July 19, 2018--One-World Government & the Antichrist

I continue to struggle to understand all the reasons why Donald Trump so consistently takes seeming pleasure bashing and undermining global alliances such as the European Union (EU) and NATO. It's not just that he doesn't do "group" very well, preferring bilateral relationships. The reasons are more sinister.

The most obvious reason of course is because by doing Vladimir Putin's bidding Trump contributes to fulfilling Putin's desire to weaken and ultimately dominate the West. Putin has the goods on him and thus Trump is in effect a Putin operative.

Trump is doing a pretty good job of this. Just ask Angela Merkel. Europe's longest standing and most powerful leader is, thanks in significant part to Trump, now hanging by a political thread. Thus expect her to be pushed out of office in the next 6 to 12 months.

Trump is also taking on the EU because by doing so he is pandering to the core of his base--the millennialist-minded evangelicals who, while waiting for the Rapture, support him so fervently that they have little problem overlooking the fact that he has had three wives, has sexually assaulted women, and cavorted with porn stars such as Stormy Daniels.

Part of the End-Time scenario calls for the emergence of the prophesied One-World government and the appearance of the Antichrist, who will preside over it for three-and-a-half years. All will feel oppressed by this government because ultimate power as a result will be concentrated in the hands of the Devil. 

Next, though, will be the Second Coming of Jesus who will establish his own world government, which in time will result in the cataclysmic death of us all and the resurrection for some during the Last Judgement. (See, for example, endtimes.com.)

According to the Christian fringe (which in fact is quite large, variously estimated to be up to a third of Americans--again Trump's base) there have already been a number of organizations that might qualify as this End-Time government as well as who might be the Antichrist.

First, since the early 1970s there is the Trilateral Commission. Founded and funded by David Rockefeller, it is a non-partisan discussion group whose agenda is to foster closer cooperation among Japan, Western Europe, and North America. Millennialists see the Commission quite differently--as an organization that wants to overthrow the current world order.

As might be imagined, David Rockefeller himself was an Antichrist candidate as was Commission member Henry Kissinger.

Then there was the United Nations. An obvious choice with various of its secretary generals suspected to be the Antichrist.

And currently the most likely New-World Order government is the EU. Among other things that make this suspicion persuasive is the belief that its euro is the kind of universal currency prophesied in the Bible as evidence that the time is approaching when the Antichrist will appear.

The list of possible Antichrists is lengthy and diverse. It includes--

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, head of ISIS (I vote for him)
Alexis Tsipras, prime minister of Greece
Emmanuel Macron, president of France
Barack Obama (not much of a surprise)
Jared Kushner (he does need a real job)
Hillary Clinton (the only woman on the list)
And Canadian prime minister Justine Trudeau, who qualifies because he is anti-Zionist, pro-global government, promotes lawlessness and immorality, and is the leader of the northernmost country on earth--some scholars argue that the "king of the North" is the Antichrist. 

This is what is swirling around in the heads of a majority of Trump's people. It also helps explain why Trump is so motivated to destroy NATO and the European Union.

July 18, 2018--President Munchausen

We were in New York City most of last week to do some routine doctoring and to see a few close friends and family members.

Good news on all fronts though it seems, without symptoms, I may have Lyme Disease again and either had or have Shingles.

One other thing--we were reminded again that while up in Maine we spend very little time watching cable news or pretty much anything else but when in NYC we watch too much. And, so, in town we did some reverting. At 6 a.m. I automatically turned on Morning Joe and we found ourselves watching Nicole Wallace's show later in the day.

This brought Trump front and center back into our lives. 

Halfway into Morning Joe Monday morning we realized why we keep the TV off most of the time during the six months we spend in Maine--what's available is too boring and/or too depressing.

Monday was all about Trump in Europe. First, there was a live feed from the NATO meeting in Brussels where over what appeared to be breakfast without food Trump in a monologue berated NATO members for not spending enough on their own defense. How they take advantage of us, expecting America to pick up the tab while they devote much of their GNP to overgenerous welfare programs for their citizens and the millions of refugees they foolishly allow to flood into their countries. 

