The Command Post - Op-Ed

May 01, 2004

The End

I love irony, don't you? Today, May 1st, The EU officially welcomed the former Soviet states of Eastern Europe into the fold of free nations.

Hundreds of thousands of Hungarians celebrated their former communist country's entry into the European Union with midnight parties in the streets of Budapest as the EU welcomed 10 new states on Saturday.
Fireworks lit up the sky above Heroes' Square in the Hungarian capital as the national anthem was played, followed by Beethoven's Ode to Joy, which is the EU's anthem.

"Hungary has returned to Europe and the values which Hungary has held dear for more than 1,000 years," Prime Minister Peter Medgyessy said as a gigantic eight-meter (25-foot) hourglass was turned over to begin marking the nation's time in the EU.

Hungarians had kicked off celebrations with the tolling of a flower-shaped bell at noon Friday and then took to the streets for evening parties.

"We are finally triumphing over our misfortunes," Medgyessy said at the bell ceremony. "Our integration (into the EU) can be a historic turning point."
"We were the gates of Europe already but now we will be that from the inside," he said.

Misfortunes.

Indeed.

As I read and watch the reports of European celebration arrive on the wires, TV and subscription services, I smile and recall Churchill's remarks in 1942 after Alexander and Montgomery turned back Rommel's forces at El Alamein and the war turned.

"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. "

Little did we know at the time that another forty-seven years of American fortitude was required before the walls Churchill aptly dubbed "The Iron Curtain" lifted from Eastern Europe, the Baltic and the CCCP.

A job well done America.

Of course, no one will speak our name today in the EU love fest as the Hungarians, and others join the EU, rightly so, however, it is their choice and they make it freely. That's payment enough in my book, all we can hope to achieve. We spend our treasure, sacrifice our lives and then quietly walk away, satisfied. This celebration today is our best reply to the naysayers and accusers that we are an imperialistic power.

One can't help but point out that John Kerry and the Dems were on the wrong side of history in defeating the Soviets, just as they are now wrong in the war on terror. If Kerry were President today, not only would Saddam Hussein still be digging mass graves and paying off the UN and our "friends", but had Jimmy Carter defeated Ronald Reagan, Hungary might well still be occupied by the Soviets.

In the current war on terrorism, we must draw on our Cold War experiences with the Soviet Union; we must now take a hard-line against militant Islam and terrorist states, while nurturing democratization and alliances within the Islamic world. We can best defend ourselves by fuelling the liberalization of repressive Islamic and despotic Arabic societies. We have unleashed the information genie from its bottle in the Middle East; it will destroy those who seek to suppress it, just as it did in the Soviet Union. Once people see and hear how others live, that others have choices; the pressure from within cannot be withstood. It would be extremely foolhardy for us to disengage now. It will not be easy, but we face the same choice that we did in 1948 in Berlin.

We must look beyond the partisan rhetoric of the political season, and the self-serving and narrowly focused media obsession with appeasement and retreat, for we now face the greatest threat to our existence since an aggressive, nuclear-armed Soviet Union held much of Europe in its iron grip.

Should the war on terror take forty-five years to win, chances are that I will not be here to witness the celebrations across the Arab world, just as much of my parent's generation are not here to witness the end of what they began in 1941. But our children and grandchildren will benefit or suffer by what we do now, that is an inescapable fact.

Posted By Feste at May 1, 2004 12:07 PM | TrackBack

Comments

I also find it odd that as new members are welcomed into the EU it was done on May first, Labor Day. Not because of any old "Communist Labor Day" shadows, but becasue of it happened the day after the anniversary of Hilter's suicide on April 30, 1945.

Was the date predicated on some legal requirement, budgetary allowence or just plain coincidence?

Maybe its just me, and an overactive imagination.

Posted by: Cranial at May 1, 2004 05:13 PM

You need to get a grip on your tin-foil beanie, Europe doesn't dwell on Hilter's Greatest Hits.

The date was chosen to diffuse the traditional left-of-center labor protests, if you've never seen May Day in Europe you cannot imagine the power the unions wield. Most European governments are a coalition and communists control large sectors.

Do not be fooled into thinking old style communism, as you call it, is dead in Europe. Soviet communism, yes, but Marxism is alive and well in European states that were not Soviet satellites. Only East Germany longs for the good old days.

In chosing Labor Day the EU sends a message that The EU will set labor policy for all member states. That arrangement should last about as long as the proverbial snowball in Hell. Italian labor will most likely be the first breakout, with the French close on their heels.

Posted by: feste at May 1, 2004 05:52 PM

Thank you, feste. You put words to what my intuition could only suspect.

