As this is typed, Russian troops are advancing across Ukraine at the order of Russian President Vladimir Putin.  I don’t speak Russian, but from reports understand that Russia, the world’s second-mightiest nuclear power, has claimed both that it is acting because it feared an attack by underpowered Ukraine, and that its invasion is necessary to “de-Nazify” a Ukrainian government led by President Volodymyr Zelensky — who is Jewish.  It is obviously the most naked violation of another nation’s sovereignty that Europe has seen since 1940.  I doubt Mr. Putin believes his own lies.  It is cruelly ironic that his pretext for Russia’s advance actually echoes Nazi Germany’s usurpation of other sovereign nations’ territories and freedoms prior to World War II in the name of Lebensraum (“Living Space”).  There are those, including me in a December post, who wanted the Administration to be more forthright in signaling America’s resolve to deter Russian warmongering.  I concede that any such overtures, had they been undertaken, would probably have been fruitless.  It now seems apparent that Mr. Putin is obsessed by a visceral need to answer the insults and to rectify the injustices he perceives to have been visited upon Russian sovereignty by the Western powers at the fall of the Soviet Union – compulsions ominously reminiscent of Adolf Hitler’s obsessions and railings at the Western powers for the insults and injustices he considered to have been visited upon Germany at the conclusion of World War I. 

In President Joe Biden’s Thursday speech in response to the invasion, he was as firm in tone as he is capable of being (it is not within him to radiate the menace from the podium that Ronald Reagan could).  I don’t know much about international financial systems, but the financial sanctions that will be imposed on Russia sounded harsh.  That said, they don’t sound like much of a deterrent, but rather like measures that Mr. Putin has foreseen would be imposed if Russia commenced the invasion.  Perhaps more importantly, it does appear that the Administration has forged cohesion among a lot of disparate nations to stand against the Russian aggression, which was seemingly its overarching strategic goal (more on this below).  At the same time, I was disappointed in three aspects of Mr. Biden’s speech.  First, he made no mention of shipping Ukraine additional military aid.  Although Ukraine’s need for humanitarian aid will come, right now its people need all materiel we are willing to send them to check Russia’s advance.  Second, I would offer that Mr. Biden wasn’t very effective at making this foreign policy challenge real for Americans, certainly not for those with isolationist tendencies (we’ve had isolationists wishing to ignore what was going on “over there” as long as we’ve been a nation).  I would have liked to see him “bring home” the Ukrainians’ endangered freedom by observing, “How would we like it if Canada had the military strength to simply grab Alaska and take away Alaskans’ freedom merely because it borders Canada?  That is what Putin is doing.”  Finally, I found the President’s attempts to assure Americans about their gas prices too apologetic; he impliedly took responsibility to keep gas prices down.  I submit that what he should have said – what former President Donald Trump, given his COVID track record, undoubtedly would have said – is that gas prices and some other prices were probably going to go even higher due to the Ukrainian conflict, and that increased prices were Vladimir Putin’s fault (with such point to be hammered home with every Administration communication in the coming months).  If a majority of Americans accepted that higher prices were exacerbated by Vladimir Putin’s unjust invasion and our attempts to aid Ukrainian freedom, the Administration would be in good stead politically on inflation, at least for a while.  Mr. Biden entirely whiffed on the opportunity.   

So what is our strategic posture at this point?  A passing remark by a pundit during the week before the invasion has nagged at me ever since: 

Ukraine [in and of itself] is of no strategic importance to the United States.

While some of us chafed at the Biden Administration’s seemingly slow response to the Russian buildup at the Ukrainian border, there is no question that Mr. Biden and his team used the evidence and duration of the Russian buildup to forge a much higher level of unity, consensus, and resolve among NATO and European Union members against Russia than at least I would have considered achievable last Thanksgiving.  The NATO allies, clearly alarmed, have cooperated to reinforce each other’s borders vulnerable to a Russian advance.  At the same time, aside from providing materiel to the Ukrainians – with whom they have no mutual defense pact – they have appeared to be conceding Ukraine to Mr. Putin, like a square on the chess board, if he wanted to take it. If Ukraine’s primary significance to the United States is to occupy a hunk of land serving as a buffer between Russia and our NATO allies, and otherwise has little value to the United States (as contrasted, for example, with our vital concern in keeping Cuba free of enemy nuclear weapons in the 1960s and ensuring the flow of Middle East oil in the 1970s), at this point, what is our overarching strategic interest?  (If Ukraine has a greater objective strategic value than I’ve indicated here, I’m hoping that someone reading this note will enlighten me via comment; but let’s assume the negative for the moment.)

