Everybody seems to be obsessed with military intervention. No one asked a row of Shermans to rol into Hungary and confront the Russians. Some actual political support, some pressure on the Soviet leadership might have been all that took to discourage intervention (and bloodshed, which, although dismissed some, was a quite unpleasant experience by those who survived it).

To a person like Kuttab, a leftist and a Palestinian propagandist, any occasion is an occasion to demean the value of the projection of American power anywhere in the world, and especially the Arab world.

When you compare the loss of life from an intervention of a superpower or living under a murdering despot, non-intervention is better unless you're a nut and are willing to sacrifice your life for 'freedom'. And if the confrontation is between 2 very large countries, the loss of life and the probable destruction of Budapest just to free it was definitely not worth it to those who were sane. The Hungarian freedom fighters were fighting someone they hated and wanted to leave. There were no speeches about give me liberty or death.

The Hungarian Revolution and riots in Poland and East Germany forced the Russians to ease up a bit and eventually lose control. My family was able to get out of Hungary, although we were very heartbroken that the revolution failed and dissappointed that the US didn't interfer.
But in retrospect, we are glad to have our lives and those who stayed in Hungary also managed to live to a ripe old age. Although, there were executions and incarcerations by the Communists after the Revolution.

Geoff,

Then please tell that to your president Bush who was chanting his rhetoric in Hungary last week and who tried so miserably to draw parallels between Iraq and Hungary.

Why do you think the Post brought this subject up if it was not for the Iraqi mess?

I hope you realize that you spoke too soon and withing thinking.

Moroccan,
Iraq and Palestine have absolutely nothing to do with the Hungarian uprising. The situations are not at all analagous. That's the point that the commenters are trying to make, and that you are obviously missing. This is not the place to vent about your grievances about U.S. policy in the Middle East.

As a Hungarian, I disagree with Mr. Kuttab's entry for various reasons. First and foremost, it does not address the question of the Hungarian Revolution at all.

Hungarians fought for their freedom and against oppression rather than dealing with an "internal conflict". Mr. Kuttab may be right in saying that when "change comes as a result of intervention, it is neither stable nor lasting", however, he should really look up the topic on hand before commenting on it...

As a Moroccan and as an Arab, I would like to thank Mr. Kuttab for his thoughtful entry.

From the answers posted above, one can easily sense a great deal of Arab hostility and even insults in response to Mr. Kuttab's entry.

The posters forget that the Arabs did support the UN effort led by the US in the first Gulf War in order to end the Iraqi occuaption of Kuwait. This we did despite the painful bombing scenes of Baghdad and other civilian cities by the so-called "civilized western powers" led by the oil-hungry US government.

It is not up to you to tell us what we should care about and what we should ignore. If the Palestinian-conflict, which is happening in our region, is important to us then you should respect that.

Your government went all the way to Vietnam, bombed the country left and right with all kind of weapons including Napalam and agent orange, and caused the death of 2 million human beings (All Arab dictators combined have not killed 2 million people) in a country most Americans never heard of. All of this because some elected violent fanatical official in Washington decided the communists couldn't have it their way in Vietnam.

We do not need to look into past experiences to know that violent imperialist-like interventions into other nations is wrong and immoral.

People's lives are not subject to experimentation or to the analysis of few policy makers in Washington who have become bored with their wealthy daily lives.

NO to US military interventions anywhere in the world. There should be no exceptions. The US military should become an actual defense force in words and actions.

The loss of lives during those interventions can be avoided. It is unecessary.

Look what happened in Iraq. Daily killings, daily destructions, daily feelings of sorrow and despair, daily funerals, while the war-criminal architects are sitting comfortably either in Washington or in the Green Zone.

Iraq has become a big cemetery and the primary reason for this is the US government.

What a shame.

It is interesting to note, as others above have, how military intervention is viewed as being never able to work - unless of course someone wants to come take care of these Jews for us...

More pointedly, the history of European countries conquered by others shows less of a tendency towards violent resistance. And while there are some who say this shows Europe's moral weakness, others could reply that the preference for a bottle of wine over a vest of explosives when it comes to finding oneself a virgin in a crowded cafe is but one of the example of the positive side of this semming passivity.

