Bruce T.
April 4th 07, 05:07 AM
Iraniana
Why It Bothers So...
One can make all sorts of clever arguments-indeed the Brits have, from
blaming us to blaming their own-about why this crisis was someone
else's fault, due to a misunderstanding, due to media exaggeration,
due to an accident. But what is missing is the simple fact that THIS
IS THE BRITISH NAVY. Who would care if the Iranians had embarrassed
the Italian Navy, the Russian Navy, or the Chinese Navy? But the
Brits? We forget that the entire history of Western navies is
predicated on the British experience at sea. The Brits had the
greatest admirals, the Brits invented the Man-of-War, dreadnought,
battleship, heavy cruiser, and aircraft carrier. The Brits created the
very notion of modern seamanship and discipline, and its pantheon of
naval heroes like Drake, Cook, Anson, Vernon, Nelson, and Fisher still
resonates.
So like the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Center this
was an iconic act that sent a message that the descendents of Xerxes
finally upped Lord Nelson.
Pictures Worth a Thousand Words
Nancy Pelosi in a Scarf at the nexus of terrorism in Damascus
British sailors in cuffs being escorted by proud Iranian seamen
Sophocles 1974
One could make the argument that by early 1974 it was finally known
that the prior Tet Offensive really had been a terrible defeat for the
North Vietnamese, that the efforts to rid the South of the Viet Cong
were mostly successful, that radically different bombing strategies
and ordinance had redirected the damage from rice paddies to communist
hierarchies in Hanoi-and that the public absolutely did not care, and
could not be convinced that there was a chance to save South Vietnam,
and so backed serial Congressional cut-offs of aid.
We may be nearing that same crisis point; that is, at last we have
made necessary adjustments in Iraq, are defeating the enemy-and no one
cares any more for any news other than that of our departure.
It's almost like a Sophoclean tragedy, since we know the script from
1974-2007 and can't seem to stop it: we give up, the government
collapses, hundreds of thousands are killed and exiled, our military
and diplomatic reputation is shredded, and so we squabble for the next
30 years over the defeat and how we had almost won when we threw in
the towel.
The British Vocabulary of the Iranian crisis
Rules of engagement: a diplomatic embarrassment waiting to happen
GPS coordinates: an outdated and inexact pseudo-science, of no value
in adjudicating territorial or geographical disputes
Admiral Nelson: dead, irrelevant white male imperialist colonialist-
fill in the blanks ...
First Lord of the Admiralty: nothing first, lordish, or admirable
about it
Naval vessel: a floating liability
Royal Marines: diplomatic personnel
Hostages: can instruct the enemy on power-point
The United States: your only ally, but you'd prefer it a neutral
Europe: neutral, but you'd prefer it an ally.
European Union: unified by profit, divided by principle
NATO: The Neutral anti-American Truce Organization
Captives of the Past
The success of a country is almost inextricably connected to the
degree of its strangulation by the past: confident societies like
Japan, Germany, Italy, Israel, China, etc. don't dwell on the past in
the context of victimhood.
But a stereotypical rule of thumb: when I talk to a Mexican national,
he whines about the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; when speaking to a
Greek, the 1967 coup or the 1973 invasion of Cyprus starts the
discussion, for an Iranian of any persuasion, it is always 1953 and
Mosaddeq. A Palestinian talks only about 1947, and shows some strange
rusted key to a house in Jerusalem.
The point is not that there are not legitimate grievances that have
had repercussions, but that they are in the past and one must get on
with one's life. Americans don't talk about the burning of the White
House in the War of 1812, and are not obsessed with hating the
Vietnamese for that lost war.
The only exception might be Southerners' obsession with Longstreet at
Gettysburg or Albert Sidney Johnston dying at the high water mark at
Shiloh. But rarely now are any in the South captives to the Lost
Cause, which is always a symptom of an insecure and angry mind, that
faults others for the past rather than looks confidently toward the
future. And nowhere is this more common than the eastern Mediterranean
and Middle East.
