Goodbye — Sort of — to Germany?
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
Why should America anchor Germany's defense? It cuts deals with Russia, has never met its NATO commitment, and is the most anti-American nation in Europe.
President Trump recently ordered a 12,000-troop reduction in American military personnel stationed in Germany. That leaves about 24,000 American soldiers still in the country. A little more than half of the troops being withdrawn will return home. The rest will be redeployed to other NATO member nations, such as Belgium, Italy, and perhaps Baltic and Eastern European countries.
German chancellor Angela Merkel is said to be furious. She claims that the redeployments will “weaken the [NATO] alliance.” German commercial interests chimed in that the troop withdrawals will hurt their decades-old businesses serving U.S. bases. Perhaps, but Merkel surely cannot be surprised. Six years ago, all NATO members pledged to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Yet only eight of 29 so far have kept their word.
Germany spends only about 1.4 percent of its GDP on defense. As NATO’s largest, wealthiest, and most powerful European member, it sets the example for the rest of alliance. Merkel’s reneging on her 2014 pledge helps explain why less wealthy and influential NATO members also see no reason to meet their obligations.
Germany surely knows that 2020 marks the 75th anniversary of the end of the World War II, and the 29th year since the fall of the Berlin Wall — the symbolic end of the Cold War. Will there be any point in the future when Europe is confident enough to be a full defense partner with the U.S. rather than an eight-decade client?
NATO, of course, still provides a common European defense, but only by habitually relying inordinately on U.S. military contributions.
Showing posts with label US Military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Military. Show all posts
Monday, 24 August 2020
Thursday, 4 June 2020
Exposing Unbelief In The Military Chaplaincy
Army Controversy Over John Piper’s Book
It Isn’t About Homophobia — It’s About Jesus
Caroline D'Agati
The Federalist
A senior Army chaplain earlier this month emailed other chaplains the text of “Coronavirus and Christ,” a brief book by famed author, podcaster, and pastor John Piper. The command chaplain of U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys in South Korea, Col. Moon H. Kim, wrote in his email: “This book has helped me refocus my sacred calling to my savior Jesus Christ to finish strong. Hopefully this small booklet would help you and your Soldiers, their Families, and others who you serve.”
This email and the attached book have led to complaints from 22 other chaplains, who’ve enlisted the help of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF). The MRFF, which consistently targets theologically conservative Christians, wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, saying Moon must be “officially, swiftly, aggressively, and visibly investigated and disciplined in punishment for his deplorable actions.”
Since then, Moon’s comments have come under review, prompting a letter from 20 members of Congress — including Republican Reps. Louie Gohmert of Texas, Andy Biggs of Arizona, and Steve King of Iowa — calling for the Army not to buckle to this agenda-pushing third-party organization. The letter also outlines several other recent attacks of the MRFF on theologically conservative Christian chaplains.
If you read the entire text of Piper’s book, which is available for free, you will see its most incendiary idea is not the single paragraph about homosexuality. This short book ruffles feathers because it affirms the most offensive message in the history of the world: the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
It Isn’t About Homophobia — It’s About Jesus
Caroline D'Agati
The Federalist
A senior Army chaplain earlier this month emailed other chaplains the text of “Coronavirus and Christ,” a brief book by famed author, podcaster, and pastor John Piper. The command chaplain of U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys in South Korea, Col. Moon H. Kim, wrote in his email: “This book has helped me refocus my sacred calling to my savior Jesus Christ to finish strong. Hopefully this small booklet would help you and your Soldiers, their Families, and others who you serve.”
This email and the attached book have led to complaints from 22 other chaplains, who’ve enlisted the help of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF). The MRFF, which consistently targets theologically conservative Christians, wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, saying Moon must be “officially, swiftly, aggressively, and visibly investigated and disciplined in punishment for his deplorable actions.”
