Winnie the Pooh on Foreign Policy

[Ben]

PLEASE tell me somebody took a story from The Onion as real and the media picked it up. If we get a National Security Adviser who quotes Winnie the Pooh, I'm going to grab a shovel and start digging the underground bunker, because we're gonna be invaded by everyone in the world, including drunken Somalians with a beer in one hand and an RPG in the other.

-----------------


Barack Obama aide: Why Winnie the Pooh should shape US foreign policy
By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last updated: 2:04 AM BST 17/06/2008
Winnie the Pooh, Luke Skywalker and British football hooligans could shape the foreign policy of Barack Obama if he becomes US President, according to a key adviser.

Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House, told a major foreign policy conference in Washington that the future of US strategy in the war on terrorism should follow a lesson from the pages of Winnie the Pooh, which can be shortened to: if it is causing you too much pain, try something else.

Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.

He spelt out how American troops, spies and anti-terrorist officials could learn key lessons by understanding the desire of terrorists to emulate superheroes like Luke Skywalker, and the lust for violence of violent football fans.

Mr Obamas candidacy was given an early boost by his opposition to the Iraq war and he has repeatedly said the US needs to rethink its approach to the Middle East.

Mr Danzig spelt out the need to change by reading a paragraph from chapter one of the childrens classic, which says: Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming down stairs. But sometimes he thinks there really is another way if only he could stop bumping a minute and think about it.

Mr Obamas approach will be popular in Europe, where President George W. Bush has spent the week on a farewell tour, arriving in Britain yesterday for meetings with the Queen and Gordon Brown.

In a subtle break from Mr Bushs belief that the war on terror can be won, Mr Danzig, who is a Pentagon adviser on bioterrorism, warned that while the West can defeat individual terrorist groups and plots, it can never entirely remove the threat posed by nuclear proliferation or the prospect of bioterrorism.

In a briefing which will inform Mr Obamas understanding of terrorists, Mr Danzig said he learnt much from recent interviews with jailed Aum Shinrikyo terrorists who released sarin nerve gas on the Tokyo underground in 1995.

He said that even people who are relatively well off and successful can feel like failures and become alientated from their societies. He said one terrorist told him: We have been raised on a theory of superheroes. We all want to be like Luke Skywalker.

"When were doing mundane things, we lose track of our ambition but when someone comes along, like Asahara, the head of the cult, and presents himself as a messiah and gives us a picture of progress that is ordained by heaven and that we are carrying out a saintly mission on earth that is for us extraordinarily evocative.

Mr Danzig added: The parallels with al Qaeda are obvious.

He said that another lesson about terrorists can be learnt from studying violent football fans. One of the best books Ive read on terrorism in recent years was not about terrorism at all, he said. Its Bill Bufords book Among the Thugs, which is a description of soccer violence in Britain.

Buford became absorbed by soccer violence. He describes the most appalling examples of soccer violence by fans against fans. But he describes with relentless honesty how he finds sickening things attractive. He says violence lets the adrenaline flow; its like sex, you live in the moment.
Story from Telegraph News:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2139573/Barack-Obama-aide-Why-Winnie-the-Pooh-should-shape-US-foreign-policy.html

[MicroBalrog]

This isn't really all that stupid.

[Manedwolf]

A.A. Milne wrote in an almost Taoist way, really.

Pooh was very proud when he heard this, and he felt that the Heffalump was as good as caught already, but there was just one other thing which had to be thought about, and it was this. Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit?

Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on.

But it doesn't quite apply to foreign policy, no.

[MicroBalrog]

The idea that "children's literature" is somehow 'only for children' is silly.

Consider in this vein Alice.

[Ben]

I've read the Tao of Pooh, but I think it's somewhat foolhardy, public perception-wise, for a potential Security Adviser to spout it to reporters. Maybe if he wrote a book, but the sound bites only hurt the US.

[roo_ster]

For the love of Pete, why can the Democrats not nominate an adult who actually loves and appreciates America?

Instead, we get infantile navel-gazers from the Dems.

[agricola]

For the love of Pete, why can the Democrats not nominate an adult who actually loves and appreciates America?

Instead, we get infantile navel-gazers from the Dems.

This is all part of the fightback.  First we get your politicians quoting Winnie the Pooh, then your young people will be addicted to warm beer, tea and association football.  Before you know it, there will be redcoats on every street corner, and royalty on your coinage.

[Manedwolf]

For the love of Pete, why can the Democrats not nominate an adult who actually loves and appreciates America?

Instead, we get infantile navel-gazers from the Dems.

Because they stopped being the Democrat party and are now the New Socialist Party?

[cosine]

It looks like he pulled out a paragraph from Winnie the Pooh as an example that we need change in our foreign policy. There's that grand mantra again: change, without any suggestion of what would replace what we have now.

But quoting Winnie the Pooh to tell us we need change in our foreign policy? Wasn't there something else he could have used? 