The headline from that meeting was Trump slandering Germany and chancellor Angela Merkel for being held "captive" by Russia since Germany spends "billions and billions, many billions" of dollars for natural gas that flows into Germany from Russia. Germans, Trump claimed, get "70 percent" of their energy this way and thus are in effect hostages of Russia.

When I said to Rona that this figure is much too high (it turns out to be that "only" 13 percent of German's energy is supplied by Russia), she said, "More Munchausen Syndrome."

"You've referred to that before," I said, "Since I never heard of this I should have looked it up. Tell me, what is it?"

"It's a fictitious disorder, a mental disorder in which a person repeatedly and deliberately acts as if they have an illness when he or she isn't really sick."

"Like being a hypochondriac."

"Similar but there's a key difference--people with Munchausen's know they are faking it whereas hypochondriacs believe they are sick."

"So how does this work with Trump, who you say has a version of Munchausen's?"

"In many cases people with Munchausen's make illnesses up in part to elicit sympathy but also to 'cure' themselves when they want to boast by 'getting over' illnesses which they in fact never had. Like Trump does with facts or the truth. Unless he is more pathological than most people think, he knows he's making this stuff up. Like with Germany and Russian gas."

"Interesting but are their also parallels between classic Munchausen's where people 'cure' the illnesses they made up and Trump's relationship to the truth?"

"Take the business with Angela Merkel. He made up the 70 percent number, using it to verbally beat her up all day and then after they met one-on-one later that day or on Tuesday, he backed off from criticizing her and was full of praise for her and Germany. So among his followers he got credit for what he claimed while lying (his people hate the Europeans) and then later among the better informed, more serious crowd, he got some begrudging credit for appearing to have listened and moderated his position."

"I like this," I said.

"He did the same thing with British prime minister Theresa May. First he mocked her for getting in trouble when trying to implement Brexit because she didn't 'take his advice' but then after private meetings with her later in the week in England, he took much of it back, praising her for the way she is struggling with this complicated issue. First he made up the situation (her not taking his advice) and then took it back--in a sense overcame it in true Munchausen fashion."

"Is Munchausen a real person?"

"Of course not! That's half the fun. There's a fictional Baron Munchausen, an 18th century German nobleman who made up stories about the remarkable feats he performed like riding a cannonball or fighting a 40-foot long crocodile. Much like Trump's boasting. Then when caught in the lie that he knew was a lie he simply backed off.

"And when in the 1950s it came time to study and then name a new syndrome that had Munchausen-like aspects to it the psychiatrists named it for him. If they were doing that now I suppose it could be called Trump Syndrome."

Now, back in Maine, the TV is off except for Wimbledon and the World Cup. Thankfully, both are over.

But then there was the disastrous meeting with Vladimir Putin and . . .

Baron Munchausen

July 16, 2018--Bromance In Helsinki

Here's what to expect today in Helsinki at the Trump-Putin summit--

Putin publicly will throw Trump a crumb or two. 

Just enough to make it appear that the president's strategy of "befriending" the Russian dictator in a one-on-one relationship is paying off.

Trump has already delivered for the Russian leader (even before he became president) and so, from his friend Vladimir Putin's perspective, he deserves his little reward.

Trump has shrugged off Putin's crimes in Crimea and the Ukraine; he has destabilized and thus weakened both NATO and the European Union (to Trump the EU is a "foe"); he has undermined the political standing of British prime minister, Theresa May (she mishandled Brexit because she didn't take his "advice"); and done all he could to undercut Europe's dominant economy and leader, Angela Merkel, claiming Germany is a "captive" of Russia; and Trump has ignored Putin's meddling in our presidential election and thus tampered with our democracy.

You and I even know why Trump has functioned as Putin's lackey--

Putin has the goods on him. 

Remember that infamous BuzzFeed dossier, the one that reports on Trump's private business dealings in Russia (some of them likely illegal) as well as those incendiary claims that Trump in 2013, while in Russia for the Miss Universe Pageant, cavorted with prostitutes and intentionally sullied the same hotel suite used by Michelle and Barack Obama. My guess is that Putin has a KGB video tape of those golden showers.