Since then, Moon’s comments have come under review, prompting a letter from 20 members of Congress — including Republican Reps. Louie Gohmert of Texas, Andy Biggs of Arizona, and Steve King of Iowa — calling for the Army not to buckle to this agenda-pushing third-party organization. The letter also outlines several other recent attacks of the MRFF on theologically conservative Christian chaplains.
If you read the entire text of Piper’s book, which is available for free, you will see its most incendiary idea is not the single paragraph about homosexuality. This short book ruffles feathers because it affirms the most offensive message in the history of the world: the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Wednesday, 15 January 2020
Three Strikes And You're Out
Misplaced Fears and Faulty Analysis
The NZ media and news outlets appear to be poorly served by "experts" pontificating about the US excision of General Qassam Soleimani.
First, it was alleged by an academic that the US and Iran were now in a de facto state of war. That has turned out to be a bit premature.
The NZ media and news outlets appear to be poorly served by "experts" pontificating about the US excision of General Qassam Soleimani.
First, it was alleged by an academic that the US and Iran were now in a de facto state of war. That has turned out to be a bit premature.
Iran and the United States are now at a "de facto state of war" after missiles rained down on American military bases in Iraq, says an international relations expert. The unambiguous strike by Tehran today, in response to the assassination of general Qassam Soleimani in a targeted US drone strike, may now lead to a "bloody" regional conflict, Alexander Gillespie told the Herald. The international law professor at the University of Waikato said: "Iran is calling President [Donald] Trump's bluff."It seems that Iran did not make an "unambiguous strike" upon US military bases. In fact the very opposite was the case.
Wednesday, 8 January 2020
Trump's Doctrines of War
Interesting Times
The powers that be within Iran are right now between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand the clerics and Islamists in that country are losing support from ordinary Iranian citizens by the day. The only way they can control the restless population is by murder on a grand scale. Secondly, the United States has demonstrated that it will protect the interests of the US whenever and wherever Iran attempts to do damage to the US.
We find ourselves intrigued by Trump's doctrines of war. For a long time he has declared that he wants US military personnel and weaponry brought home. He wants to turn away from the US being the military policeman of the globe and replace it with a military that is far more narrowly focused upon defending essential US interests. To this end he has declared he wants to see much of the US military repatriated back to the US. Secondly, he has made himself obnoxious to some by demanding that allies of the US begin to contribute to their national and international obligations, instead of expecting the US to stump up and pay their defense and western military alliance costs.
But Trump has also demonstrated that he is not a pacifist--not by a long shot.
The powers that be within Iran are right now between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand the clerics and Islamists in that country are losing support from ordinary Iranian citizens by the day. The only way they can control the restless population is by murder on a grand scale. Secondly, the United States has demonstrated that it will protect the interests of the US whenever and wherever Iran attempts to do damage to the US.
We find ourselves intrigued by Trump's doctrines of war. For a long time he has declared that he wants US military personnel and weaponry brought home. He wants to turn away from the US being the military policeman of the globe and replace it with a military that is far more narrowly focused upon defending essential US interests. To this end he has declared he wants to see much of the US military repatriated back to the US. Secondly, he has made himself obnoxious to some by demanding that allies of the US begin to contribute to their national and international obligations, instead of expecting the US to stump up and pay their defense and western military alliance costs.
But Trump has also demonstrated that he is not a pacifist--not by a long shot.
Monday, 6 January 2020
Uncertainties and Quandries
After Suleiman, What Next?
Rebeccah Heinrichs
The Federalist
Big Things To Think About Now That We’ve Terminated A Top Iranian General. At the order of President Trump, the U.S. has eliminated by military strike the top general of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Qassem Suleimani.
The decision to kill Qassem Suleimani when we did and in the context we did is jaw-dropping for a few reasons. Suleimani’s significance was massive and taking him out now will have far greater effects than when the United States killed Osama bin Laden.
Killing OBL was righteous, and the decision to send U.S. special operators into Pakistan to conduct the kill operation was President Barack Obama’s greatest and most honorable moment of his presidency, but by that time, bin Laden was mostly an operational has-been.