I’ve been writing a post on and off for months about a comprehensive foreign policy framework that I believe that we should employ, but will give away the punchline here:  we can’t go on as we have since 1945.  We can no longer be everywhere and do everything; even aside from our internal partisan divisions, our burgeoning domestic obligations mean we can’t afford it.  We need emotionally and financially committed regional allies across the globe to withstand hostile and able autocracies.  Mr. Biden, by his rhetoric and actions during this crisis, is evidencing that he sees this.  He doesn’t want the Ukrainians to lose their nation, and have their freedoms extinguished by Russia, to the point that to deter Russia he perhaps to some extent compromised the secrecy of some of our intelligence apparatus, sources and methods to leak as much as the Administration had about Russian intentions; but what he seemingly believes that we primarily need to achieve out of this confrontation is an awakened, energized, and unified NATO to stand as a European bulwark against further Russian incursions.  If so, he has succeeded.

If Ukrainian freedom is our primary objective, we (hopefully as part of a NATO force) should deploy troops to Ukraine.  If it is the strengthening of the NATO alliance itself, we probably shouldn’t.

So what is our overarching interest?  Again, assuming arguendo that Ukraine has little objective realpolitik value to us, is maintaining its people’s freedom against a malign aggressor, in and of itself, a strategic interest for a nation that calls itself the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?”  In June, 1963, President John F. Kennedy stood in West Berlin and declared, “All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words, “Ich bin ein Berliner.”  In West Berlin, in June, 1987, President Ronald Reagan spoke of freedom and famously called on Russian General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev:  “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”  Yet neither man risked nuclear war and American casualties by sending troops to free the subjugated.  Mr. Putin, who, perhaps most unnervingly, now seems not only consumed with grievance but a bit unbalanced, has alluded to his willingness to use nuclear weapons if confronted too aggressively.  How Chinese President Xi Jinping and his cabinet might integrate their interpretation of our response into any initiative they might be considering against Taiwan must also be factored in.  Eisenhower Administration Secretary of State John Foster Dulles once observed in connection with America’s policy of Soviet deterrence, “The ability to get to the verge without getting into the war is the necessary art.  If you cannot master it, you inevitably get into war.  If you try to run away from it, if you are scared to go to the brink, you are lost.”   

Television accounts and my tiny Twitter feed are overflowing with declarations lauding the Ukranians’ courage and expressions of support.  Mr. Biden said in his address yesterday that “America stands up to bullies. We stand up for freedom. This is who we are.” Yet, Mr. Zelensky said from an undisclosed location last night that he has asked all 27 NATO members why Ukraine can’t be a member of NATO, and has gotten no response. I haven’t seen anybody advocating for the deployment of either NATO or American forces into Ukraine.  Absent that, all this talk … is just talk.

If I was advising Mr. Biden and there was general consensus among the foreign policy team that the Russian aggression had enabled the Administration to unexpectedly strengthen the strategic NATO alliance against Russian manipulation and that Ukraine itself had no value other than as a buffer between Russia and NATO, would I advise that he commit American troops to protect Ukrainians’ freedom – perhaps risking the threat of a nuclear escalation, and inevitably resulting in the death of American soldiers?

The President isn’t the Pope, concerned with the protection of all humankind; s/he works for the American people.  Yet – with the exception of the period from January, 2017, through January, 2021 — the President of the United States has since 1941 been the leader of the Free World.  Viewing clips of Messrs. Kennedy’s and Reagan’s Berlin speeches (linked below) lean me in one direction.  Even putting aside the risk of nuclear escalation, the thought of Americans attending funerals of their husbands and wives, their fathers and mothers, their sons and daughters, as a result of a conflict over land arguably without strategic value – as we have too frequently in the last 60 years — leans me in the other.

In this situation, where is the “brink” Mr. Dulles referred to? When push came to shove — as it has — I’d probably counsel Mr. Biden to maintain the policy he has adopted, perhaps with more aggressive provision of materiel to Ukraine.  I’d move – as he is – to reinforce our NATO allies’ borders with a marked influx of American soldiers and materiel.  (I’d also make sufficient movements in Asia to let Mr. Xi know that we haven’t forgotten about him.)  Otherwise, I’d sit tight, waiting for the inevitable denouement in Ukraine. 

All the same:  these echoes from the past probably wouldn’t let me sleep.

