You Can't Win 'Em All (1970)

In 1922, Adam Dyer (Tony Curtis) futilely bailed water from his sinking ship.  The Achilles was a small vessel, hardly more than a rowboat with a mast.  Luckily, he spotted a passing ship and climbed aboard.  Josh Corey (Charles Bronson) demanded payment for the rescue at the point of a revolver.  Looking back at the Achilles as it vanished into the Aegean Sea, Adam had no choice.  He paid 500 in gold to be allowed aboard the Cybele.  Exhausted, he fell asleep in the wheelhouse.  When he awoke sometime later, there was no one at that wheel.  The crew - two Greeks - were sneaking up on Josh with weapons!  Adam intervened and saved Josh's life.  However, he reclaimed his gold and set Josh adrift in a rowboat.  This would not be the last encounter between the two.

Adam was headed to Turkey to recover a ship that belonged to his family; it had been seized during the Great War.  Josh was rendezvousing with his band of mercenaries to earn some quick cash from the Sultan.  The pair were roped into escorting an Ottoman train to Smyrna under the watchful eye of Colonel Elci (Fikret Hakan).  The train is full of precious cargo: three of Osman Bey's daughters, several crates of gold, a suitcase full of jewels, and the scheming yet beautiful Aila (Michele Mercier).  With Greeks and rebels between them and Adam's ship, could they get through?

I would never have thought to put Curtis and Bronson together, but they have good chemistry.  Curtis' smart aleck charm contrasts nicely with Bronson's sharp edges and serious demeanor.  The problem is the script.  It is too busy.  Among the characters who set out, there is a constant back and forth on who is going to betray whom and what new alliances form as the situation changes.  Then there are the external threats from rebel soldiers who repeatedly attack.  Then there is the constantly shifting MacGuffin: is it the Bey's daughters, the crates of gold, the case of jewels, or something else entirely?  Though most of the mercenaries and Ottomans die along the way, the movie wraps up like a screwball comedy.  Huh?

As far as history, there was indeed a civil war in Turkey in 1922.  There you go, that is about all the history this imparts.  The Turkish government was unimpressed by the final product and banned it from distribution in Turkey.

Just okay.

1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed

Eric H. Cline, PhD in Ancient History, presents a theory on why the once flourishing Bronze Age civilizations collapsed.  It was long held that the mysterious Sea People, a vast horde of invaders who may have come from the Western Mediterranean, toppled one nation after another, moving through Greece, then Anatolia (modern Turkey), into the Levant, and finally being stopped by Egypt, the only civilization to survive the collapse.  The belief that the Sea Peoples were at fault was largely tied to Egyptian reports of attacks.  Cline has a different view.  Recent archeology (last half century) has revealed a variety of ills that befell the Late Bronze Age.  There are signs of drought, which would have led to famine and migration; the Sea People may have been fleeing famine and seeking more fruitful lands.  There are signs of earthquakes that toppled cities.  There is the amazing level of international trade which, when interrupted, could have led to crashes in the economies.  All of these factors struck before the civilization could recover from the previous shock.  This 'perfect storm' of misfortunes caused the collapse and an ensuing dark age.

 

A great and engaging book for those interested in ancient history.  An excellent presentation by the author himself is available on YouTube: 1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed.

 

Democracy Ain't What It Used to Be

A court has ruled that Brexit must first go through the Parliament, a ruling which many Remainers hope will derail the Brexit and thus the will of the people.  You see, the electorate is too stupid to know what is good for it.  Undermining the vote of the people is pretty common these days.

In California in 2000, the voters approved Prop 22 (61% in favor, 38% opposed), a law that banned same sex marriage.  The Mayor of San Francisco openly ignored the ban and various state courts eventually ruled that the law was unconstitutional.  So in 2008 the voters approved Prop 8 (52% in favor, 48% opposed) a constitutional amendment that banned same sex marriage.  As an amendment, this was automatically constitutional on the grounds of state law, so opponents went to a US District Court which found it unconstitutional as regards federal law.  The State of California refused to appeal the decision and citizens didn't have 'standing' to appeal the case.  Therefore, Prop 8 was overturned.

 

In 2010, there was a special election to fill the Senate seat of Edward 'Ted' Kennedy.  A big part of the campaign was the Republican claiming that Scott Brown would be the 41st vote against Obamacare.  The hyper-blue state of Massachusetts elected its first Republican Senator in more than 30 years to stop the Affordable Care Act.  Getting the message, the Congress used parliamentary legerdemain to pass it anyway.  How has that worked out?

 

Throughout the Western Democracies, the governments are ignoring the voters.  Angela Merkel in Germany has seen her party walloped in elections and yet is still in favor of mass immigration.  Nativist parties are rising because the supposedly moderate parties are marching their nations to bankruptcy and cultural suicide.

 

Kemalist Turkey has died and Sultan Erdogan is sowing the seeds of a new Ottoman Empire.  Erdogan saw democracy as a tram that you take to your exit and then get off.  The voters gave him enough power that he no longer needs their consent.