In contrast, Suleimani was still on the upswing of his terrorism career, and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American service-members and coalition forces, the maiming of thousands of Americans and coalition forces, and the slaughter of millions of others, including civilians across the region. And he was just getting warmed up. He was not a non-state actor with a terrorist following. He was a state-funded and supported official with the resources, political clout, and international legitimacy proffered by states unwilling to join the U.S. in isolating the regime.
As explained by Mike Doran in today’s New York Times, Suleimani built Lebanese Hezbollah and ensured it was armed to the teeth. He extended the imperialistic reach of the Iran regime through organizing, training, and arming militias all over the Middle East. Most proximate to the events yesterday, the Department of Defense blamed Suleimani for ordering the militia mob’s aggression against the U.S. embassy the day before. . . .
The Airstrike Against Suleimani Was Warranted
Suleimani used U.S. airstrikes against Kata’ib Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militia that operates in Iraq and killed dozens, as the pretext for mobbing and threatening the American embassy in Baghdad. Although the images of the Iranian-supported militias mobbing the U.S. embassy were harrowing, the embassy and those inside were well defended and prepared. Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters, “We are very confident that the integrity of that embassy is strong, and it is highly unlikely to be physically overrun by anyone. … There is sufficient combat power there, air and ground, that anyone who attempts to overrun that will run into a buzzsaw.”
The U.S. airstrikes which killed dozens of Iranian-backed militia was in direct response to a militia attack that killed an American contractor. President Donald Trump, while steering clear of the words “red line,” has repeatedly warned Iran against doing anything that would harm an American. He made that point in response to Iran’s downing of the Global Hawk.
After the strike and during the embassy mobbing, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper warned that the U.S. was preparing to defend against further attacks. “There are some indications out there that they may be planning additional attacks,” Esper said. “If we get word of attacks or some type of indication we will take preemptive action as well to protect American forces, to protect American lives. The game has changed.” Preemption was, in fact, needed. Confirming the elimination of Suleimani, the Department of Defense issued a statement that said, “General Suleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.”
It is a common refrain from former Obama officials and those supportive of the Obama foreign policy that pulling out of the Iran deal is the cause of the recent violence. That is an easily disproven myth. The Iran regime was expanding its reach and effectiveness by building more weapons, including missiles, and furnishing them to militia groups during the time Obama administration diplomats sought the Iran deal (JCPOA).
Iran has long been funding Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and is largely responsible for keeping him in power. The same is true for the Houthi rebels in Yemen and the prolonging of that humanitarian catastrophe. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has been operating with impunity in Iraq and has only gotten bolder, not because of Trump’s decision to get out of the Iran deal, but because the Obama administration’s Iran deal was a symptom of a larger policy that sought to ease tensions with the Iran regime without first expecting the regime to change its behavior. The Obama anti-ISIS campaign even funded Iranian-backed militias inside Iraq, an utterly disastrous plan.
In light of all this, these are the questions we should be asking:
1. How Will the Iran Regime Respond?
The Iran regime is already promising to vindicate Suleimani’s death. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, “Harsh retaliation is waiting.”
When it comes to America’s and Iran’s militaries going head to head, it’s not even close. Compared to that of the United States, Iran’s military is unsophisticated, but — and this cannot be overemphasized — it’s wrong to underappreciate the damage Iran can do with the missile arsenal it has amassed. Its missile can reach U.S. bases in the region and can extend into Europe. Moreover, a conflict with Iran that escalates into a larger war would not be geographically narrow in scope. Iran’s reach, thanks in large part to Suleimani’s orchestration, extends outside its borders in the form of militias. Hezbollah, recall, even operates in the United States.