“On one occasion, an eminent Chinese told me that letting Stalin lead Mao into authorizing the Korean War [in 1950] was the only strategic mistake Mao ever made because, in the end, the Korean War delayed Chinese unification by a century in that it led to America’s commitment to Taiwan.”

• Henry Kissinger, World Order

“When [Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and] the United States and NATO did not come to Georgia’s aid militarily … [Russian President Vladimir Putin understood that NATO] did not have the political will to fight for partners outside the alliance … that the United States’ security priorities were focused elsewhere. …   

The notion that Putin is an opportunist, at best an improviser, but not a strategist, is a dangerous misread. …

The 2014 war [in which Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine] is essentially a big (war) game of “chicken.”  Based upon the West’s past performance in Georgia, Putin anticipated that the West would blink first in Ukraine, balking at the high costs of the confrontation, which he had laid out very clearly with his offensive defense. … This game of chicken will be a long one.”

• Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy, Mr. Putin

Perhaps a bit lost in some U.S. quarters amid Thanksgiving gatherings, the coming of Omnicron, and the Supreme Court’s consideration of an abortion case, were recent complementary statements and actions by the Chinese and Russian governments.  While China was condemning the passage of the USS Milius through the Taiwan Strait that separates Taiwan from the Chinese mainland – although the American destroyer was apparently entirely in international waters and operating in accordance with international law – Russia, while amassing thousands of troops, drones, and electronic-warfare systems at its border with Ukraine, criticized what it called, “significant intensification of the actions of American strategic bomber aviation near the borders of Russia.”

Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe declared that “China and Russia are united together like a great mountain. Our friendship is unbreakable.”  The Russian Defense Ministry separately indicated at almost the same time, “The heads of the military departments [of Russia and China] stressed the inviolability of friendship and the strength of ties between Russia and China.”    

Presumably to both tire and test Taiwan’s defenses, China increased the number of aircraft it is sending into “gray” airspace near Taiwan, the realm just outside Taiwanese territorial airspace that Taiwan monitors to provide it with additional time to respond to threats.  Meanwhile, the head of Ukraine’s defense intelligence agency has claimed that Russia has plans to invade Ukraine this winter.  Mr. Putin has indicated that any NATO deployment of troops or advanced missiles to Ukraine would cross a “red line,” and Russia would act, while making reference to Russia’s hypersonic missiles.  (Hypersonic weapons travel at more than five times the speed of sound, and are intended to evade American defense systems.)

Although America has sold defensive weapons to Taiwan for decades under the Taiwan Relations Act (the “TRA”), and maintains a token troop contingent on the island, the TRA does not obligate the U.S. to defend Taiwan if it comes under attack.  As most are aware, Ukraine is not a member of NATO and thus isn’t covered by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Charter, which obligates NATO members to defend each other if one is attacked.  Mr. Putin has warned against admitting Ukraine to NATO.  (President Joe Biden reportedly opposes Ukraine’s NATO admission until its government does more to address corruption.)  Even so, in response to the Russian buildup, NATO officials have threatened economic and political ramifications for Russia while noting that they have no military obligation to Ukraine.  U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has intoned that any further escalation by Russia against Ukraine would be of “great concern” and “trigger serious consequences.” 

How seriously can Vladimir Putin be expected to take this verbal posturing?  Can anyone who has ever read about the bitter torment that the Russian population endured in defeating the Nazi invasion during World War II believe that the Russian people can’t withstand any hardships caused by any level of NATO economic and political sanctions?  Who would one suppose that the vast majority of Russians, fed only Russian media, will ultimately blame for their misery – NATO, or Mr. Putin?  As for the steadfastness of the NATO bloc, I found a website indicating that in 2019 (seemingly a sufficiently-current reference for this note), 41% of the European Union’s natural gas, 27% of its crude oil, and 47% of its solid fuel were imported from Russia.  With winter looming, how staunch will Mr. Putin believe that the European NATO allies will really be?

This note anticipates a post on foreign policy strategy that has been in the works for some time, but every President faces challenges requiring grand strategy to yield to immediate necessity; President Biden may well be facing such a challenge at present.  It is certainly arguable that China and Russia are probing American readiness in contemplation of a de facto pincer movement in the coming months to test American resources and resolve.  I would submit that we will be best served if Mr. Biden responds steadily but proactively.  A few notions:

The President came to office pledging to make diplomacy rather than militancy the linchpin of American foreign policy.  That’s an admirable sentiment, but as Richard Haass noted in A World in Disarray, “As a rule of thumb, diplomacy and negotiations tend to reflect realities on the ground, not change them.”  Global strongmen operate according to the same code as grade school bullies; they will be deterred by soft speech only if those they confront are willing and able, as President Theodore Roosevelt observed over a century ago, to accompany their measured tones with a big stick.

