A fine history, ...
but I don't expect that we shall see the "Flying Cheetahs" (now flying Gripen C & Ds) over Libya anytime soon.
Regards
Mike
Probably not for two main reasons.Originally Posted by jmm99
President Zuma (the ANC) is without doubt in Gaddafi's pocket and ...
SAAF boasts 23 fighter aircrew
...but that said what reflection may I ask does this have on the performance of the South African airmen and ground crews who served with the US 18th Fighter Bomber Wing in Korea nearly 60 years ago?
Probably nothing.
However it is a good commentary on how all Nations, like people, have good times and bad times...
To echo Dayuhan, why didn't you let us know we were responsible for Hungary, certainly had we but known we were, we would have done something.
Alas, we knew not and determined it was not in our interest to attack the Bear at the time. Nor is it necessarily in our interest to throw Qaddafi out and the fact that you think we should have done both those things apparently matters little and it seems that many do not agree with you including US decision makers then and now. The fact that President Obama says Daffy has to go is political rhetoric. All rhetoric is cheap and easy, political ranting is particularly so. No matter who does it.
Fortunately, most people pay little attention.
A lot of people block the unpalatable parts out as a coping mechanism.To echo Dayuhan, why didn't you let us know we were responsible for Hungary, certainly had we but known we were, we would have done something.
Alas, we knew not and determined it was not in our interest to attack the Bear at the time. Nor is it necessarily in our interest to throw Qaddafi out and the fact that you think we should have done both those things apparently matters little and it seems that many do not agree with you including US decision makers then and now. The fact that President Obama says Daffy has to go is political rhetoric. All rhetoric is cheap and easy, political ranting is particularly so. No matter who does it.
Fortunately, most people pay little attention.
Instead of facing the truth and living with it some resort to making light of the whole matter.
The US was not responsible for Hungary and can and possibly will deny responsibility for anything at any time at a moments notice.
If you remember the Hungarians had overthrown the government and overcome the Russian occupying force by November 1956.
In a July 20, 1960 speech delivered in Buffalo, New York, Congressman Michael Feighan (D-Ohio) stated that the State Department sent a cable to Marshall Tito on 2nd November 1956 (who no doubt passed it on):
The Soviets invaded on the 4th November 1956 secure in the knowledge that they had US support."The Government of the United States does not look with favor upon governments unfriendly to the Soviet Union on the borders of the Soviet Union."
You can spin this betrayal anyway you like Ken... it stinks... just like the way the people of Misrata being sacrificed by another gutless US Administration does.
The US has never had any intention of attacking "the Bear". Even today when the bear growls the current Administration wets itself. Nothing has changed.
Ideals and Realpolitik
I believe I was the first one to mention Hungary in this thread and that was more than a month ago. "Defending Freedom" in the abstract and starting World War III are two different kettles of fish entirely. After Hungary the Eisenhower administration and the Dulles brothers considerably toned down the bold rhetoric about "rolling back Communism."
Last edited by Pete; 04-17-2011 at 09:34 PM.
They were obviously dithering pant-wetters.
Which explains why we bailed out of Iraq in 2007, Vietnam in 1968, Afghanistan in 2005, Korea in August 1950 - oh wait....Europe knows they can't trust the US government. What Europe, especially France and Britain who jumped into this first, are concerned about is that the US will jump ship when the going gets tough and they will be left holding the baby (so to speak)... which appears to be in the process of happening.
If anything, the US has the opposite problem. Besides, the Europeans are more than capable of taking out Qaddafi if they want to bad enough. Why should we do it for them? Britian, France and many other countries have qualified JTAC and combat controllers who could embed with the rebels to really enable air-based fire support. Why haven't they done so?