2. How Will the Iraqi Government Respond?
The Iraqi government is responsible for providing security of the U.S. embassy, which it failed to do. That was a choice. Moreover, although the Iraqi government officially called on those within its borders not to attack Americans, it also denounced the U.S. retaliatory attacks against the Iran-backed militias and even described those killed as “martyrs.” The United States is lawfully in Iraq, but that situation is precarious. Since Obama withdrew the bulk of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, there has been no Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) outlining the legal and diplomatic parameters for a long-term U.S. military presence in the country. If the Iraq government decides to officially submit its sovereignty to the Iranian regime and become its vassal state, there is little the United States can do short of a massive ground invasion and a take-two of the Bush-era overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
3. What Is the United States Prepared To Do Now?
President Trump has been consistent throughout his campaign and his presidency that he does not want to further entangle the United States in Middle East conflicts. He inherited a mess and fully intends to get out, not make the mess worse. The Trump defense strategies clearly articulate the prioritization of great-power competition with China and to a lesser degree Russia, two nations that can and are intent to do far greater harm to the United States. The wars in the Middle East have preoccupied the United States and sapped our focus away from the trajectory of the Chinese Communist Party and the threat it poses outside its borders.
We must find a way to recalibrate the U.S. strategy toward the Middle East so the U.S., with greater reliance on sovereign nation allies, can shrink our military presence and lessen our focus to center our efforts on building military capacity to more credibly deter China and Russia. But the Iranian regime has been intent on becoming a regional hegemony, and the previous administrations did not pursue policies that thwart Iran’s effort, thereby making shifting away from the Middle East miserably difficult. The Obama administration’s policy toward Iran made the Middle East infinitely more volatile. So now, even with a sincere determination to unwind U.S. presence in the Middle East, we find ourselves increasing U.S. troop levels.
Tolerating Iran and the murderous campaign of the IRGC has not brought peace or stability, and the Iran regime miscalculated when it determined Trump would be as tolerant as Obama. Now that Trump has made that miscalculation clear, the goal should be to clearly and credibly communicate that the U.S. does not want to unleash the weight of American military strength against the Iran regime but that we are prepared to do so if Iran continues to threaten Americans. This will be the most effective means to prevent that escalation from unfolding, and Iran should stand down and call off its militias.
If the United States is successful in compelling Iran to back off and deescalating the situation, there is an enormous potential here, especially with the elimination of Suleimani, to begin a new era of stability in the region and to carry out the strategies to regain the advance against China. But if the Iran regime decides it wants war with America over the death of Suleimani, a man who had dedicated his life to killing Americans and other innocents, it appears Donald Trump, the man who ran against wars in the Middle East and by all accounts genuinely hates them, will give them one.
Rebeccah Heinrichs is a fellow at the Hudson Institute, specializing in missile defense and nuclear deterrence. Follow her on Twitter @RLHeinrichs.
Rebeccah Heinrichs
The Federalist
Big Things To Think About Now That We’ve Terminated A Top Iranian General. At the order of President Trump, the U.S. has eliminated by military strike the top general of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Qassem Suleimani.
The decision to kill Qassem Suleimani when we did and in the context we did is jaw-dropping for a few reasons. Suleimani’s significance was massive and taking him out now will have far greater effects than when the United States killed Osama bin Laden.
Killing OBL was righteous, and the decision to send U.S. special operators into Pakistan to conduct the kill operation was President Barack Obama’s greatest and most honorable moment of his presidency, but by that time, bin Laden was mostly an operational has-been.
In contrast, Suleimani was still on the upswing of his terrorism career, and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American service-members and coalition forces, the maiming of thousands of Americans and coalition forces, and the slaughter of millions of others, including civilians across the region. And he was just getting warmed up. He was not a non-state actor with a terrorist following. He was a state-funded and supported official with the resources, political clout, and international legitimacy proffered by states unwilling to join the U.S. in isolating the regime.
As explained by Mike Doran in today’s New York Times, Suleimani built Lebanese Hezbollah and ensured it was armed to the teeth. He extended the imperialistic reach of the Iran regime through organizing, training, and arming militias all over the Middle East. Most proximate to the events yesterday, the Department of Defense blamed Suleimani for ordering the militia mob’s aggression against the U.S. embassy the day before. . . .