America currently maintains the most formidable military and weaponry in the world (although we are behind in some areas; for example, I have read commentary stating that we currently trail China in the afore-mentioned hypersonic missile technology).  At the same time, our advantage appears to be waning as both China and Russia are able to prioritize military preparedness in a way that we, with domestic obligations in a democracy, are having and will have trouble matching in coming years.  Arguably, time is not on our side.

China’s President Xi Jinping has demonstrated less patience in advancing Chinese territorial interests – principally, in the manner that the Mainland has over the last several years asserted its governmental dominance over Hong Kong in clear contravention of the “One Country, Two Systems” embodied in the 1997 Sino-British Joint Declaration under which the United Kingdom transferred sovereignty of the region to China — than his renowned predecessors, Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping.  China has threatened that it will not countenance the elevation of Taiwan to nationhood status. 

Ms. Hill and Mr. Gaddy make clear in Mr. Putin that the Russian President, in addition to his savvy, is paranoid and aggrieved.  While one might assume that the leader of the nation with the world’s second-mightiest nuclear arsenal would be confident that no nation would ever seek to invade Russia, the country’s experience and his own background make him wary and aggressive.  Ukraine gained its sovereignty when the Soviet Union dissolved.  Most recall Mr. Putin’s 2005 declaration that “the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”  He later indicated that he considered the Soviet Union to be Russia, “only it had a different name.”  These are dangerous sentiments; they would lead one to believe that Mr. Putin considers Ukraine part of Russia, and perhaps any outside intervention on Ukraine’s behalf a de facto invasion of Russia.  That said, the Russian President is perhaps unsurpassed among today’s global leaders at assessing the strengths as well as the weaknesses of his adversaries.  It is hard to believe (at least for me) that unless provoked beyond all bounds, he is going to start a confrontation that he believes might result in an escalation that he might not win and could result in nuclear conflagration.  He has to assume that despite all of China’s and Russia’s mutual professions of friendship, that if he gets into a major struggle with NATO, Mr. Xi will not stop to aid Russia, but will instead exploit the distraction to advance China’s interests in Asia.

Mr. Biden faces a daunting balancing act.  The U.S. Defense Department recently released an unclassified summary of its Global-Posture Review that the Wall Street Journal aptly described as an assessment of how to best deploy our resources as “the U.S. moves to take on Beijing while deterring Russia and fighting terrorism in the Middle East and Africa.”  Presidents Biden and Putin are holding a virtual summit about Ukraine today; hopefully, Mr. Biden will take none of his options off the table.  If he simply talks at Mr. Putin and hereafter at Mr. Xi and they correctly conclude that he will do nothing more, I would predict that within five years – and perhaps much sooner — Ukraine will again be a Russian satellite and Taiwan will have truly been made into the Chinese province that China now claims that it is.  If he pushes back too hard, and presents what either Mr. Xi or Mr. Putin view as too egregious an affront, a military conflict could result.  These calculations are complicated by the reality that America’s military might is vast, but it is not unlimited.

I would submit that the time to move is now:  that Mr. Biden should press the case while he still holds a relatively stronger military hand than Messrs. Putin and Xi.  I would hope that he will be resolute without being foolhardy [obviously easier said than done  ;)]. 

My definition of the difference as to Ukraine:  Increase the provision of defensive arms to Ukraine.  Despite Mr. Putin’s rumblings and reported Biden Administration disinclinations regarding American troop involvement, arrange for an invitation from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and then station a NATO force (including American troops) in Kiev.  (Kiev, Ukraine’s capitol, is removed from Ukraine’s separatist regions and the Russian border.)  Unless there are indications that the pervasive corruption in Ukraine is of the kind that would divulge NATO military secrets to Russia, I would expedite Ukraine’s admission into NATO.  (Would the West rather have a corrupt Ukraine within its orbit and subject to its pressures, or have another Russian satellite, like Belarus, on its borders?)  On the other hand, I would not – repeat not – place missile or other systems in Ukraine which could be used to fire into Russia. 

