Real Donald Trump Blunder? “Montenegro” Isn’t Montenegro.

 

No president is perfect, else we would allow unlimited terms. I support President Trump’s actions towards Russia, am not discomforted by the Helsinki summit, and believe the upcoming DC summit to be a good thing. I also recognize that the relentlessly hostile network and cable news media make the islands of apparently friendly forums attractive. With all those qualifications, I was jarred by the President’s response to Tucker Carlson on “Montenegro.” I am concerned because of history and because it is clear “Montenegro,” in Tucker’s agenda, is not Montenegro. A quick look at the map shows what I mean.

Of course President Trump should have gone on Tucker Carlson’s show the other night. But Tucker Carlson is in the business of Tucker’s brand, and is not a member of the Administration whose interests may be assumed to fully align with the President’s. Indeed, he seems to be vying to fill the ideological space once dominated by Pat Buchanan. That, or he is providing confirmation on the right of Ben Rhodes’ notorious assessment of reporters:

Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.

Tucker Carlson either does not know history, or heavily discounts the national security seriousness of his loaded “Montenegro” question. Both the Korean War and Desert Storm were closely preceded by ambiguous U.S. signals, read by the aggressors as green lights.

In “3 Lessons From The Korean War For Handling Today’s North Korean Aggression,” Helen Raleigh cautioned against forgetting Russia’s role. President Trump and his team acknowledge Russia is still an important player in Korea. During the Tucker Carlson interview, however, the President did not have top of mind how Stalin misread Truman.

It’s Stalin who gave Kim II-Sung final permission to invade South Korea in 1950. Shen’s analysis shows Stalin was initially against Kim’s invasion plan out of concern that the United States might intervene. What changed Stalin’s mind, according to Shen, were two U.S. events.

First, President Harry Truman announced on January 5, 1950 that the United States would not challenge the claim that Taiwan was part of China. Second, Secretary of State Dean Acheson excluded Taiwan and South Korea from America’s defense perimeter in the western Pacific. Stalin probably believed these public announcements indicated the United States was retreating from East Asia.

Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait was preceded by similar signals and misreads.

On 25 July 1990, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border.

The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, “inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq, stating “we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts.”

She also let Saddam Hussein know that the U.S. did not intend “to start an economic war against Iraq”. These statements may have caused Saddam to believe he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait.

The New York Times transcript of the 1990 meeting is quite depressing. With both the 1950 and 1990 scenarios in mind, consider the exchange between Tucker Carlson and President Trump:

CARLSON: So, membership in NATO obligates the members to defend any other member who is attacked. So, let’s say Montenegro, which joined last year is attacked, why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I understand what you’re saying. I’ve asked the same question. Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people.

CARLSON: I’m not against Montenegro or Albania.

TRUMP: By the way, they’re very strong people. They’re very aggressive people. They may get aggressive. And, congratulations, you’re in World War III.

I understand that, but that’s the way it was set up.

Now, set aside the never-served-a-day-in-his-live Carlson’s infantilization of men and women who, graduating basic training at age 18, are more competent adult citizens than he will ever be. You see the map. You know Carlson is not raising the actual Montenegro, which is insulated from any real military threat by the territories of larger neighbors. “Montenegro” really means Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and every other smaller state that Russia wants to absorb by hybrid warfare and economic extortion.

The President’s answer, induced by Carlson’s apparently sympathetic lead, is dangerous to the men and women who have volunteered to go in harm’s way. It is every bit as dangerous as the careless 1950 and 1990 words of foreign policy bureaucrats and career politicians. He needs to clean this up, fast. President Trump needs to say Montenegro is not a risk to our security and then riff on the excellent, very tough, National Security Strategy he proudly signed.

President Trump has given Ukraine real military support, with the sale of anti-tank missiles, as well as basic supplies.

In late April, the U.S. government delivered hundreds of lethal Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine for the first time after four years of requests from the government in Kiev to better defend Ukrainian troops against Russian armor.

Moscow has supported a separatist movement in Eastern Ukraine since 2014 in addition to annexing Ukraine’s Crimea Peninsula.

President Trump just sent tanks and paratroopers, along with the all-important logistics units, to Saber Strike 18.

A major U.S.-led military exercise with 18,000 soldiers from 19 primarily NATO countries has kicked off in the alliance’s eastern flank involving Poland and the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.

