President Dwight Eisenhower had led the free world by his molar authority, not by America's military might. In fact, after stopping the human bloodshed that was going on in Korea, ( Korean War of 1950-1953 ), through the good offices of the United Nations, extreme pressures were exerted on him by the dogs of wars, to start a new war, in some place else in the world. And he was quoted by the people who recorded his presidency, as a response to the dogs of wars: "If they want a war, let them go and fight it. The American people want peace and I intend to give it to them." Not exactly Eisenhower's words, but close enough to convey to the readers the fact that the eight years of Eisenhower's presidency, ( 1952-1960 ) were the only eight years that the blood of America's young soldiers was not shed on the soil of a foreign country, in spite of America's Cold War with what was known then the Soviet Union. In short, Eisenhower adhered firmly to International Law and the United Nations Charter in his dealing with international crises as they occurred. A shinning example of his adherence to International Law and United Nations was the position he took on the Suez Canal War certainly attest to that. It was one of those rare occasions in which the United States of America and what was known then the Soviet Union had agreed on. I was then undergraduate university student and I watched the dramatic events, as they happened, on my white and black television. I am a witness on that period, the period of the Cold War that was going on, mainly, between the United States and Soviet Union. And I must say that I was delighted witnessing the United States and Soviet Union agreed on something, since the heat of the competition between them, across the globe, was potentially dangerous, with the huge nuclear arsenal each one of them had.
Although President Vladimir Putin of Russia does not really resemble Eisenhower in many ways, namely, physical appearance and military experiences. As to physical appearance, Eisenhower was taller than Putin. Eisenhower had a shiny bald head. Putin still has plenty of hear on his head, in comparison to Eisenhower's shiny baldness. The strongest evidence of the body language of Eisenhower was so obvious in his broad, extremely likable and strongly disarming smile that could disarm heads of states, diplomats, politicians; and voters as well. Putin body language is concentrated in his gazing, glaring penetrating eyes, ( they look like talking eyes ), whose effect cab be devastating on heads of states, diplomats, politicians, and even voters. As to military experiences, Eisenhower was, ( and still is ), the only Five Stars General in the entire military history of the United States of America. Putin spent his younger years, before becoming President of Russia, a real professional KGB officer.
Based on the foregoing, no similarity exists between the two leaders. Hence, why raise the question: Is Vladimir Putin a Russian Eisenhower ?
Well, the answer to the question, that is questioning the essay's titled-question, maybe found in the following article, as published on page 13 of October-November issue, 2013, of " The Washington Report On Middle East Affairs," I publish, here, part of it, for mainly recognizing the international public figures or leaders who truly have succeeded in solving international crises by way of diplomacy has not violated international law and charter of the United Nations. And, of course, for the benefit of the readers of this website, especially those readers who have no access to the magazine, The Washington Report On Middle East Affairs:
OBAMA: DO NOT PLAY CHESS WITH THE KGB
By Eric S. Margolis
Add a warning to Obama's amateur foreign policy advisors: "Do not play chess with the KGB ! "
In fact, Obama, who rudely snubbed former KGB agent Putin recently, owes Russia's leader A " Bolshi Spaseba " ( big thanks ) for pulling his bacon out of the fire in Syria Putin brilliantly demonstrated to the world the difference between diplomacy and force, the rapier versus the cudgel
The American cynic Ambrose Bierce aptly defined a diplomat as " a patriot ready to lie for his country."
True enough, but diplomacy is the essential lubricant of international relations. Ever since the Bush administration, America's foreign relations have become militarized and run by the Pentagon while the State Department ( Ministry of Foreign Affairs ) has been eclipsed. America has become addicted to small wars and debt.
It is also painful and disturbing watching Obama and Kerry deliver impassioned orations about poor little Syrian babies gassed by the wicked Bashar al-Assad, a former eye specialist who would probably prefer to be living in London.
What about all those babies killed in Afghanistan and Iraq ? What about those killer drone strike in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia ?
Vietnam anyone ? Nagasaki ?
Enough, please, with the synthetic moral outrage over Syrian babies or ludicrous claims Syria was threatening the U.S. Remember the phony Kuwaiti babies dreamed up by a Washington PR ( Public Relations ) agency ?
As the crisis mounted we heard increased patriotic guff about " American exceptionalism," a code phrase for American proto-fascism, for " Amerika Uber Alles. " Scary stuff. President Putin warned about this in an incisive analysis of the Syrian crisis in The New York Times.
The U.S. Congress also owes big thanks to President Putin. Had he not short circuited Obama's foolish war plans for Syria, Congress would have been caught between anti-war Americans and major cash donor, from, special interests who are lusting for war.
What happened to the planned Syrian peace conference in Geneva ? The real question is ending this awful war, not chemical weapons.
Next question: why did Syria ( and Egypt ) acquire chemical weapons ? The answer is a poor man's counter to Israel's large nuclear and chemical arsenal. If Iran ever decided to make nuclear weapons, it will be for the same reason. So why not revive talks proposed by the Arabs and Iran for a nuclear-free Mideast that were repeatedlybrushed aside by the U.S. and Israel.
Finally, what about a Palestinian state ? Much of the uproar over Iran and Syria was designed to divert attention from this essential subject, the essential element of Mideast peace.
Meanwhile, Vlad Putin and his very able foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov deserve Kudos for their patient diplomacy and acute timing. By the way, the idea of removing Syria's Chemical weapons did not come from an off-hand remark by John Kerry. It originated in Moscow.
So in what could have been a second Cuban missile crisis, Putin and Lavrov got A+. Obama and his angry advisors got an F- and orders to get intense tutoring in diplomacy.
Based on all of the foregoing, it is clear, at least to me, that a touch of similarity does exist between the policies that were followed by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1952-1960 and the recent policies followed by President Vladimir Putin, with regards to the crisis of Syria's chemical weapons. Both President adhered firmly to International Law and the good offices of the United Nations. The proof:
Eisenhower's policy brilliantly shinned in the Suez Canal War of 1956.
Putin's policy has brilliantly shone in the current Syrian chemical weapons crisis of 2013.
Therefore, the question, Is Putin a Russian Eisenhower ? has essentially been appropriated to raise for complimenting President Vladimir Putin's successful diplomacy in averting American destructive strikes against Syria which has suffered enough in the last two years and still counting. A Russian splendid act of diplomacy that could not possibly be ignored or marginalized by the self-respecting and peace-loving people of the world. I am one of those people of the world.
Whether or not Vladimir Putin is another Dwight Eisenhower is not for me to say. What I have essentially done, here, is simply raise the question. So far so good from Putin. Let the future and history be the ultimate judge. Meanwhile, one can only hope for another Eisenhower in the making-this time in Russia.
Once more, I regret the interruption I have found myself doing to the series of topics extracted from the book entitled, "A World Without Islam." I simply could not help it, since I have felt that I must publicly recognize and support the importance of what President Putin has lately done to avert more destructive agony for Syria. And above all, I feel content in doing what, I strongly believed, should have been done, in the first place, as the drama unfolded bit by bit, three weeks ago.
Next topic mustl be topic ( 12 ) Islam and China.