Mr. Putin will seethe.  Will he act militarily?  I’d warrant that he won’t, if he is convinced that NATO is ready to respond militarily if he does.  Despite his bluster, he well knows that neither little Ukraine nor NATO is going to invade Russia.  Would he severely restrict energy exports to Europe?  At least highly possible; unquestionably a severe concern for Europe.  At the same time, Russia’s exports to Europe are almost 40% of its economy.  Unless Mr. Putin can find other ready buyers for his oil and gas, his voluntary restriction of trade with Europe in a dispute he has precipitated will seemingly send his own economy into recession and provoke his populace, clearly already restive with his 20-year rule.

The Biden Administration should simultaneously take similar steps with regard to Taiwan.  Despite China’s bristling, the U.S. should continue to look for ways to expand its relationship with the island, such as the Administration’s recent invitation to Taiwan to attend its “Summit for Democracy.”  It should increase its provision of defensive arms to the island under the TRA.  After arranging for an invitation from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, it should increase American troop presence on the island, but – given the ambiguous nature of Taiwan’s legal status — not beyond the point that the force can be called “advisory” or credibly be considered “token.”  It should increase its naval presence around Taiwan. 

Will Mr. Xi smolder?  Undoubtedly.  However, I would venture that Mr. Xi seeks to have China control the world, not destroy it.  It is hard to believe (again, perhaps only for me) that he will risk a military invasion of Taiwan at this point, if he believes that there is a real possibility that the United States will militarily intervene.  It is also hard for me to believe that he will view increased U.S. presence in the Asian theater as an overt threat (although he will certainly consider it an irritant and affront).  He knows that we are not going to invade China.  In the face of an orchestrated but not overdone U.S. buildup, he will presumably pause.  He will hopefully conclude (hopefully incorrectly) that time is on his side with regard to Taiwan; but not yet.

Right now, I suspect that many of those that have gotten this far in this ponderous note are mighty glad that I’m not in a position to advise Mr. Biden  ;).  I fully understand that America is war-weary after 20 years of grotesquely-squandered blood and treasure in wantonly ill-conceived warfare in a part of the world less strategically important than either Europe or Asia.  I fully acknowledge that it’s easy for a retired Midwest blogger to pontificate; I would hate to have actual foreign policy responsibility.  That said, I submit that the only manner in which we will maintain equilibrium in an increasingly illiberal world is if those who would take what they believe they can get away with are persuaded that we will act if need be.  For any who believe that Russia and China are amenable to reasoned persuasion if they have no fear of military reprisal to their military aggression in their respective spheres, I would respond:  Crimea.  Hong Kong.  If we dither, we will again be perceived as meekly turning our backs on those who asked for our help – to not only their detriment but our own.  While the approaches outlined in this post are but holding actions while a broader collective containment strategy, based upon enhancing the capabilities of our allies, can be undertaken, I would suggest that we need to heed a prophetic (and poetic) reminder from long ago:

“All is over.  Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into the darkness.  She has suffered in every respect by her association with the Western democracies …

You will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured only by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed ….[T]hat story is over and told. … It is the most grievous consequence of what we have done and of what we have left undone in the last five years – five years of futile good intention, five years of eager search for the line of least resistance, five years of uninterrupted retreat of British power …

Those are the features … which marked an improvident stewardship for which Great Britain and France have dearly to pay. …

Many people, no doubt, honestly believe that they are only giving away the interests of Czechoslovakia, whereas I fear we shall find that we have deeply compromised … the safety … of Great Britain and France. …

You must have diplomatic and correct relations, but there can never be friendship between the British democracy and … that Power which spurns Christian ethics, which cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which vaunts the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses … with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force.   That power cannot ever be the trusted friend of the British democracy.”

• Winston Churchill, in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, October 5, 1938

There has recently been less time to devote to these pages as we do chores left to late summer, among them putting a new coat of stain on our deck.  Such chores do provide mind space for reflection.

While the observations of a retired Midwest blogger add little to the avalanche of commentary attending the Taliban’s swift conquest of Afghanistan as America has withdrawn its forces, the final outcome seems all the more tragic because it was so glaringly predictable.  In a May post on President Joe Biden’s first 100 days, I stated:

“I would submit that Mr. Biden’s most significant foreign policy failing thus far is his decision to withdraw U.S. Troops from Afghanistan.  It seems overwhelmingly likely that the Taliban, who oppose the Afghan government we have kept upright, will overrun the country almost as soon as we depart; we leave ourselves more vulnerable to terrorist attacks; we open the door to suppression of Afghan women; and we will appear to have abandoned another set of Middle East allies (remember the Trump Administration’s abandonment of the Kurds in Syria), further reducing our credibility in the region [Emphasis in Original].”  

