Who is Anatole Kaletsky?

Anatole Kaletsky is an Associate Editor of The Times and one of the country’s leading commentators on economics. Anatole was previously Economics Editor of The Times, and has won many awards for his financial and political journalism. He writes

DEFEAT IS NEVER pleasant, but often it is better to lose than to win. Defeat in the Second World War was the best thing that ever happened to Germany and Japan in their thousand years of recorded history. For America, losing in Vietnam was also a blessing in disguise. While defeat seemed to shatter the illusion of an “American century” of global dominance, it was followed by 30 years of almost uninterrupted prosperity, a political renaissance for conservative values and America’s total victory over communism in the Cold War.

That very first sentence grabbed me and I immediately searched all my memories and any history I could recall to see if that was true. Is it often better to lose than to win? While defeat has some lessons, I cannot believe anyone I know would hold this belief to be true.

Sure Germany and Japan became modern industrial powers after the war thanks to the Marshall Plan and our occupation of Japan, but…was it worth the cost of the millions of dead Germans and Japanese? If this were true, since we suffer in this country from a surfeit of Chinese goods, why not nuke China and wipe out some of the world’s excess manufacturing capacity?

Kaletsky calls losing in Vietnam a blessing in disguise. Bull! Ask the parents of Max de Sully and the parents and wives and children of 52,000 dead Americans and all the wounded if losing was a blessing. Losing in Vietnam has taught us nothing. We still fight our wars making the military fight handicapped. We wouldn’t attack the safe havens in Vietnam and we haven’t made Iran and Syria pay for supplying the insurgents in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon. And Vietnam didn’t lead to “a political renaissance for conservative values”. We are more socialist today and more in debt and conservative values are under more attack than under Reagan. In fact, again Iran has never had to pay for its seizure of the hostages from our embassey in Iran.

As to the victory over Communism, the Soviet Republic may have fallen, but totalitarianism is just as much a problem today as back before Reagan.

It gets worse. Kaletsky writes that we should concede defeat.

The “international community” is now totally powerless in its nuclear confrontation with Iran…

Economic sanctions are out because oil would go to $150 or higher. Military options are out, because we have shot our wad in Iraq and Lebanon and besides, oil would go to $150 or higher. The answer:

The only way to do that (bring Iran back into the civilised world) is to stop issuing empty threats and to start offering Iran real incentives for co-operative behaviour — non-aggression guarantees from America and Israel, removal of the residual US economic sanctions dating back to the 1980s and the prospect of steadily improving treatment in investment and trade.

With all due respect, Iran does not want to be brought into the civilized world. Islam rejects our civilization and our values. Indeed, how can we sign a non-aggression pact with Iran when they continue supplying the terrorist organizations with weapons to kill us?

The only thing right about Kaletsky’s paragraph are the first four words: DEFEAT IS NEVER pleasant.

Anatole Kaletsky Mover Mike Mover Mike Mover Mike Mover Mike


5 Responses to “Who is Anatole Kaletsky?”

  1. You should find a copy of the movie, The Mouse That Roared, with Peter Sellers. The idea was that a small European nation on the brink of finacial ruin would declare war on the US and, after being defeated, would be granted all manner of monetary assistance to recover.

  2. TF, I do remember that movie. Hey Kaletsky is right. We could concede and ask for help with our debt. Not!

  3. Some of what this K dude says is true; but we will probably have to tough it out until the next President (likely from the Democratic Party) is elected and declares “Peace with Honor”. Tricky Dicky is our likely template.

    Of course, we will also lose one-out-of-three barrels of consumable oil with this withdrawal.


  4. I am concerned about his defeatist attitude. I am concerned that we would follow his advice and give up.

  5. At some point we need to either blast Iran out of the the Nuclear marketplace or just concede them France and the Meditaranian. That to me is the humor in this. Iran might raise oil prices and yes that would hurt us., but what they can and will do to the Democracies of Europe if not checked is truly frightening. They have wealth and they now want power. Power like “we” have. Fools like Kaletsky go further by suggesting that through incentives we “pay” Iran to pursue it’s hunger. Layghable.

Discussion Area - Leave a Comment