So one of the suggestions to help the Ukrainians that has been suggested for the United States, and that the administration apparently does not want to do out of fear that it will "provoke" Putin (which I think is ridiculous, considering it should be viewed in terms of how are Putin's actions provoking the United States), is to send arms to Ukraine. This would then factor into Putin's calculations on whether to invade the rest of Ukraine.
Russia's army is not the most elite in the world and thus armed citizens may well be able to inflict a lot more harm to Russia's military than they would be able to conduct to a military such as the United States's for example, and even then, I am sure if the U.S. was considering invading Ukraine, the ability of the Ukrainians to harm our soldiers would be taken into consideration. This could cause Putin to hesitate for a few reasons:
1) Embarrassment. Putin doesn't want to be made to look like an idiot.
2) Showing other countries that you don't need a super elite military to give the Russian military hell if they try invading you.
3) If Putin wants to push beyond Ukraine, this will mean having supply lines running through Ukraine. Armed Ukrainians could possibly severely disrupt those supply lines, causing all manner of havoc for the Russian military if trying to advance beyond Ukraine.
I do hope that if/when Putin decides to invade the rest of Ukraine, the Ukrainians give the Russians utter hell for it. But unfortunately I think they will be rather hard-pressed to do so as they lack the arms they would need.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Thursday, March 20, 2014
American Power Part II
I wanted to write some additional points regarding the subject of how this administration, as I see it, undermines American power and what I see as the stupidity of many of their points of view:
1) With the reductions in defense, Secretary of Defense (at the time) Leon Panetta said that the U.S. military was now being reformed to where it would no longer be capable of fighting a two-front war, but instead would be capable of fighting a single-front war and holding off the enemy on a secondary front.
The problem with this is that there is no such thing. If you are fighting on one front and "holding off" the enemy on a second front, then you are fighting a two-front war. So basically it is just marketing to try and make the cuts to the military budget sound okay.
2) The Army and the Marine Corps need money. Now that the U.S. is out of Iraq and soon to be out of Afghanistan are not reasons to be cutting the Army and Marine Corps. The vehicles of these branches have been driven way beyond what their original intended service life was supposed to be, and because the soldiers had to bolt on a whole lot of armor onto them, this added a whole lot of wear-and-tear to the vehicles that they weren't supposed to have.
A rough analogy would be you are a business buy a fleet of vans that you intend to put about 100,000 miles a piece on. But then due to circumstances you didn't plan on, you end up having to put about 400,000 to 500,000 miles on each van and you also have to do so while loading each van up constantly with a lot of additional weight. Obviously you would want to replace or at least refurbish your vans after having used them so much. But instead imagine that your budget gets cut severely, so you have to make due with these vans. This is the condition of many of the vehicles of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps.
The Marine Corps in particular can be hard hit here as they already make due with older equipment. In the Gulf War in 1991, the Army went in with Abrams tanks. The Marines had Abrams tanks, but also went in with the old M60 tanks. Later the Army has M1A2 Abrams tanks, the Marines have the M1A1s. The Army gets the M2A3s and the Marines get the M1A2s. And so forth. The Marines use an older model of gas mask then the Army as well. One can only imagine the wear-and-tear that their vehicles and equipment have been put through.
3) There is a belief among many that we should not spend much on defense because it takes the place of investing in society. But this really isn't true. The reality is that the research and development into science and technology for defense purposes is responsible for a great deal of the technology we have today. The first computers were created as a result of the defense budget. The use, and hence development, of transistors was used as a result of the defense budget (vacuum tubes were far less expensive). The Internet was also created as a result of the defense budget. Many advancements in materials science as well are due to the defense budget. Much also is from the Space Program as well, which was an enormous (probably the most enormous) investment in research and development of science and technology in human history.
Even now, military funding of research into various technologies, such as computer technology, continues to have spillover effects into regular society. So investment in the defense budget need not be something in place of investment in society. The investment in science and technology R&D done for defense is adopted by the private sector to create new industries and hence new economic growth.
4) Most liberal democracies are weak. We often like to think of authoritarian countries as weak, but this depends. The nations of Europe are debt-laden, militarily weak, and selfish, and not capable of standing up to the Russian menace on their own. South Korea is not capable of standing up to North Korea on its own. Japan will struggle most likely to stand up to China on its own, and Taiwan is not capable of standing up to China with the Chinese rapidly modernizing their military. Thus the importance of American primacy and power.