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
Moisture Analysis
You're funny. I've never looked upon biased silliness as unpalatable, merely thought it tedious. The last thing with which I had to cope was my second wife and I got rid of her almost 50 years ago.Been involved in and making light of war since about the time you were born, I certainly see no reason to stop making light of things that are not nearly as 'serious' as some like to think (or would like others to think they think...).Instead of facing the truth and living with it some resort to making light of the whole matter.As do all nations and a great many people...The US was not responsible for Hungary and can and possibly will deny responsibility for anything at any time at a moments notice.I recall. We went to DefCon 3 and I was on alert to move to Europe with three days rats, a poncho and a basic load of Ammo. How 'bout you?If you remember the Hungarians had overthrown the government and overcome the Russian occupying force by November 1956.Could be true -- check with Julian and see if he has a copy...In a July 20, 1960 speech delivered in Buffalo, New York, Congressman Michael Feighan (D-Ohio) stated that the State Department sent a cable to Marshall Tito on 2nd November 1956 (who no doubt passed it on):Mmm, I doubt you know that -- you can assume it if you wish. The USSR was also aware that US Army Europe, no small force at the time (plus the rest of NATO) and two US Based Airborne Divisions were on alert. I do not know the calculations of the Stavka but I suspect those forces received as much credit as did Congressman Feighan's speech.The Soviets invaded on the 4th November 1956 secure in the knowledge that they had US support.No betrayal, the Hungarians were not ours to betray -- just a failure (quite sensible in my view) to place foolish humanitarian dreams above national interests * as is also true with respect to Misrata -- a 'failure' to commit with which, as you know, I also agree. The whole Libya op was and is an exercise in folly -- as I told you a month ago...You can spin this betrayal anyway you like Ken... it stinks... just like the way the people of Misrata being sacrificed by another gutless US Administration does.
The only thing that stinks in this thread is flaying dead horses for minor propaganda points. Some excel at that...
Don't you hate it when Nations do not do as you would do -- if you had the responsibility. Which you do not...Good ploy, take an essentially true statement and spin it negatively to denigrate others. Old Socialist trick. However, you are correct -- amazing what a difference in the perception of national interest can be when nuclear parity is involved. As is the difference when a bystander has no dog in the fight and no fear of getting involved if the Elephants are in musk. Nope, we do not need to tangle with Russia if it can be avoided.The US has never had any intention of attacking "the Bear". Even today when the bear growls the current Administration wets itself. Nothing has changed.
Not so -- there has been a change. We now have an all knowing, all seeing oracle to inform us of this wetting phenomenon. Puts a whole new meaning on the term urinalysis.
* Lest I be accused of not stating the interest involved, it was specifically avoiding any potential to start a nuclear war with the USSR because the fallout, literally, would have destroyed Europe and resulted in far more deaths than would any USSR suppressive efforts in Hungary. The slightly earlier riots in Poland had also engendered calls from the uber liberal twitisphere for 'engagement.' Also declined , wisely, by Eisenhower for the same reason. Whether a USSR pol made a speech in Voronezh and said the USSR would use nukes if interfered with is not known by me...
During your service you may or may not have had to make decisions that entailed certain loss of a few persons to avoid probable loss of many others. If you did, you know the drill. It is not a pleasant position, If you were fortunate and did not have to do that, you might give the concept some thought.
Whoa Silver ...
My response to this:
No reflection cast and no reflection intended - FULL STOP.from JMA
... but that said what reflection may I ask does this have on the performance of the South African airmen and ground crews who served with the US 18th Fighter Bomber Wing in Korea nearly 60 years ago?
The current Cheetahs ultimately answer to a policy boss (Zuma) upon whom reflection was cast and intended - as you correctly noted.
Regards
Mike
Been There, Done That
When I mentioned Hungary in this thread on March 5th I was usurping one of Ken's traditional roles on the forum, in this case as its institutional memory. Hungary in 1956 was a case where domestic politics, overheated rhetoric, foreign policy and hard cold realities couldn't be reconciled. It was a turning point in the Cold War in the sense that after it happened we realized that Communism couldn't be rolled back in the areas of main-force confrontation, only in the perepheries, like in low-intensity places like Laos and South Vietnam. After Hungary we realized that we were in the Cold War in Europe for the long haul.