 

Rulers resent that they require voter consent.  They have had years to devise means of bypassing that requirement and yet they are astonished by the rise of Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, UKIP, et al.  If you ignore the voters for long enough, you will likely spark a revolution.  Currently, the revolutions are still being fought at the ballot box but continued bypassing will lead to less civilized means of revolution.

 

Ignore the voter at your peril.

9/11 +15

It is now fifteen years since the 9/11 attacks that triggered our recent flurry of Middle Eastern engagements and, if anything, we have lost ground.

After the 9/11 attacks, the country was on guard.  In the rest of the Bush Administration, 25 people were killed in Muslim attacks and 14 were injured.  During the Obama Administration, 114 people have been killed and 373 injured in Muslim attacks.  This only counts attacks on American soil.  The success rate of the enemy on our turf has gone up.  Homeland Security failure!  Worse off.

Afghanistan was the host of al Qaeda and the Taliban were toppled during the Afghan War.  Rebuilding efforts have been mostly for naught.  The continued presence of US troops makes the region less hospitable to al Qaeda and its ilk but a lasting victory is not established.  Better off.

The anti-American Saddam was toppled during the Iraq War and had become a relatively stable pro-American democracy thereafter.  However, US troops were completely withdrawn in 2011 and ISIS and Iran filled the power vacuum shortly thereafter.  The successes of ISIS have resulted in US re-engagement in the region.  Trade Saddam for ISIS?  In 2010, we had clearly been better off but as of now, we might be at status quo ante bellum.  Break even.

 

In 2011, Libya was involved in a Civil War and the United States opted for the non-Gaddafi side.  Libya has become a failed state and a breeding ground for terrorist groups, including a branch of al Qaeda.  The bill for this came due in Benghazi, 4 years ago today.  Worse off.

Egypt's stable, though repressive, pro-American regime was toppled and replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.  This was in turn toppled and made way for a new stable, though repressive, not so pro-American regime.  Worse off.

Yemen's pro-American government has been toppled and Yemen is another failed state with both al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates.  Worse off.

 

The US became entangled in the Syrian civil war thanks to a red line.  The red line put US standing and reliability on the block.  Failure to do anything when the red line was crossed has hugely diminished US prestige in the world.  Russia, Iran, and Turkey have all moved into Syria and attacked the US-backed rebels.  Worse off.

 

Seeing the writing on the wall, Israel, America's staunchest ally in the region for decades, has recently had a high level meeting with Russia.  With American power waning, Israel needs to make arrangements should the decline continue.  Worse off.

 

Turkey has gone from a secular democracy to an Islamist state.  President Erdogan has viewed democracy as a tram that one takes until you reach your stop.  He reached his stop and gotten off.  Like Israel's Netanyahu, Erdogan has also made pilgrimage to Russia.  Though a member of NATO, Turkey is looking to improve bi-lateral relations with NATO's traditional enemy.  Worse off.

 

Iran was anti-American at the start and remains so.  The Iran Nuclear Deal, which has gifted hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to the Iranian regime, is a catastrophe that only gets worse.  Sanctions have been lifted and Iran is cheating on the deal, cozying up to Russia, and expanding its influence in the Middle East.  Much worse off.

 

As it stands, we are losing the war.  We may win skirmishes with various terror affiliates but such affiliates are popping up faster than we are stomping them.  Worse still, every candidate for the Presidency will continue to lose the war.  Trump, Johnson, and Stein would all wash their hands of the region (Trump talks about crushing ISIS but has little interest in the larger war).  Hillary helped formulate our current losing strategy and is likely to stay the course.  However, she is probably the most hawkish of the bunch and had disagreed with Obama on some policies where he proved more dovish.

 

Like the Cold War, we will eventually win this one.  However, it is going to take another 9/11-like attack against us (or a nuclear one against anyone) before we adopt the unconditional surrender posture that served us so well in WWII.

Losing Turkey

President Erdogan is on his way to Russia for talks with Putin, presumably to improve the Turkish-Russian relationship.  As mentioned in an earlier blog, Turkey and Russia have had a long and contentious relationship.  However, Russia has succeeded in encircling Turkey in the last few years.  Russia has been a booster of Iran, assisting with its nuclear program.  Russia annexed the Crimea, giving it a bigger footprint on the Black Sea.  Of course, back in the Bush Administration, Russia managed to carve out a part of Georgia.  For the last year, Russia has placed forces in Syria, Turkey's neighbor to the south.  How has the United States responded to this constrictor snake tactic?  Empty red lines, toothless proclamations, demands that countries live up to their international obligations.  In short, meaningless rhetoric.

Erdogan has never been a believer in secular Turkey.  He is an Islamist and has sought to undermine Kemalist Turkey for decades.  The recent failed coup is looking more and more like the death knell of secular Turkey.  Again, a largely hands-off America has been a boon to that effort.  The US has been abandoning the Middle East for most of President Obama's tenure and Russia and Iran have been filling that vacuum.  Luckily, domestic fracking has done wonders for American gas prices despite the increasingly turbulent Middle East.

 

In the ongoing real game of thrones, Putin is playing chess and Obama is playing checkers.  Future historians will marvel at how badly our foreign policy was handled.

