The Mythology of Munich

Nins, you've picked it clean. Good leaders are not chiseled out of marble to make a certain and only form agreed by everyone to be the perfect picture. They are, instead, like Churchill, who was intellectually capable to understand what happened each day and then adjust his government's path based on acute perception of what was needed at the moment. He stayed awake to the wee hours of morn practicing each move and each speech, rehearsing meticulously to make sure that what was said fit the whole pattern of his policy, making sure that not only his people, but the whole world had a clear and clean picture of what was at stake and what needed to be done. His makeup and demeanor resemble Obama more than any leader that we have had in many decades. Voters need to smarten up, ignore palliative bull and vote for talent.

Thanks, Nins. Old, yes. The "wiser" only means just a little more than yesterday, not intended to pretend to "Wise", a totally different quality reserved for the very few.

Learning; from history isn't easy. There is no such thing as clear lessons. The study of history involves the interaction of an intelligent mind with what evidence is useful and available. Simpleminded lessons are easy enough to learn and they are worse than no lessons.

At Munich the West destroyed Czechoslovakia which could have stopped Hitler with French and Soviet help. By the time :Hitler invaded Poland the Soviets were his temporary allies and the West could do nothing really to help Poland. The lesson here? Too little too late.

An Iraqi General commented that the biggest mistake Bremer made during the Colation Government in Iraq was to disband the Security Forces - Army and Police. This allowed the Black turban clerics to come out of the mosques and lead armies of idiots. Of course one cannot compare the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to the German Army in the 1940's. The Iranians could never replicate the discipline, organizational skill and battlefield tactics of the German Army in WWII. The threat from the middle east could very likely be worse, however, because it is insidious and can over time the crazies from the middle east can use our own legal structure against us. Obama posits that his diverse background allows him access and credibility to any non-European group in the world and that easy solutions can be found through diplomacy without the steel of the military as part of the interaction. Politicians always use analogies in their speeches that give us an historical example as an overlay for the decisions they will make if elected. Hitler is dredged up in every debate but the current generation(s) of voters has no clue as to the extent of the destruction of WWII. The old veterans rarely even talk about it. It is a bad comparison because leaders have to make decisions in the context of their own time. Obama has no military background but is constantly compared to JFK who saw and lived the war as a young man and also lost a brother. McCain's hardship as a POW will definitely temper his decisions as to how and when to employ the military but Obama will have to heavily rely on advisors if his diplomacy fails or if he is duped and co-opted by some of the gangsters who run third world countries. We can only hope he chooses wisely.

The author lacks any understanding of the Iranian leadership, Ahmadinejad is much worth than Hitler in the following respect: Hitler did not want to commit suicide, his objective was to win. The Iranian religious leadership believes in the shiite religion which states that in order for Ali to come back, the world has to be destroyed, thus they are willing and commited to comit suicide.

If Obama does not understand that basic difference he can't deal with the threat of Iran. It does not look to me that he has a hint about the severity of the Iranian problem. It is not the people of Iran, most of which are peace loving and object their loeadership. It is the leadership who strongly believes in their faith and destiny.