Thomas E. Ricks's Blog, page 83

Ignatius: Turkey ratted out Mossad sources to Iran to punish Netanyahu

David
Ignatius, for my money the best intelligence reporter in the business, reports that last year, the
Turkish government informed the Iranian government of the identity of as many
as 10 Iranians who had been meeting in Turkey with Mossad officers.

His
overarching conclusion in this interesting, detail-rich column, is that, "The Netanyahu-Erdogan quarrel,
with its overlay of intelligence thrust and parry, is an example of the
kaleidoscopic changes that may be ahead in the Middle East. The United States,
Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are all exploring new alliances and
struggling to find a new equilibrium -- overtly and covertly."

I
think one of the things that makes Ignatius so good is his novelistic mind, which helps him
gaze unblinkingly into the intel world's wilderness of mirrors:

What will the spider do,


Suspend its operations, will the weevil


Delay?

(HT to Jeff)

Why has Brig. Gen. Wampler been suspended, along with his top NCO?

Anyone know? And an even tougher question: What does one do
with one's time whilst suspended in Kuwait? I think it is one of the most
boring countries in the world.

Rebecca's War Dog of the Week: Red Cross dogs of WWI

By Rebecca Frankel

Best Defense Chief Canine Correspondent

The war dogs of WWI were quite
remarkable. They were trained to search the battlefield or in the trenches and
pick out who among the men were wounded who were dead. The dogs were trained
to make their search at night, under the cover of dark, unattended, navigating
the terrain quickly and soundlessly. Barking to alert could potentially draw
enemy fire, so if the dogs found a wounded man, they knew to pull off a piece
of cloth or a loose helmet and carry it back to their handlers so a rescue
attempt could be made. The handler would then leash the dog and follow as the
dog led him back to the wounded man. They were so incredibly well-trained and
so committed to their task that these dogs weren't deterred or distracted by
the offer of food or company. They saved many soldiers, though perhaps not as many Americans as they
might have -- the United States was woefully behind other countries in
utilizing dogs during WWI and had to make do by borrowing the medic dogs of
their allies. It's estimated that there were upwards of 10,000 Red Cross dogs
used during WWI, and they're credited with saving thousands of lives over the course of the war.

The stories that came out of this
time are particularly harrowing and it's more than just the hearthside
story-telling cadence in which they're told. One of the more comprehensive
books about this time was drafted by Sgt. Theo F. Jager, titled Scout,
Red Cross and Army Dogs: A Historical Sketch of Dogs in the Great War and a
Training Guide for the Rank and File of the United States Army.

In it, he relays a story from the
front (also found on this most excellent blog, Dog Law Reporter, which is a
true cornucopia of all things canine):

...Lieutenant von Wieland led a
party of men in an attack on the Russian trenches. Seeing the task hopeless on
account of the Russian fire, he, wounded, sent back the men who had set out
with him and lay there in the blood and muck and filth of the battlefield: The
Russian fire was so murderous that no one dared bring him in. Presently a dark
form bounded from the German trenches, rushed to Lieutenant von Wieland's side,
grasped his coat between his teeth and, foot by foot, dragged him to safety.
Once, but only for a moment, did he loosen his hold, and that was when a bullet
creased him from shoulder to flank. The blood gushed from the wound, but the
dog took a fresh hold and finished his job at the edge of the trench where
willing hands lifted the lieutenant down to safety. They had to lift the dog
down, too, because just then a bullet broke both his forelegs.

I found the above photo of
"a cigarette-smoking allied soldier bandag[ing] the paw of a Red Cross
medic-dog in Belgium, 1917" on one of my favorite Facebook photo collectives.
War-dog bonus: I also discovered, just today, this video of
rescue dogs being trained to find wounded men. I can't speak to its
authenticity, but it's fascinating to watch.

Tales of the shutdown (V): The military's support of the GOP is shutting down, too

By William Treseder


Best Defense guest columnist

The Republican Party is steadily losing support within the
military, its strongest and most steadfast constituent. The extremist elements
within the GOP are driving away those who wear or have worn a
uniform. Their brinksmanship, anti-government biases, and self-contradictory
policies can no longer be hidden by rhetoric, as this shutdown makes clear.

Military disassociation with the GOP started during George W. Bush's
administration. Poor war-making decisions, unequal economic growth, and bumper
sticker patriotism took their cumulative toll. The Tea Party's emergence turned
the trickle into a flood. A Military
Times poll earlier this year showed a significant decrease in support for Republicans compared to 2006.