[xavier fremboe]

It looks like he pulled out a paragraph from Winnie the Pooh as an example that we need change in our foreign policy. There's that grand mantra again: change, without any suggestion of what would replace what we have now.

But quoting Winnie the Pooh to tell us we need change in our foreign policy? Wasn't there something else he could have used? 

Maybe Taro Gomi's Everybody Poops?

[MicroBalrog]

It looks like he pulled out a paragraph from Winnie the Pooh as an example that we need change in our foreign policy. There's that grand mantra again: change, without any suggestion of what would replace what we have now.

But quoting Winnie the Pooh to tell us we need change in our foreign policy? Wasn't there something else he could have used? 

\\


I don't see why not quote it. It's a great book. Just because it's a book "for children" does not mean it does not contain more complex messages that could be understood by adults. There are many texts that are like that.

[MechAg94]

I think it just shows that he is so well read on US History and foreign policy that this was the best he could come up with.  I heard the quote last night on the radio and I can only imagine that he thought it would be funny and play good with the media.  I am not so sure about that. 

[taurusowner]

I'd rather he be quoting Sun Tzu.

[Perd Hapley]

"When were doing mundane things, we lose track of our ambition but when someone comes along, like Asahara, the head of the cult, and presents himself as a messiah and gives us a picture of progress that is ordained by heaven and that we are carrying out a saintly mission on earth that is for us extraordinarily evocative.  

There is a place for this fellow in the Democratic Party, this election year. 


Micro,

The wisdom this fellow seems to be getting from Winnie the Pooh is self-evident stuff like "don't do things that hurt you."  I guess that just doesn't seem very profound to me.  If that's the best he has to offer, then maybe preschool is more his speed.

[pinoyinus]

I think this is the long term effect of public education.  The left has done a very good job at dumbing down our educational system that a lot fo people aren't capable of making sound judgements anymore.  Politicians like Obama will not be that popular when presented to intelligent voters.  A lot of voters however, judge their candidate by "who looks cool?", and "who's speeches sound good?" rather than "what are his plans for the country?", "how does he plan to fulfill those plans?" and "do his numbers add up?".  This is very evident when you ask a typical teenager or a 20-something some current events questions.  Most would struggle.  But you ask them the latest news on Britney Spears or Angelina Jolie and their faces light up and they can give you the full blow-by-blow account.  Sad.

[Rudy Kohn]

Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.

Please tell me I am in hell.  What's next?  Clifford the Big Red Dog a treatise on economics?

[yesitsloaded]

Why not? I'm partial to the "If you give a mouse a cookie" theory on the voluntarily jobless and how to treat them.

[K Frame]

"if it is causing you too much pain, try something else."

Sounds to me like they're going to surrender to the terrorists.

[MicroBalrog]

" Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming down stairs. But sometimes he thinks there really is another way if only he could stop bumping a minute and think about it.

Translation into our current events, leftist perspective: "Here's the current United States foreign policy, constantly bringing America into wars and crises. If we could just take a break from the wars and crises and rethink policy, maybe we wouldn't have so many wars, but instead, we are too busy just jumping from one crisis to the next."

It may be wrong, but it sure as hell isn't stupid.

And being 'infantile' isn't necessarily bad, either.

And Mike: I didn't know the terrorists were about to burn the White House.

[LadySmith]

Translation into our current events, leftist perspective: "Here's the current United States foreign policy, constantly bringing America into wars and crises. If we could just take a break from the wars and crises and rethink policy, maybe we wouldn't have so many wars, but instead, we are too busy just jumping from one crisis to the next."

Such a leftist perspective fails to take into account the wars and crises that are brought to us. It's as if they expect the rest of the world to "play nice" while allowing them time to rethink policy based upon childhood whimsies.

And being 'infantile' isn't necessarily bad, either.

It is when applied to foreign policy in a time of war. We want and need adults during periods of crises, not Winnie The Pooh wannabes.

And Mike: I didn't know the terrorists were about to burn the White House.

Why not? They already tried. *bowing my head in rememberance of Flight 93*

[MicroBalrog]

Let me rephrase. Surely, there have been, and there will be, terrorist attacks on the United States. Not all the King's horses and all the King's men can prevent this. Even if you posted guards at every restaurant, disco, shopping mall and old warehouse in America and searched everybody who went by for explosives, still there will be terrorist attacks.

But the threat of terrorists to America is not even comparative to the threat that has been posed to America by other forces in previous times. America's military might is near-legendary.

Let me elaborate on that point: The BBC once interviewed Afghani villagers regarding their views on Al-Quaeda. The Afghani were of course unanimous that America "surely" supports AQ in secret. Their rationale? Why, they said, "America can kill anyone they want. Had they really wanted AQ dead, they'd be dead."

Think of that. There are people out there that literally view the United States Army as a vengeful, omnipotent entity, capable of reaching out to the furthest corners of the Earth and smiting the unbeliever with its weaponry. No military ever has enjoyed this kind of reputation.