1956 Hungarian Redux
Like many folks, I spent hours during the 1956 Hungarian Revolution listening to the shortwave broadcasts of the English language services of Radio Moscow, the BBC, VOA and Radio Free Europe.
The facts concerning the Hungarian Revolution are complex - and the role played by one player, RFE, is subject to dispute. As of 2010, the Hoover Institute has restored all of the rare log tapes (low-quality recordings of short-wave transmitter output) for the crucial three weeks of the Hungarian Revolution (October 19 – November 13, 1956), RFE Broadcasts From Hungarian Revolution Digitized.
A huge amount of original material exists online about 1956 Hungary - e.g., National Security Archive's, The 1956 Hungarian Revolution, A National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book, Edited by Malcolm Byrne November 4, 2002 - contents with links to pdf files of:
Google Advanced Search gives near 200K hits for this combo - "radio free europe" hungary 1956.1) Study Prepared for U.S. Army Intelligence, "Hungary: Resistance Activities and Potentials," January 1956 (24 pages)
2) Minutes of 290th NSC meeting, July 12, 1956 (5 pages)
3) Report from Anastas Mikoyan on the Situation in the Hungarian Workers' Party, July 14, 1956 (6 pages)
4) National Security Council Report NSC 5608/1, "U.S. Policy toward the Soviet Satellites in Eastern Europe," July 18, 1956 (2 pages)
5) Jan Svoboda's Notes on the CPSU CC Presidium Meeting with Satellite Leaders, October 24, 1956 (6 pages)
6) Working Notes and Attached Extract from the Minutes of the CPSU CC Presidium Meeting, October 31, 1956 (4 pages)
7) Minutes of the Nagy Government's Fourth Cabinet Meeting, November 1, 1956 (2 pages)
8) Report by Soviet Deputy Interior Minister M. N. Holodkov to Interior Minister N. P. Dudorov, November 15, 1956 (4 pages)
9) Situation Report from Malenkov-Suslov-Aristov, November 22, 1956 (8 pages)
10) "Policy Review of Voice for Free Hungary Programming, October 23-November 23, 1956," December 5, 1956 (28 pages)
11) Romanian and Czech Minutes on the Meeting of Five East European States' Leaders in Budapest (with Attached Final Communiqué), January 1-4, 1957 (9 pages)
12) Minutes of the Meeting between the Hungarian and Chinese Delegations in Budapest, January 16, 1957 (9 pages)
The point, of course, is that one's facts have to be correct; if not, one's opinions are garbage - GIGO.
Regards
Mike
Why would we have wanted to attack the bear? There's certainly enough to criticize in US Cold War policy, given the omniscience of hindsight, but it's over we won, and we didn't roast the world on the altar of ideology. Could have been a good deal worse.
I very much doubt that anything the US has or hasn't done has anything to do with anything the Russians said. As noted earlier, from the start the US commitment was intended to be phased down as early as possible.
If you think it stinks, stand upwind... or just get used to it. The US has not accepted or been offered the role of global saviour, and as noted before, you can't "betray" someone to whom you have no obligation.
Thank you for that clarification.
You argue without providing any substance.
My position on Hungary remains that given the posturing and political bluster from the Eisenhower/Dulles circus starting from a policy of "rollback" then onto "containment" the Soviets would have realised that the US was all bark and no bite but the Hungarians were fooled into believing that US help would be forthcoming.
So like with the Marsh Arabs later encourage the Hungarians to rise up and when they do announce that it is not in the US national interest to get involved on their behalf?
I appreciate this is all very humiliating for the US. Better to admit the mistakes and move on. One can't learn from the mistakes of the past unless they are acknowledged as such.
So here is a piece which deals with how the Hungarians were "abandoned" 1956 - Come Clean in Hungary, Behind the '56 Revolt - and he is correct, Bush should have apologised to the Hungarian people for the most despicable betrayal in their greatest time of need.
Now the people of Misrata. I too was fooled into believing that the US really intended to take the necessary steps to protect civilians rather than just go through the motions in the most cynical manner.