The U.S. Army Europe said Sunday the Saber Strike 18 drill is spread around the region until June 15 as “a demonstration of the commitment and solidarity of the Alliance” at the time when Russia’s military maneuvers are increasingly worrying nearby NATO members.

The President’s speech in Poland was magnificent, as have been his other foreign policy addresses around the world. All of this, the Tucker Carlson wing of the commentariate would undo, in the name of avoiding foreign entanglements. Carlson says the USSR no longer exists, but conveniently avoids the over-arching reality of Russian imperial ambition. World War I started with a dispute between the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires. Czar Putin considers the end of the Soviet Union the great tragedy of the last century, and he works endlessly to make Russia Greater again.

President Trump knows this, and has directed his team to counter Russia with every tool of national power. His interview with Tucker was a negligent discharge of an information tool. Before Putin or Xi take it as a green signal flare, he needs to firmly extinguish the stray pyrotechnic.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 53 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Guruforhire Member

    You can go fight that war by your darn self.

    Good luck with all that.

    • #1
    • July 20, 2018, at 7:09 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  2. Doug Watt Member

    President Trump should send the message that as a member of NATO if Montenegro is attacked we will act on Article V and NATO will defend Montenegro. That should be stated even in a setting that is as innocuous as the Tucker Carlson Show. Do not send mixed messages.

    If Montenegro marches on Moscow, then we should assess their chances of success before saying anything.

    • #2
    • July 20, 2018, at 7:12 PM PDT
    • 13 likes
  3. Jager Member

    Why should my son fight for Montenegro is a question for before they are admitted into NATO. I believe Rand Paul asked that very question. 

    Now that they are members, my son fights for them for the honor of our country.

    Trump can bad mouth NATO about money or they EU about trade. I am fine with it, it is whatever. But when in matters, America must meet its promises and stand by our allies. 

    Doug is right this is a defensive treaty. They can’t attack first. If they are attacked, as NATO ally we darn well better be there to help 

    • #3
    • July 20, 2018, at 10:07 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  4. Max Ledoux Admin

     

    Clifford A. Brown: World War I started with a dispute between the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires.

    I thought World War I started because of “mutual defense” alliances. 🤔

    • #4
    • July 20, 2018, at 10:16 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  5. Jager Member

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

     

    Clifford A. Brown: World War I started with a dispute between the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires.

    I thought World War I started because of “mutual defense” alliances. 🤔

    Mutual defense alliance are great deterants until they aren’t. In this case Montenegro would have to do something really awful for another country to want to risk war with the US, UK, Canada and most or continental Europe. 

    • #5
    • July 20, 2018, at 10:43 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  6. I Walton Member

    That was my reaction. The rest was Democrat hysteria. Comments on Montenegro were probably inept but policy shifting none the less. We have to decide what role we will play in this post cold war world then make it clear. Do we want NATO, which without us will deter nothing, to defend the independence and territorial integrity of Easton Europe? If Russia gradually expands west will it stop any more than the Soviet Union would have? Should NATO not respond now while Russia is weak and vulnerable? What does respond mean? How does Russia play into the challenge from China which is immediate, real and will continue into the indefinite future. If westward expansion is simply made impossible for Russia, will it accommodate to that reality and focus on things within it’s capacity and, like China, in its real long term interest? This gaff may be more important than all the silliness about the press conference as it can cause some focus on these matters. The above reaction is good and hopefully with enough of it from the adults in Washington President Trump can advance his understanding and learn to take some things more seriously. Agree, it reminded me of Dean Acheson’s comment about Korea not in an immediate threat way but as encouragement to continue and intensify westward probes. Deterrence works only if it is unambiguous and overwhelmingly powerful.

    • #6
    • July 21, 2018, at 3:48 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  7. John H. Member

    Though not married to someone from the former Yugoslavia, I have traveled quite a bit in the former Yugoslavia, and if anyone ever asked me a question with “Montenegro” in it, I’d assume that that was what the question was about. I would not retort, “You cannot possibly mean that place. What place are you really talking about?”

    • #7
    • July 21, 2018, at 5:28 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  8. cirby Member

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

     

    Clifford A. Brown: World War I started with a dispute between the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires.