So even if America folds up and leaves Iraq, nobody will take it as a surrender because everybody realizes Americans aren't really scared of the Iraqis.

* * *

On the matter of infantile views, it's all a matter of perspective. The qualities we ascribe today to children are not the qualities were defined as 'childish' a century ago. Same with adults. I happen to believe that a lot of the qualities that are seen today as 'necessary' for maturity are extremely negative and are poisoning our civilization. A lot of the features seen as 'childish' would benefit us if adopted by adults.

[agricola]

Let me rephrase. Surely, there have been, and there will be, terrorist attacks on the United States. Not all the King's horses and all the King's men can prevent this. Even if you posted guards at every restaurant, disco, shopping mall and old warehouse in America and searched everybody who went by for explosives, still there will be terrorist attacks.

But the threat of terrorists to America is not even comparative to the threat that has been posed to America by other forces in previous times. America's military might is near-legendary.

Let me elaborate on that point: The BBC once interviewed Afghani villagers regarding their views on Al-Quaeda. The Afghani were of course unanimous that America "surely" supports AQ in secret. Their rationale? Why, they said, "America can kill anyone they want. Had they really wanted AQ dead, they'd be dead."

Think of that. There are people out there that literally view the United States Army as a vengeful, omnipotent entity, capable of reaching out to the furthest corners of the Earth and smiting the unbeliever with its weaponry. No military ever has enjoyed this kind of reputation.

So even if America folds up and leaves Iraq, nobody will take it as a surrender because everybody realizes Americans aren't really scared of the Iraqis.

I disagree that if the US were to leave Iraq "nobody" would take it as a surrender - the Iraqis probably would (dependent on how solid the regime was that was left behind), and al-Qaeda certainly would.  Given their media prominence this view would probably be taken up by parts of the media and disseminated elsewhere.  Then you have the anti-war crowd, which (if BHO wins the election and pulls troops out) would probably also claim success in opposing Bush.

That said, there is a lot of truth in the first part of what you are saying, although if anything Iraq has tended to diminish any awe that the US military has in the wider world - not so much technologically or because of its quality, but more because of the realisation that it is led by politicians who do not share its excellence (the same goes for the UK as well, but that is another matter).  At the risk of becoming partisan, on this issue alone McCain is far ahead of Obama in terms of what is required - I dont know if anyone has read this:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2005/11/iraq-051110-mccain01.htm

.. but if there is a more accurate summary of what needs to be done (especially as its from 2005) then I would like to read it.  Iraq was a huge mistake, but we are there now and we have to deal with the mess we created, otherwise when we walk away the problem will become much, much worse.

[Perd Hapley]

LadySmith.  Well said. 

[MicroBalrog]

Well, TBH, if Obama gets elected, wouldn't it be true that the Democrats have succeeded?

From America's previous military history, we know America's military is extremely good. Even in those wars that America won  say, Vietnam  the military has performed admirably, and inflicted terrible casualties upon the enemy. The bravery and the professionalism of the American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen had never been put into question in any major conflict.

However, America's society does not lend itself well to prolonged conflict. Almost always the process is the same  first America gets itself into a prolonged conflict somewhere, and first there is enthusiasm, and then the media  and after them, the general public  begin gnawing away at the process.

What will happen in Iraq, should America stay, will be approximately as follows:

America will stay, and America will continue to kick Islamist butt for the duration. Slowly but surely, progress will likely be made. However, the media will continue to eat away at the public support of the war. Then, eventually, after some sob story or another  another 'burning girl' picture or one more Haditha 'scandal', or another Tet Offensive-like event  the public's patience will break, and America will fold from Iraq on the least opportune moment. Hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives will be pissed away, and the leftoids will gain enormous political capital for it.

In fact, unless a sweeping cultural change occurs  of a kind that currently cannot be predicted  any prolonged counter-insurgency effort overseas is in danger of ending up like this.

I don't see how this can be avoided.

Now, since America will fold from Iraq under the media pressure eventually, why not do it now and avoid wasting 500 billion dollars more?

Furthermore, as I already pointed out, America can afford to have a policy of engagement, rather than invasion.

You're not going to be automatically seen as cowards if you negotiate with your enemies. And if some country is stupid enough to think that America is weak because it negotiated with nation X or entity Y, and attacks America on that rationale, the US Navy, Air Force, Marines and Army are going to squash them like a bug.

Because it ain't Belgium or Poland. It's America.

[K Frame]

"But the threat of terrorists to America is not even comparative to the threat that has been posed to America by other forces in previous times. America's military might is near-legendary."

Once could say the same thing about Israel's military presence, especially compared to its neighbors.

Why, then, is Israel so worried about the threat of terrorists?

Why, then, were you yelping about new home-made rockets that could reach the town where you live?

After all, I've never heard any of the Palestinian groups threatening to burn down the Knesset.

Obviously the threat posed by the Syrian or Iranian armies is FAR greater than the threat posed by a couple of guys with suicide vests or a couple of home made rockets.

Why all the theatrics, then?