Russia: Friend or Foe

Flaming Sword Insignia
U.S. Army Europe

In an interview in last Saturday's Wall Street Journal General Frederick B. Hodges, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, made the case for military aid to the Ukraine and for an increased NATO involvement. Nevertheless, the General made some admissions that make one wonder if there might be another alternative.

The General argued that Russia is preparing for war some five or six years in the future with some unspecified enemy. He believed that the Russians regard China as their greatest threat but that at the same time noted that they were conducting simulations of a nuclear attack on the United States. He did not mention that they might be concerned with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism all along their southern borderlands.

To counter the Russian threat the General pointed out that our own resources are stretched thin. Nine out of ten of our divisions are currently engaged in missions all over the world. The General insisted that we cannot act on our own anymore and must rely increasingly on our allies. However, our NATO allies have not and will not live up to their treaty commitments. Only four of them dedicate more than the required 2% of GDP to defense spending.

Finally, the General admitted that we need a strategy and that military aid to the Ukraine or any other country does not by itself constitute a strategy. He asks that we consider the outcome we want to achieve in the Ukraine.  Do we really want the Ukraine to become a battlefield where millions might die? Do we want a city like Mariupol on the Black Sea to become a desert like Mosul?

Why can't we consider Russia as an ally and not an enemy? Instead of confronting Russia with NATO, why not guarantee that an independent Ukraine will never be part of NATO. The Ukraine provides Russia with millions of customers for its vast energy reserves. After all, both the US and Russia will more and more have to deal with the growing power of China, as well as with radical Islam.

The Journal has launched a barrage of editorial comment against Russia in the past week. One op-ed suggested that a military buildup is not necessary because we could crush the Russians economically with increased sanctions and low oil and gas prices. This is another dangerous suggestion since if we drive the Russians to the wall, they might become desperate. Why isn't a strong Russia to our advantage? If we think economic sanctions hurt the Russian oligarchs, what do we think they will do to the ordinary Russian citizen.

Journal columnist Bret Stephens, a longtime proponent of arming the Ukrainians, even quoted and praised a practically insane statement by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham who claimed that he did not know what the outcome of military intervention would be, and did not care how many Ukrainians or Russians might die, or even if we lost. All that mattered was that the US not back down and appease Putin.

It would be so much less costly in terms of men and money to bring the Russians into NATO than to confront them with a flaming sword on their historical Western front. It would be better to have a strong, economically viable Russia as an ally rather than an enemy in the ongoing war against radical Islam.

###

Charlie Hebdo and Freedom of Speech

Much of the reaction to the recent murder of a dozen employees of Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine, has dealt with the assault on freedom of speech rather than on the actual killings. For example, one Wall Street Journal columnist repeated the old canard from the French philosophe Voltaire: "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


I'm not so sure that Voltaire actually used those words but I am sure that he never defended to the death anyone's right to disagree with him. Like most philosophes of his age and like most so-called enlightened thinkers thereafter, Voltaire was extremely intolerant of those with whom he disagreed. He regarded the Catholic Church in France with contempt and repeatedly called for its destruction. He called it the "infame" and believed it was the cause of most of the problems of pre-Revolutionary France. I believe that the "enlightened" Voltaire was also an anti-Semite.


Another Wall Street Journal columnist, Bret Stephens, also regarded the modern age ushered in by the Enlightenment as a golden age of free speech and tolerance. In a brief sentence he characterized the preceding 2000 years as an era of ignorance and superstition where progressive thinkers were put to death for blasphemy. That period began with the death of Socrates around 400 B.C. and lasted until the execution of Giordano Bruno around 1600.


I know that this incredibly ignorant statement is very popular and that it is even taken as axiomatic in most colleges and universities today. I will not bother to refute its historical inaccuracy here, but will just point out that the modern era has not been a good example of freedom of speech or intellectual inquiry.


From the time of the French Revolution that thinkers like Voltaire helped bring about to the Communist and Fascist revolutions of our own time, freedom of speech has been a victim of fanatical zealots out to suppress all contrary opinions. Maybe these so-called enemies of the State have not been persecuted for blasphemy but they still have been persecuted. I am not speaking of Moslem terrorists here. They are relative newcomers to murderous intolerance. Communist dictators like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao brutally suppressed freedom of speech at the same time that they murdered millions.


In America the First amendment to the constitution limited the Federal Government from restricting freedom of speech but this has not stopped the modern methods of thought control that we read of every day in our colleges and universities. Just the other day I read that left wing activists have been threatening sponsors of conservative talk radio shows. Broadcasters like Rush Limbaugh have been extremely popular and no liberal equivalent has ever succeeded. Rather than defending to the death the right of conservatives to express their opinions, their opponents are trying to get them off the air.