This does not indicate any substantial cultural or demographic shift,
only the party's unpopularity. Among those polled, the number considering
themselves conservative barely changed, and there was no increase in those
belonging to the Democratic Party. The trend is confined to decreasing
enthusiasm for the GOP, accompanied by a modest rise in independents and
libertarians.

Sequestration, the government shutdown, and the potential default will
collectively drive the final nails in the Republican Party's coffin. Quite
simply, there is nothing attractive about their recent policies. They are
harmful to our nation's military and its families, the veteran community, and
international security. And we haven't yet begun to see the real effects.

Admiral Greenert, the chief of naval operations, touched on a few of
the sequester's consequences during a September speech in San Francisco. The numbers are staggering: Four of 10 new
ballistic missile submarines won't be built; three of 10 carrier strike groups
will be split up; they will retire almost 30 ships they cannot afford to lose; there
will be a dramatic increase in the percentage of the fleet deployed around the
world. People build and maintain these ships. Sailors man them -- and they will
spend significantly less time at home with their families in coming years.

In Admiral Greenert's words, "we are less of a credible
threat" despite the Navy's use of one-time funding to blunt sequester's
worst effects. This is not a one-sided issue, to be sure. Politicians from both
parties contributed to the breakdown that led to the sequester. But much blame
goes to the first- and second-term Tea Party representatives with their uncompromising
tactics.

The same inflexibility led to the government shutdown. At a rally that
I attended recently, 33 military and veterans organizations representing over
10 million Americans gathered at the World War II Memorial to call for an end
to this federal freeze. One by one they listed off the costs, from non-payments
for death benefits to suspension of VA claims processing. It all added up to
one message: Faith has been broken with American fighting men and women,
contrary to the promises etched in marble at that very site.

The next step is almost unthinkable. Should the nation default by
failing to raise the debt ceiling, the United States will no longer be able to
pay its servicemembers to defend us. It will not pay its veterans for the
education, health, and housing benefits they've earned. It will not pay its
debtors, from whom it borrowed based on our good name. This is contradictory to
military values in every possible way.

It is clear that the extremists within the GOP are forcing this issue. A
recent legislative change keeps anyone in the House from calling for a majority
vote on reopening the government. There may be a reason for this last-minute
change, but it's hard to see it. The system is now rigged so that one man,
subject to the pressure of an unlikely coalition of obscenely rich and poorly
educated, can freeze the legislative process of the world's superpower.

Congressional Republicans must overwhelm their suicidal fringe. If they
cannot craft a solution for at least six months of funding, it will be the end of the party. The details are theirs to work out -- but the
judgment remains ours to dispense on election day.

William Treseder is a writer and entrepreneur who served as a U.S.
Marine in Iraq and Afghanistan. He lives in San Francisco, where he co-founded BMNT Partners, a technology advisory firm.

What's the only branch offered through ROTC but not by USMA? And why?

By Abby Griffin


Best Defense guest columnist

Recently
a fellow U.S. Military Academy graduate posted in the "West Point
Women" Facebook group asking for information about graduates who have gone
on to become nurses. In the first day, 17 graduates spanning from 1989 to 2006
replied. All left the Army to become nurses. These replies came only from the
small pool of female graduates who belong to the group who actually saw the
post. I wondered how many other USMA-grads-turned-nurses exist, and questioned
why USMA does not have a nursing program. As far as I'm aware, the Nurse Corps
is the only branch offered through ROTC but not USMA.

Nurses have a long
and distinguished service history in the Army, officially starting with the
foundation of the Army Nurse Corps in 1901. 21,480 women served as Army nurses
in WWI; 10,000 of these served on the battlefields of Europe. During WWII, more than 50,000 women served as nurses both stateside and
overseas. In 1942, 66 Army nurses were caught on Bataan and imprisoned by the
Japanese for three years. Even while imprisoned, they continued to function as
a professional nursing unit. They all survived and were awarded Bronze Stars
when they returned to the United States.

Nursing was one of
the first areas in which women were able to break the military's glass ceiling.
Brig. Gen. Anna Hays was the Army's first female general, and she served as a nurse
in both WWII and Korea. Lt. Gen. Patricia Horoho is currently serving as the
first female Army surgeon general, and she is also the first nurse to hold the
position previously filled by doctors. On Sunday, First Lieutenant Jennifer
Moreno, an Army nurse serving with a Special Forces cultural support team, was
killed in action in Afghanistan. Army nurses have proven time and again that
they are capable of stepping up to the plate in both times of war and peace.