The Airstrike Against Suleimani Was Warranted
Suleimani used U.S. airstrikes against Kata’ib Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militia that operates in Iraq and killed dozens, as the pretext for mobbing and threatening the American embassy in Baghdad. Although the images of the Iranian-supported militias mobbing the U.S. embassy were harrowing, the embassy and those inside were well defended and prepared. Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters, “We are very confident that the integrity of that embassy is strong, and it is highly unlikely to be physically overrun by anyone. … There is sufficient combat power there, air and ground, that anyone who attempts to overrun that will run into a buzzsaw.”
The U.S. airstrikes which killed dozens of Iranian-backed militia was in direct response to a militia attack that killed an American contractor. President Donald Trump, while steering clear of the words “red line,” has repeatedly warned Iran against doing anything that would harm an American. He made that point in response to Iran’s downing of the Global Hawk.
After the strike and during the embassy mobbing, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper warned that the U.S. was preparing to defend against further attacks. “There are some indications out there that they may be planning additional attacks,” Esper said. “If we get word of attacks or some type of indication we will take preemptive action as well to protect American forces, to protect American lives. The game has changed.” Preemption was, in fact, needed. Confirming the elimination of Suleimani, the Department of Defense issued a statement that said, “General Suleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.”
It is a common refrain from former Obama officials and those supportive of the Obama foreign policy that pulling out of the Iran deal is the cause of the recent violence. That is an easily disproven myth. The Iran regime was expanding its reach and effectiveness by building more weapons, including missiles, and furnishing them to militia groups during the time Obama administration diplomats sought the Iran deal (JCPOA).
Iran has long been funding Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and is largely responsible for keeping him in power. The same is true for the Houthi rebels in Yemen and the prolonging of that humanitarian catastrophe. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has been operating with impunity in Iraq and has only gotten bolder, not because of Trump’s decision to get out of the Iran deal, but because the Obama administration’s Iran deal was a symptom of a larger policy that sought to ease tensions with the Iran regime without first expecting the regime to change its behavior. The Obama anti-ISIS campaign even funded Iranian-backed militias inside Iraq, an utterly disastrous plan.
In light of all this, these are the questions we should be asking:
1. How Will the Iran Regime Respond?
The Iran regime is already promising to vindicate Suleimani’s death. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, “Harsh retaliation is waiting.”
When it comes to America’s and Iran’s militaries going head to head, it’s not even close. Compared to that of the United States, Iran’s military is unsophisticated, but — and this cannot be overemphasized — it’s wrong to underappreciate the damage Iran can do with the missile arsenal it has amassed. Its missile can reach U.S. bases in the region and can extend into Europe. Moreover, a conflict with Iran that escalates into a larger war would not be geographically narrow in scope. Iran’s reach, thanks in large part to Suleimani’s orchestration, extends outside its borders in the form of militias. Hezbollah, recall, even operates in the United States.
2. How Will the Iraqi Government Respond?
The Iraqi government is responsible for providing security of the U.S. embassy, which it failed to do. That was a choice. Moreover, although the Iraqi government officially called on those within its borders not to attack Americans, it also denounced the U.S. retaliatory attacks against the Iran-backed militias and even described those killed as “martyrs.” The United States is lawfully in Iraq, but that situation is precarious. Since Obama withdrew the bulk of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, there has been no Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) outlining the legal and diplomatic parameters for a long-term U.S. military presence in the country. If the Iraq government decides to officially submit its sovereignty to the Iranian regime and become its vassal state, there is little the United States can do short of a massive ground invasion and a take-two of the Bush-era overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
3. What Is the United States Prepared To Do Now?
President Trump has been consistent throughout his campaign and his presidency that he does not want to further entangle the United States in Middle East conflicts. He inherited a mess and fully intends to get out, not make the mess worse. The Trump defense strategies clearly articulate the prioritization of great-power competition with China and to a lesser degree Russia, two nations that can and are intent to do far greater harm to the United States. The wars in the Middle East have preoccupied the United States and sapped our focus away from the trajectory of the Chinese Communist Party and the threat it poses outside its borders.