5) The administration has made some very bizarre statements in my opinion on foreign policy issues:
President Obama said in a speech once that, "No nation can or should dominate another." No nation can dominate another? Is he unaware of the entirety of human history?
John Kerry said that, "Russia is behaving in a 19th century manner in a 21st century world." (paraphrase) --- does Kerry really think that because we are in the 21st century, that countries are all supposed to behave in some "enlightened" manner where they no longer behave in the same ways they always have behaved?
John Kerry then said a few days later, "The president may have his version of history, but I believe that he and Russia, for what they have done, are on the wrong side of history.”
--- what on Earth is the "wrong side of history?" What does that even mean? Were the barbarians on the "wrong side of history" when they brought down the Western Roman Empire officially in 476 CE? Were the Ottomon Turks on the "wrong side of history" when thye captured Constantinople in 1453 AD and ended the Byzantine empire, which had existed unto itself (the Eastern Roman Empire) for an additional thousand years? Was Hitler on the "wrong side of history?"
Now Obama is communicating to Putin that he (Obama) is reasonable and so forth, as if that is going to stop a man like Putin. I do wonder about the logic (or lack there of) of the apparent thinking that comes from this administration.
6) Vice President Joe Biden visited Poland today to emphasize that if Putin tries to invade any of the countries beyond Ukraine, that the U.S. will use force to stop it. But as I see it, there's one major flaw with this threat: the U.S. doesn't have the ability to project any real force in Europe as President Obama removed the heavy armor portion of the Army in Europe, something that had been a mainstay since the end of WWII, because of this (in my opinion extremely naive and ridiculous) mindset that major land wars are a thing of the past and that the big Army is a Cold War relic that we can gut, that future war will primarily be Special Operations and drones on terrorists and using the Navy to counter China, where Obama wanted to "pivot" to.
How exactly is the U.S. supposed to counter a Russian land invasion when we do not have any heavy armor capability in Europe? If the Russians invade, they're going to bring armor, and the U.S. will likely be hard-pressed to stop it without our own. Obama has essentially rendered the United States a paper tiger in Europe. I wonder if the U.S.'s not having any armor in Europe factored into Putin's calculations on taking Crimea and his possible future moves. Amazing how only about two years after we remove the armor from Europe, now we need it. Putin, as said in the previous blog post, is an example of how the threat of serious conflict can seemingly spring up out of nowhere, and of how weakness invites aggression.
Many had claimed that maintaining a serious military presence in Europe was a thing of the past, a relic of the Cold War. Some claimed that NATO itself is a Cold War relic. Where they get the idea for either of these I find very puzzling, because Russia never evolved into say another version of West Germany after World War II, i.e. a liberal democracy, and one that focused on teaching the flaws of the prior government. By the 1950s, for example, West German school textbooks were teaching about the evils of the Nazi regime. But Russia? Instead, Russia possesses a population that to a good degree now pines for the old soviet days with nostalgia. The country is rife with extreme corruption, it is a sham democracy with a government that consists of holdovers from the old Soviet days.
In some ways, it is questionable even whether the Soviet Union ever even really ended. World War I was the "war to end all wars." Then roughly twenty years later, World War II occurred. Well the Cold War "officially" ended in 1991. About twenty years pass, and because of this, "experts" decide to claim that things like NATO and a strong U.S. military presence in Europe are "relics" and something of the past. What they base this on was just the belief that Russia would never be a serious threat, despite the fact that the views of the Russian population and people like Putin should have shown otherwise. We may well discover that the Cold War never ended but merely had a roughly two-decade lapse, just like the time between World War I and World War II.
The Russian Empire is the Russian Empire, whether the old pre-Soviet Tsar variant, or the Soviet Empire (which was unto itself just an old-fashioned Russian empire), or the new attempts by Putin to rebuild a variant of Russian empire. The point is the notion that Russia ever stopped being a threat is clearly nonsense. The notion that major land wars are a thing of the past is a premature view and the view thus that the major conventional land warfare military is a relic of the past is also a premature view.