I truly believe
there is a need for USMA educated officers in nursing, and that the profession
of nursing nests perfectly within the values USMA promotes and encourages in
its graduates, such as quick and decisive critical thinking, selfless service,
ethical decision making, autonomy, and a calm demeanor under pressure. The
standard career path of the Army nurse progresses beyond bedside care by the
rank of senior O3/O4, and requires officers to become managers and
administrators responsible for both patients and subordinates. Quality
leadership is critical, and (at least I have found) it quickly becomes
glaringly obvious when a nurse's position exceeds his or her leadership
training/ability. Just like in a regular Army unit, weak leadership degrades
the ability of the nursing unit to perform, with the potential for life and
death consequences. The Army Nurse Corps has a strong need for quality, trained
leaders -- perhaps even more so than some branches USMA offers now, such as Finance
and Adjutant Generals Corps.

Of course, there
would be critics who say that it is USMA's primary mission to breed combat
leaders and who would dismiss the notion of a nursing program at USMA. I
strongly disagree. The stated mission of West Point is "to educate, train, and inspire
the Corps of Cadets so that each graduate is a commissioned leader of character
committed to the values of Duty, Honor, Country and prepared for a career of
professional excellence and service to the Nation as an officer in the United
States Army." It is of paramount importance to have "leaders of character"
dedicated to a "career of professional excellence" in all branches of the Army,
but particularly in healthcare. Army healthcare professionals are entrusted
with the lives and well-being of soldiers on a daily basis, regardless of
whether or not a war exists. The relationship between a patient and a
healthcare provider is sacred. A patient comes to a healthcare professional
vulnerable, and expects that professional to be more than human. A patient
trusts that a healthcare professional will not gossip, let personal upsets or
worries impact care, pass judgment, or make mistakes. Healthcare professionals
need to be constantly vigilant and ethical. They need to be true people of
character, able to advocate for a patient regardless of outside influences. They
have great power and responsibility, and absolutely need to always do the right
thing even when nobody else is watching. These are all qualities West Point
emphasizes. 

In terms of the
logistical element, USMA already offers all of the common prerequisites needed
for nursing school, such as microbiology, biology, chemistry, statistics,
sociology, psychology, anatomy and physiology, life cycle and human
development, and nutrition. Keller Army Community Hospital is on post for clinicals,
and what Keller can't offer can surely be found by partnering with local
nursing programs (such as Mount Saint Mary College in Newburgh, for example)
and nearby hospitals to share clinical resources. Nursing could be a limited
access major, and all nursing students could follow the same academic
trajectory through the program, thus cutting down on the number of faculty
needed. Nurses educated at West Point would not only graduate as BSN prepared
nurses, but they would also possess the leadership and decision-making skills instilled
at and emphasized by USMA.

I have been told
the party line is that it's more economical to commission nurses from ROTC and
OCS. That glib answer seems to be an argument against USMA's very existence.
Isn't that statement essentially true for all Army branches? Isn't there an
added leadership and cultural element that justifies USMA as a commissioning
source despite the cost? If that is indeed the case, why does USMA expend money
and time preparing a handful of cadets to go to medical school, or to branch
Chemical Corps, Finance, AG, and the other low-density branches? There are
countless opportunities for continuing education in nursing, to mitigate any
concern of a graduate becoming "just a nurse" (a marginalizing phrase
that boils my blood). Nurses can become educators, researchers, and advanced level
care providers, such as nurse practitioners and Doctors of Nursing Practice. In
fact, the increasing trend in U.S. healthcare is to push primary care down to
the physician assistant/nurse practitioner level. The educational and
professional opportunities for nurses are dynamic and endless, and I think USMA
is missing out by not having a role in this career field. It is not a "soft"
career for the meek or mild. It is blood and guts and tears and sweat and heavy
lifting and long hours -- in sum, a career field I believe has a need for USMA
graduates.

I truly think my
decision to leave the Army would have been different had I been able to
commission as a nurse from USMA. I know now, with budgetary concerns, the
possibility of starting a new major is unlikely and may sound ridiculous to
some. Until 1985, West Point cadets did not pick a major. Today, USMA offers 40
different academic majors, and they exist because at one point someone said
"Why not?"