A tradition of resistance so that emphasizes enjoying the struggles fruit's in the here and now instead of the here-after will deal with outside intervention in a different way. There is a different dynamic of resistance in Europe, as well as more historical experience with individual rights and open societies. They would have dealt (and at times have dealt) with intervention in a different way than a nation in a different historical context.

Mr. Kuttab sadly comes across as a typical Arab apologist for the Palestinians: even when it's not about Israel, it's about Israel.

Kuttab seems to think that an intervention on behalf of the freedom-loving Hungarians against Russian Communists would have been the same as the intervention on behalf of Arabs -- who appear to be quite comfortable with Saddamist or any other form of tyranny -- against their local dictator. The author clearly confuses modern Europe with pre-modern Mid-East. These two categories are incomparable in terms of age and evolution. But I wouldn't expect Kuttab to admit that.

Many forget the context of the US, the Soviet Union and Europe in 1956. This was not an era of overwhelming US technological superiority. This was a conventional era of planes, tanks, and troops, and the Soviet Union clearly had the advantage in Europe. The Soviet Army of the 1950's was a highly competent Army with many veterans who had dispatched some of the best German Divisions on the WWII Eastern front.

Britain and France (our two major WWII allies) were still suffering from the effects of WWII. They were not in any way prepared to fight another World War in Europe. Fortunately for the world, cooler heads prevailed in 1956! Another World War in Europe at the time would have had devastating consequences for tens of millions of Europeans. The Hungarians indeed suffered bloodshed, but their country could have been entirely decimated (al la Germany in WWII) in a general war between NATO and Soviet Forces.

If there was any positive thing to come out of the "Cold War," it is that the leaders on all fronts saw the wisdom of not engaging in large scale confrontations, particularly with ground troops. There were corrupt and indeed ruthless leaders throughout this period, but somehow they understood that a major confrontation, perhaps leading to a nuclear exchange, absolutely served no purpose.

Today's environment seems so much more dangerous. In an era of such dominant US military power, we don't seem to have a world balance that ultimately leads to having a substantial break pedal on events!

With all due respect, Mr. Kuttab's comments on the Hungarian or Eastern European situation in the mid 50's is simply wrong and uninformed as other commentators here have capably made clear. Perhaps the American understanding of Iraq and the Middle East is similarly poorly informed. Or perhaps our decisions and active policies there are guided not by what is "right" or best for the people there but fit some narrowly defined interest(s)of some part of the United States. Interests which are so narrowly defined that, in the end, they do not serve the broader interests of the United States and, in fact, serve to weaken this country and undermine its power.

This essay is beyond absurd. Its more like a political hack job by someone trying to make a point on an unrelated topic.

Kuttab writes - "But military interventions could work in conflicts where two groups of people are pitted against one other as in the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict."

So basically his argument is intervention in Iraq bad, Palestine good, and to heck with this Hungary thing that I know nothing about.

The response written by the panel member is absurd. I comment on two parts from the response:

(i) "Foreign military intervention in domestic issues should be done with extreme care..." I do not see how anyone, with the possible exception of extreme stalinist neo-communists, could refer to the events of 1956 as a Hungarian "domestic issue".

(ii) "... doubt that [...American intervention...] would have produced results much different than ... in Iraq" Anyone marginally familiar with the military situation in the 50's should know that any kind of Nato military intervention in Hungary 1956 could only have been done with nuclear weapons. A conventional Nato intervention would have been too weak to be barely noticed by the Soviet high command. However bad the current mess may be in Iraq, it is absurd to compare it with a hypothetical military intervention that, even in a best-case scenario would have turned much of central Europe into a nuclear wasteland.

No American aware of how much his own country's independence owed to foreign intervention, or of how many nations are now free only because of the United States, can fail to look askance at what Mr. Kuttab writes here.

This is apart from the fact that he does not address the question about Hungary in 1956. If he had nothing to say about that he ought to have declined comment. However, he might find on investigating the matter that "external (that is, Soviet) forces" changed the internal conflict in Hungary very effectively.