Posted by: gus3 at May 1, 2004 06:06 PM

feste,

Good comments.
We'll have to wait and see which way this one goes. I don't see the EU winning a test of wills with European labor either.

Marxism was turned away from in several of the former Soviet satellites, but gaining popularity once again. Many are finding that America's version of democracy is hard work. I guess waiting in line for 3 hours for a canned chicken is preferable - I am not sure why.

Posted by: Joel Gaines at May 3, 2004 01:08 PM

The big difference between the Cold War and the WOT is that both sides of the isle recognised how serious the conflict was. In the WOT, you have 35 to 55% of the nation that refuses to accept the fact that these people want to destroy us. And those of us that take the Islamists statements of intent at face value are split on just how to deal with them. That is why I'm voting against Bush. He has failed to garnish popular support for the war, which is the first job of any War President. Then he has presided over a series of screw-ups worthy of Westmorland and Clark at their worst. Losing Fallujah is the equalivent of Kennedy surrendering on day 6 of the Cuban missile crisis. We had a chance to put down, for good, most of the bad guys. Bremmer and company arranged for their escape. Bush is aware that we are at war, but he doesn't have the sand to order the killing needed to win this war. I doubt that Kerry does either, but I KNOW that Bush doesn't. I'm looking to the President after Kerry, in '08. I figure that by '08 things will have gotten desperate enough that Americans will unite on winning at all costs, which is what has to happen for America to survive. It will be a rough road from there on out, much rougher then if Bush had gone ahead and let loose the hounds of hell in Fallujah. Sort of like having Roosevelt calling McClusky as his SBD went through 12,000 feet and cancelling the attack because some morooner at the State Department is concerned about how it will play in the hearts and minds of the Japanese. If America had lost the battle of Midway, we still would have won the War, but it would have gone on into the 50's. Any President that is so stoopid as to surround himself with people that out of touch with reality doesn't need a second term.

Posted by: ableiter at May 3, 2004 02:33 PM

A Blighter: Regarding Fallujah, letting Iraqis bring it under control will have a far greater impact on the Arab psyche. Why loose the dogs of war on them when we can get someone else to do the dirty work?

Posted by: gus3 at May 3, 2004 02:57 PM

ableiter: I disagree with your analogy. The rag-tag band of militants holed up up in Fallujah do not equate to the nuclear stand-off with the Soviets in '62, that's patently absurd.

Islamo-terrorists could unleash a biological weapon, a dirty bomb, or even a tactical nuclear device and the loses would be catastrophic, but localised. In '62 we could have destroyed all life on the planet. That sounds terribly melodramatic now, but it was a reality during the final 48 hours of the crisis.

I also disagree with with another of your assumptions that Bush doesn't have the nerve to order massive civilian casualties. No politican in the western world could order such a strike. The hawks will just have to get over it. The American people do not have the stomach for targeting civilan populations to put down a local rebellion. I am not sure that is a bad thing either, otherwise we are no better than the terrorists.

We can wait them out. The media will grow bored and move on depriving the militants of their most effective weapon: American opinion. Fallujah will end with the hard core militants being attrited by special ops and snipers, the Shi'ite clerics will take care of Sadr once he loses his value as a PR tool to gain their desired position in the new government and the NYT will run an inch-long blurb on page A21.

Bush is a realist, he will not risk the long view to gain a Pyrrhic victory.

We get caught up in the partisan pie-fight of a general election and lose sight of the fact that the outcome will not change events already in play.

Posted by: feste at May 3, 2004 04:00 PM

I didn't know Fallujah was lost! OMG! Quagmire!

Ableiter - took you this long to justify your already decided vote against Bush?

You can't go willy nilly into an urban area and start shooting people in the face. It takes more "sand" to be patient, than it does to shoot everything you see.
In order to succeed in "winning the peace" we'd better start making it visible that Iraqi infrastructure is taking care of Iraqi problems.

You seem to think we have until '08 to fix this. THAT is the major problem Bush has had in garnering support for the WOT. We feel very far removed from the threat because our government is doing a great job of keeping us safe. Most people only realize a distant threat because so many people are talking about it. Interesting how only 2 years ago, our financial capitol was attacked in attempt to destroy our economy (killing 3K Americans in the process), yet the majority of us are still eating, still buying sodas out of the machine at work, still taking a little "me" time. THAT is why there is no public support. Most people felt no impact beyond a few months (if that) of "Those are mean people!" That's Bush's fault?

Posted by: Joel Gaines at May 3, 2004 04:12 PM