Abby Griffin is a
2005 West Point graduate who left the Army in 2010 to pursue her BSN at Florida
State University. She is currently working in the solid organ transplant
unit at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C.

'If it ain't broke': Why are Army uniforms so damn bad -- and always getting worse?

By Col. Jon C. Schreyach, U.S. Army (Ret.)


Best Defense military fashion columnist

Last summer I saw a Washington Post article about the House's approval of a measure to have all the military
services use the same camouflage pattern on their battle dress.

I applaud that
decision, and it got me thinking about uniforms and uniform changes in general
and, in particular, those of my service, the Army, which seems to be 1) always
changing its uniforms and 2) getting a uniform that is worse than its
predecessor. In this regard, I have to
admit a certain jealousy of my colleagues in the Marine Corps. I'm no expert, but I believe that the "jarheads"
have, basically, had the same uniforms since WWII.

Contrast the changes
(or non-changes) in uniforms that the Marines have made over time with what has
gone on in the Army. The leadership of
the senior service, it seems, is always looking to change its uniforms to
something "better" (witness the infamous black beret debacle). And in so doing, they
disregard the old adage that "perfect is the enemy of good." What follows is based on my imperfect memory
of a few of these really dumb changes.

In WWII, for
service dress, the Army had "Pinks and Greens" with a Sam Browne belt. They
also had khakis (shirt and trousers). Both were great looking and serviceable, but then, toward the end of the
war, the "Ike" jacket was introduced. I'm not sure why this was done, but soldiers
of that era have told me that the major characteristic of that garment was that
it assured that your shirt was always sticking out of the gap between
the waistband of the jacket and the top of the trousers and looked really
sloppy.




In the late ‘50s,
when I had my first contact with the Army, it still had khakis and was just introducing
a new Class A uniform -- the Army Green (AG-44). (What was wrong with Pinks and Greens?) At that time, we also had, for summer wear, a
khaki tropical worsted uniform which, of course, since it was so good looking,
was being phased out just as I was commissioned. The AG-44, however, stayed around for quite a
while, as the Class A duty uniform until the recent decision to replace it as
the uniform for everyday garrison wear with the "Army Blue" uniform which, in
my day, was the to be worn at formal and semi-formal (depending upon the tie
worn) social events. When used for
everyday wear with its dark blue jacket, shoulder boards (reminiscent of the
Civil War), and contrasting, light blue trousers with gold stripe, it looks
ridiculous. Almost as silly as those
Gilbert and Sullivan outfits that were introduced for the Army Band's Herald
Trumpeters during, I believe, the Nixon administration.




Of course, the
AG-44 was not immune to some tweaking even before they did away with it
entirely. Army Green had originally been
worn with a tan shirt, but the uniform trolls decided it would be better with a
light green shirt and that the new shirt would have epaulets so that badges of
rank could be worn on the shoulders and one would still be in uniform when the
blouse was removed. (Not removing the
blouse was, apparently, never considered as an option.) At that time, khakis were still around, and
they (khakis) came in both long and short sleeved versions. But somebody bucking for an Army Commendation
Medal decided that only the short sleeved version was needed, so soldiers were
directed to have the sleeves cut off of their long sleeved shirts. This was
fine until the next autumn when everyone in short sleeves got cold and there
was, then, a mad scramble to develop and issue a windbreaker to protect the
soldiers who would have been just fine in long sleeves. Talk about unintended consequences!

The point here is,
as my old sergeant major used to say, "If it ain't broke -- don't fix it."

Jon C. Schreyach, COL(R); FA; OS tours: ROK,
RVN (2), FRG; BnCO-155MM Bn-1st AD; Author: FMs6-20&6-1; Concepts/Rqmts-Corps
Deep Opns; Copperhead, MLRS, ATACMS; Ret.'90; LMMFC-Mktg; Ret. '08. He blogs at
http://www.opinionsunlimited.us/blog.html

Six facts about Col. Truman Smith that should interest all Best Defense readers

By
Col. Henry Gole, U.S. Army (Ret.)


Best
Defense guest author

Who the hell is Truman Smith?

But for the diagnosis
of diabetes in 1939, Smith's name would probably be as familiar to the public
today as, for example, Bradley, Clark, Stilwell, Collins, Wedemeyer, perhaps,
according to one of them, even Eisenhower. He was a good
soldier, a very good writer, and one of the last of the
"establishment" families, in the Cabot, Roosevelt, Acheson tradition.

