HOW ABOUT THIS "GLOBAL ORDER" THEN?

The Guardian's Polly Toynbee (You know her, even if you don't read her: the U.S. -- even if John Kerry were to be elected -- is essentially the global devil incarnate. As for people who blow themselves up in restaurants . . . they have "grievances".) is whinging -- yet again -- about the prime minister's foreign policy:

. . . Bush looks set to be back in the White House, but despite the high cost of the political support Tony Blair gave him, there is plentiful evidence already of how little leverage Britain has. In the conference speech, Tony Blair felt obliged to repeat what an intelligent man must know is breath-taking Pentagon nonsense about the nature of global terror. . .

Yeh, that "Pentagon nonsense" about us possibly considering defeating people intent on destroying us and modern civilization.

She wrote more, of course . . . but why bother. . .

However, the above did give me pause, when I considered how the other day was an anniversary that, unlike June 6, few appear to want to remember. Erik at ¡No Pasarán! reminds us of the September 29, 1938 "Munich agreement" -- the result of a "summit" between Britain, France, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, that as we know averted war. . .

. . . well, for about 11 months:

. . . After the UK's Prime Minister returned from Munich, he was duly fêted as a peace-maker and for his visionary ability. Intoned The Times: “no conqueror returning from a victory on the battlefield has come adorned with nobler laurels." When an MP started to protest that, on the contrary, Britons had “sustained a total, unmitigated defeat”, he was forced to stop his speech until the storm of protest in the House of Commons had subsided. And why not? One should not have to listen to simple-minded, reactionary war-mongers speaking from their twisted, outdated "war logic".

Since we are told millions oppose the "breathtaking Pentagon nonsense" of fighting back against Islamists, perhaps it is indeed time to consider "another way".

We know the president has already announced changes to U.S. Forces' deployment worldwide. But given the depth of U.S. failures, stupidity and arrogance, such changes are hardly far-reaching enough for the Toynbees of this world. Yes, "summits" and international agreements that aren't worth the paper they are written on are definitely the better way to go. . .

Suggestions: The U.S. will not just tinker with deployments and close bases here and there. The U.S. will instead move wholesale to:

1) back out of all alliances, worldwide;

2) following "1", the U.S. will admit to the wrongheadedness of the "breathtaking Pentagon nonsense", beg forgiveness for its mistakes, and withdraw immediately and unconditionally from both Afghanistan and Iraq after handing both countries formally over to the loving care of their respective "insurgents" and "militants";

3) the U.S. will then move to restore U.S. military positioning, and the U.S. military force level itself, to that of 6 PM, E.T. (U.S), August 31, 1939;

4) and taking things an important and "progressive" step "further", since in 1939 there were of course some U.S. troops based abroad in places like the Philippines, there will from now on be no U.S. troops based anywhere outside the U.S. proper.

. . . And afterwards, of course, what will follow will undoubtedly be a new era of "global understanding, harmony and peace".

Although, you just know that unless the now "isolationist" U.S. suddenly decides as well that "Kyoto" is the greatest treaty ever written, none of the above will matter in the slightest to the current "peace in our time" camp.  ¶ by Robert, Saturday, October 02, 2004