    I thought World War I started because of “mutual defense” alliances. 🤔

    World War I started because an imperialistic country decided to invade multiple countries nearby to expand their empire. All else is handwaving.

    It wasn’t like “hey, you guys are defending each other, THIS MEANS WAR!”

    The announced justification might have been “Austria-Hungary is pissed because someone murdered the Archduke,” but the Germans had been planning their invasion(s) for years. The Schlieffen Plan was there for a reason, and it wasn’t “defense.” Nothing in the German treaties with their allies required them to invade Belgium and Luxembourg, for example.

    Ditto France’s choice to join in. They wanted Alsace-Lorraine back. “Yeah, we’re defending our allies. And we’re going to do that by attacking a place we want to attack anyway.”

    • #8
    • July 21, 2018, at 7:06 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  9. Could Be Anyone Member

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):
    I thought World War I started because of “mutual defense” alliances. 🤔

    WWI started because the world was multi-polar in 1914. Military and diplomatic power was too dispersed. Certain nations like Great Britain and the German Empire had more powerful militaries than their neighbors did, in key areas, and this gave them confidence in their abilities to win wars quickly, thus increasing their likelihood to go to war. The German Army had repeatedly shown its mettle in its conquests throughout Europe and the British Navy controlled the seas.

    When joined in alliances the confidence of these nations was only increased. The Germans quite rightly believed they could win the land war in Europe, as they did against the British, French, Italians, and Russians. It wasn’t till the United States entered into the conflict that the Germans were defeated in the land war.

    The British quite rightly believed that their navy could impose a costly blockade of Germany, and they did. But Germany was able to respond with an effective U-Boat blockade and with the defeat of Tsarist Russia gained the raw materials the blockade was meant to stop.

    Today is a Uni-polar world. The might of the United States military, coupled with our allies across the globe, is so overwhelmingly powerful that it serves as deterrent to rival nations–like Russia and China–to take direct action in starting wars. Said nations would lose handily.

    As the Romans said military might keeps the peace.

    • #9
    • July 21, 2018, at 8:07 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  10. Jason Rudert Member

    here you go:

    • #10
    • July 21, 2018, at 8:47 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  11. Max Ledoux Admin

    cirby (View Comment):

    Nothing in the German treaties with their allies required them to invade Belgium and Luxembourg, for example.

     

    Well, Belgium was the route to France. But the United Kingdom had a treaty with Belgium, didn’t it, to protect them? 

    • #11
    • July 21, 2018, at 11:04 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown Post author

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):
    I thought World War I started because of “mutual defense” alliances. 🤔

    WWI started because the world was multi-polar in 1914. Military and diplomatic power was too dispersed. Certain nations like Great Britain and the German Empire had more powerful militaries than their neighbors did, in key areas, and this gave them confidence in their abilities to win wars quickly, thus increasing their likelihood to go to war. The German Army had repeatedly shown its mettle in its conquests throughout Europe and the British Navy controlled the seas.

    When joined in alliances the confidence of these nations was only increased. The Germans quite rightly believed they could win the land war in Europe, as they did against the British, French, Italians, and Russians. It wasn’t till the United States entered into the conflict that the Germans were defeated in the land war.

    The British quite rightly believed that their navy could impose a costly blockade of Germany, and they did. But Germany was able to respond with an effective U-Boat blockade and with the defeat of Tsarist Russia gained the raw materials the blockade was meant to stop.

    Today is a Uni-polar world. The might of the United States military, coupled with our allies across the globe, is so overwhelmingly powerful that it serves as deterrent to rival nations–like Russia and China–to take direct action in starting wars. Said nations would lose handily.

    As the Romans said military might keeps the peace.

    No. It is not a uni-polar world. Russia, China, and jihadists have all innovated asymmetrically to nullify our 20th Century heavy forces. From the day after the end of the Cold War, military officers were writing about the challenges of fighting in cities, with most of the world moving into cities. Our supposed superiority did not deter Russia in Georgia, or Ukraine (which gave up a major nuclear arsenal in return for security guarantees we failed to honor).

    To the extent that we limited Russian aggression in Georgia, we did so not with tanks and guns, but with a thin line of humanitarian aid wrapped in U.S. military uniforms.

    • #12
    • July 21, 2018, at 12:03 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  13. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge

    Something I would like to see detailed by someone, and since no one else will do it, I guess it falls to me.

