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.
Eli Lake joins the podcast to talk about his article, ‘The Iraq War, 20 Years Later.” But first we discuss Donald Trump’s stemwinder at CPAC over the weekend and whether a New York Post story on Anthony Fauci’s conduct in February 2020 is a smoking gun. Give a listen.
Subscribe to The Commentary Magazine Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
I think the disconnect between the conservatives that don’t support or are at least hesitant about supporting Ukraine is precisely because of the NatCon support.
If one was really serious about Iraq and Afghanistan we wouldn’t have fought it in the way we did. The way in which it was waged was packed with special interests not shared by “the American people”. Working with evil rapist regional war lords to military industrial interests.
Fast forward to Ukraine, I am getting the same vibes from the approach taken in Iraq/Afghanistan. It really seems like there are some ulterior motives. NatCons can’t admit the amount of effort in Iraq/Afghanistan wasn’t worth it and now expect us to support Ukraine. The same play book will result in the same corruption.
If Ukraine is really the existential crisis it’s being made out to be, then the approach should be total war until the goal is reached. But what is that goal? Even from the NatCon perspective… It isn’t defined. From words that have come out of Biden’s mouth “this man cannot stay in power”, to land disputes… What is it? Define the F-ing thing so there is a goal. If not, there IS ulterior motives; because other motives and goals aside, none of this makes any strategic sense.
So where is the disconnect? Principled conservatives, the god fearing natural rights types, only go to war when it is moral and just to do so; and for clearly defined reasons. The NatCons, now joined by the libtards, do not go to war for the same reasons. The shadowy power/money driven motives that make sense for them are not of importance to others. If you support these types of wars so much, I’d like to see your children offered up to Zielinski first. As he is asking for your children… IN CONTEXT, your guy did say that if we don’t give him what he needs now that “The US will have to send their sons and daughters”. What Zielinski asks for he eventually gets…
Solution: Figure out a way to make a better argument for it. Or drop it.
This may sound heartless, but the “well Saddam Hussein’s sons were really bad and at least we stopped them, people live for 5 more years on average” is mid… Those were not the initial reasons we went in, so gauging success on ancillary unintended outcomes is manipulative nonsense.
I think people would be more for supporting the Ukrainians if the question, “What would be the consequences of a Russian victory in Ukraine for the American people?” was asked and answered.
I don’t think they want to ask that question. Precisely because the answer does not warrant involvement.
Answer would look something like this: While the EU should diversify it’s energy sources, they would have another trading partner to get energy from at a reasonable price. The Ukrainians would be mad if they lost some of the current border to Russia, or all of it; but that has been true for over a thousand years between that region. WHICH IS A PART OF THE REASON THEY ARE NOT IN NATO. Ok, well that sucks but how can I as an American make both happy? I mean this may come as a surprise to some but Russians are people too with various interests; none of which involve marching all the way to DC.
I don’t want to sound like a Putin apologist, Putin bad, got it. But from what I’ve seen from Russia when it comes to other countries is they like to buy Soccer teams and anchor their yachts in various vacation destinations. They would sooner see the destruction of their own people than the destruction of the West; and it’s been that way for a long time. Think Tolstoy, in all his books the fancy Russians spoke French and English and wanted to be apart of the cool European club.
What’s going on now seems like the shunning of Wilhelm II, despite bad behavior, he just wanted to be invited to the French and English parties and recognized as the industrial power house that he was…. And look at what it got us… WWI.
Now WWIII? Come on… Stop it guys.
I’m certainly open to changing my answer if anyone has suggestions.