Some have said that the U.S. needs to enact strong sanctions on Russia (with real teeth, not the joke sanctions Obama has enacted right now), send weapons and supplies to Ukraine so they can fight a Putin invasion, and re-instate the missile defense in Eastern Europe as Putin hates this and it can undermine his power in the long term. But I would add a fourth suggestion: re-instate the heavy armor into Europe. And not just two Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) as were previously there, but perhaps look into adding an additional one or two, so a total of three or four BCTs. The U.S. needs to have the capability to fight a land war with Russia. Not because such a war is desirable, the complete opposite: that having such a capability will serve as a major deterrent to Russian aggression in the region.
Russia does not have a strong military and their economy is a joke. To the extent it has any wealth, it is primarily from natural resources. Russia's military does not have anywhere near the professionalism, skill, and capability of the U.S. military, so a strong U.S. military presence in Europe would be a serious-deterrent to Russia. Russia would know that it not only is faced with fighting a world-class military from a much economically stronger country, but also a military that is already combat-hardened and seasoned from a decade of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is how to achieve peace through strength.
Trying to appease the crocodile will not work.
1) With the reductions in defense, Secretary of Defense (at the time) Leon Panetta said that the U.S. military was now being reformed to where it would no longer be capable of fighting a two-front war, but instead would be capable of fighting a single-front war and holding off the enemy on a secondary front.
The problem with this is that there is no such thing. If you are fighting on one front and "holding off" the enemy on a second front, then you are fighting a two-front war. So basically it is just marketing to try and make the cuts to the military budget sound okay.
2) The Army and the Marine Corps need money. Now that the U.S. is out of Iraq and soon to be out of Afghanistan are not reasons to be cutting the Army and Marine Corps. The vehicles of these branches have been driven way beyond what their original intended service life was supposed to be, and because the soldiers had to bolt on a whole lot of armor onto them, this added a whole lot of wear-and-tear to the vehicles that they weren't supposed to have.
A rough analogy would be you are a business buy a fleet of vans that you intend to put about 100,000 miles a piece on. But then due to circumstances you didn't plan on, you end up having to put about 400,000 to 500,000 miles on each van and you also have to do so while loading each van up constantly with a lot of additional weight. Obviously you would want to replace or at least refurbish your vans after having used them so much. But instead imagine that your budget gets cut severely, so you have to make due with these vans. This is the condition of many of the vehicles of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps.
The Marine Corps in particular can be hard hit here as they already make due with older equipment. In the Gulf War in 1991, the Army went in with Abrams tanks. The Marines had Abrams tanks, but also went in with the old M60 tanks. Later the Army has M1A2 Abrams tanks, the Marines have the M1A1s. The Army gets the M2A3s and the Marines get the M1A2s. And so forth. The Marines use an older model of gas mask then the Army as well. One can only imagine the wear-and-tear that their vehicles and equipment have been put through.
3) There is a belief among many that we should not spend much on defense because it takes the place of investing in society. But this really isn't true. The reality is that the research and development into science and technology for defense purposes is responsible for a great deal of the technology we have today. The first computers were created as a result of the defense budget. The use, and hence development, of transistors was used as a result of the defense budget (vacuum tubes were far less expensive). The Internet was also created as a result of the defense budget. Many advancements in materials science as well are due to the defense budget. Much also is from the Space Program as well, which was an enormous (probably the most enormous) investment in research and development of science and technology in human history.
Even now, military funding of research into various technologies, such as computer technology, continues to have spillover effects into regular society. So investment in the defense budget need not be something in place of investment in society. The investment in science and technology R&D done for defense is adopted by the private sector to create new industries and hence new economic growth.
4) Most liberal democracies are weak. We often like to think of authoritarian countries as weak, but this depends. The nations of Europe are debt-laden, militarily weak, and selfish, and not capable of standing up to the Russian menace on their own. South Korea is not capable of standing up to North Korea on its own. Japan will struggle most likely to stand up to China on its own, and Taiwan is not capable of standing up to China with the Chinese rapidly modernizing their military. Thus the importance of American primacy and power.
5) The administration has made some very bizarre statements in my opinion on foreign policy issues:
President Obama said in a speech once that, "No nation can or should dominate another." No nation can dominate another? Is he unaware of the entirety of human history?
John Kerry said that, "Russia is behaving in a 19th century manner in a 21st century world." (paraphrase) --- does Kerry really think that because we are in the 21st century, that countries are all supposed to behave in some "enlightened" manner where they no longer behave in the same ways they always have behaved?