    Trump speaks about issues off the cuff. We had prior to his Administration, a man who rarely if ever spoke off the cuff. A friend of mine who was involved in Dem politics went to see Obama on several occasions. And at one point, the teleprompter failed, and that was it – Obama couldn’t say another single word.

    Like Trump, Reagan also spoke off the cuff. Therefore we all heard his “Bombers are leaving now to bomb the Evil Empire.” This remark was made in August 1984 when Reagan thought that the mic was turned off.

    (Actual remark: My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes. )

    Over in the Evil Empire, when the remark was heard, various USSR Generals turned to Chernecko, then the head of the USSR, to advise a military response to this threatening remark. It was only because there had been conversations between Reagan, Chernecko and other Russian leaders that the military head in the USSR understood Reagan’s personality and realized that this remark was a joke. So their military did not respond. (Had they responded, most of us here would not be around to be typing on ricochet.)

    The idea that never before have we experienced a President who acts too impulsively or speaks too brashly is a false idea. And given the history of the above scenario, it is very good that there is on going dialogue between the heads of the USA and the Russian government.

    • #13
    • July 21, 2018, at 12:13 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  14. Slow on the uptake Thatcher

    This is a most edifying conversation. Even without focusing on “he who must not be named”.

    • #14
    • July 21, 2018, at 12:25 PM PDT
    • Like
  15. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown Post author

    Yes, the beginning of the post’s title is a play on the Twitter handle.

    • #15
    • July 21, 2018, at 12:46 PM PDT
    • Like
  16. Could Be Anyone Member

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    No. It is not a uni-polar world. Russia, China, and jihadists have all innovated asymmetrically to nullify our 20th Century heavy forces.

    1) China, Russia, non-state actors have not managed to gain parity with us, even calculating their attempts at assymetrical tools. If they had then the world would look quite different.

    2) The assymetrical approaches have not nullified our symmetrical capacities. If they had the application of our symmetrical forces and tools would be failing. Last I checked when the Russians experienced combat against us in Syria they got tore up, not us. The Chinese may be able to hack for some social security numbers but they cannot hack and neutralize our nukes or navy.

    3) The very fact that said parties are trying to develop said assymetrical means affirms my position that they are weaker than us and hence are attempting to gain parity. The world is Uni-polar, Russia and China want to change that obviously, and it is best if it stays that way.

    4) The Islamists have been losing out. Whether it’s the collapse of Sunni ISIS or the protests by Shias in Iraq and Iran against the Iranian Regime the Islamists have lost their momentum and power.

    From the day after the end of the Cold War, military officers were writing about the challenges of fighting in cities, with most of the world moving into cities. Our supposed superiority did not deter Russia in Georgia, or Ukraine (which gave up a major nuclear arsenal in return for security guarantees we failed to honor).

    Georgia and Russia are hardly industrialized to the extent of western nations, Ukraine in particular is perfect terrain for open mobile warfare. This is not even counting the disparity in force between Russia and Ukraine or Georgia. Couple this with a lack of an alliance between said nations and the West, the lacking of leadership in the West, and it’s pretty obvious that Russia was trying to destabilize said nations before they could join us.

    Russia has not had the balls to strike any NATO member, likewise China with SEATO, because they know that even now, with Trump’s idiotic statements, the institutional stance of the West would see the alliance honored and they would not win. The world is still Uni-polar, may it remain that way.

    • #16
    • July 21, 2018, at 12:56 PM PDT
    • Like
  17. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge

    cirby (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

     

    Clifford A. Brown: World War I started with a dispute between the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires.

    I thought World War I started because of “mutual defense” alliances. 🤔

    World War I started because an imperialistic country decided to invade multiple countries nearby to expand their empire. All else is handwaving.

    It wasn’t like “hey, you guys are defending each other, THIS MEANS WAR!”

    The announced justification might have been “Austria-Hungary is pissed because someone murdered the Archduke,” but the Germans had been planning their invasion(s) for years. The Schlieffen Plan was there for a reason, and it wasn’t “defense.” Nothing in the German treaties with their allies required them to invade Belgium and Luxembourg, for example.

    Ditto France’s choice to join in. They wanted Alsace-Lorraine back. “Yeah, we’re defending our allies. And we’re going to do that by attacking a place we want to attack anyway.”