When the ink was still drying on my biography of General William E. DePuy, the historians and
archivists at MHI (the Military History Institute, Carlisle, PA) encouraged me
to read the papers of Truman Smith and the unpublished
memoir of his wife, Katharine Alling Hollister Smith, My Life. I did. I was hooked. His writings -- personal, academic,
and official -- are the very model of lucidity. The U.S. Army encourages its
writers to be clear, concise, and complete. He is.

Kay Smith is expansive, colorful, often wrong, but
always fun to read. Here is a sample of how her admiration for all things
French turned to venom. The French "are the most immoral and dirty-minded
lot I ever saw." (She is just warming up.) "Her dress up to her knees
belied her face, which clearly not that of a young woman.... Her brilliantly
painted face beamed coquettishly at the tiny French officer who was nobly
dancing with her. And dancing under difficulties, for that expansive bosom
completely eclipsed his view of the ballroom." That's as irresistible as a
second martini -- about which she also has something to say.

Other sources, few as deliciously presented as
Kay's, also fell in my lap. Perhaps that's why it took me four years to write a
book I told my wife would take a year or a year and a half.

In 1919, Truman Smith saw the future.

In
1919, Smith conducted negotiations with German civil authorities on behalf of
the Office of Civil Affairs of the Army in Coblenz under Colonel I.L. Hunt. On
one occasion he had a long talk with Konrad Adenauer, mayor of Cologne and
future chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. Smith enjoyed working
with the Germans, but he became increasingly critical of French vindictiveness
in the occupation of Germany. In a May 8, 1919 letter to his wife Kay, he said
of treaty-making: "Evidently some would-be humorist at Paris thought this
war wasn't enough and decided we should enjoy another trip to Europe in fifteen
years or so to help poor embattled France again.... France, that pure savior of
civilization, is certainly a sorry spectacle today." And, in a letter of May
11, after studying the treaty terms: "If Wilson could have prevailed, it
would have been far different.... We have no place here amongst these racial
hatreds. Let us go home.... Certainly Germany will bide her time until the
first dissension appears in the Entente, and then..."

He was the first
American official ever to interview Hitler.

Smith
served in the American Embassy in Berlin from 1920 to 1924. Ambassador Alanson
B. Houghton sent him to Munich to talk to Prince Ruprecht to determine the
strength of the separatist movement in Bavaria; to Erich von Ludendorff to
determine his political ambitions; and to Adolf Hitler to get a sense of his
National Socialist Labor Party. On November 20, 1922, Smith became the first
American official to interview Hitler. He met Hitler in a house at Georgen
Strasse 42, Munich, a shabby place. Smith wrote, "A marvelous demagogue. I
have rarely listened to such a logical and fanatical man. His power over the
mob must be immense." Smith said Hitler's party was the Bavarian
counterpart to the Italian Fascisti.
Among the major points Smith reported were: anti-Semitism, parliament must go,
overthrow socialists and communists, win labor to nationalistic ideals,
monarchy is dead, establish national dictatorship.

He used Lindbergh to
gather intelligence on the Luftwaffe.

Smith
used Charles Lindbergh to penetrate the Luftwaffe in 1936 and reported detailed
findings to G-2, War Department General Staff. Smith was thoroughly familiar
with the German army but keenly aware of his ignorance regarding the rapidly
improving German air force. Knowing that the Nazis wanted to show the world the
progress made since their assumption of power in 1933, Smith made a deal.
Lindbergh would make an appearance at the Olympic games in Berlin in 1936; in
return, Smith and his assistant attaché for air would accompany Lindbergh on
visits to aviation research, production, test, and operational facilities.
Lindbergh sat in the cockpits or flew all of the aircraft with which Germany
entered WW II. This great intel coup was entirely the result of Smith's
initiative.

Gen. Marshall stored
Smith's medical file in his own office in order to keep Smith in the Army.

A
routine physical before Smith's promotion to lieutenant colonel in 1939
revealed diabetes. By Army regulation he should have been medically retired.
But Chief of Staff Marshall retained the officer best informed about Germany --
and a first-rate strategist -- in his G-2 shop. Marshall kept Smith's medical
file in a cabinet in his office. In 1941, when Marshall was clearing leadership
of those who could not keep up in mobile warfare, a general complained that
Marshall was favoring regulars over reservists and National Guard officers,
using Smith as an example. Smith was retired in the autumn of 1941, but
Marshall personally called Smith, then residing in Connecticut, shortly after
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, asking him to return to active duty in the
G-2 shop. Smith said he never wanted to leave. Smith enjoyed the high opinion
of his peers. General Albert Wedemeyer expressed his gratitude for Smith's
assistance in developing the Victory Plan and said: "Had [diabetes] not
intervened, Smith might have played a role equal in influence to Eisenhower's
in WW II."