John Kerry then said a few days later, "The president may have his version of history, but I believe that he and Russia, for what they have done, are on the wrong side of history.”
--- what on Earth is the "wrong side of history?" What does that even mean? Were the barbarians on the "wrong side of history" when they brought down the Western Roman Empire officially in 476 CE? Were the Ottomon Turks on the "wrong side of history" when thye captured Constantinople in 1453 AD and ended the Byzantine empire, which had existed unto itself (the Eastern Roman Empire) for an additional thousand years? Was Hitler on the "wrong side of history?"
Now Obama is communicating to Putin that he (Obama) is reasonable and so forth, as if that is going to stop a man like Putin. I do wonder about the logic (or lack there of) of the apparent thinking that comes from this administration.
6) Vice President Joe Biden visited Poland today to emphasize that if Putin tries to invade any of the countries beyond Ukraine, that the U.S. will use force to stop it. But as I see it, there's one major flaw with this threat: the U.S. doesn't have the ability to project any real force in Europe as President Obama removed the heavy armor portion of the Army in Europe, something that had been a mainstay since the end of WWII, because of this (in my opinion extremely naive and ridiculous) mindset that major land wars are a thing of the past and that the big Army is a Cold War relic that we can gut, that future war will primarily be Special Operations and drones on terrorists and using the Navy to counter China, where Obama wanted to "pivot" to.
How exactly is the U.S. supposed to counter a Russian land invasion when we do not have any heavy armor capability in Europe? If the Russians invade, they're going to bring armor, and the U.S. will likely be hard-pressed to stop it without our own. Obama has essentially rendered the United States a paper tiger in Europe. I wonder if the U.S.'s not having any armor in Europe factored into Putin's calculations on taking Crimea and his possible future moves. Amazing how only about two years after we remove the armor from Europe, now we need it. Putin, as said in the previous blog post, is an example of how the threat of serious conflict can seemingly spring up out of nowhere, and of how weakness invites aggression.
Many had claimed that maintaining a serious military presence in Europe was a thing of the past, a relic of the Cold War. Some claimed that NATO itself is a Cold War relic. Where they get the idea for either of these I find very puzzling, because Russia never evolved into say another version of West Germany after World War II, i.e. a liberal democracy, and one that focused on teaching the flaws of the prior government. By the 1950s, for example, West German school textbooks were teaching about the evils of the Nazi regime. But Russia? Instead, Russia possesses a population that to a good degree now pines for the old soviet days with nostalgia. The country is rife with extreme corruption, it is a sham democracy with a government that consists of holdovers from the old Soviet days.
In some ways, it is questionable even whether the Soviet Union ever even really ended. World War I was the "war to end all wars." Then roughly twenty years later, World War II occurred. Well the Cold War "officially" ended in 1991. About twenty years pass, and because of this, "experts" decide to claim that things like NATO and a strong U.S. military presence in Europe are "relics" and something of the past. What they base this on was just the belief that Russia would never be a serious threat, despite the fact that the views of the Russian population and people like Putin should have shown otherwise. We may well discover that the Cold War never ended but merely had a roughly two-decade lapse, just like the time between World War I and World War II.
The Russian Empire is the Russian Empire, whether the old pre-Soviet Tsar variant, or the Soviet Empire (which was unto itself just an old-fashioned Russian empire), or the new attempts by Putin to rebuild a variant of Russian empire. The point is the notion that Russia ever stopped being a threat is clearly nonsense. The notion that major land wars are a thing of the past is a premature view and the view thus that the major conventional land warfare military is a relic of the past is also a premature view.
Some have said that the U.S. needs to enact strong sanctions on Russia (with real teeth, not the joke sanctions Obama has enacted right now), send weapons and supplies to Ukraine so they can fight a Putin invasion, and re-instate the missile defense in Eastern Europe as Putin hates this and it can undermine his power in the long term. But I would add a fourth suggestion: re-instate the heavy armor into Europe. And not just two Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) as were previously there, but perhaps look into adding an additional one or two, so a total of three or four BCTs. The U.S. needs to have the capability to fight a land war with Russia. Not because such a war is desirable, the complete opposite: that having such a capability will serve as a major deterrent to Russian aggression in the region.