We must find a way to recalibrate the U.S. strategy toward the Middle East so the U.S., with greater reliance on sovereign nation allies, can shrink our military presence and lessen our focus to center our efforts on building military capacity to more credibly deter China and Russia. But the Iranian regime has been intent on becoming a regional hegemony, and the previous administrations did not pursue policies that thwart Iran’s effort, thereby making shifting away from the Middle East miserably difficult. The Obama administration’s policy toward Iran made the Middle East infinitely more volatile. So now, even with a sincere determination to unwind U.S. presence in the Middle East, we find ourselves increasing U.S. troop levels.
Tolerating Iran and the murderous campaign of the IRGC has not brought peace or stability, and the Iran regime miscalculated when it determined Trump would be as tolerant as Obama. Now that Trump has made that miscalculation clear, the goal should be to clearly and credibly communicate that the U.S. does not want to unleash the weight of American military strength against the Iran regime but that we are prepared to do so if Iran continues to threaten Americans. This will be the most effective means to prevent that escalation from unfolding, and Iran should stand down and call off its militias.
If the United States is successful in compelling Iran to back off and deescalating the situation, there is an enormous potential here, especially with the elimination of Suleimani, to begin a new era of stability in the region and to carry out the strategies to regain the advance against China. But if the Iran regime decides it wants war with America over the death of Suleimani, a man who had dedicated his life to killing Americans and other innocents, it appears Donald Trump, the man who ran against wars in the Middle East and by all accounts genuinely hates them, will give them one.
Rebeccah Heinrichs is a fellow at the Hudson Institute, specializing in missile defense and nuclear deterrence. Follow her on Twitter @RLHeinrichs.
Wednesday, 6 November 2019
Fighting Without End
Veterans Oppose the Endless Wars.
‘A Lot of Wasted Lives’ for ‘a Goal We Never Accomplished’
John Binder
Breitbart News
American Veterans who risked their lives in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are increasingly opposing foreign interventionism that continues to dominate the Washington, DC, political establishment.
The latest Pew Research Center survey on the issue finds that 64 percent of Veterans say the Iraq War is “not worth fighting,” along with 62 percent of all American adults who agree. Only 33 percent of Veterans say the Iraq War is worth fighting.
Likewise, nearly 60 percent of Veterans and all American adults say the Afghanistan War was not worth the fight. Less than 40 percent say the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was worth fighting.
In interviews with the New York Times, Veterans explained their support for President Trump’s effort to end what he has dubbed the “endless wars” across the Middle East which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
“All in all, it is a lot of wasted lives and money and time and effort spent to accomplish a goal we never accomplished,” said 31-year-old Tyler Wade, who received a Purple Heart for his service in Afghanistan, told the Times.
‘A Lot of Wasted Lives’ for ‘a Goal We Never Accomplished’
John Binder
Breitbart News
American Veterans who risked their lives in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are increasingly opposing foreign interventionism that continues to dominate the Washington, DC, political establishment.
The latest Pew Research Center survey on the issue finds that 64 percent of Veterans say the Iraq War is “not worth fighting,” along with 62 percent of all American adults who agree. Only 33 percent of Veterans say the Iraq War is worth fighting.
Likewise, nearly 60 percent of Veterans and all American adults say the Afghanistan War was not worth the fight. Less than 40 percent say the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was worth fighting.
In interviews with the New York Times, Veterans explained their support for President Trump’s effort to end what he has dubbed the “endless wars” across the Middle East which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
“All in all, it is a lot of wasted lives and money and time and effort spent to accomplish a goal we never accomplished,” said 31-year-old Tyler Wade, who received a Purple Heart for his service in Afghanistan, told the Times.