I didn’t add – perhaps alone, only recently having become aware – that Afghanistan is said to have significant deposits of rare earth minerals required in common high technology instruments, some strategic defense systems, and applications designed to address Climate Change.  By our departure we have apparently ceded a seeming counterweight in this arena to China, which the Centre for Strategic and International Studies reports to have approximately two thirds of certain rare earth elements.  If still not enough:  In The Room Where It Happened (“The Room”), former Trump Administration National Security Advisor John Bolton noted that he cautioned President Donald Trump against withdrawing from Afghanistan in part because he feared that a Taliban takeover might hasten the fall of neighboring Pakistan, a nuclear power, to terrorists.   

There has been some attempt in the liberal media to place some of the responsibility for our departure on Mr. Trump, since his Administration agreed to the arrangement with the Taliban under which America is withdrawing its forces.  (These have concurrence from an odd bedfellow, Mr. Bolton, who commented in The Room: “[Even] after Trump leaves office ….Trump will be responsible for the consequences, politically and militarily.”)  I don’t buy it.  In a post several years ago, I sharply criticized Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [the actual title of the agreement limiting Iranian nuclear activity (the “JCPOA”)] that the Obama Administration negotiated with the Iranian government – despite the fact that even Democrats now agree that the pact had significant deficiencies — on the fundamental grounds that “we gave our word.”  That consideration does not apply to our agreement with the Taliban.  The international inspectors monitoring Iran’s JCPOA compliance considered Iran to be in compliance at the time we withdrew.  Here, the Taliban have been violating the promises they made to the Trump team from the day they were made.  Mr. Biden had ample grounds upon which to have rejected the agreement had he chosen to do so.

There has also been some suggestion that it’s just that we didn’t expect the Taliban to take Afghanistan … this quickly.  This is sophism.  If we believed that the Taliban was ultimately going to overrun the country, whether it achieved the takeover in a two weeks or six months has no geopolitical strategic significance.  (Such miscalculation was obviously of the first importance insofar as our ability to safely evacuate the Afghans who cooperated with us over the years.  Here our misreading will likely cost of the lives of thousands who relied on us.)

To his credit, as the situation in Afghanistan worsened, President Biden recited the first maxim of presidential leadership:  “The Buck stops with me.”  True.  He also asserted that the Taliban’s swift takeover has proven that this was going to be the result whenever we left.  Most probably true.  He has been widely reported to have chafed against our Afghan involvement over the years because he believed that we should have departed Afghanistan as soon as our initial purpose for entering the country – rooting out the interests that supported Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attack on us – was achieved.  Arguably his view once had significant merit.  However, it overlooks another precept of presidential leadership:  A President must play the hand s/he inherits.  I disagree with Mr. Biden’s claim that our departure will end a “Forever War.” Afghanistan was no more than a front in our Forever War.

I would submit that our nation has been in a Forever War since at least September, 1940, more than a year before it formally entered World War II, when it began to provide military aid to England and its allies.  President Franklin Roosevelt approved the aid because he realized, notwithstanding most Americans’ complacency born of our ocean buffers, that if Nazi Germany prevailed in Europe, it ultimately would come after us; he did it to prevent our becoming, in his words, “a lone island in a world dominated by the philosophy of force.”  By 1945 we had become the world’s preeminent super power.  Since that time, by the very nature of our position, we have been in a Forever War – sometimes hot, sometimes Cold, sometimes via proxy, on military, economic, cyber, advocacy, diplomatic and other battlefronts, and with shifting adversaries, but never truly unchallenged, at peace.  Today we remain, despite our failings and missteps, the world’s preeminent power.  China, Russia, Iran, and other hostile foreign powers are acutely aware of this, which is why they seek to undermine and supplant us either globally or regionally.  I am too much a Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy disciple not to believe that any event that makes us weaker anywhere makes us weaker everywhere.

It has been said that we are right to depart Afghanistan because we could never “win.”  We Americans have a subliminal understanding, given the manner in which we threw off a colonial power over 200 years ago, that determined natives will ultimately prevail over a weary outsider.  Granting that nation building may have been the misguided vision of the George W. Bush Administration, it’s been clear for over a decade that such was not achievable in Afghanistan.  I would nonetheless offer – to use a chess analogy (although all who know me are well aware of how painfully bad I am) – that sometimes achieving a draw is a win.  Our small military footprint constituted a bulwark against terrorist groups likely, if unrestrained, to attack us, and against larger powers whose expansion in the region will only make America strategically less safe:  Iran, Russia, and to an increasing extent, China.  While we could never “win” in Afghanistan, another chess analogy:  it is unwise to voluntarily relinquish a square that thwarts an opponent’s advance. 