Russia does not have a strong military and their economy is a joke. To the extent it has any wealth, it is primarily from natural resources. Russia's military does not have anywhere near the professionalism, skill, and capability of the U.S. military, so a strong U.S. military presence in Europe would be a serious-deterrent to Russia. Russia would know that it not only is faced with fighting a world-class military from a much economically stronger country, but also a military that is already combat-hardened and seasoned from a decade of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is how to achieve peace through strength.
Trying to appease the crocodile will not work.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
American Power
So as anyone who has followed the news lately is aware, Putin has invaded and now annexed Crimea, a part of Ukraine. To me, this is likely due to the weakness of the Obama administration's foreign policy. I haven't written a whole lot about foreign policy on this blog, so I figured I would start.
My Views on America's Appropriate Stance in the World
As I see it, the United States is the anchor of the free world. I do not at all agree with those claiming that we need to withdraw from the world, that we need to "get our own house in order" and stop focusing so much on the rest of the world. As I see it, this is a recipe for disaster, for a few reasons. I think one major problem with the stability that has been underwritten by the United States for so many years is that many people come to take it for granted, thinking that it is just a given, and not realizing that this stability is only maintained by the presence of U.S. strength in the world, not a natural state of the world.
One of the arguments often given by some who wish to reduce the defense budget are that the United States spends more on defense than every other major country in the world combined. The flaw to this viewpoint is the assumption that every other such country spends a reasonable amount on defense and the United States massively over-spends, maintaining a massive, ultra-large, ultra-powerful, and ultimately unnecessary, military. The reality, however, is that the reason why the U.S. spends more than everyone else is because everyone else barely spends anything.
Aside from the United States, the only country that has any real power projection capability is the United Kingdom, and even theirs is limited. One of the largest spenders on defense in the world, France, for example, had to have the U.S. airlift their troops into Mali. The reason most of these nations have not had to spend much on defense at all over the years is because they have lived under the defense umbrella that is provided and maintained by the United States. It is the United States that served as the check on the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It is the United States that maintains the military infrastructure that these various countries utilize when conducting military operations (aerial refueling, air transport, targeting capabilities, logistics, etc...). It is the United States that keeps the sea lanes open and who underwrites global trade and global security.
President Obama seems to be very much of the belief that the United States should not play a major role in global affairs, that American power is not a good thing. His foreign policy is one based on retrenchment. One of the first steps in this was when he pulled the rug out from under Poland and the Czech Republic regarding the missile defense (and sixty years to the day of Poland having been invaded by Russia). In return, he got absolutely nothing from Russia, and now the ultimate middle finger from Russia with its invasion and annexing of Crimea. Unfortunately, because he used the drones to kill terrorists routinely, because he gave the order for the Navy SEALs to kill Osama bin Laden, and because most people do not pay attention to foreign policy overall, Obama has appeared strong in the foreign policy department to most people.
To many people who do pay attention, he has appeared weak in his dealings with countries such as Russia and Iran, but until something concrete happened as a result of those policies, there was no way to really point it out. One of the things pointed out during the 2012 Presidential election was how usually the Republican candidate is seen as much stronger on foreign policy than the Democratic candidate, but this time the Democratic candidate was seen as equally strong. The reality was that Obama was significantly weaker.
Myself, I am a firm believer in the United States as the primary underwriter of global security and fully support a very strong American military and American military presence throughout the world, not for the maintenance of "empire" as people such as Ron Paul like to claim, but for the preservation of peace, or non-violence. I am not really much a believer in peace. Real peace is rare. The natural state of humanity, and of nature even, is one of violence and conflict. Peace and prosperity usually are only the result of a liberal democracy possessing overwhelming strength. If the world is compared to a waterhole, nations like Iran, Russia, China, Syria, North Korea, etc...are the crocodiles. Most of the liberal democracies in the world are the baby hippopotamuses. And the United States is the adult mother hippo. Because the crocodiles know that if they do anything to any of the baby hippos, the mother hippo will rip them apart, they leave the baby hippos alone (this is how it happens in real waterholes shared by crocodiles and hippos). And after many years of this, it can give some the illusion that the waterhole is a pretty peaceful place, and that the mother hippo being so strong isn't really needed anymore. They do not realize that it is the presence of the mother hippo that keeps the crocodiles in line. When the mother hippo leaves the waterhole, the crocodiles, in particular the big crocodiles, are not going to waste any time and will begin bullying, cajoling, swallowing, etc...the baby hippos.