    And it certainly was a plus to the “necessary” energy of going off full tilt war-like that the Big Banking cartel profits when entire populations of people can be convinced there is a need for them to bravely enlist to show their patriotism to fight the “evil” other guys. That cartel always controls the media. Just as true in 1914 as in the 21st century.

    It is also interesting that the end result of WWI was that for at least fifteen years, people who had experienced that Great War hated war. Identical to what happened in this nation after Vietnam.

    It is only when a new generation who has never known war comes along that a war can be sold to a populace.

    Anyone who wants to stop unnecessary wars first needs to figure out how to stop wars from being profitable.

    • #17
    • July 21, 2018, at 1:00 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  18. cirby Member

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    cirby (View Comment):

    Nothing in the German treaties with their allies required them to invade Belgium and Luxembourg, for example.

     

    Well, Belgium was the route to France. But the United Kingdom had a treaty with Belgium, didn’t it, to protect them?

    Yes, they did, and that was why they entered the war.

    But the decision to attack France in force in the first place? Germany, Germany, Germany.

    The decision to attack through Belgium had been made LONG before the war itself started. The Schlieffen Plan was created in 1905-06 as a plan to preemptively attack France, not as a response to someone else’s aggression.

     

    • #18
    • July 21, 2018, at 1:15 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  19. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    No. It is not a uni-polar world. Russia, China, and jihadists have all innovated asymmetrically to nullify our 20th Century heavy forces.

    1) China, Russia, non-state actors have not managed to gain parity with us, even calculating their attempts at assymetrical tools. If they had then the world would look quite different.

    2) The assymetrical approaches have not nullified our symmetrical capacities. If they had the application of our symmetrical forces and tools would be failing. Last I checked when the Russians experienced combat against us in Syria they got tore up, not us. The Chinese may be able to hack for some social security numbers but they cannot hack and neutralize our nukes or navy.

    3) The very fact that said parties are trying to develop said assymetrical means affirms my position that they are weaker than us and hence are attempting to gain parity. The world is Uni-polar, Russia and China want to change that obviously, and it is best if it stays that way.

    4) The Islamists have been losing out. Whether it’s the collapse of Sunni ISIS or the protests by Shias in Iraq and Iran against the Iranian Regime the Islamists have lost their momentum and power.

    From the day after the end of the Cold War, military officers were writing about the challenges of fighting in cities, with most of the world moving into cities. Our supposed superiority did not deter Russia in Georgia, or Ukraine (which gave up a major nuclear arsenal in return for security guarantees we failed to honor).

    Georgia and Russia are hardly industrialized to the extent of western nations, Ukraine in particular is perfect terrain for open mobile warfare. This is not even counting the disparity in force between Russia and Ukraine or Georgia. Couple this with a lack of an alliance between said nations and the West, the lacking of leadership in the West, and it’s pretty obvious that Russia was trying to destabilize said nations before they could join us.

    Russia has not had the balls to strike any NATO member, likewise China with SEATO, because they know that even now, with Trump’s idiotic statements, the institutional stance of the West would see the alliance honored and they would not win. The world is still Uni-polar, may it remain that way.

    I don’t think you have the foggiest idea of what has been going on in Syria. Or the Ukraine for that matter.

    • #19
    • July 21, 2018, at 1:18 PM PDT
    • Like
  20. Basil Fawlty Member

    Clifford A. Brown: Indeed, he seems to be vying to fill the ideological space once dominated by Pat Buchanan

    Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

    • #20
    • July 21, 2018, at 1:22 PM PDT
    • Like
  21. Could Be Anyone Member

    CarolJoy (View Comment):
    I don’t think you have the foggiest idea of what has been going on in Syria. Or the Ukraine for that matter.

    Care to elaborate on this charge?

    • #21
    • July 21, 2018, at 1:25 PM PDT
    • Like
  22. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown Post author

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    No. It is not a uni-polar world. Russia, China, and jihadists have all innovated asymmetrically to nullify our 20th Century heavy forces.

    1) China, Russia, non-state actors have not managed to gain parity with us, even calculating their attempts at assymetrical tools. If they had then the world would look quite different.

