As
a young man, Ernest Hemingway tested his mettle in combat by serving in the
Italian Army as an ambulance driver, during World War I. His wartime experiences also included service
as a war correspondent during the Spanish Civil War, and in World War II during
the Normandy invasion and the liberation of Paris. These experiences changed his opinion about
war and experiencing combat, somewhat.
He is credited with the following:
Never think that war, no matter how necessary,
nor how justified, is not a crime.
The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is
inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary
prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political
and economic opportunists.
They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and
fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor
fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.
Hemingway
recognized, however, that once war has begun a nation’s survival depends on its
doing whatever it takes to win:
Once we have a war there is only one thing to
do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever
happen in war.
On
Fox News today, Trace Gallagher asked retired General Jack Keane whether the
United States should send military forces to Ukraine. General Keane remarked that U.S. forces “should
already be there.” We can safely
conclude that his answer to Mr. Gallagher’s question was ‘yes.’ In context, I understood General Keane’s
meaning to be that the only sure way to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin
from invading Ukraine is to create circumstances in which an invasion would run
a high risk of engaging American forces in combat – thus providing
justification for a war to the United States and its NATO allies.
Please
allow me a couple of qualifying remarks.
First, General Keane is a distinguished soldier with the highest
military credentials. I have the
greatest respect for his opinions as a Fox News analyst and military expert, and
I seldom disagree with him. Second, his analysis
that stationing U.S. military forces in Ukraine would provide a deterrent to a
Russian invasion is correct. I think
that in this case, however, we need to depart from the way things have been
done in the past.
Before
we send troops to Ukraine, we need to ask ourselves what we will do if that
does not work? What if President Putin
decides to invade anyway? What will we
have to do to prevail? What if the
conflict escalates? Are we willing – are
we able to fight a regional or world war against Russia; and possibly China? Do we have an exit strategy if Russia
invades, or will we be locked into an armed conflict with the Russian
Federation? At what point will we be
able to say, “we won” and leave?
Before
we risk a “hot war” with Russia in Ukraine, there are some things we need to
think about:
Russians
are chess players. Vladimir Putin has a
game plan for what he will do three moves ahead. We need to go beyond the ideas about Putin
that are being popularized in the American media. President Putin is much more than an ex-KGB
operative who wants to restore the old “Soviet Empire,” and reestablish Russia
as a world power. Historically Russian
goals have been:
1. to gain ice-free ports,
2. to establish a buffer zone of client states against invasion from Western Europe,
3. and to move from economic dependence on exporting raw materials by “modernizing” their productive capacity to be competitive in the world economy.
After
the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian economy was devastated. Their military capabilities were severely
diminished. The United States and others
provided aid and technical assistance to avoid a resurgence of the totalitarian
government and aggressive belligerence that were characteristic of the Soviet
Union. Things didn’t work out as
planned.
The
eventual result was a Russian economy that is dependent on exporting energy
products to Western Europe, and the enrichment of an oligarch class. Ultimately, the oligarchs gained political
control and empowered Vladimir Putin to (effectively) become a “President for
Life.”
The
current distribution of political power in the Russian Federation might have
been foreseen if we were better students of History. It is reminiscent of the Czars and the Boyars,
and the Premier and the Politburo.
Enter
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. President Bush invited
Vladimir Putin to visit the United States.
He was a guest at the ranch.
President Bush portrayed their relationship to the world as one of
friendship. Then, intoxicated with the
idea that the U.S. was (at that time) the world’s only superpower, the Bush
administration put air defense missiles in Poland. The Russians began conducting war games near
their borders with the Baltic States, and NATO began admitting Eastern European
Nations into the alliance.
Putin
saw it as a threat. Most of us in the
West understand that there is no risk whatever of the United States and the NATO allies invading Russia, except in the event that Russia starts a
war. We are too well off and too
comfortable to see it all destroyed with such folly. The Russians, looking at the circumstances
from a different paradigm, came to the wrong conclusions.
We
have only to look at subsequent events.
Russia got stronger on its earnings from petroleum exports. They rebuilt their military. They invaded Georgia, annexed Crimea, and
invaded Ukraine. They deployed
ultra-modern attack submarines to the Atlantic.
They developed hypersonic nuclear missiles, and they have recently
demonstrated that they can destroy satellites while they are still in orbit.
Now,
both sides feel threatened. That makes
the world more dangerous for everybody.
Because
the Russian economy is still relatively one-dimensional, they may not be able
to sustain the military spending needed to be a superpower. They are, however, very able to give the U.S.
and the NATO allies more of a fight than we really want to take on. As
the saying goes, “Don’t poke the bear.
He may wake up and have you for lunch.”
Since
the end of WWII, the United States has always been faced by opponents with
numerically superior armed forces. We
have been able to maintain our unequaled military capabilities with better
technology and the threat of nuclear weapons. Thanks to the antimilitary
policies of the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations, we have lost much of
that advantage.
Fighting
Russia would not be like combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. If Russia invades with 100,000+ mechanized
troops, five to eight thousand American ground forces in Ukraine would be
overrun. The best we could hope for is
that they might be surrounded, cut off from withdrawal, and forced to surrender
- in which case we would be humiliated.
In short, it is unworthy of General Keane and others, to suggest that American young
people be placed in an overextended position, where they are exposed to a
superior force, with no way to withdraw, be extracted, or be relieved.
Further,
the Russians have the advantage of short resupply lines. They can resupply their forces by moving men
and material about 50 to 200 miles. However,
the Russian attack submarines in the Atlantic could severely disrupt the
resupply of American forces in the Ukraine.
Germany is dependent on Russia for energy. Even now, the Germans are resisting the use
of their air space and ground transportation routes to move “lethal aid” to
Ukraine. Resupply through Europe may
become difficult if the United States sends in ground forces without the
unanimous consent and cooperation of our NATO allies.
Theater
air superiority is vital in modern warfare.
If they invade, the Russians will have air superiority in the skies over
Ukraine.
At
least initially, the only way the United States could prevail if we send troops
to Ukraine, and then Russia invades, would be to use tactical nuclear weapons. That would destroy the very country we are
trying to save. Also, it may trigger a
nuclear exchange resulting in at least the partial devastation of both the
United States and the Russian Federation.
No
sane person wants nuclear war. However,
the risk level in this situation is great.
Things could go wrong very quickly if somebody makes a mistake.
Conclusion:
It
has been and remains our position at Lamp in a Corner that American
military forces should never be committed unless the United
States is willing to do whatever it takes to totally destroy the enemy’s
ability and will to fight. If
our troops are drawn into a fight in Ukraine, how far are we willing to go to
win? Do we have a realistic and workable
plan to win? If not, then our troops
should not be sent in.
It
is time for all parties to take a step back, breathe deeply, and act like
rational beings. Geopolitics must no
longer be a high-stakes poker game. A
lot of people can die in a lot of nasty ways.
We
call on the people of the United States and the Russian Federation to oppose
war in Ukraine. Our leaders on all sides
must find a peaceful way to resolve this matter. The United States must be willing to do
anything short of committing troops to preserve the right of the Ukrainians to
self-determination.