Thus, to help keep his boy propped up expect Putin to say he will personally investigate what's behind the recent indictment by the Mueller team of a dozen Russian intelligence operatives. Pretending to know nothing about it he will agree to look into the charge that they directly hacked Hillary Clinton's campaign and he will, with a straight face, promise to report what he finds directly to Trump. (Don't hold your breath waiting for the results of that investigation.) 

Also, expect Putin to say he will order his military to work more closely with America's special forces to coordinate the hunt in Syria for the remnants of ISIS (again, resist holding your breath); and, as a bonus for Trump being such an important member of the Putin team, the Russian president will agree to open bilateral discussions leading to a plan to reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons. (Once more don't . . .)

Then, speaking of nuclear weapons, Putin will praise Trump for meeting with Kim Jong-un and will agree to use his non-existing influence to press Kim to actually denuclearize. My advice--again, don't hold your breath for any of this to happen. It's all about the pretending and photo-ops.

At the end of their private meeting, at a joint press conference, metaphorically speaking, expect nothing but hugs and air kisses. 

And after that, expect nothing. Except Putin's relentless campaign to weaken all aspects of American and Western European life. With Trump continuing to clear the way for him.

April 2, 2018--Sabre Rattling

One good thing about the resumption of the Cold War is that we'll finally get to see what if any goods Putin and the Russians have on Donald Trump.

During the entire 2016 campaign and the first year of his administration Trump had nothing but positive and admiring things to say about the Russian leader. For someone who was attempting to project a tough-guy, commander-in-chief image, in regard to Putin, Trump came off as quite a wimp. 

Some said that Trump the crypto-totalitarian had genuine admiration for how the Russian strongman governed. He was a role model for the draft-dodging Trump. 

Others claimed that Trump was blackmailed into overlooking Putin's dictatorial methods because the Russians knew about Trump's history of money laundering, including direct Russian involvement, and sexual peccadilloes. There is that titillating BuzzFeed dossier hanging over Trump's head that allegedly alludes to Trump's bad-boy behavior during the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013.

In response to Trump's obsequious behavior, Putin for the past two years has made a version of nice. Unlike with Obama, who he wouldn't even pretend to look in the eye, Putin has had many flattering things to say about candidate and then president Trump, calling him, for example, a "genius"; while Trump cooed back, "He has done a really great job of outsmarting our country." 

A seeming bromance. And perhaps, as unlikely as it might seem, some speculated that with Trump and Putin maybe actually getting along, there would be the opportunity for a genuine reset in Russian-American relations.

But then the Russians poisoned Russian ex-spy, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter in London in early May. Seizing on this to revive her collapsing political fortunes, British prime minister Theresa May somehow manged to get NATO allies to condemn and sanction Russia. Diplomats were expelled from England, France, Germany, and a host of other western European countries. Leading the world in expressing outrage, May even got Trump to agree to send home 60 Russian diplomat/spies and shut down the Russian consulate in Seattle.

Wounded by this, the Russians retaliated, expelling equivalent numbers of our diplomats and spies and shutting down our consulate in St. Petersburg. It was Cold War deja-vu all over again.

And to make his actions emphatic, Putin had the Russian military fire off one of their newest Satan 2 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that has the capacity, they claim, to carry up to 10 miniaturized hydrogen bombs.

So now we not only have North Korea launching missiles that can reach America, we have the Russians doing the same, claiming that their missiles are "invulnerable" to American defenses.

If you're having trouble sleeping nights, this may be the reason. If you have kids in school, expect them soon to be diving under their desks during "take-cover" drills.

And if Trump gives in to his aides (read, John Bolton) who, the New York Times reported, are calling for "tougher Russia policies"--presumably increasing economic sanctions against Putin and his billionaire cronies--expect Putin to reply tit-for-tat. 

Then, if we get deeper into things, such as killing more Russian "volunteers" fighting in Syria, if he has salacious stuff about Trump, expect Putin to begin to leak it out.

That will manage to push Stormy Daniels off the front pages.

July 10, 2017--Jack: Making China Great Again

When I saw him yesterday, I couldn't wait to ask Jack how he felt about Ivanka Trump the other day taking her daddy's place at the table of G-20 leaders.

