and most dangerously diminished as a force for international peace and stability. Reversing this deeply disturbing downward spiral will not be easy, and perhaps not even possible.

William Moloney is a Centennial Institute Fellow and former Colorado Education Commissioner. His columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, U.S.A. Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, and Philadelphia Inquirer.