If this had been the plan all along would the humanitarian answer not have been to arrange for a Dunkirk type flotilla to evacuate those civilians who wanted it from the port rather than just leave them, Hungarian/Marsh Arab style to their fate at the hands of Gaddafi?
The current biggest lie out of Libya does not come from Gaddafi but through the line taken hook, line and sinker by the western media that the use of air effort within Misrata is ineffective.
Sadly for the people of Misrata on whose behalf ostensibly the US sought specific wording in the UNSC resolution to protect they have the dubious honour to be added to a growing list those betrayed by a US government.
IMHO Italian strategic ends could be as follows:
- a united Libya
- a libyan government able to manage a transition (legitimated by a political solution and not by a direct intervention)
- a confirmation of the agreements signed in 2008
- keep France and GB at bay.
Let's talk about means:
- a political and diplomatic work to offer a possible partner that is not actually invoved in armed resolution of conflict (Our planes don't shoot!
- engage with CNT in a long term (let's be optimistic!) relation. Let's see the camel before of the money.
- Make clear to CNT that this is their liberation "war" and they have to make the real work.
- Avoid at all costs a direct intervention with the boots.
- Military speking make good of our position to gain at cheap price political weight.
And now ways:
-Mantain a low profile. This Libyan affaire could be very explosive in internal politics. (The French are working in this sense with the manipulation of tunisian immigrants issue).
-Let's the French bleed themselves in an absurd campaign with no beginning and no end.
- Do not take any position that could jeopardize our political maneuvering.
- Buy time. Time will show if CNT is for real or is just a spinned solution out of neocolonialism.
- Pose somekind of doubts about the overall posture (Out of Lebanon? Out of Afghanistan? Out of Kosovo that's pretty sure...)
Hope to have been able to make clear my points.
Greetings
Not arguing...
I wouldn't dignify this exchange with that term. It is rather nothing more than a feckless political tirade by you to which I foolishly responded...
Contrary to your opinion, nuclear parity did and does have substance and the threat of a nuclear exchange and its effect on all of Europe also had substance. Still does.. The fact that you discount it in an effort to tar a nation in retribution for its humanitarian position in opposition to a later effort in which you were involved is in marked contrast to your stated position in favor of humanitarian activity but whatever you need to write to assuage your itches...Agreed. The first statement goes without saying and as is true of all of your positions, it does indeed remain. Illogical and misrepresented to make a point but remain they do...My position on Hungary remains...I appreciate this is all very humiliating for the US. Better to admit the mistakes and move on. One can't learn from the mistakes of the past unless they are acknowledged as such.
The second is correct as far as it goes but whether a given event or action is a mistake is viewpoint dependent. Your mistake is my good decision. You display a penchant for good decisions militarily and tactically. Politically and strategically, not so much IMO...What? Surely you joke. What precisely do such 'apologies' prove -- they change nothing, are rarely sincere but are indeed beloved by the previously mentioned twitisphere....Bush should have apologised to the Hungarian people for the most despicable betrayal in their greatest time of need.
Yet again, as several have pointed out, one cannot betray a group to or with whom has only a superficial relationship. Your use of the word 'betrayal' is not only tedious, it's plain incorrect and an example of the use of socialist rhetoric to belabor a point in demonizing an opponent. The US is not an opponent of JMA but you may certainly tilt at any windmills you wish to charge. I think your lance is broken, though...You were fooled? By whom? Who told you that? The media...Now the people of Misrata. I too was fooled into believing that the US really intended to take the necessary steps to protect civilians rather than just go through the motions in the most cynical manner.