"There you go," he said, "Drinking the Kool-Aid."

Me? I think of you guys as doing that."

"Let's just say we're all susceptible. But about Ivanka, I'm OK with that. Like it or not--and I think I know your view--she's an formal senior advisor and other countries do the same thing."

"You mean have their kids sit in for them at a meeting of world leaders?"

"The Kool-Aid I was referring to," Jack said, ignoring that, "is your buying into the on-going story that's more gossip than big picture. While Trump is meeting one-on-one with Putin and the president of China, all the media want to talk about is Ivanka."

"Totally untrue," I snapped, "The media outlets Trump hates the most--CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, NBC--had dozens of articles about that. Mainly about his meeting with Putin, which is a very big deal."

"And what did they emphasize? Not so much the content--things like agreeing to cooperate more in Syria--but focused instead on whether or not Trump was forceful enough in confronting Putin about interfering in our election and if Trump himself believes they did. Isn't there a commission or special council or something looking into that? So who cares what Trump says. He either did it or he didn't and time will tell what happened. Then we can talk about it. In the meantime, the world goes on. Again, in big picture terms, what's more important, trying to get Putin's help with North Korea or how forceful Trump was in raising the hacking issue? To me it's a no-brainer."

"Shifting the subject a little," I said, "are you and your other Trump supporters all right with China seeing a global vacuum as Trump pulls the U.S. back from international trade agreements, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal with countries that together account for 40 percent of the world's GDP? His so-called America First agenda has created that opening and China, who with European Union involvement as well as through new agreements with up to 20 Asian countries, is moving quickly to take advantage of the United States being comfortable leading from behind." I thought that last reference would get to Jack.

"I'm OK with that," Jack said, surprising me.

"I'm confused. How does that contribute to making America great again? To me it feels more like diminishing America's stature--and will hurt our economy--rather than contributing to our role in world leadership?"

"Again, you guys don't get it."

"Enlighten me."

"Trump is not about America's global leadership. Quite the opposite. He feels that in our various involvements American has been taken advantage of and as a result we have been weakened because our economy has been weakened. He sees backing out of these trade agreements actually good for our economy. That's how America will become great again. When we decide to no longer submit to being taking advantage of. Like with steel. How other countries have grabbed hold of steel manufacturing by dumping steel made overseas in America at numbers so low our companies can't compete."

"Doesn't the Trump organization buy its steel from overseas manufacturers?"

"Of course. Because he's smart. Like everyone else he doesn't want to overpay. But through his own experience he knows the systems is rigged and doesn't want America to be taken advantage of."

"I get the rhetoric," I said, "but his outmoded and failed ideas, if they are reintroduced, will do more to make China great again than America."

"Very clever," Jack said, "I've heard others use the same rhetoric but be patient. What Trump is up to when it comes to trade will be good for us."

"And how do you feel," I asked Jack, "about recent polls in 37 countries that showed people around the world, with Trump as president, holding us in very low esteem? The lowest in history. For example in Britain only 22% say they have confidence in Trump, with 14% in France and 11% in Germany. Ironically, only in Russia is he held in high regard. 53% percent of Russians have confidence in Trump."

"There you go again," Jack said, "You really care what people in France feel about us? Or Germany? or even Russia? In most of these places we have been taken advantage of. If they're in NATO are they anteing up what they agreed to pay for their own defense and do you really think that most people around the world are concerned about what happens to our economy? They only care about theirs and what's good for them. As they should be. As they should."

"First of all what Trump says about paying for NATO is grossly exaggerated. Most places have paid their two percent or contributed in ways other than just transferring cash. So he and you are on soft ground with that. But it's a great talking point to work up his base. That I'll grant you. To blame others for our problems. And in regard to a U.S.-first approach to our economy, cite one credible economist who things that will be good for us? It's no longer the 18th or 19th centuries when Mercantilism held the day. Anyone who knows any history knows what a disaster that turned out to be--huge global economic crashes one after the other--and how things will be even worse here if we revive that approach. You guys are playing with fire."

