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
Putin and billions of other people see this evil for what it is. Most of us don’t go about Anschlussing other countries.
Which is why I ask.
Good stuff, but I can also see positives in places like Ukraine being more responsible for defending themselves WITHOUT nukes, which might tend to make them soft and lazy. The end result being, if the only thing they have to defend themselves is nukes, that’s what they’ll have to use.
It might be interesting as a follow-up question to ask her specifically what kind of “malleable” she refers to. But then you’d have to wonder if she was being honest or not.
OK, so you are for American troops dying to defend Ukraine. Glad to know where you stand.
So you too, are for Americans dying to protect Ukraine. Good to know where you stand.
And for the record, those wanting to send troops want to send other people and other people’s children to die for Ukraine.
Let’s send all the corpses that voted for Biden.
I agree, except…………..we must rebuild Florida and the Carolinas. Money for that huge task must be set aside first. Of course, since our government just prints whatever money our betters decide they need, it doesn’t matter until the world that we think we must save decides they no longer want our dollar to be the Reserve Currency. Then we are bankrupt and we can no longer save anyone, including ourselves.
You’ve got to hand one thing to him. He’s come up with talking points that our media can’t refute without getting laughed at. Our media as a class are in a position where they can only look up at Brandon’s approval ratings, and it is a +20% gap, too.
What’s the argument that the whole country must pay to rebuild Florida and the Carolinas, over and over, after each hurricane? That sounds a bit like “reparations,” where the children of white people who had nothing to do with slavery give money to the children of Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, etc. Shouldn’t Florida and the Carolinas pay to rebuild Florida and the Carolinas?
Putin has someone draw up a document of annexation. He claims the people voted for it and he knows because his people counted the votes. Putin signs the document. Are you saying this is proof that Russia is winning?
What’s with the music? It sounds like a made-for-TV movie.
The federal government can print money, the states can’t, ergo it functions as a national insurance policy. Insurance rates should increase for coastal areas. The Mississippi states flood. The west coast has landslides, earthquakes, and fires. New England has north easters, the gulf coast has hurricanes..
What’s the argument? It’s that we can’t help another country before we help our own people who have just suffered a disaster not of their own making. If we can do both, great. But I am concerned we may be in too weak of an economic state to do that. Is Federal Disaster Aid a new concept?
And the midwest has tornados and floods. No one is immune.
Virginia, suh — Virginia.
One could argue that the success of Ukraine’s Kharkiv offensive in early September was partly due to the redeployment of Russian forces to the Kherson region.
But the Ukrainian re-capture of Lyman is different. This was a hard fought battle that was going on for a few weeks. The Ukrainians emerged with victory and Russia is on the defensive now.
In fact the Ukes provoked that redeployment by telegraphing a southern effort for weeks.
But none of this is real. This is all CIA authored fantasy.
Heaven forfend our European “allies” should have to put their own blood and treasure at risk.
Maybe some are, see #42. Although maybe volunteers don’t count the same.
The single road out of Lyman had Ukes on either side well within artillery range. I’ve heard numbers from 1000-5000 Russian troops were left in town.
I agree with no American troops in Ukraine, but I am fine with us providing satellite and signals intel to Ukraine, along with arms. NATO is much safer now that we have had an actual test of NATO arms and tactics against Russia.
I listened to Kori Schake on another podcast, a few months ago, when Putin was threatening to use nuclear weapons over a different issue.
Schake said that what the US should say to Putin is, “You can start a nuclear war, Putin. But you will not survive a nuclear war.”
That’s Schake’s MO. She’s not the type to get all scared whenever Putin starts talking about nukes. If you send a signal to Putin that you are worried about his nuclear arsenal, that just encourages Putin to continue to threaten nukes every time he wants to extort the West.
No one advocating others go and die when they don’t go or their children don’t go have any moral standing in my book.
Neocon warmongering Does. Not. Work.
America has not won a war since WWII.
It is kind of dishonest to say that “Japan was at war with China.” Japan simply invaded China and unnecessarily murdered millions of their people in a gigantic rape & pillage episode to grab what they could. That’s why we stopped selling oil to Japan and tried to help China. I don’t know why you constantly ignore these basic historical facts.
Yep