Redstate

It is always good to dive on your enemies' submarines.

"Rescue" submarines aren't like lifeboats.  Rescue submarines are intell platforms.  Just like our "humanitarian" effort to raise discarded nuclear missles and dead Soviet sailors with the Glomar Explorer(Howard Hughes and CIA Worldwide Shipping)there is value for the military.

Not to mention the 'elan' prespective:  How can the Red Navy expect to prevail in a naval conflict when they rely on the the USN for their coastal SAR activity?

This is such a statement the rest of the world. The militaries of Russia, England and America scrambled to save the life of 7 men. Why? Because their lives were precious. Millions prayed and watch and hoped for their safe rescue. Contrast this with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi sending hundreds of people to their deaths telling them their lives are meaningless and they should kill themselves and as many other people as possible.

I can't help but hope that people are noticing this.  

It is a different world now than when we were kids. The Russians asking us, the British and the Japanese for help is amazing. The fact that all three nations offered help is also something I never thought I'd see. But in reading about the rescue this morning, the most incredible part of the story to me is the criticism being leveled at Putin and the navy. From Lenin and Stalin through Gorbachev I'm sure no Russian leader took this kind of heat. Who would have dared. In spite of Putin's attempts to stifle democracy, it appears that it is taking hold when people are allowed to express such strong displeasure with their leader.

I hate the way the left constantly bashes President Bush for anything and everything, but I am glad that they are allowed to do so. Just as I appreciated the opportunity to bash President Clinton during his eight miserable years.

learned some lessons from the Kursk-ask for help and ask for it early.

I am so glad that they were able to get those men out, I can't imagine how terrifying it was for the men trapped on that boat.  It is a good day to celebrate.

two schools of thought here.  One implies--perhaps correctly--that even in a humanitarian intervention such as this, there are self-serving national security interests motivating assisting a foreign navy in rescuing 7 men.

But there is also the contention that this is simply the way Western societies do business.  We can be rivals (heck, we even spy on our allies), but when 7 men not engaged in combat with us are trapped on the ocean floor with a day's worth of oxygen, we bring resources to bear to help them out...and then get on with our business.

I like to think most of the motivation comes from the latter line of thinking, but I wouldn't be surprised if the former is part of it.

But I don't think they've become friends. We'd have done this even when  they were enemies, but they'd have turned it down then. The turn down is all that has changed.

are no longer nations in foreign land.  They are now the people living next door, the ones with declining moral values or those in sleeper cells hiding in ethnic communities.  This is far more scary to me.  I mean, before, Russia was far away.  Now we have to worry before we leave the house.

I went to high school on a high secure military base on an island that was deeply involved with SDI research. (mid 80's...) There was a USSR "fishing trawler" that was always 3.01 miles off the coast oceanside - we used to watch it through a telescope. I never saw them hauling up a catch but they did have an impressive array of satellite dishes on top of the ship.

Anyway, my point is that when one of the "fisherman" had appendicitis, he was airlifted to the base hospital for treatment. America has always shown compassion to our enemies.

We'd launch a rescue a mission tomorrow to help Iranians trapped in a mine.

The Russkies were the bad guys, Saddam and Osama were the good guys...

It made sense for us to help the trapped sailors.  It was the right thing to do, since these sailors were not engaged in wartime activities against us.  

Also, now the Russian government "owes" us one.  There is a lot of value in being able to call in a favor every now and then.

The Russians are our friends now

Maybe they're not enemies in the classic cold-war style, but you know exactly what type of man Putin is. I'd put our status with Russia akin to where were were in WW2- Allies of Convenience. And even then, Stalin was looking ahead to the next phase, infiltrating both US and Britain with spies in virtually all important areas.....much as Putin is doing now (or trying to)

Hey, Russia is doing joint wargames with China....next time they can ask China to save their guys.

US already assists Iran whenever it has an earthquake. Iranian earthquakes are always major disasters - apparently the Prophet didn't have anything useful to say about building codes. US routinely sends earthquake assistance to everybody who has an earthquake, whether they've earned it or not. Whether Iran accepts it is another matter.

Earthquakes, mines, what's the difference? It's all Mother Earth throwing a tantrum.

I'm sure it must have been mesmerizing for the Russians to watch the C-17 transport from the Air Mobility Command land at Kamchatka to disgorge its cargo of submersibles and equipment.