"My point is," Jack said, "that what's most important is how we feel about ourselves, not what others who wish us harm think about us. I see Trump getting under the skin of Europeans and others to be a good thing for us. For decades with both Republican and Democrat presidents cared too much about what others thought about us so we let them walk all over us. It's better if we focus on ourselves and stop worrying about other people's opinions, which, incidentally, could turn on a dime if any of these people saw it to be in their best interest."

"We should pay attention to what smart people, what experts think."

"I've had it with your so-called experts. They are the people who brought us to this crisis. A list of economists who know what they're talking about would be a pretty short list. When you have a moment pass along your list of economists who have gotten things right. I'm sure it would fit on a 3x5 card."

"Again, you're good with the talking points but when it comes to evidence and facts you have less to say."

Jack mumbled something and so I continued, "In regard to made-up stuff, have you paid attention to some of Steve Bannon's crackpot ideas? Ideas that Trump seems to have bought into that if followed could turn our actual problems into a catastrophe."

"I'm listening," Jack said.

"One example--the Fourth Turning. Have you heard of it?" Jack looked away so I said, "Back in 1977 there was a book titled The Fourth Turning which claimed that America was on the cusp of an historical crisis equal at least to the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II. That we are about to be plunged into a global disaster. Bannon has apparently read it three or four times and keeps a heavily marked-up copy of it close at hand. It and he includes a prophecy of a bloody cataclysm that will remake the global order. The likely result is World War III. This is just another example of American apocalyptical thinking that at least a third of the American people believe to be impending. You know, the Rapture, Last Days, the Second Coming."

"I don't know about any of that," Jack muttered.

"Well you should know about it because Bannon is one of the people Trump listens to. I admit that Bannon has the hair and the wardrobe that make him look smart, but his beliefs--and they are beliefs and not ideas--are unhinged. With North Korea having ICBMs we don't want our president to think this represents the start of the Fourth Turning. And, again from Bannon perspective, a good thing."

Still not wanting to deal with this, Jack said, "One thing before I go. Did you read that Trump has 100 fewer White House staff than Obama?"

"I saw that," I said, "In general he's very slow in filling jobs. For example, we hardly have any ambassadors in place."

"Again, you're missing the point. The conventional wisdom is that all these people are needed. This so-called slow pace is intentional. Trump is making the case that we don't need all these people and could get along with maybe half our civil servants. It's all about smaller government. I know you disagree, but he campaigned on this."

"If I go along with you--and I don't--though there for sure could be some real cutbacks in many of the agencies (don't get me started talking about the Department of Education)--is he also shrinking the size of the presidency itself because it sure doesn't feel that way. His ego is so huge that he wants to be front and center and in charge of everything. Or at least give the appearance that he is. Just ask the president of Montenegro, who he literally shoved aside the last time he was in Europe for a meeting."

"To make my point about shrinking the presidency," Jack said, "take a look at how he behaved at the recent G-20 meeting. He hardly participated. As you noted, he let Ivanka fill in for him. It was a way of, frankly, insulting other countries and leaders. As if to say even my daughter can do this. Intended or not he's also diminishing the presidency. So far I'm not seeing many signs that he thinks about the presidency as imperial. Quite the contrary. He sees it as no big deal. Which may explain some of his Twitter and other behavior. It may be true, as you guys claim, that he's emotionally unfit to be president (in other words, crazy). It also may be that he has you confused and snookered."

"I don't know," I said, "About this I don't think he's that strategic. He feels more like a seat-of-the-pants operative.

"Exactly!" Jack said, "Again, that's my point--it's as if he's saying you can be president and not make too big a deal about it."

"I'm not buying this," I said.

"I gotta go," he said and with that was gone.

November 16, 2105--ISIS in Paris

I may have a different perspective after I, perhaps, cool down.

God knows there have been much worse cases of barbarism, evil during my lifetime. Even quite recently. By the numbers, ISIS's blowing the Russian plane out of the sky over the Sinai killed more innocent people than the seven or eight coordinated attacks in Paris.

Numerically, the terrorist bombings in Mumbai, Spain, Beirut, and of course on 9/11 killed and maimed more people, but there is something different about ISIS than al Qaeda. Something different for me about Paris than even New York.

That tells you how in a rage I am about what happened Friday night.

