You Dirty, Dirty Name

One of my pet peeves is the name-calling that goes on in politics. I hate political criticisms that use generalized comments and derogatory terms such as right-wing, left-wing, RINO, or Putin lover. In and of itself, these terms are meaningless, in that they allow politicians to criticize opponents without delving into the many implications of the specific policies of that opponent. I posted the picture of young grammar-school boys picking on another because I think said political name-calling is juvenile, and I believe it impairs the critical thinking and the civil discourse we desperately need in this country right now.

I thought of all this when I read a recent column (on 2/24) by Kimberly Strassel column in Wall Street Journal. In referring to Donald Trump’s argument that the US should be negotiating a peace between Russia and the Ukraine right now, she wonders whether his Republican rivals will “join the former president in forging a GOP surrender caucus.” Furthermore, in arguing for continued support of Ukraine, she makes a number of other generalizations, saying that “a victorious Russia wouldn’t stop with Ukraine…China would delight in America’s retreat from the world stage and rush to fill the gap…Iran would double down on a bomb and on exerting greater hegemony over the Middle East. Peace though weakness never works. Peace through strength does.” She then adds that “Trump is floating the false choice of a strong America globally or a strong America domestically".

I was disappointed with Ms. Strassel’s article, because I think she is an excellent writer, and there are important and critical questions she does not address in her article. In rebuttal, I would argue the following.

Seeking peace is not the same as “surrender.” Yes, we are involved in a proxy war with Russia, but one with the Ukraine people doing all the fighting and dying. We must realize that there is a tremendous cost to this war in terms of Ukrainian and Russian blood, billions of US dollars we are borrowing to finance the war, and the terrible destruction of the Ukraine country and the displacement of its people. If not surrender, what is the cost of victory, and what will that victory look like?

“A victorious Russia wouldn’t stop with Ukraine.” Really? If this war has shown us anything, the vaunted Russian Army does not exist. They can’t even conquer a small portion of Ukraine let alone attack a NATO nation. Indeed, one result of the Russian invasion is that European nations have finally woken up and they are starting to bolster their defense spending. The Europeans are perfectly capable of defending themselves from Russia; and especially with the US backing, Europe is not facing a real threat from Russia.

“China would delight in America’s retreat from the world stage and rush to fill in the gap.” While China would no doubt be delighted at anything negative about the US, seeking peace does not mean that America is retreating from the world stage, whatever that means. We have definite treaty obligations with virtually all of Europe and many nations near China, and we will keep them.

“Iran would double down on a bomb. They are doing that anyway. Furthermore, seeking peace in Ukraine does not in any way impact our support for Israel and our ties to other Arab nations in that region.”

“False choice between a strong America globally or a strong America domestically.” I would argue that America needs to be financially sound and strong if it wants to be a strong America globally. We can’t keep borrowing and spending money we don’t have to be the world’s policeman. It’s not a choice between one and the other. We need to be financially strong domestically, if we want to maintain strength globally, and we have to be intelligent as to how we do it.

I think that Samantha Power, the former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., makes a better argument for the support of Ukraine: “What is at stake in Ukraine, are values and interests, so core to the United States. I mean, imagine, just wanting your freedom, and your independence? I mean, this country is predicated on exactly those two values. Imagine the counterfactual, where we walk away, or we didn't show up, in the first place, and what that would mean, when a dictator who has shut down civil society, shut down independent media, shut down dissenting voices, in his own country, then can just turn his sights, on a neighbor, and with impunity, take over that country? I mean, what would that mean, for our allis in Europe? What would that mean for our own security over time".

Ms. Power well articulates a very noble concept. I could quibble and say that Ukraine’s President Zelensky has also shut down independent media and shut down dissenting voices in his own country. However, it is more important to note that seeking peace and upholding our core American values are not mutually exclusive. We should seek a peace that protects the Ukrainian people and addresses any legitimate interests of the Russian nation.

Speaking of an unwanted, foreign military presence in another country, this past Saturday the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley made an unannounced visit to Syria. The purpose was to reaffirm the US troop presence in that country. There are approximately 900 American troops in the northeast portion of the country, which is Syria's oil and gas rich region, and which before the war supplied energy to the rest of the country. The Syrian foreign ministry protested the visit, calling it “a flagrant violation of Syria’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and unity…Syria calls on the US administration to immediately stop its systematic and continuous violations of international law and stop its support of separatist armed militias.”

The United States is justifying its foreign military occupation in Syria as part of its strategy to ensure an “an enduring defeat of ISIS and to support our friends and allies in the region.” The Pentagon also sees the occupation as about countering Iran, by keeping up pressure on Iran's ally Damascus. Is ISIS really that much of a threat anymore? Their Caliphate has long been destroyed, and they have few real countries that support them in the Middle East. It’s not in the interest of Russia or Turkey to have a strong, independent, and radical insurgent group exist in that country - one which could weaken their own political regimes. Perhaps instead, the real purpose of U.S. occupation is to protect and control the oil fields. President Biden has loudly proclaimed “no more drilling” in the United States, while at the same time, he has pushed Venezuela and the Araba nations to produce more oil. Evidently, those nations are more environmentally friendly than we are in the United States.

In any event, we think the United States is spread too far militarily. We should get our military out of Syria and Iraq, and not depend on those countries for any oil production. We can easily produce the energy we need back here in the United States. We can also support Ukraine and seek peace at the same time.