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
If I read this right, you wanted Hitler and Japan to win their wars. Am I mistaken?
So you are for letting Ukrainians getting genocidally murdered. Good to know where you stand. [sarcasm]
Bryan, it is not respectful and it does not help the discussion to exaggerate other people’s comments just to take a dig at them. Neither I nor Heavy water said we “want American troops to die for Ukraine. We both acknowledged that we think American troops are not needed in the circumstances.
Actually tens of thousands are. Even American volunteers are.
What do you call the walk-over of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, and the crushing of Iraq and Afghanistan in the 21st Century?
South Korea not being gobbled up by North Korea is a victory in my book.
Iraq not being ruled by Saddam Hussain or his sons is a victory.
We win battles. We lose wars.
But we did win the Persian Gulf War.
Saddam Hussain is dead. So are his sons. The US military removed Saddam’s regime from power in the most permanent way possible.
We didn’t finish the job in either place.
My husband and I were discussing all the money sent to Ukraine and wondering if Ukraine is extorting Biden. We know Ukraine knows what Hunter was up to.
If you kill the leader of a nation and his two sons and the nation ends up with a representative government based on elections, that means you won.
South Korea isn’t run by communists but is instead run by a representative government. We won.
That is a snappy reply, but honestly do you think that Iraq and the Taliban won those wars against the United States and other countries? The 1991 Persian Gulf War took everybody by surprise as being perhaps the most one-sided war in modern World history. Those other two weren’t far behind. Just because things didn’t go perfectly years after we won, is not a reason to say that “we lost.” In that regard no country has ever won a war because none of the outcomes was ever perfect. At least I can’t think of an example. As Heavy Wasser pointed out, even the stalemate in Korea was a victory because it saved 40 milion people form communist extermination.
I hate to break it to you. But not everything revolves around Hunter Biden. Take off the tin-foil hate. Take your meds.
What didn’t we finish in Iraq?
I respectfully disagree. We had to go to war again in 2003 to kill Saddam and his progeny. We had the chance to end him in 1991. We didn’t, because GHWB put the coalition together to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait, not change the regime in Baghdad. Iran would also have ben a problem (as it was after our second, successful try at Saddam).
But the Persian Gulf war was a war to eject Saddam Hussain’s military from Kuwait. We did that. We won. Saddam Hussain lost control over Kuwait.
In 2003 we won again. We attempted to end Saddam Hussain’s regime and we did. Saddam Hussain was killed, as were his two sons. The new government was not Saddam Hussain’s cousin or nephew. It was a government based on an electoral system that we assisted the Iraqis in developing.
You just admitted that we did kill Saddam and his sons and change the regime in Baghdad. Is that a win or not? We didn’t kill King George nor did we change the British regime either, but as I recall, that was chalked up as a win for the American Revolutionaries.
South Korea and North Korea have an uneasy truce. I was recalled off my honeymoon and sent there in 1979 because the JCS feared hostilities. I was stationed there for a year 1988- 1989 doing air defense. I have visited the DMZ. My husband was stationed there for a year in an f-4 squadron. I refer to a win differently. How are our embassies in Afghanistan and Iraq doing?
Oh? It is my fault whenever man is evil to man?
You both said you were OK with troops being sent.
Ergo, dead Americans. Other peoples children.
I do not wear a ”tin-foil hat” or take “meds” for a mental condition. Your comment was rude and uncalled for. You can apologize to me or go to …..
Nope. Lost. Mission was to nation build. Failed. But I guess to you, the dead Americans are worth it.
Exactly, didn’t finish the job.
Yes you do.
Loses. We did not win. We left and the enemy controls the battlefield.
Only a fool calls those a win. A fool happy to let others die fir his supposed win.
Typical of him. All he has.
Yes, the explicit war aim as promoted by George Bush the Elder, was to eject Iraq from Kuwait. It is thought that he purposely chose that goal so he could get more hesitant countries (especially the Arab countries) on board with the military coalition. Myself and others thought the goal should have been more than just ejecting Iraqi forces, but that does not make for a “loss” in the war. I don’t know how old MWD is but people around the world were just astonished at how easily and quickly we had won. The only competitor for decisiveness and speed was the Israeli Six-day War.
No, we didn’t finish the job. We stopped short in 1991 and that led to 10 more years of Saddam’s cruelty, no-fly zones that drained our military assets and reduced combat effectiveness, Saddam’s funding and training of terrorists, and the renewed war after 9/11.
I’m glad you mentioned the no-fly zones, which were put in place to protect the Kurds in the north of Iraq and to protect the Shia in the south of Iraq.
The success of the 2003 war against Saddam Hussain’s regime meant that we no longer needed to continue the no-fly zones and we could end the economic sanctions on Iraq because Saddam Hussain was no longer in control of Iraq.
That’s a win.
True. And to keep his hands off of it we ran a GloboCop operation with no-fly zones and a maritime interdiction operation. These were costly and risky, and unsustainable.
And how did that work out? ISIS. Thanks, Obama.
Contrast those with Japan and Germany. Victory is unmistakable.
And I’m not even going to talk about Afghanistan. Battles won, war lost.
How do you suppose the small-r republicans in Iraq and Afghanistan view our “wins.” I’m guessing they’re less than satisfied with the results. The ones still living, that is.
Our “win” in Iraq allowed the Iranians to do what they couldn’t in their own war with Saddam. If we had a commitment to changing the Islamist character of the Middle East (“spread democracy” according to the Bushie neocons), we would have moved against Iran in a pincer from Iraq and Afghanistan after our “wins” there.
Which was always my complaint with these interventions. If you’re going to go to war, make the objectives very clear and the ROE such that there’s no question about your commitment to achieving them. Our leadership in these areas has been weak and feckless and politically correct, which is the opposite of strategically effective. If you’re not going for total victory, don’t go. Period.
No more American blood and treasure in foreign wars. We heartlanders (and especially on behalf of our kids) are done with it.
But we did build a nation in Iraq that has so far withstood the test of time. They still have democratic elections. There have been no military coups.
Oh please, heavy water has told us we are not fit to even Comment. We are such monsters to support Putin and deny the neocon warmongers w9ns.