Ah. Terrible thing when one hears or reads what one wants to believe (for real or for a lever).I'm unsure whether that 'plan' is inane or insane. In the interest of civility, I'll opt for inane. That's about as smart as apologizing decades later for something you didn't do.If this had been the plan all along would the humanitarian answer not have been to arrange for a Dunkirk type flotilla to evacuate those civilians who wanted it from the port rather than just leave them, Hungarian/Marsh Arab style to their fate at the hands of Gaddafi?You got no sympathy from me, JMA, I told you a month ago it wouldn't work, yet you insisted it must be done! It is likely that, as I said then, it will do more harm than good. These humanitarian deals most always do...The current biggest lie out of Libya does not come from Gaddafi but through the line taken hook, line and sinker by the western media that the use of air effort within Misrata is ineffective.Yeah. Long list that. It is heavily populated by persons, places and things that were involved with the US in efforts espoused by those with an overblown penchant for saving humanity from itself. Those fools have invariably caused more harm than necessary and forced ill conceived projects on an America that is entirely too willing too help others at some costs to itself and discovers, too late, that it was a really bad idea to begin with. Those efforts always fail for a variety of reasons, not least that their supporters rarely think the project through. Dunkirk indeed.Sadly for the people of Misrata on whose behalf ostensibly the US sought specific wording in the UNSC resolution to protect they have the dubious honour to be added to a growing list those betrayed by a US government.
Let me make this very clear ...
This post is not an intervention into the discussion between Ken White and JMA. Neither of them needs any assistance in asserting points and counterpoints. FULL STOP.
This post does have to do with my post above, 1956 Hungarian Redux, and its cite to the National Security Archive's, The 1956 Hungarian Revolution (a 2002 effort). It also has to do with JMA's cite of Come Clean in Hungary, Behind the '56 Revolt. That was a WP article by Charles Gati (Wednesday, June 21, 2006).
Now Prof. Gati (then at Johns Hopkins) had published or was in the process of publishing Gati, Charles (2006). Failed Illusions: Moscow, Washington, Budapest, and the 1956 Hungarian Revolt (Cold War International History Project Series). Stanford University Press. pp. 264 pages. ISBN 0-8047-5606-6. Cited in Wiki - Hungarian Revolution of 1956. One would expect that Prof. Gati in 2006 would have known all the material sources then published - and as an independent academic, etc.
So, what should we make of this paragraph (from Gati's 21 Jun 2006 WP article):
Pretty damning re: the US and RFE vs those nice Russkies - mutta, ei !We now know from Russian archives that the Hungarians did have a chance to gain some of what they sought. For on Oct. 30, one week after the revolt began, members of the Soviet Presidium (as the Politburo was called then) unanimously voted not to use military force. Their decision came in the wake of a series of conciliatory, post-Stalin policies, such as the 1955 Soviet withdrawal from Austria and reconciliation with Yugoslavia -- both of which are neighbors of Hungary -- as well as the first summit with the United States in a decade. In the end, the Kremlin intervened because it feared that the situation would spin out of control both in Hungary and elsewhere in the Soviet bloc. Radio Free Europe's exaggerated rhetoric only amplified these fears.
Prof. Gati fails to tell us of the 31 Oct 1956 CPSU CC Presidium Meeting (Doc 6 in the NSA Archive I linked above):
Full transcript and source (published open source 1995) in pdf. The Wiki gets this incident in context - not saying that the Wiki is the "last word" either, but it includes both the 30 Oct and 31 Oct meetings.Working Notes and Attached Extract from the Minutes of the
CPSU CC Presidium Meeting,
October 31, 1956
At the October 31 Presidium meeting, Nikita Khrushchev announced, seemingly unexpectedly, that the conclusions reached at the previous day’s momentous session should be re-examined. Soviet troops, he said, should not be withdrawn from Hungary and Budapest. On the contrary, the USSR “should take the initiative in restoring order in Hungary,” in other words in suppressing the revolution, which had been only one of the possible solutions under discussion just three days before, on October 28.
In stating his position, Khrushchev made no mention of the news coming from Budapest, nor did he refer to the Chinese views he had heard the previous day, nor to the American position. He did raise the weakness of the Hungarian communist government as a factor, but his argument was based mainly on the need to defend the Soviet empire’s prestige and on the implications of an eventual withdrawal for Soviet domestic politics. His warning made special reference to those “circles” which might have influence at the top levels of the party, the army, state security, and the party apparatus. He called attention to the risks of a possible power struggle and a rupture within the party. Interestingly, there is no indication in the meeting notes that Khrushchev’s measures were meant to be discussed; he seems to have intended simply that they be carried out.