This is what we are seeing with Russia annexing Crimea. Putin has said he has no plans to go beyond this, but earlier in March, he had also said he had no plans to take Crimea either. And we know that dictators throughout history have a tendency to lie to the free world about their ultimate intentions. What if he decides to go for one or some of the Baltic states next? Or Poland even? As Charles Krauthammer has pointed out in a segment of the Special Report on Fox News, this is how major wars start.
And what will all of this lead to? We can be sure that every crocodile in the world is watching the United States on this closely. China, Iran, North Korea, etc...is China going to make a play for some of the islands controlled by Japan? Will North Korea seek to bully South Korea more? Will Israel end up attacking Iran? Will a major war result?
Three major beliefs I have always held, albeit as an amateur on the subject of foreign policy, are that:
1) The belief that major wars are a thing of the past is a naïve position, as no one can predict the future
2) The belief that this or that type of warfare is no longer really needed (for example a conventional military as opposed to one more focused on Special Operations, the type of war the administration thought/thinks is going to primarily be the future, is very naïve, as no one can predict the future
3) History shows that major wars can come about in ways that take everyone by surprise, where only in hindsight does one see all of the puzzle pieces connected together in a way that seems obvious. They are sort of like financial crises in that sense.
What we are seeing with Russia right now, and possibly with other countries in the near future, is a demonstration of this. How can anyone claim that the era of the major conventional land army is a thing of the past, or that major wars can never happen? For all of these, I am a solid neoconservative on the issue of foreign policy. The United States cannot retreat from global affairs, and the idea that we should be cutting our military right now is an extremely bad idea. I do not believe in the concept that other countries need to "share more of the burden" with the United States on maintaining global security, for a few reasons:
1) This can create a situation where no one will do anything to deal with any type of problem because if multiple countries are needed to act, nothing may get done. It is safer to have on ultra-powerful nation that can take action, on its own if necessary, but preferably lead the rest of the nations of the free world in acting together to stop tragedies.
2) Quite a number of the free nations of the world do not have the ability financially to maintain any kind of strong military. They are debt-laden and have enough trouble as it is maintaining their current large social welfare states (themselves a product of not having to spend much on defense over the years thanks to the United States).
"American power" is seen as a oxymoron by much of the world right now, but it should not be. American power needs to be something seen as supreme, and highly respected. Something that is not to be challenged, unless said nation wants to receive the metaphorical equivalent of the crocodile getting its head ripped off.
I will write follow up on this in some additional posts.
My Views on America's Appropriate Stance in the World
As I see it, the United States is the anchor of the free world. I do not at all agree with those claiming that we need to withdraw from the world, that we need to "get our own house in order" and stop focusing so much on the rest of the world. As I see it, this is a recipe for disaster, for a few reasons. I think one major problem with the stability that has been underwritten by the United States for so many years is that many people come to take it for granted, thinking that it is just a given, and not realizing that this stability is only maintained by the presence of U.S. strength in the world, not a natural state of the world.
One of the arguments often given by some who wish to reduce the defense budget are that the United States spends more on defense than every other major country in the world combined. The flaw to this viewpoint is the assumption that every other such country spends a reasonable amount on defense and the United States massively over-spends, maintaining a massive, ultra-large, ultra-powerful, and ultimately unnecessary, military. The reality, however, is that the reason why the U.S. spends more than everyone else is because everyone else barely spends anything.
Aside from the United States, the only country that has any real power projection capability is the United Kingdom, and even theirs is limited. One of the largest spenders on defense in the world, France, for example, had to have the U.S. airlift their troops into Mali. The reason most of these nations have not had to spend much on defense at all over the years is because they have lived under the defense umbrella that is provided and maintained by the United States. It is the United States that served as the check on the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It is the United States that maintains the military infrastructure that these various countries utilize when conducting military operations (aerial refueling, air transport, targeting capabilities, logistics, etc...). It is the United States that keeps the sea lanes open and who underwrites global trade and global security.
President Obama seems to be very much of the belief that the United States should not play a major role in global affairs, that American power is not a good thing. His foreign policy is one based on retrenchment. One of the first steps in this was when he pulled the rug out from under Poland and the Czech Republic regarding the missile defense (and sixty years to the day of Poland having been invaded by Russia). In return, he got absolutely nothing from Russia, and now the ultimate middle finger from Russia with its invasion and annexing of Crimea. Unfortunately, because he used the drones to kill terrorists routinely, because he gave the order for the Navy SEALs to kill Osama bin Laden, and because most people do not pay attention to foreign policy overall, Obama has appeared strong in the foreign policy department to most people.