    2) The assymetrical approaches have not nullified our symmetrical capacities. If they had the application of our symmetrical forces and tools would be failing. Last I checked when the Russians experienced combat against us in Syria they got tore up, not us. The Chinese may be able to hack for some social security numbers but they cannot hack and neutralize our nukes or navy.

    3) The very fact that said parties are trying to develop said assymetrical means affirms my position that they are weaker than us and hence are attempting to gain parity. The world is Uni-polar, Russia and China want to change that obviously, and it is best if it stays that way.

    4) The Islamists have been losing out. Whether it’s the collapse of Sunni ISIS or the protests by Shias in Iraq and Iran against the Iranian Regime the Islamists have lost their momentum and power.

    From the day after the end of the Cold War, military officers were writing about the challenges of fighting in cities, with most of the world moving into cities. Our supposed superiority did not deter Russia in Georgia, or Ukraine (which gave up a major nuclear arsenal in return for security guarantees we failed to honor).

    Georgia and Russia are hardly industrialized to the extent of western nations, Ukraine in particular is perfect terrain for open mobile warfare. This is not even counting the disparity in force between Russia and Ukraine or Georgia. Couple this with a lack of an alliance between said nations and the West, the lacking of leadership in the West, and it’s pretty obvious that Russia was trying to destabilize said nations before they could join us.

    Russia has not had the balls to strike any NATO member, likewise China with SEATO, because they know that even now, with Trump’s idiotic statements, the institutional stance of the West would see the alliance honored and they would not win. The world is still Uni-polar, may it remain that way.

    Since we are unwilling to risk nuclear war for most issues, the use of limited and partially deniability military forces, combined with all the other instruments of national power you do not address, allow Russia and China to incrementally expand their spheres of influence at our expense. President Trump’s National Security Strategy, and the actions across the whole of government, recognize and effectively address the current reality.

    Without a DIME, our military might isn’t worth a wooden nickel.

    • #22
    • July 21, 2018, at 1:49 PM PDT
    • Like
  23. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown Post author

    Ralph Peters’ Red Army effectively answered Clancy’s Red Storm Rising. It rang true to those of us who had participated in exercises with BDR staffs. Around 20 kilometers of Warsaw Pact penetrating the border, all of a sudden the military we had to have support our flanks would say it was classified, not releasable to us. So, we knew that we might not get to win by maneuver — that the Germans might cut a deal with the Soviets if we did not die defending every inch. It turns out that the best military in the world is impotent apart from coordinated diplomatic, informational, and economic force.

    • #23
    • July 21, 2018, at 2:01 PM PDT
    • Like
  24. Hang On Member

    First, Montenegro doesn’t have to worry about Russia. (Yes, I know about the assassination.) It has to worry about Serbia and Muslims. Montenegro was a part of Serbia and Serbia has its own imperialist ambitions. Those imperialist ambitions were thwarted three times prior to World War I (1909 agreement on Bosnia, 1st and 2nd Balkan Wars). So it decided to do something even more ambitious and bring in the big powers to create Greater Serbia and then you had World War 1. The idea that it was anybody else’s fault other than Serbia, its security services and ultimately the President just doesn’t hold up now that the documents have been unearthed.

    Montenegro is a powder keg of all the problems in the Balkans. 

    Montenegro becomes less and less Montenegran. 

    • #24
    • July 21, 2018, at 2:23 PM PDT
    • Like
  25. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown Post author

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

     

    Clifford A. Brown: World War I started with a dispute between the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires.

    I thought World War I started because of “mutual defense” alliances. 🤔

    I wrote “with,” not “because.” The point is that Tucker Carlson’s claim about the Soviet Union is a straw-man, or ignorant of Russian history. 

    • #25
    • July 21, 2018, at 2:28 PM PDT
    • Like
  26. Steve C. Member

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Ralph Peters’ Red Army effectively answered Clancy’s Red Storm Rising. It rang true to those of us who had participated in exercises with BDR staffs. Around 20 kilometers of Warsaw Pact penetrating the border, all of a sudden the military we had to have support our flanks would say it was classified, not releasable to us. So, we knew that we might not get to win by maneuver — that the Germans might cut a deal with the Soviets if we did not die defending every inch. It turns out that the best military in the world is impotent apart from coordinated diplomatic, informational, and economic force.

    An interesting perspective. There was a lot of discussion around the question of how much devastation would the German government accept. Would they countenance nuclear release authority to CENTAG? It was, thank goodness, a question that never had to be answered.