Friday, 25 October 2019
Can Splendid Isolation Be Recaptured?
The Endgame in Syria
By Matthew Continetti
National Review Online
Turkey-backed Syrian rebel fighters on an armored personnel carrier in the border town of Akcakale, Turkey, October 18, 2019. (Murad Sezer/Reuters)
Americans are getting the retreat they voted for.
“The slaughter going on in Syria is not a consequence of American presence. It’s a consequence of a withdrawal and a betrayal by this president of American allies and American values.”
—Pete Buttigieg, October 15
Mr. Mayor has a point. For 75 years, from Fulda Gap to the 38th parallel, the American soldier has been the last line of defense against violence, chaos, and oppression. From Kosovo to Anbar, he has kept a lid on cauldrons of bloodlust. Remove him, and the poison boils over.
That is what happened when Congress reduced aid to South Vietnam in 1975. It is what followed U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. It is happening now in northeast Syria, and it will happen again when Americans leave Afghanistan. Our forces depart; our allies collapse; our adversaries take command.
The pattern was established well before Donald Trump took office. It will persist after he departs. There is nothing so consistent as American ambivalence toward our superpower status. Most great powers covet hegemony. We hate it. The costs are too high, the demands too stressful.
“For every exercise of the great power’s prerogative, there has been an equally strong recoiling from the use of power,” wrote Robert Kagan in A Twilight Struggle (1996). “While the United States cannot escape behaving as the hegemonic great power, it is also a great power with a democratic conscience, a strong anti-imperialist streak, and an unwillingness to adopt the role of policeman anywhere for more than a brief time.”
Kagan was describing U.S. policy toward Nicaragua. He might as well have been talking about the Middle East.
Trump is getting America out of a country we were never really in. Our presence in Syria was not enough to deter Turkey. One thousand troops do not constitute a tripwire. They are chips in a high-stakes game. Erdogan called the bluff.
Our footprint was light because the last two administrations wanted it that way.
By Matthew Continetti
National Review Online
Turkey-backed Syrian rebel fighters on an armored personnel carrier in the border town of Akcakale, Turkey, October 18, 2019. (Murad Sezer/Reuters)
Americans are getting the retreat they voted for.
“The slaughter going on in Syria is not a consequence of American presence. It’s a consequence of a withdrawal and a betrayal by this president of American allies and American values.”
—Pete Buttigieg, October 15
Mr. Mayor has a point. For 75 years, from Fulda Gap to the 38th parallel, the American soldier has been the last line of defense against violence, chaos, and oppression. From Kosovo to Anbar, he has kept a lid on cauldrons of bloodlust. Remove him, and the poison boils over.
That is what happened when Congress reduced aid to South Vietnam in 1975. It is what followed U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. It is happening now in northeast Syria, and it will happen again when Americans leave Afghanistan. Our forces depart; our allies collapse; our adversaries take command.
The pattern was established well before Donald Trump took office. It will persist after he departs. There is nothing so consistent as American ambivalence toward our superpower status. Most great powers covet hegemony. We hate it. The costs are too high, the demands too stressful.
“For every exercise of the great power’s prerogative, there has been an equally strong recoiling from the use of power,” wrote Robert Kagan in A Twilight Struggle (1996). “While the United States cannot escape behaving as the hegemonic great power, it is also a great power with a democratic conscience, a strong anti-imperialist streak, and an unwillingness to adopt the role of policeman anywhere for more than a brief time.”
Kagan was describing U.S. policy toward Nicaragua. He might as well have been talking about the Middle East.
Trump is getting America out of a country we were never really in. Our presence in Syria was not enough to deter Turkey. One thousand troops do not constitute a tripwire. They are chips in a high-stakes game. Erdogan called the bluff.
Our footprint was light because the last two administrations wanted it that way.