To many people who do pay attention, he has appeared weak in his dealings with countries such as Russia and Iran, but until something concrete happened as a result of those policies, there was no way to really point it out. One of the things pointed out during the 2012 Presidential election was how usually the Republican candidate is seen as much stronger on foreign policy than the Democratic candidate, but this time the Democratic candidate was seen as equally strong. The reality was that Obama was significantly weaker.
Myself, I am a firm believer in the United States as the primary underwriter of global security and fully support a very strong American military and American military presence throughout the world, not for the maintenance of "empire" as people such as Ron Paul like to claim, but for the preservation of peace, or non-violence. I am not really much a believer in peace. Real peace is rare. The natural state of humanity, and of nature even, is one of violence and conflict. Peace and prosperity usually are only the result of a liberal democracy possessing overwhelming strength. If the world is compared to a waterhole, nations like Iran, Russia, China, Syria, North Korea, etc...are the crocodiles. Most of the liberal democracies in the world are the baby hippopotamuses. And the United States is the adult mother hippo. Because the crocodiles know that if they do anything to any of the baby hippos, the mother hippo will rip them apart, they leave the baby hippos alone (this is how it happens in real waterholes shared by crocodiles and hippos). And after many years of this, it can give some the illusion that the waterhole is a pretty peaceful place, and that the mother hippo being so strong isn't really needed anymore. They do not realize that it is the presence of the mother hippo that keeps the crocodiles in line. When the mother hippo leaves the waterhole, the crocodiles, in particular the big crocodiles, are not going to waste any time and will begin bullying, cajoling, swallowing, etc...the baby hippos.
This is what we are seeing with Russia annexing Crimea. Putin has said he has no plans to go beyond this, but earlier in March, he had also said he had no plans to take Crimea either. And we know that dictators throughout history have a tendency to lie to the free world about their ultimate intentions. What if he decides to go for one or some of the Baltic states next? Or Poland even? As Charles Krauthammer has pointed out in a segment of the Special Report on Fox News, this is how major wars start.
And what will all of this lead to? We can be sure that every crocodile in the world is watching the United States on this closely. China, Iran, North Korea, etc...is China going to make a play for some of the islands controlled by Japan? Will North Korea seek to bully South Korea more? Will Israel end up attacking Iran? Will a major war result?
Three major beliefs I have always held, albeit as an amateur on the subject of foreign policy, are that:
1) The belief that major wars are a thing of the past is a naïve position, as no one can predict the future
2) The belief that this or that type of warfare is no longer really needed (for example a conventional military as opposed to one more focused on Special Operations, the type of war the administration thought/thinks is going to primarily be the future, is very naïve, as no one can predict the future
3) History shows that major wars can come about in ways that take everyone by surprise, where only in hindsight does one see all of the puzzle pieces connected together in a way that seems obvious. They are sort of like financial crises in that sense.
What we are seeing with Russia right now, and possibly with other countries in the near future, is a demonstration of this. How can anyone claim that the era of the major conventional land army is a thing of the past, or that major wars can never happen? For all of these, I am a solid neoconservative on the issue of foreign policy. The United States cannot retreat from global affairs, and the idea that we should be cutting our military right now is an extremely bad idea. I do not believe in the concept that other countries need to "share more of the burden" with the United States on maintaining global security, for a few reasons:
1) This can create a situation where no one will do anything to deal with any type of problem because if multiple countries are needed to act, nothing may get done. It is safer to have on ultra-powerful nation that can take action, on its own if necessary, but preferably lead the rest of the nations of the free world in acting together to stop tragedies.
2) Quite a number of the free nations of the world do not have the ability financially to maintain any kind of strong military. They are debt-laden and have enough trouble as it is maintaining their current large social welfare states (themselves a product of not having to spend much on defense over the years thanks to the United States).
"American power" is seen as a oxymoron by much of the world right now, but it should not be. American power needs to be something seen as supreme, and highly respected. Something that is not to be challenged, unless said nation wants to receive the metaphorical equivalent of the crocodile getting its head ripped off.
I will write follow up on this in some additional posts.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)