Why It Bothers So...
One can make all sorts of clever arguments-indeed the Brits have, from
blaming us to blaming their own-about why this crisis was someone
else's fault, due to a misunderstanding, due to media exaggeration,
due to an accident. But what is missing is the simple fact that THIS
IS THE BRITISH NAVY. Who would care if the Iranians had embarrassed
the Italian Navy, the Russian Navy, or the Chinese Navy? But the
Brits? We forget that the entire history of Western navies is
predicated on the British experience at sea. The Brits had the
greatest admirals, the Brits invented the Man-of-War, dreadnought,
battleship, heavy cruiser, and aircraft carrier. The Brits created the
very notion of modern seamanship and discipline, and its pantheon of
naval heroes like Drake, Cook, Anson, Vernon, Nelson, and Fisher still
resonates.
So like the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Center this
was an iconic act that sent a message that the descendents of Xerxes
finally upped Lord Nelson.
Pictures Worth a Thousand Words
Nancy Pelosi in a Scarf at the nexus of terrorism in Damascus
British sailors in cuffs being escorted by proud Iranian seamen
Sophocles 1974
One could make the argument that by early 1974 it was finally known
that the prior Tet Offensive really had been a terrible defeat for the
North Vietnamese, that the efforts to rid the South of the Viet Cong
were mostly successful, that radically different bombing strategies
and ordinance had redirected the damage from rice paddies to communist
hierarchies in Hanoi-and that the public absolutely did not care, and
could not be convinced that there was a chance to save South Vietnam,
and so backed serial Congressional cut-offs of aid.
We may be nearing that same crisis point; that is, at last we have
made necessary adjustments in Iraq, are defeating the enemy-and no one
cares any more for any news other than that of our departure.
It's almost like a Sophoclean tragedy, since we know the script from
1974-2007 and can't seem to stop it: we give up, the government
collapses, hundreds of thousands are killed and exiled, our military
and diplomatic reputation is shredded, and so we squabble for the next
30 years over the defeat and how we had almost won when we threw in
the towel.
The British Vocabulary of the Iranian crisis
Rules of engagement: a diplomatic embarrassment waiting to happen
GPS coordinates: an outdated and inexact pseudo-science, of no value
in adjudicating territorial or geographical disputes
Admiral Nelson: dead, irrelevant white male imperialist colonialist-
fill in the blanks ...
First Lord of the Admiralty: nothing first, lordish, or admirable
about it
Naval vessel: a floating liability
Royal Marines: diplomatic personnel
Hostages: can instruct the enemy on power-point
The United States: your only ally, but you'd prefer it a neutral
Europe: neutral, but you'd prefer it an ally.
European Union: unified by profit, divided by principle
NATO: The Neutral anti-American Truce Organization
Captives of the Past
The success of a country is almost inextricably connected to the
degree of its strangulation by the past: confident societies like
Japan, Germany, Italy, Israel, China, etc. don't dwell on the past in
the context of victimhood.
But a stereotypical rule of thumb: when I talk to a Mexican national,
he whines about the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; when speaking to a
Greek, the 1967 coup or the 1973 invasion of Cyprus starts the
discussion, for an Iranian of any persuasion, it is always 1953 and
Mosaddeq. A Palestinian talks only about 1947, and shows some strange
rusted key to a house in Jerusalem.
The point is not that there are not legitimate grievances that have
had repercussions, but that they are in the past and one must get on
with one's life. Americans don't talk about the burning of the White
House in the War of 1812, and are not obsessed with hating the
Vietnamese for that lost war.
The only exception might be Southerners' obsession with Longstreet at
Gettysburg or Albert Sidney Johnston dying at the high water mark at
Shiloh. But rarely now are any in the South captives to the Lost
Cause, which is always a symptom of an insecure and angry mind, that
faults others for the past rather than looks confidently toward the
future. And nowhere is this more common than the eastern Mediterranean
and Middle East.