...who goes and defends the general idea of the trip to Eastern Europe in order to be nice to our Baltic allies, promote democracy in the region, etc. Probably the Lithuanian heritage in me. Also, as most of you know, I like the president's democracy speeches. I know he's a hypocrite when it comes to the actual implementation in some areas. Doesn't stop me from appreciating aspects of the philosophy.
However, in no way did my support for the trip in general extend over to the president's comments on World War II and Yalta. While the oppression of Eastern Europe was an absolute tragedy following WWII, what exactly would all the conservative Yalta revisionists have done if they were in power? You get the feeling from some of them that the US should have gone through Berlin and kept fighting to Moscow, even as we continued the war in the Pacific. Several suggest the US should have used its status as a nuclear power to deal with the USSR.
These, of course, are the same commentators who believed Iraq would be a “cakewalk”. Military strategy and dealing with reality is not their strong suit.
Russia needs to apologize to Eastern Europe, not the United States. And backhanded apologies aimed at criticizing FDR are worthless political jabs at a president who led our greatest foreign military campaign. Following FDR, from Truman to Reagan, the US backed pro-democracy forces in the Baltic states. It wasn't a Republican or Democratic policy; it was a principled stand that paid off.
We didn't support democracy because we somehow felt bad for Yalta. We supported and continue to support democratic movements because it's the right thing to do. Conservatives suggesting otherwise do a disservice to US history and ideals.
0 comments:
Post a Comment