He played an
important role in the creation of the post-war Germany army.

Smith
fought and respected the German Army of King and Kaiser in 1918. From 1919 to
1924, he served in Germany where he observed the Reichswehr, the German Army of
100,000 well-trained volunteers. While at Fort Benning as one of Marshall's
men, he monitored the German Army and became a close and lifelong friend of
Adolf von Schell, the first German exchange officer after WW I. Schell later
served as a major general in the Wehrmacht. Marshall and Schell also became
friends. As military attaché in Berlin from 1935 to 1939, Smith enjoyed
excellent relations with Wehrmacht officers, some he had known for years, some
in key posts, and some close friends. In Washington from 1939 to 1945, he was a
German specialist and the ETO briefer during WW II. He knew Germany, Germans,
and the German Army very well. In April of 1945, even before the war in Europe
ended, General Hans Speidel sent Smith a letter. The Smith-Speidel
correspondence continued until two weeks before Smith died in 1970. Smith at
first sent food packages to his old friends and reconnected with them. Because
he was so well wired to Germans (among them: Schell, Warlimont, Pappenheim,
Reichenau, Horst Mellenthin) and to Americans in key positions (among them: H.
Hoover, Acheson, Marshall, Wedemeyer, O. Bradley, Joe Collins, both Dulles
brothers, Hanson Baldwin) Smith played an important role as German rearmament
was considered. It can be said that he was midwife at the birth of the
Bundeswehr in 1955. However, in his "Estimate of the German Army," December
15, 1963, he says that army "is unworthy to stand comparison with any
German army of the past two centuries." The reason: "psychological
isolation from the nation."

Henry G. Gole is a retired Special Forces
colonel who began his military career as a BAR man in the Korean War. Among his
four tours in Germany were assignments in infantry, special forces, and as an attaché,
the last in Bonn from 1973 to 1977. Among his three tours in Asia were 5th
Special Forces Group and MACVSOG in Vietnam. He has taught at the United States
Military Academy at West Point and at the Army War College, Carlisle Barracks,
PA. He earned a Ph.D. in history and has written four
books:  The Road to Rainbow: Army
Planning for Global War, 1934-1940  (2003); Soldiering: Observations
from Korea, Vietnam, and Safe Places  (2005); General William E. DePuy:
Preparing the Army for Modern War  (2008); his
most recent book (2013) is  Exposing the Third Reich:
Colonel Truman Smith in Hitler's Germany . He resides with his trophy
wife in Mechanicsburg ,
PA.

What to read about irregular warfare

Here's
a good start.

(HT
to D "House" M)

Beards: A symbol of being in Special Ops, on the Red Sox, or of a certain gayness?

Three
things that strike me lately about beards:

They've
become a symbol of being in Special
Ops, especially in Afghanistan. Even Air Force weathermen were growing beards,
if they could get away with it. So, elite soldiers.




They
also are the symbol of the Red Sox this year. Makes more
sense than "cowboy up," I guess. So, a winning team.




Andrew
Sullivan is always going on about them as some kind of gay symbol, I think of the
bear-like gay man. Another elite group?

Memories of war: Watching 'Tom and Jerry' with a bunch of Iraqi soldiers -- and hey, is that cartoon secretly isolationist?

This nice column ran last summer. Check it out. "As we all watched together, I realized that Tom and Jerry
used no language. It was all physical humor. Then something magical happened:
Tom smashed his face on something while chasing Jerry and we all instinctively
laughed ... together."

I've long wondered if the names of the two characters
referred to the English soldiers always fighting the German soldiers -- that
is, the Tommies and the Jerries. If that is the case, perhaps the Tom and Jerry cartoon began as a kind of
isolationist propaganda. It started in 1940, so may have been subtly making the
argument that the British and the Germans would keep on fighting each other,
futilely and endlessly, and that the United States should stay out.

BTW, in her book Persian Mirrors, Elaine Sciolino writes about the popularity of Tom and Jerry in Iran. No, I haven't
read the book, but I just checked Google books -- I was browsing to see if anyone had ever analyzed the
politics of Tom and Jerry.