Wednesday, 16 October 2019
The Turks, the Kurds, and Everyone Else
Knowing One's Limitations
It is pretty clear that Donald Trump does not like going to war. He wants to bring US soldiers and their support personnel and equipment. But he has been criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike for US withdrawals from Iraq and and Syria, whilst refusing to get involved in defending the Kurds against the war-mongering President of Turkey.
But the simplistic, black and white approach to world affairs apparently championed by the Democrats and the Republicans in House and Senate cannot withstand scrutiny. Trump is right not to commit US "treasure" to defending the Kurds against Turkish aggression. Why? It's complex, man!
John Hayward explains why a simplistic, black and white approach, which the US military would always represent, would be destined to fail.
Turkey’s invasion of northeastern Syria to drive the Kurds away from the Turkish border is bringing more Western attention to the Kurds than they received during the long and bloody Syrian civil war, where they played a key role in defeating the Islamic State.
Here are some important things to know about the Kurds.
Monday, 22 July 2019
Effective, Thoughtful, and Merciful Use of Force
Targeted and Limited
One of the features of Trump's military doctrine which stands out in stark contrast to many of his predecessors is its apparent concern for human life.
There, we suggest, is a military doctrine about which we could get pleased, if not excited.
One of the features of Trump's military doctrine which stands out in stark contrast to many of his predecessors is its apparent concern for human life.
A day after Iran shot down the U.S. drone on June 20, Trump approved military strikes on Iran in retaliation — but then abruptly cancelled them. “We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General,” Trump wrote in a tweet on June 21. “10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not.....proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.”So, the response became targeted and limited--focused upon those responsible within Iran and its allies. The reason? To save human life--particularly those who were not responsible. We struggle to recall a similar kind of decision by a sitting US President--although doubtless there are some.
Days later, Trump signed an executive order imposing what he called “hard-hitting” new sanctions on Iran. “We will continue to increase pressure on Tehran until the regime abandons its dangerous activities,” including its nuclear ambitions, Trump said on June 24. The new sanctions denied Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his office access to key financial resources. The sanctions also targeted Iranian military leaders who were responsible for shooting down the drone. [CNBC]
There, we suggest, is a military doctrine about which we could get pleased, if not excited.
Tuesday, 12 February 2019
The Terrible Cost of American Overreach
Selling Out American Soldiers
By a 68-23 margin, the Senate decided we haven’t spilled enough blood, broken enough soldiers, or spent enough money on Afghanistan.
Jesse Kelly
The Federalist
The U.S. Senate cannot agree on anything. They are so mired in partisan gridlock, a resolution declaring the sky to be officially the color blue would fail along party lines. But there is one thing and one thing only they agree on: 17 years of our troops dying in Afghanistan isn’t long enough.
By a 68-23 margin, the Senate decided we haven’t spilled enough blood, broken enough soldiers (mentally and physically), or spent enough money. All for a now-aimless conflict in a part of the world Americans don’t even care about.
What began as an attempt to hunt down Osama bin Laden has now become a generational conflict where sons are patrolling the same areas as their fathers did. This no longer a war. This has become a hopeless mission to tame a part of the world that has never been and will never be tamed.
By a 68-23 margin, the Senate decided we haven’t spilled enough blood, broken enough soldiers, or spent enough money on Afghanistan.
Jesse Kelly
The Federalist
The U.S. Senate cannot agree on anything. They are so mired in partisan gridlock, a resolution declaring the sky to be officially the color blue would fail along party lines. But there is one thing and one thing only they agree on: 17 years of our troops dying in Afghanistan isn’t long enough.
By a 68-23 margin, the Senate decided we haven’t spilled enough blood, broken enough soldiers (mentally and physically), or spent enough money. All for a now-aimless conflict in a part of the world Americans don’t even care about.
What began as an attempt to hunt down Osama bin Laden has now become a generational conflict where sons are patrolling the same areas as their fathers did. This no longer a war. This has become a hopeless mission to tame a part of the world that has never been and will never be tamed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)