The only detail on which Khrushchev was uncertain was whom to appoint as head of the provisional revolutionary government: Kádár or Münnich. Aside from the amount of time needed to make military preparations, this circumstance explains why the final decision was postponed for four days. Strangely enough, even though the plan was to overthrow the Nagy government, Khrushchev did not exclude the possibility of involving Nagy in the “normalization” process. Within the Politburo, Deputy Prime Minister Saburov was the only one who tried to uphold the “liberal” position, but at this point nobody supported him.
Gati's "selectivity" is as good an example of factual cherry-picking as I could hope for.
If one cherry-picks facts in court, one probably loses one's case. I expect that if one cherry-picks facts in combat, one probably loses one's life.
The Virtual World is, of course, quite different from the Real World.
I do not call for (and certainly do not expect) an end to paintball-punditry and piggy-style mud wrestling - and will probably be a gallery spectator to all of it. A bit less seriousness is probably called for - in this and a lot of other threads.
Regards
Mike
Last edited by jmm99; 04-18-2011 at 05:42 PM.
Amen to that...
and this:Yes it is...The Virtual World is, of course, quite different from the Real World.Heaven forbid. Well, you know what they say; Arguing with an Infantryman is just like piggy mud wrestling, everyone gets dirty and the pig loves it...I do not call for (and certainly do not expect) an end to paintball-punditry and piggy-style mud wrestling - and will probably be a gallery spectator to all of it.
Er, I think that means two old Grunts can get dumBB -- with two 'Bs'.I'll vote for that. Place matters...A bit less seriousness is probably called for - in this and a lot of other threads.
And thanks for being the voice of reason yet again.
As an aside on the Gati article linked...
He notes in the book that the US sent mixed signals and was ambivalent with regard to the uprising. Per a JMA comment elsewhere, the World at large has great difficulty in understanding US Foreign Policy. That is true, was so with regard to Hungary in 1956 as well as with Libya in 2011 and, in fact, has always been true of this nation back unto the Barbary Pirates and the War of 1812 -- it is a function of our system of governance which we are unwilling to change simply because others cannot understand it and do not like the often conflicting signals it sends which in turns can frustrate their desire for own coherent policies. Those signals conflict not due to dithering but rather because our governmental milieu is conflicted by design.
It confused the then 22 year old Hungarian Student Charles Gati in Budapest in the Fall of 1956 and it confuses others today. It causes many to think the US is inherently devious and untrustworthy. That's not really true. We are relatively trustworthy, more so than most nations BUT we should never be relied upon to be consistent due to that 2, 4, 6, and 8 year roil of government. Even one who has lived here as long as has Gati misses that factor. Sad but true and as that Ancient Oriental Philosopher once said, "Xin Loi."
Redlegs are so much more cerebral -- "Lending dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl." (That saying first belonged to the British cavalry, but we done stoled it from 'em in 1917-18.)Arguing with an Infantryman is just like piggy mud wrestling, everyone gets dirty and the pig loves it...
We are back full circle to where we were a few weeks ago.
I differentiate between the motive behind any intervention and the skill of the intervention itself.
I stand by my support for a humanitarian intervention in Libya.
The intervention has been incredibly interesting. The US/NATO effort has been disgraceful. Such an obviously simple exercise that started well enough then ground to a halt. The question that needs to be answered here is whether this situation was the result of a deliberate political plan or as a result of the allocated force not being up to the task.
Either way the reason for the shambles is political and/or military incompetence and as I have stated before should not be used to question the motivation behind the intervention.
Roll your eye as much as you like Ken, but I hear tonight that the Brits are going to fund the evacuation by sea of 5,000 odd African migrant workers and the evacuation of wounded by ship is becoming a regular thing. Unless NATO can get its act together and lift the siege of Misrata the UN/EU may need to scale up the evacuations to take all comers.Dunkirk indeed.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks