Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
No US Troops in Ukraine, Thank You Very Much
If you’ve listened to today’s flagship podcast, you know it got a bit spicy. (If you haven’t yet listened, you’re in for a treat.) To briefly recap, co-host @jameslileks noted his support for Ukraine. Our guest considered his support insufficient because he does not want the U.S. military sent into the war zone.
This critique struck many Ricochetti as odd since the public agrees with James by a large margin. A recent Reuters poll showed that only 26 percent want troops tromping about the Transdnieper. The guest said, no problem, because public opinion is “malleable” (shudder). After the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention general governmental incompetence over two decades, I suspect we are less malleable than expected.
The days of massive American intervention are gone, at least for quite a while. I prefer a foreign policy that’s more John Quincy Adams than Woodrow Wilson, especially considering all the messes on the homefront.
In an 1823 letter to our Minister in Madrid, Hugh Nelson, JQA wrote:
It has been the policy of these United States from the time when their independence was achieved to hold themselves aloof from the political system and contentions of Europe… The first and paramount duty of the government is to maintain peace amidst the convulsions of foreign wars and to enter the lists as parties to no cause, other than our own.
Just so. The exigencies of the Cold War drastically changed this attitude, but it is long past time we return to its wisdom.
In his Independence Day address of 1821, Adams more completely laid out his foreign policy vision [emphases mine]:
America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama [field of blood], the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet on her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world; she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….
Her glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
America was founded as a nation that minded its own business. The sooner we return to that vision, the safer we, and the world, will be. This is not “isolationism,” but common sense. We elect leaders to enact our will and protect our nation; it is other nations’ duty to do the same. If an enemy attacks us, we unleash hell upon them; that doesn’t mean we can police the world. We refuse even to police our own borders.
George Washington foreshadowed J. Q. Adams’ foreign policy. In his farewell address, our first president said:
Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it?
…In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur…. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests.
So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.
… it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
…Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.
They might even demand you place a Ukraine flag emoji on your social media profile. Washington continues…
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it…
Wherever it is possible, bring our troops home. As long as we are not attacked, keep them here. Our military was founded to protect America, not any other nation, no matter how noble their fight may be.
Fair warning: I am not very malleable when body bags are advocated.
Published in Foreign Policy, Military
That’s OK. Our elites aren’t sure what the definition of a woman is.
Closer to 4,000 and they’re pulling out of Lyman – on foot. What’s the over/under on the number of mass graves the Ukrainians find in Lyman?
This means that Putin’s military is getting defeated in town after town by a bunch of women.
Lol!
I never said that it didn’t. I was merely stating that the change of opinion after Pearl Harbor was due to an actual attack on U.S. forces, rather than a propaganda and gaslighting campaign. Two different things.
Because powerful American politicians weren’t laundering money in North Korea or Rwanda, and as the world’s only superpower, China can do whatever it wants.
So to be clear, who in this thread is for troops?
Fair enough, but she didn’t say ‘reactive’, ‘ responsive’, ‘fickle’, or ‘subjective’ — any of which would have meant what you are talking about; changing when things happen or when known facts change. She said “malleable”, which means that it can be changed, formed, shaped by an outside agent. She used this term to describe research she did with former SECDEF Mattis about Americans’ attitude about the military. I doubt she used it by accident.
I don’t think many people would say that she is wrong; she might as well point out that stabbing a person in the heart will kill them. But if she uses the term “disposable” in that context, it’s not the mere fact that seems to matter.
I’m for troops under certain circumstances. But right now I think we should just continue providing Ukraine military, economic and humanitarian aid along with military training and intelligence. It seems to be working well. I would, however, like to see Ukraine get some higher quality weapons, including tanks, fighter aircraft and long-range missiles.
This isn’t 2001. People are more skeptical of foreign interventions. The team of Biden, Milley and Austin couldn’t run an ice cream stand.
I’m not particularly “for” American troops on the ground, but I wouldn’t complain if we sent them. I agree with Heavy Wasser that things are working out pretty well for now without U.S. troops.
A battalion of foreign volunteers from Armenia recently joined the fight against Putin’s military in Ukraine.
I don’t support sending troops even if:
1. It is the smart or moral thing to do.
2. The people support sending troops.
3. It is in the best interest of the U.S.
Why:
1. We aren’t serious about fielding a robust fighting force.
2. Military leaders today are not the serious leaders we need.
3. We aren’t serious any more about winning the wars we fight. Our ROE shouldn’t be more of a carrot or less of a stick than Geneva requires. We had no trouble killing people and destroying things in WWII when we were fighting for our survival. Fighting to make lives better for other people has allowed politically correct ROE to infect and weaken our fighting machine.
4. Unless we fix these problems, the rest of the world can fight its own battles.
The Belbek airbase in Crimea, which is used by the Russian air force, has blown up into smithereens. Oh, well.
Yesterday on Red Square the Russian leadership celebrated the annexation of new territories. But the Russian troops just left the strategic city of Lyman and now Russian propagandists are trying to find scapegoats.
Which would demonstrate that the whole thing is meaningless, of course. Only our luxury position allows us to ruin our military on purpose. More of the progressive Marxists eating the civilizational “seed corn” carefully built up over generations.
I did a post on these issues recently, titled Losing My Religion. The religion that I lost was “We Won The War.”
So I have a different view of both WWII and the Cold War now.
Pearl Harbor wasn’t some bizarre, unprovoked attack on the US. Japan was at war with China. We provided military aid to China for about a year, then imposed an embargo on Japan, including militarily critical oil supply.
This is the same sort of thing that most people want to do with respect to Ukraine today.
As to the exigencies of the Cold War, I do agree that the exigency existed, though I’m less convinced that the Soviets would have conquered the world absent US involvement. More importantly, though, I think that those exigencies existed precisely because we unwisely intervened in WWII, and then adopted an unwise policy of “unconditional surrender.”
Our intervention, and the utter destruction of Germany and Japan as military powers that resulted from the doctrine of unconditional surrender, removed two of the strongest powers that were keeping the Soviets in check.
We didn’t lose a war to the Taliban.
We lost interest in a prolonged occupation, and abandoned a misguided attempt to recreate Afghan society and culture in our image.
Source? I see that a single aircraft slid off the runway and down an embankment, with predictable smoke.
It’s like the old Simon and Garfunkel song, I think. The Boxer. “Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
So, what appears to be a single plane catching fire on landing becomes a major Russian airbase being blown to smithereens.
Of course, the news reporting seems to unreliable, to me, that I have no idea what actually happened.
Which leads me to ask you, Jerry.
Are you still listening to Tucker Carlson and Colonel Douglas MacGregor?
Japan had options available to them other than bombing Pearl Harbor. Japan could have stopped attacking China. That would have taken away the US motivation for providing military aid to China and the embargo on Japan. But Japan chose to attack the United States.
Germany didn’t have to invade its neighbors and didn’t have to haul millions of people to concentrations camps to be tortured and killed. Germany could have chosen a course that would not have resulted in confrontation.
The choices that Germany and Japan have made since 1945 demonstrate that there were other options available to those countries, options that have resulted in greater prosperity, relative peace and alliance, rather than war, with the United States.
Maybe the pilot forgot to obey the “no smoking” sign. LOL !!
The “Big Guy” still needs his cut.
Do you have a source, or do you need to climb down? No shame in being taken in by mistaken initial reports from time to time. The shame is in clinging to them.
You got pasted for that, and rightly so. I encourage everybody to read Jerry’s post and then sample the comments.
I’m not clinging to this initial report. I agree that it could turn out to be hogwash.
On this, I side with Putin.
Is that why you are moving yourself and your family to live in Putin’s Russia?
/sarcasm.
Put it this way.
I am much more willing to believe that the information I got on that cloud of smoke was wrong than Jerry is willing to realize that Colonel Douglas MacGregor and Tucker Carlson are blowing clouds of smoke in his face.