While our Afghan withdrawal isn’t, in my view, anywhere near as colossal a blunder as the G. W. Bush Administration invasion of Iraq, I consider it more detrimental to American interests than either President Barack Obama’s failure to follow through on his warning to move against the Syrian regime if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, or Mr. Trump’s 2019 abandonment of our Kurdish allies, because Mr. Biden’s decision may materially increase the prospect of a terrorist attack(s) on our shores.  I also suspect that it is more unnerving to the world community because most understood that Mr. Obama was a foreign policy neophyte and all recognized that Mr. Trump was an untutored loose cannon.  Mr. Biden was supposed to know better, be a return to American competence and stability, to understand the use of power and the obligation to help those who have in good faith helped and relied on us.  An observation that occurred to me that I have seen reported elsewhere:  our precipitous Afghan withdrawal can do nothing but make Israel, Saudi Arabia and the other Middle Eastern Gulf States, South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia (the latter three Baltic members of NATO on Russia’s doorstep) restive if not outright anxious.  In their places, I would be.  Our hasty departure has weakened our credibility in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, even within the Americas.  I remain confident that we can maintain our preeminent position indefinitely if we act wisely – which has not been the case either domestically or internationally in recent years.  Our global advantage is easily squandered if we continue to blunder.  In 1940, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill could look to us for help.  Today, there is no one behind us to whom we can look for help.    

A couple of very close friends asserted to me recently that as messy as the withdrawal and evacuation have been, Mr. Biden’s decision merely ended a pointless incursion; that with us out of Afghanistan, the region’s terrorist elements will have little remaining interest in us.  I hope they are right.  I fear they are not.  The American people apparently currently largely support our withdrawal, even if they are taken aback by its messy Vietnam-like denouement; I would predict that they will continue to support the withdrawal unless there is a major terrorist attack on our homeland which can be linked to Afghanistan.  If there is, American sentiment will turn on a dime.  Mr. Biden will not be re-elected. 

This has been a dense note – in perhaps more ways than one – but it was actually easier to consider the prospect of America’s waning influence than to dwell on yesterday’s gut-wrenching deaths of our soldiers and Afghans seeking evacuation – at the hands of an ISIS faction, seemingly indicating that we face a continuing threat from that quarter — or on the anguish of the Afghans that will be left in our wake.  I believe that all of us reach out to the same God, if through different paths.  I pray for them.

Although a cease fire in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the Gaza Strip may be in effect by the time this note is published, the one thing all observers agree upon is that, from the larger perspective, the conflict seems endless and “intractable.”  I would pose that at this point there are no winners, only losers; and that Israel is the only party in a position to break the cycle. 

 (To set a context here:  in a view not universally shared, I consider Israel strictly a sovereign nation, and not a manifestation or fulfillment of religious faith.  I am an Irish Catholic, but if either Ireland or the Vatican – sovereign nations like Israel — implement a policy which I perceived as contrary to American interests, I would not feel divided loyalty.  I would submit that the only meaningful religious element of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is this:  the Almighty is not in favor of His [please excuse the male pronoun ;)] people killing or harming each other, no matter by what faith path they have chosen to reach Him.  Let’s keep God out of this; all human beings deserve the opportunity to live in freedom, peace and security.)

(To set further context:  accompanying my reaction that criticism of Israel’s treatment of Palestinian civilians is warranted is the countervailing memory of a learned American foreign policy figure intoning years ago that Israel was the only nation in the volatile Middle East where America knew it could safely land a plane at any time under any conditions.  I would suggest that such remains true to this day.  Additionally, Israel is, and for the foreseeable future will be, our most effective and reliable regional ally in combatting Iranian terrorism and aggression.  No matter its faults, America needs a strong and secure Israel.  I would venture that President Biden, if not all members of his party, is acutely aware of our need to balance these competing realities.)

I don’t think that it is much disputed in the international community that the settlements Israel has established in the Palestinian territories that it has occupied since the 1967 Middle East war are contrary to international law.  Any comparison of maps of Israel, Palestine and the surrounding environs respectively depicting the region as it existed before 1949, after the establishment of Israel in 1949 through 1967, after the 1967 Middle East War, and evolving to the present day demonstrates Israel’s expansion into land intended by the international community to be inhabited and controlled by the Palestinians when Israel was founded.  While it must be noted that Israel gained a foothold in the occupied territories not because it attacked, but because it was attacked, the increased settlement activity in occupied territories by Israel in recent years seems gratuitous usurpation.  I have seen reports that the most recent conflict was precipitated in part by Israel’s eviction of Palestinians from an East Jerusalem neighborhood (subject to correction by more informed eyes, I am not aware whether this neighborhood was originally part of Israel under the United Nations charter, or an area since claimed by Israel as part its sovereign territory).  Ignoring Palestinians’ frustration serves no purpose.