###

Tout est Pardonne

Tout est Pardonne

The response of the editors of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo to the slaughter of a dozen members of their staff by two Moslem terrorists was to run a front page cover cartoon featuring a weeping Mohammed with a headline saying "Tout est Pardonne". I believe this means all is forgiven.

I suppose it was natural for the editors to try and take the high road and appear magnanimous but their comment is inane and totally inappropriate. How do you forgive someone who has not asked for forgiveness, who has never expressed any sorrow or shown any signs of repentance? How do you forgive someone or some group who rather than show any remorse for their terrible deed, actually glories in their deed and is planning other atrocities?

I know that forgiveness is a necessity for Christians but even a priest in the confessional cannot grant forgiveness unless penitents recognize that they have sinned, express sorrow for their wrongs, and show a willingness to avoid such behavior in the future. It used to be said that the penitent had to have a firm purpose of amendment.

The thousands and thousands of Christians who are being brutally persecuted by Moslem fanatics all over the Middle East have no obligation to forgive their remorseless killers who see nothing wrong with their actions, and are only intensifying their efforts.

I do not think that the editors of Charlie Hebdo are Christian but their politically correct gesture of forgiveness for unrepentant Moslem terrorists everywhere shows the shallowness of modern sensibilities. their words sound good on the surface but have no real substance or meaning. It would have been better if they had just depicted a weeping Mohammed on their cover.

###

Prostate Problem

                                          

After my annual physical this past summer, the doctor ordered the usual blood work. Everything was fine except this year he noticed a slight increase in my PSA. I’m not sure what PSA means but it is used, in addition to the rectal examination, to evaluate the condition of the prostate gland, a common source of cancer in men. Although some question the validity of PSA results, this year my reading moved above 4, a kind of benchmark.

The doctor ordered another blood test and this time it read 5, still not a dangerous level but enough to make him suggest I see a specialist. An appointment was quickly arranged with my urologist whose practiced finger detected a slight lump in my prostate. This finding made him recommend a biopsy of the prostate. He explained what the biopsy entailed and scheduled the test for the week before Christmas.

In the examination room I had to get up on a table and assume a position much like a woman about to give birth. Next to the table was a probe that looked over a foot long. The probe contained a tiny camera so the doctor could look around. Of course, I had to take an enema a couple of hours before. The probe also contained a needle that would actually take about 14 cell samples from the prostate.

Just as the doctor was about to insert the probe, I asked if I could ask a question. He agreed and I asked why he ever decided to take up such a specialty. Even the attending nurse had to laugh but he took time to give an answer I will never forget.

He explained that when he went to medical school, he had no idea of what specialty to pursue. However, his best professor turned out to be a urologist and showed him and his other students how important that work was in healing people, many in great agony. If you can open up or clear a blockage, the patient experiences almost immediate relief from incredible pain. To paraphrase his words, the doctor who can achieve such a result will have a friend for life.

His words immediately brought to mind a college professor of my own. His name was Ross J.S. Hoffman and I took his eighteenth century English history class in my senior year at Fordham University in NY. Although nearing the end of his teaching career, he was kind of a legend at Fordham. At the time though, I had no idea of the extent of his scholarship or his position in the historical community.

To me he was just an imposing and awesome teacher who could take you back into the past and make you believe you were actually in it. More than anyone else he made me realize that history was serious business, and not just a record of names and dates. It was his class that made me decide to concentrate in British history in graduate school at Columbia. Later I returned to the doctoral program at Fordham and Dr. Hoffman agreed to supervise my dissertation. It took me awhile but he stayed with me even after he retired into Professor Emeritus status. I still recall visiting him at his home where he would go over each chapter line by line. He was a tough critic but I remember those sessions with great fondness. He spoke with authority mixed with real concern for me and my growing family.

I suppose many people have had the kind of experience that my urologist and I had with an older role model. It is unfortunate that many college students today who take their courses online or in large lecture halls will never have this life changing experience.

This blog post is a kind of tribute to my urologist. He went into medicine for the right reason and today he is one of the leading practitioners in his field. He and many other doctors I have encountered are the real heart of the American medical system. But let’s conclude with the biopsy.

It was a painless procedure and shortly after Christmas my urologist called with the results that indicated that I had some cancer cells in my 75-year-old prostate. He immediately ordered some follow up tests to see if the cancer had spread elsewhere. In short order I had a chest x-ray, a bone scan, and two MRIs. 

Just yesterday he informed me that there were no signs that the cancer had spread. I will see him tomorrow to discuss the treatment for the prostate cancer. Apparently, if you get cancer, prostate cancer is the best kind since the treatment success rate is very high.

So, after a hectic holiday season I would like to wish my readers a very happy New Year. I will be taking some time off in the next two months but will keep looking for material for the Weekly Bystander. It’s amazing that you can find material even while someone is about to shove a probe up your ass.

###