OK, I used the e-word. Evil.

All of these terrorist atrocities, including the pubic beheadings, are more than "cowardly acts." If there is such a thing as evil, this is it. Have there been worse examples? Of course. Including in France.

The French, among other "civilized" people, during the Second World War rounded up and shipped many thousands of their Jews to certain death in Nazi Germany.

A special definition of evil is necessary to categorize the various holocausts of the 20th century.

But what was perpetrated Friday still qualifies as dastardly. Unspeakable. All too human in its inhumanness.

Words fail.

French president Hollande says this was an act of "war." The Pope said we are in "World War III." Both may be right.

If we are, what then does that mean?

France is a linchpin of the NATO alliance. NATO's charter in effect says that "an attack on one is an attack on all." That includes us. The United States.

That charter was written well before al Qaeda and ISIS existed. It was for a time when there were credible threats of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. What does it mean now when the definition of war had shifted? Does it mean that the U.S. is also at war? That because France was "attacked," that it experienced more than an evil act of terrorism, we too have been attacked and thus are obligated to act accordingly? To join them in waging war?

I do not know how to think about this. What I do know is that this has struck me deeply. I have even been gathering information about going to France, Paris, this week. As an act of solidarity and defiance.

Rona thinks I'm crazy. She's right. I am.

Minimally I am trying to think about what France should do, more appropriately, as an American citizen what we should do because I do think we are at war.

Yes, I know how we got there. Not solely as the result of President Obama's weak leadership--though he has been weak and that hasn't helped, feeling that the "Arab Spring" would help bring about versions of democracy to the region. This just as naive in its own way as George W. Bush's delusion that toppling Saddam Hussein would do that for Iraq and surrounding dictatorships.

What matters now is what to do going forward.

Drone-guided bombings will not get the job done. Depending on lightly-armed Kurd forces on the ground will not defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Russia's involvement, even if it shifts to confront ISIS rather than Syrian rebels, will not get the job done.

Nothing this simple, this limited will work.

I can hardly believe I am thinking this, but only a massive, boots-on-the-ground force of American troops has any chance of succeeding. Perhaps 100,000 are required. Maybe more.

This would mean many casualties, even the beheading of captured U.S. soldiers. But does anyone have a better, more realistic idea?

I hate this. Hate all of it. But I am feeling radicalized.

ISIS has to be shown to be a failure in order to stem the flow of young lunatics to its "cause." Disaffiliated youth from the Islamic world as well as from Europe and the United States are partly drawn to ISIS because it is perceived to be winning. This encourages those with distorted minds to believe that the apocalypse they seek is near at hand. Defeat ISIS, devastate it, and that belief system will crumble.

I am sorry. I wish I could believe in the effectiveness of diplomacy and financial warfare, including bombing the oil fields and petroleum distribution system in ISIS-controlled territory.

I don't.

As long as they feel they are winning, ISIS fighters can live on fumes. They are that motivated and tenacious.

So they have to be killed. All of them would be ideal. As many as possible is imperative.

Again, I can't believe these worlds are coming from me. I have up to now considered myself to be moderate, essentially pacifistic. Not any more.

Paris on Friday changed that.

When will we too again feel the pain and fear?

June 18, 2015--Yugoslavia

Anyone following Behind knows that for years I have been an advocate for a redrawing of national borders in the Middle East. From the political borders imposed on Arab and Islamic people by the victorious Western superpowers at the end of the First World War to others that take history, culture, ethnicity, and religion into consideration.

Broadly speaking, for what we now call Iraq this would minimally mean separate countries for Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds.

Some readers who have communicated with me say it would never work, that rivalries and blood-hatred is so intense that Sunnis would continue to fight with Shia and Turks with Kurds.

That may be but we have been seeing an alternative, deadly scenario playing out with millions either killed or made homeless, stateless.

Others have said to me that they might agree if there were current examples of the successful redrawing of borders.

There very well may be.

Take Yugoslavia as an example.

There is no historic, ancient Yugoslavia. It was a political construct that came about after the chaos of the First World War when territories of the defeated Austro-Hungarian Empire were fused to become the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. That monarchy was overthrown at the end of World War II and a new "country" emerged, the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, which for decades was dominated and kept from disintegrating by strongman Josip Broz, better known as Marshal Tito.