Given the Holocaust, Israel is and throughout our lifetimes will understandably always be anxious given its close proximity to states and peoples that have for the most part hated it and the Jewish people, have denied its right to exist, and have literally sought to expunge it.  [As the old saying goes, if they really are out to get you, you’re not paranoid  ;)].  The Palestinian terrorist organization, Hamas, allegedly aided by Iran, has launched over 3000 missiles into Israel in the last ten days; this, too, cannot be ignored.  My general concern with Israel’s posture today:  through its own diligence and hard work, and its longstanding relationship with and aid from the United States, it is arguably the strongest military power and maintains the most sophisticated intelligence network in the Middle East.  Its security has been further enhanced by the split in the Arab world that has caused Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf Coast nations to currently have greater concerns about Iran than they do about Israel.  Its “Iron Dome” defense system has performed extraordinarily well and for the most part shielded Israeli citizens from harm.  While it is not hard to imagine what we would do if either Canada or Mexico launched over 3000 missiles into the United States, the fact remains that Israel faces no existential threat from the rag-tag Palestinians. 

More than one former Israeli soldier has publicly criticized Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory (do an internet search, “Project Outreach – Avner Gvaryahu”).  I have heard at least one former Israeli soldier actually compare Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to apartheid.  One American journalist visiting Gaza has described Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as “unconscionable” – “effectively imprison[ing] … people.”  I would offer that Israel has pushed its advantage in East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank because it can – and because such favors the political prospects of its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.  It seems inevitable that such provocations will trigger a response. 

Although Israeli leadership says it “targeted” Hamas leadership and tunnels with its recent strikes into Gaza, there appears to be disproportionate collateral damage among Palestinian civilians, including children.  What unfolded seems akin in kind if not in scale to the inhumanities currently being visited on Yemeni in the Yemen civil war; both conflicts are being pursued by interests that have no regard for the devastation being suffered by innocents caught in the middle.  In the Yemen conflict, the Biden Administration discontinued equipping the Saudis’ military operations.  In Gaza, the situation is more complex, but I would submit that the Administration needs to maintain meaningful pressure on Mr. Netanyahu to halt not only the recent hostilities but to roll back Israel’s aggressive efforts in the occupied territories.  I would argue to Mr. Netanyahu that adoption of a softer policy is in Israel’s long term best interests.  Perhaps counter-intuitively, undue aggression weakens his nation’s stability.  Israel’s perceived disregard for Palestinian civilians:  reduces sympathy for Israel in the international community; threatens its existing relationships with Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Morocco and, informally, Saudi Arabia), and thus, Israel’s security; antagonizes American progressives and liberals, and thus weakens Israel’s alliance with the United States – the linchpin upon which its security rests; exacerbates unrest within Israel between Jewish and Arab Israelis, weakening Israel as a state; and, perhaps most vitally, seems an affront to the principle that justified Israel’s founding — that persecuted and downtrodden innocents deserve respite. 

At least since the time of the Obama Administration, Mr. Netanyahu has seemed to take solace from his support among Republicans, and may believe that such will sustain America’s relationship with Israel despite progressives’ increasing criticism.  If he has made such a calculation, it seems to me that his confidence is misplaced.  I would point out to him that some of those now expressing fealty to Israel count among their ranks those that have sought to whitewash Trump insurgents’ attack on America’s democracy, are attempting to rewrite history by denying that former President Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, and provided at best lukewarm condemnation of the white supremacists who marched through Charlottesville, VA, in August, 2017, chanting, “Jews will not replace us.”  Indeed, this group includes past Holocaust deniers.  Can Israel really have confidence that its long-term security will be protected by the likes of these?

There is no question that Israel has the right to defend itself.  While it cannot afford to slacken its military and intelligence readiness, its defense in the coming decades may well rest at least as heavily upon its efforts to lower the Palestinian region’s tribal temperature.  It should extend the carrot while retaining the stick.  It should sincerely embrace the effort to find a viable Israel/Palestine two state solution – for its own sake as well as that of the Palestinians.