We know now…..

I wonder how many politicians and military officers of today just wish for another “after the fact” chance or attempt to rewrite history or to clarify a point as Batchelor is now doing practicing himself.

No matter what Chamberlain believed about diplomacy he was 100% Pure British and if he had even an inkling that part of the German Officer Corp was ready to revolt his position I am sure would have been different. One can point to many WWII mission that could, have should have, been done differently.

But of course there is more to this story that Batchelor is leading with and yes Chamberlain made his mistakes, but he was not in a good power position either and Briton was not really ready for war.

But as far as Afghanistan goes. Jus ad bellum? Eights years later? With the expansion into the Philippines and especially Iraq?

What part of the reasonable hope for success clause am I missing here?

Face facts we blew the Just War Theory (and I highlight the word THEORY) in Afghanistan when we went nation building in Iraq and let mission creep become our strategy in Afghanistan.

Now we bought it and its ours to fix. Morally we owe the people of Afghanistan some form of security and working government.

There is a view that Chamberlain bought them time to beef up . in fact there was such a concerted effort after his visit.

But until churchil convinced the war cabinet , britain was preparing just to defend themselves . Unfortunately there was a high level view that Britain could make a self preserving deal with germany right up till 1939.

Needs to be remembered that British monarchs were close relations to pre -Germany only renouncing titles to Hanover in 1914.

It is a lot easier getting into a war than getting out of it. And it was GW Bush (and all who supported that decision) that got us into it. It is extremely difficult for anyone in the Executive now to get us out of it.

Is going after Al Qaeda where they’re actually operating from suddenly a bad idea, just because Obama is doing it? Does anyone really think the rising count of Al Qaeda leaders eliminated from their command and planning structure is an unfortunate development?

There’s an exit from Afghansitan: The effective destruction of Al Qaeda. That alone defines “winning the war in Afghanistan”.

My take is always the same, I always see the same thing. My take is that all of them understand what he is talking about. He is talking about control. Because science today is about control. Then violence is what is ‘out-of-control.’ And peace is what is ‘in control.’ So that if Obama is warring for ‘control’ of those ‘out-of-control,’ then he is a peace-maker. In that sense so are the Ayatollahs in Iran peacemakers if they can put their youth under control, etc. etc. Chavez would be too a potential Nobel laureate.

POTUS speech referred to the Nazis as evil, yes, and then argued, “A nonviolent movement could not have stopped Hitler’s armies.”

In other words “Bush=bad” has run it’s course. Suddenly, Hitler is bad. Well, only because he can’t bring himself to say radical Islam is bad. Or, he won’t talk about a modern day axis of evil. He won’t go there.

Chamberlain only needed to say, “No, you will not have Sudetenland, and I am calling on the French right after I depart Germany,” and walked away. Nonviolently.

Indeed, ‘armed’ with the potential of a guaranteed alliance with France against Germany, he could even have tiptoed with impunity past the SS officers assembled there, wearing the Star of David around his neck, and a yarmulke on his head. No violence; no conflict; no threats. Of course, if he had actually prefaced such an exit with a promise to ‘call on the French right after he departed Germany,’ he would have looked like an incompetent ass. Because Prime Minister Deladier of France was present at that same Munich Conference, along with Mussolini of Italy, and signed off on that agreement to let the Germans take the Sudetenland.

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob66.html

My how things change. Mike Moore needs IMHO to buy a clue.