I'm glad we were asked and were able to respond so amicably to help the hapless crew of that sub, and to the British I have to say, "Jolly good show."  On the other hand, perhaps the Russians were willing to ask us so quickly this time in no small part because this vessel probably wasn't carrying any supercavitating torpedoes.

as any kind of rival. The country is little more than a large, third world authoritarian mess. That's too bad, really, because Russia is a European and Christian nation which huge potential, but it has been cursed with dysfunctional and/or brutal rulers for centuries.

As for Russia and China I don't worry too much about those two getting together. Russia has some underpopulated, resource rich real estate that the Chinese have an old claim too. In the long run they will be rivals not partners.

Not sure which as in this case it is a distinction without a difference. Another flight of rhetorical fancy gets you a one way trip to the personalize berth awaiting you on The Pile.

The fickle and cyclical nature of foreign relations. Our holding hands with Russia doesn't make Putin's repression of Chechnya or his efforts to re-establish the Russian dictatorial state any less shameful.

If and when the new threat of Islamic extremism is quelled, we're going to be staring down fascists like Putin again--not to mention his good buddies in Iran and China. Don't hug the man too tightly.

it is not a legitimate comment if one is a stickler for minutiae like truth. But we aren't going to revisit these recurring Michael-Moore-isms here with either him or you.

And suggesting that we didn't use people like Hussein and bin Laden in our fight against Soviet Russia is nonsense to rival Moore's own.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend isn't a bad rule of thumb--in fact, it can be a necessity. It worked with Stalin, it worked with Hussein and bin Laden and it's working to some extent with Putin. At the end of the day, though, all of these people have shown themselves to be enemies of the freedoms that America will defend by any means necessary. Lying to yourself about that can be politically and morally convenient, but it's dangerous for us in the long run, so I'd rather you didn't.

..My sentiments exactly.

 2 questions: Why is it that people on partisan sites are so quick to censor what they disagree with?

 And what the heck is a 'moby'??

 

 Neither of those terms applies to me as I have not posted any misleading information and did not post with the intent to provoke a fight.

 It's an irrefutable fact; we used to be opposed to the Russians and now we're allies.

 We used to be supporters of Bin Laden and Hussein and now we're enemies.

 If those facts don't set well with you, it's the truth you're at odds with. Not me.

 Just as posted downstream, the nature of international conflict is fluid. Today's enemy is tomorrow's ally.

 This should lead to the inescapable conclusion that there are no 'good guys' or 'bad guys'...just 'us' and 'them'.

 We have to do what's in the best interest of the United States. In this case, our interest lay with the welfare of those Russians.

 

would serve you well. Try it.

And suggesting that we didn't use people like Hussein and bin Laden in our fight against Soviet Russia is nonsense to rival Moore's own.

In your life there may not be much difference between people you use and "good guys." Most people know the difference. I would guess that the fact that you can't tell the difference makes life rather interesting for those close to you.

Lying to yourself about that can be politically and morally convenient, but it's dangerous for us in the long run, so I'd rather you didn't.

And it isn't nice to call someone a liar when you haven't taken the time or the effort to read the original post, or the response, or apparently your own post. But you can consider this social faux pas on The Pile.

you'd be gone by now like your distant admirer.

No one is censoring anyone. This is not the government. You are a guest for the time being and not a very entertaining or interesting one.

My objection to your post is not that I disagree with it on some metaphysical level. I disagree with it because it is simply not true. At no time were either of the people you mentioned considered "good guys" by anyone in the West. Period.

So consider yourself as having been shown much more courtesy than you have chosen to show your hosts.

We used to be supporters of Bin Laden....

"... the inescapable conclusion that there are no 'good guys' or 'bad guys'...just 'us' and 'them'."

The foundation bedrock for decades of GOP ascendancy. Well stated.

How close do you think they were watching the last guy off the plane with the ear piece and blackberry? Or the Japanese, each carrying 3 satellite cellphones with full motion graphics capability?

Pretty close I bet.

Wonder if anybody accidentally "dropped" anything?

Why steal this stuff?  It can all be bought legally on the open market.

we did. We did provide him with weapons to fight the Russians. However, with the Russians gone, he turned his sights on us. We also did help out Saddam in the beginning. I'm not sure if we were simply "using" them or if it simply seemed like a good idea at the time. Either way, they decided to stab us in the back and that is their fault, not necessarily ours. Perhaps it was a rash decision doing that, but at the same time, you do what you need to do.

I tried my best not to resort to Michael Moore's logic and say how terrible America's actions were. I'm just saying that we did help them out and  then they turned on us. I'm not getting into a bunch of conspiracy theories as to why things happened as they did because I have no idea if there were alterior motives or not, but they happened.

It follows the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" mantra. Except the enemy of my enemy became the enemy while my enemy became my ally O_o (somewhat)

we wouldn't have given Saddam too much attention.  Saddam was mostly convienient because of his war with Iran and at that time-we were just coming out of the Iranian hostage crisis, and we were operating on the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" game plan.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

...the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons the White House was funneling to Iran, right?

...I'm new to this site, and I just wanted to say:

I wanna order a pizza to go, and no anchovies.

No anchovies? You've got the wrong man. I spell my name...Danger!

and then it happened with Osama in Afghanistan. I don't remember the details, so correct me if I'm wrong, but long story short we wanted the Soviets out of Afghanistan to prevent expansion so we gave Osama some weapons to go fight them. And he won, then he decided to bite us in the rear as well. Right?

Heckmatyar received the bulk of the support and whatever his affinity for bin Laden the U.S. did not support Arab mujahideen in Afghanistan.  ISI carried the bag.  The only way one could make the connection between the U.S. and bin Laden during the 80's is through the Saudis who did directly fund and recruit for the MAK.  And since their dollar support was contingent on our's....

It'd be like saying that the U.S. killed Rangers in Mogadishu because it supported Saudi Arabia(which supported Somalia) as a counterweight to Iran's influence after GW1.  Or that the U.S. subjugated tens of millions of people after WWII through its Lend-Lease support to the Sovets.  It's tenuous to the point of absurd.

But I do agree that either way it's pointless to critique using hindsight.  

I tried my best....

When did you come up in this?  Unless you're Goslash I don't understand that comment.  You had zero comments in this thread before this one.

Saddam's Iraq was a Soviet client state. We did play both sides during the Iran/Iraq war, but neither side was our friend.

During the Soviet invasion of Afganistan, both Carter and Reagan supported the rebels with aid. And this was the correct policy. We officially only supported Afgan groups, not forign fighters like bin Laden's Arabs. I say "officially", since if we aided Afgan groups, the items we supplied would become more abundent and consequently easier to obtain by other groups -- an economic consequence. We did not directly support bin Laden.

either side in a fight you try your best to ensure that both of them lose.  Last I checked, mission accomplished.

Saddam Hussein was a Soviet client. During the Iran Iraq war we supplied TOW missles to Iran (Iran Contra) and intel to Iraq--we played both sides against each other.

We never supported bin Laden. We supported Afgan native groups, not forign fighters like bin Laden's Arabs. And, both the Carter and Reagan administrations supplied aid to the rebels, although Reagan added Stinger missles to the mix, with considerable impact to Soviet air power in Afganistan. These Stingers were probably supplied with non-rechargable batteries, which should be dead by now, BTW (I wonder if villages in Packistan have developed replacement batteries for these units?).

....considering both were still around to cause us endless trouble 15 years later?  I'd argue that trying to play both sides against each other in war (if that's what we were trying to do) only strengthened the hold on power each countries' respective tyrants had. If that was the mission then sure...it was accomplished.

We supported Afgan rebels. Not forign fighers like bin Laden.

Do you have ANY evidence we supported bin Laden?

Our policy was to aid native Afgan rebels, not forign groups like bin Laden's. Furthermore, there is no evidence of which I'm aware that we aided bin Laden. And it is likely he would not have accepted our aid if we had offered it.

The bottom line is that aiding Afgan resistance groups is not the same as aiding bin Laden. In fact, bin Laden at the time was aidiing the Afgan's just as we were, although the motives were different. But bin Laden wasn't on our radar screen at the time, although we were aware of various non-native fighters in Afganistan.

It is the left who doesn't have any "bad guys". Oops, not quite true, to the left, WE are the bad guys.

Reagan, in particular, was very clear on who the bad guys were. And he was right. Certainly, his handling of various "lesser bad guys" was sometimes flawed, but his basic priorities were correct. Much more so than a moralizing Democrat who let the Shah fall . . .

actually known who he was at that time. Maybe it was just Moore propoganda I was hearing...Stupid me. I'm slowly gaining knowledge of the world

Any aid we provided would benifit all to some extent. For example, as the Afgan fighters obtained US made Stingers, they would be more willing to sell older SA-7s and Redeyes . . . which bin Laden's fighters could then buy.

This isn't "supporting bin Laden", we simply didn't do that . . . but it is worth looking at unitended consequences of economic activity.

Iran about 500,000 and Iraq about 300,000.  All over a few hundred square kilometers of land from the Algiers Accord.

The U.S., China, Soviet Union, France, Italy, Brazil, and others all supported both sides.  It was the wise thing to do at the time.  If Iraq conquered Iran there'd have been wholesale slaughters of Shi'a.  If Iran conquered Iraq you'd have had Shi'a vs Sunni war drawing neighboring countries into the fire.  As it turned out a stalemate wasn't perfect but at the time the least bad possible outcome.

That's why I worked in Somalia and WWII.  It's the butterfly effect of foreign policy.  Great fun for all but pretty much as unpersuasive as you can get.

evidence to support that argument?

Seems to me, we didn't want Saddam to win the Iran-Iraq War and create a Soviet client state that included both nations.

On the other hand, seems to me we didn't want Iran to win and create a fundamentalist Islamic Iraq.

Best we could do was to help them to fight a non-decisive war of attrition. It worked out to our best advantage all things considered.

But the fact is, we mostly watched and didn't involve ourselves much in the war. And the main reason for the stalemate was the crappy leadership in both countries. If we really wanted to help Saddam we could have provided him a membership to the Military Book Club.

I remember those days too.. Drills, always worried about when/if the bomb was going to be dropped.

I guess it doesn't bother me seeing the Russians as "friends" because we were always at war with the ideology of the government, not the people.  As long as you never confuse the 2 then everything makes sense... I saw the posts on Bin Laden, but that's a whole different topic.  That's a group where can you say everyone in it has bought into the ideology.  

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/bio.html

He was put on "house arrest" in Saudi Arabia based upon his activities. He raised lots of money for Arab fighters in the Afgan war, and built a number of bases, so someone in Saudi Arabia and perhaps US intelligence noted that he was a potential danger. But this was based upon his activities duing the war, prior to that he was just a rich young Saudi male . . .

always worried about when/if the bomb was going to be dropped.

Yeah, living in DC these days is kind of like a second childhood.

But neither Saddam nor the Iranian mullahs did - they both became more firmly entrenched in power, which is what tends to often happen when tyrannical nations go to war.

I fail to see how managing to support a policy that allowed a million people to die while simultaneously  strenghthening the grip of tyranny in both nations

can be the "least bad possible outcome".  

Hurting the Soviets in Afganistan was both morally right and good real-politic forign policy.  

Osama would have been involved in Afganistan regardless of what we did, and likely would have still developed hatred for the US due to the fact that the US--not he and his band of merry men--defended SA from Saddam. It is simply not clear that anything we might have resoanably done differently in Afganistan mid-80s would have prevented bin Laden's war against the US.

I guess I was immensely mis-informed about this, as many other things now ::sigh:: Oh well, that's what learning is for

I certainly do. Thank God Russian paranoia subsided  bit that they asked for international help instead worrying about losing because so much of their military equipment is in such horrible shape. Now let's see where the Chinese go with their normally face-saving, knee jerk reactions to the world around them as an ebola like disease plagues rural Sichuan province than has been transmitted through fowl and swine as well. God forbid, will the Iranians ask for assistance if one of their nuclear reactors (hich they're not supposed to have) goes awry? Or will the mullahs just sit back insist that its Allah's will?

....those days of the "Drills". Thank God for Ronald Reagan, huh?!?! I couldn't help but think of him and hope that he is allowed to look down from Heaven and witness this marvelous event. Maybe it is just wishful thinking, but somehow I believe he knows and is smiling right now.  

A special thanks to you for acknowledging, as Americans in general, the real perspective of who we are as human beings. We ARE good for the world, and our Constitution and Policies are good for the world in general. Hopefully there are "eyes" open and watchful of this amongst some of our own people. This is our timeless and true nature displayed at it's best.

Unfortunately, we have new adversaries. I did get a chuckle out of your Iranian example ;-), and who knows, you are probably right on that one. Only God knows, I hope you are. In fact, I think the general populace in most of the basically "Muslim" countries and other Third World countries, actually do have "some" appreciation for us. Thank goodness they all do not want to be Martyrs. It is their sect of "extremists" that declare the disasterous and uncivilized JIHAD, and their desire to rid the world of the so-called "Infidels" that will never end. And let's hope and pray that we never have an administration that is not willing to fight them back. They are the one element of humanity that we all must realize does not negotiate, and can not be brought around to civilized thinking and action.

Thanks again for your post.

IT IS NEVER CROWDED ALONG THE EXTRA MILE

Saddam was in such financial straits that he ensured his eventual demise by trying to annex Kuwait.  And the idiocy of the Iranian tactics gave rise to the reformist movement.  The end of the war and Khomeini's subsequent death were followed by the moderate(relatively) policies of Rafsanjani and Khatami.  If that be strengthening then I hope all the world's tyrants are so lucky.

It's the least bad because the other two outcomes are probably worse.  But since you fail to see that please explain which of the other two--Iran defeating Iraq and Iraq defeating Iran--you would have preferred.

I recall the Democrat/left opposition to Reagan's arming the Afgans:

The Russians will respond, and it WILL BE BAD!

It was similar to the rape advice anti-gunners liked to give women back then: Don't fight back or HE WILL HURT YOU!

  Your choice of three possible outcomes leaves out quite a few - including some likely ones.  For example, it's far from from clear that either side would've prevailed had the US sat it out.  So one possibility is that we end up exactly where we ended up anyway....but with tens of thousands fewer dead innocents due to the lack of American weapons. I would actually say this one is the most likely outcome.

Another is that had we not armed the tyrants on both sides - arms that they used against their own people as well as the other side, to strengthen their internal positions - perhaps the tyrants on one side or the other woul not have been strong enough to hold power over internal reformists & revolutionaries.  This one is far less likely, but it's still a possibility.

The key point being that facilitating slaughter of innocents and allying ourselves with brutal despots in the name of geo-politics often looks quite tempting in the short term.  But any true calculation of it's worth has to factor in the long term costs...as we fail to learn over & over & over again. The Shah, Somoza, Noriega, Haiti, South Vietnam, Saddam, bin Laden, the House Of Saud....the blowback list is mind-numbingly long. And yet we never learn. Even now we have Pakistan & Putin playing Bush like a bass fiddle.

you apparently don't know much about either country's history.  Iran in 1980 was militarily weak.  The officers that backed the Pahlavi regime were purged after the revolution and we had cut off military aid a year before.  Saddam struck while the iron was hot.  The timing was not coincidental.  Initially the U.S. had maintained neutrality.  But after initial success in the first couple years Saddam's military bogged down after the Soviets withdrew support and threw it behind Iran.  Now you might be right that there was another probable outcome at that point had it not been for Khomeini's vow to depose Saddam.  Saddam practically begged Khomeini for peace so they could fight Israel together in Lebanon but Khomeini would have none of it.  Neither side thought about peace again until the Vincennes incident 6 years later.

Another is that had we not armed the tyrants on both sides - arms that they used against their own people as well as the other side, to strengthen their internal positions - perhaps the tyrants on one side or the other woul not have been strong enough to hold power over internal reformists & revolutionaries.  This one is far less likely, but it's still a possibility.

Enough revisionism already.  As soon as Saddam started the marched both countries turned into nationalist powder kegs.  The depleted Iranian military was back on its feet within weeks thanks to tens of thousands of volunteers.  And Iraq was no less enthusiastic.  Kurds, Turkomen, and Arabs--Shi'a and Sunni alike--jumped to the defense of Iraq.  You want to argue an abstraction by saying if the war had been shorter maybe reformist movements would have been stronger?  You do so only by refusing to accept that the brutality of the war was what actually fueled it.

I will blame the U.S. for one thing though just to show I'm not an ignorant hack like you.  Starting with Carter and following through with Reagan the U.S. propogandized insided Iran against the Tudeh(Iran's Communist Party).  After three or four years Khomeini crushed the Tudeh imprisoning and executing thousands.  But even then I can atleast understand why we did that.  Carter properly feared a Soviet invasion into Iran through Afghanistan, hence the Carter Doctrine.  Reagan mocked it but merrily signed on after inauguration.  Laugh all you want.  I know you're doing it or atleast feeling the urge.  Just remember we're talking about 1980 here.  Not 1985 or 2005.  Fearing the Soviets in 1980 won't be a good basis for rebuttal.

The key point being that facilitating slaughter of innocents and allying ourselves with brutal despots in the name of geo-politics often looks quite tempting in the short term.  But any true calculation of it's worth has to factor in the long term costs...as we fail to learn over & over & over again. The Shah, Somoza, Noriega, Haiti, South Vietnam, Saddam, bin Laden, the House Of Saud....the blowback list is mind-numbingly long. And yet we never learn. Even now we have Pakistan & Putin playing Bush like a bass fiddle.

No.  The key point is you only know enough to feel comfortable blaming the U.S.  You're a typical liberal know-nothing.  Or is that know-not-very-much?