    My own opinion is our moment of greatest risk passed with the end of the Vietnam War and the focus on rebuilding USAREUR. 

    • #26
    • July 21, 2018, at 3:37 PM PDT
    • Like
  27. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    CarolJoy (View Comment):
    I don’t think you have the foggiest idea of what has been going on in Syria. Or the Ukraine for that matter.

    Care to elaborate on this charge?

    I have limited time so will quickly summarize what I know about Syria.

    This accidentally got let out on MSNBC.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2TRzA2ezk

    Jeffrey Sachs lets lose a bombshell on Syria.

    Assad was an elected president, supported by the people. Russia was asked to come in.

    If you have followed my writings about this proxy war, you would know the history.
    Now when the treasure trove of information came about, circa Aug 2016 on, probably via Seth Rich,
    and then Wikileaks broke the information that we would never have learned without Wiki.

    For instance, how Hillary needed to earn her 32 millions of dollars that Qatar and Saudi “donated” to the Clinton Foundation, monies given to her if she would just get some American boots on the ground in Syria.

    Why boots on the ground? Why did Obama, who never once used his bully pulpit prior to the summer of 2013, suddenly need to inform all of us to contact our Congress men and women and plead with them for a new war.

    So we all did just that. But 87% of us told our Congress people we didn’t want any new war. We were fed up with war. Especially since it was coming out that the two wars of Iraq and Afghanistan were going to result in some 9 trillions of dollars added to our deficit. (Hey grandkids and great grandkids- it’s too bad that when you grow up, you have to pay for those wars. It won’t be done by us, uh huh! Not us! As patriotic as we all claim to be, we all want lower taxes!)
    Anyway, why did Hillary know that her buddies in Qatar and Saudi want the war in Syria?

    The Qatars and Saudis wanted it because our Congress put sanctions on Libya such that no American manufactured weapons could go to Libya. So if we had a war happen in Syria, then the weapons could be easily smuggled from Syria to Libya.
    Why Libya? Because Ghaddafi had revealed he was going to take the 320 billions of dollars of gold bullion he had stockpiled and use it to assist the poorer nations in Africa.
    Just what would that do to the poor little itty bitty people inside the International Money Fund? And people inside the the charitable World Bank? How could they go after the resources of African nations if Ghaddafi gave them assistance? So Ghaddafi had to go. (And after he was killed, by having his anus penetrated with a weapon, Hillary found it to be the most hilarious thing she had ever heard.)

    Anyway Jimmy Dore has this very interesting program that explains some major truths.

    • #27
    • July 21, 2018, at 4:23 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  28. CarolJoy, Above Top Secret Coolidge

    @Steve C

    So Trump made a pledge to see to it that ISIS would be disbanded when he was a candidate circa Aug to Nov 2016.

    He was aware that the Russians actually had the way to disembowel ISIS, circa late Fall, early Winter 2016, and would have done so except that despite Obama ordering the military to stand down, our military instead stopped the Russians from stopping ISIS.

    Trump has actually allowed for Russia to stop ISIS. Also Trump has also seen to it that the funds that the CIA was using to prop up ISIS are no longer available.

    I can’t see why anyone would have a problem with this. In summer of 2016, for instance, there were two CIA equipped factions fighting in and around Damascus. Fighting each other!

    Is this a decent foreign policy – gang-ify our pledges for weaponry so that any small group of people who wants to wage war on another small group gets the weapons and encouragement to go on as killing machines? I don’t think even Eisenhower envisioned the military/industrial/surveillance people as being this hell bent on insanity!

    • #28
    • July 21, 2018, at 4:45 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  29. ToryWarWriter Thatcher

    Yet no one here, has yet answered Tuckers quite legitimate question. Why should any American kids die for a little slice of the Balkans?

    • #29
    • July 21, 2018, at 8:10 PM PDT
    • Like
  30. Jager Member

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    Yet no one here, has yet answered Tuckers quite legitimate question. Why should any American kids die for a little slice of the Balkans?

    Because when made that promise when we let them into NATO. The time for this discussion was before they were admitted.

    If we don’t stand by allies we have none. We can try to go it alone in the world but it is better with friends 

    • #30
    • July 21, 2018, at 8:17 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  1. 1
  2. 2