After Tito died, civil war broke out as Christian Serbs and Croats fought Bosnian Muslims. Many atrocities were committed, especially "ethnic cleansing" by Serbs of Bosnians.

By the mid 1990s, European members of NATO, recalling that World War I begin in Sarajevo, in what was to become Yugoslavia, and also concerned about the slaughter of Bosnians, began to mobilize peacekeeping forces, including eventually convincing President Bill Clinton to participate in bombing Serb forces.

In 1995, through Clinton's leadership, the contesting parties were convened in Ohio and spent weeks in effect confined there until they reached the historic Dayton Accords that once again redrew the map of the Balkans, this time more culturally than politically.

For 20 years, with U.S. and NATO troops still stationed on the ground as peacekeepers, the Accords have more or less held. There is reason to be optimistic that a version of peace will prevail.

This, then, is my best example of what might be possible in the long run in the Middle East if the parties there, left alone by outsiders--very much including the United States, were to stay out to the region and let the natural forces of history unfold and reach, to them, some sort of acceptable resolution.

July 10, 2014--Slovakia

One of the delightful young women at the checkout counter at Reilly's market in New Harbor told us that at the end of the season she will be going home.

"Where's home?" Rona asked, sounding rueful.

"Slovenia," she said.

"Where?" Rona asked not sure she heard correctly or if, for the moment, she wasn't able to locate Slovenia on a map in her mind. "Oh, you mean, part of the former Czechoslovakia. It was peacefully divided in the 1990s into two countries--your Slovakia and . . ."

"The Czech Republic." She smiled broadly, pleased to know that someone way up here was aware of that history.

Later, while driving to town, Rona asked why what happened in Czechoslovakia, a country that was reconfigured at least twice after both the First and Second World Wars, couldn't be a model for other parts of the world. Especially the Middle East.

"We keep talking about how with the exception of Egypt and Iran all the other countries there were created out of nothing more than Western economic need and greed and political maneuvering."

"We've even said this too is true for Israel, which was carved out of ancient Palestine and now includes parts of post-colonial Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon."

"And whenever anyone raises the subject of allowing the remapping of this region people object saying there are no good examples of this occurring with peaceful results."

"But," I said, "the Czechoslovakian division between Czechs and Slovaks occurred with no fighting and, unless I am missing something, there are no current border disputes."

"And then," Rona added, "there's what happened to the former Yugoslavia, another country that post-war was a forced amalgam of many peoples and religions."

"Though that remapping didn't happen peacefully after Tito died. He was the strong man who forced Albanians to live under the same flag as Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians, Montenegrins, and warring Christians and Muslims. There was ethnic and religious warfare with atrocities committed on all sides."

"Including 'ethnic cleansing.' Remember that wonderful euphemism?"

"I sure do. But after the Clinton administration and NATO finally and reluctantly got involved, including militarily, there was a version of peace--which has persisted more-or-less for at least 20 years. And now there are seven or eight countries that devolved from Yugoslavia. If this were final Jeopardy, how many could you list?"

I began to hum the familiar Jeopardy music as Rona raced to tick off, "Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Bosnia," and then paused, searching for the others. I kept up my annoying humming. "What about Macedonia? Yes, that's another one and . . ."

"Sorry, time's up."

"OK smart-ass, what are the rest?" And she then began to hum quite loudly.

I stammered and tried to distract Rona but she persisted. "Time's up!" she roared, clapping her hands triumphantly.

When we got home we Googled "the former Yugoslavia" and found that we had forgotten--or had never known--that there were at least two other new countries formed after Yugoslavia collapsed--Herzegovina and Montenegro.

"So," Rona said, "when the nay-sayers claim the Middle East can't be remapped and that there are no current examples of that working, we have at least two to cite."

"I doubt if tomorrow morning we'll get too many folks at the diner interested in talking about Montenegro or Slovakia. If we try to do that, no one will sit with us."

"Good point," Rona agreed, "Let's forget the whole thing."

Later that afternoon, I heard her humming the Jeopardy music from the shower.