Turkish Coup, 2016

Coup d'état is a common feature of the Turkish Republic.  In 1960, the military unseated a prime minister who had notions of allying with Russia rather than the US.  However, after he was swept from the stage, the military returned the country to civilian control.  A decade later in 1971, the country was crumbling and the military issued a 'memorandum' for the civilian government to get its act together or else.  This resulted in a political shake up and extended martial law but no actual coup.  In 1980, there was another coup, a very serious and deadly affair that saw hundreds of thousands arrested, tens of thousands tried on charges of belonging to this or that organization, thousands recommended for death penalties, hundreds sentenced to death, and 50 executed.  In the wake of the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the US had supported this coup.  In 1982, tentative civilian control resumed under a military-approved constitution.  In 1997, another 'memorandum' was issued by the military.  The prime minister resigned and a new government was formed under the first female leader for Turkey, Tansu Ciller.

 

Why is it that the military keeps taking over for short periods?  Typically, a military coup results in an extended dictatorship for the coup leader.  Why hasn't that been the case in Turkey?  To understand why that is, one must know something of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.  When I visited Turkey in 2001 - only a few weeks after the 9/11 attack - I heard a great deal about Ataturk.  The most common refrain from our guide was that he 'was like a God to us.'  Indeed, Mustafa Kemal was the Ottoman General at the Battle of Gallipoli during World War I, a rare victory for the Turks in that war.  He went on to win Turkish Independence and set about reforming the country into a Western one.  He pushed the Turks to adopt a Western mode of dress, granted full political rights to women, abolished the veiling of women, did away with the segregation of the sexes, adopted a new Latin-based alphabet (dumping the Arabic that had been in use), supported art that had been suppressed by the Ottomans, closed Islamic courts in favor of secular ones, had the Koran translated into Turkish and read on the radio, and on and on.  It was a Herculean task and he set out to do it.

 

What would Ataturk have thought of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, current President, former Prime Minister, and avowed Islamist who has restored some aspects of the Ottoman era?  Erdogan and his ilk have wanted to backslide, to undo much of Ataturk's work.  By contrast, the military has long been the guarantor of Ataturk's vision, disposing of those leaders who want to return to Ottoman and/or Islamist practice.  Erdogan was imprisoned in 1998 for threatening the secularism of Turkey.  Since his ascent to power, Erdogan has sought to purge the military in order to short-circuit exactly what is now happening.  He doesn't want the military to restore secular government; he wants to establish an Islamic state.

 

Whether the coup succeeds or not, the military is in an unending conflict to prevent an Islamist government.  The country is almost universally Muslim and will continue to vote for Islamist leaders.  The only long term solution is conversion to another faith.  Highly unlikely.  In the meantime, good luck storming the castle!

Turkey Shoot

The Turks have shot down a Russian fighter jet and NATO asks why didn't Turkey just escort the jet out of Turkish airspace.  The evidence in the aftermath is that Russia only just clipped a strip of land that projects - like a peninsula - into Syria.  The incursion was only a few seconds.  Really, Turkey, why so trigger happy?

It seems that Russian jets have been making a habit of drifting into Turkish airspace.  Here's a story from October 6th:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/06/nato-chief-jens-stoltenberg-russia-turkish-airspace-violations-Syria

Moreover, it should be remembered that Turkey and Russia have a long and troubled history.  They have been at war with one another 12 times in the past 450 years.  Much of the Balkans were lost during wars with the Russians.  Though it has been nearly a century since they last clashed in war during World War I, they remained belligerent toward one another.  Turkey became part of NATO during the Cold War, continuing the adversarial relationship.  Russia is just as aware of this history and should have known that repeated poking would provoke a response.

 

Though no fan of Erdogan, I'm generally on Turkey's side here.  Whether or not there were warnings this time around, there had been warnings in the recent past.  This was not some passenger plane that was a little off course, this was an armed fighter.  Russian pilots dismissed them and have paid the price.  I am willing to bet that there will be an end to the airspace incursions.

 

That aside, this is the first time in over half a century that a Russian plane was shot down by a NATO member.  Precisely this was feared when Russia joined the Syrian Civil War.  Russia and NATO allies have different objectives in Syria and it is inevitable that there will be clashes.  It is unlikely this will be the only one.

 

Theodore Roosevelt said that one should speak softly and carry a big stick.  He was accused of being a jingoistic warmonger.  However, there were no wars during his presidency.  In fact, he won the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating a peace between Russia and Japan during the Russo-Japanese War (1905).  He sent the Great White Fleet - consisting of 16 battleships and various escorts - around the world to display American naval power.  With such an outward show of strength, the warmonger never had a war.  That was by design.

 

By contrast, Barack Obama has shown nothing but weakness and withdrawal.  He talks of smart diplomacy and the right side of history but the conflicts multiply and our enemies grow stronger.  For the last 7 years, we have negotiated with adversaries (Iran, Russia) and undercut our allies (Poland, Israel).  The incident on the Turkish border is a direct result of the catastrophic foreign policy of the Obama Administration.  Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shares in this disaster and promises to stay the course.