X

Email Address:

Password:

Forgot password?
OK

Sign In | Home | Customer Service | About Us | Advertise

advanced search
  • Subscribe
  • Give a Gift
  • Renew
  • Register Online
  • Customer Service
  • Back Issues
  • Buy Articles
  • Donate
    1. The Naked Novelist and the Dead Reputation
      Algis Valiunas
      September 2009
    2. Why Are Jews Liberals?—A Symposium
      David Wolpe, Jonathan D. Sarna, Michael Medved, William Kristol and Jeff Jacoby
      September 2009
    3. The Art of Obama Worship
      Michael J. Lewis
      September 2009
    4. Clyde and Bonnie Died for Nihilism
      Stephen Hunter
      July/August 2009
    5. The Path to Republican Revival
      Peter Wehner and Michael Gerson
      September 2009
  1. Why Are Jews Liberals?—A Symposium
    David Wolpe, Jonathan D. Sarna, Michael Medved, William Kristol and Jeff Jacoby
    September 2009
  2. The Naked Novelist and the Dead Reputation
    Algis Valiunas
    September 2009
  3. The Art of Obama Worship
    Michael J. Lewis
    September 2009
  4. The Path to Republican Revival
    Peter Wehner and Michael Gerson
    September 2009
  5. The Path to Republican Revival
    Peter Wehner and Michael Gerson
    September 2009

Advertisement



contensions.jpg
about us | contact us | archive | contributors | subscribe to commentary | advertise | RSS

« Out of the CFE
Immigration Politics: Again, a Loser for the GOP »

“Churchillian” Statesmanship

Joshua Muravchik - 11.07.2007 - 6:19 PM

The Washington, D.C.-based Churchill Centre has just awarded the first Winston Churchill Award for Statesmanship to James A. Baker and Lee Hamilton.

This is the same James A. Baker who, as Secretary of State, when asked what the U.S. would do about aggression, ethnic cleansing, and mass murder in Bosnia-Herzegovina, replied: “We have no dog in that fight.” It is hard to say which was more Churchillian, the sentiment or the eloquence.

By this standard, Hamilton, former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was even more Churchillian. His reaction to the Bosnia debacle was described thus by Congressional Quarterly:

Hamilton was a well-modulated voice for cautious diplomacy…. Early in the Clinton administration, he agreed to a strategy under which Bosnia’s factions would agree to a partition of the republic…. But when Bosnia’s militarily dominant Serbs resisted, putting pressure on Clinton for U.S. military action…Hamilton suggested more time was needed to allow diplomacy and economic sanctions to work. To Hamilton’s many admirers, his caution as a foreign policy-maker is an aid in deterring the nation from rushing into foreign policy mistakes.

Other equally Churchillian moments in Hamilton’s legislative career include leading the opposition to military action against Iraq when it occupied Kuwait in 1990; opposition to aid to the Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980’s as well as to the besieged anti-Communist government in neighboring El Salvador; votes against a raft of weapons systems from the B-1 bomber to missile defense; and championing of the nuclear freeze.

Of course, the Churchill Centre was not honoring this pair for their past records but rather, as it explained, for their leadership of “the Iraq Study group, which resulted in critical policy recommendations.” The essence of those recommendations was to abandon hope of victory, begin to withdraw our soldiers, and cushion our defeat by appealing for help to the government of Iran (whose official slogan is “death to America”).

There’s a solution that would have done Churchill proud.

If you find the Baker-Hamilton legacy incongruent with that of Churchill, the Churchill Centre is out to reshape your memory of him, much as various academics lately have redefined Ronald Reagan as a liberal or moderate in noble contrast to the odious conservative, George W. Bush. The Centre explains: “The political precept that won Churchill respect from all sides was his belief that in difficult times the best results follow when people of differing beliefs and backgrounds come together, the greatest example of which was the ‘Grand Alliance’ of World War II.” In other words, Churchill’s great feat was not his resistance to Hitler but his embrace of Stalin.

Next, perhaps, the Centre will create a Churchill Award for Appeasement.

»Back to Contentions »Back to Commentary

del.icio.us del.icio.us
Google Google
Facebook Facebook
Email This Post Print This Post Permanent Link To Article


This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 7th, 2007 at 6:19 PM and is filed under Contentions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Advertisement

image of latest cover
image of latest cover

FREE SAMPLE ISSUE

  • the complete archive
  • hundreds of authors
  • thousands of articles
  • American history
    since 1945

ENTER THE ARCHIVE

ADVERTISER LINKS

Bad Car Credit
calling card
international phone cards
Nutrition Supplements

Advertisement

--->

Advertisement

Commentary is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).



Home | Subscribe | About Us | Donate | Advertise | Contact Us | Legal Notices | RSS

Copyright © 1997-2009 Commentary Magazine
All Rights Reserved