Distractions Be Damned!

World War II was started when Germany invaded Poland, The Korean War started when North Korea invaded South Korea, The Persian Gulf War started when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and now Russia has invaded Ukraine.

Not too many pundits and politicians are advocating to start up another war, considering we are still trying to get out of the last couple we started, but I state these to bring some weight and context to just how grave and serious an action it is when one country violates the sovereignty of another.

Need another anecdote to showcase my point? How about the President of the United States just a few days ago stating "We are now deeply concerned over reports of military movements taken by Russian Federation inside of Ukraine."

Well, it's been about a week and Putin and Russian Federation are showing no sign of letting up their pursuit of taking control of at least the Crimean Peninsula. I've been watching the President's response to events as they unfold, and even though I could make some snide comments about the pace of his responses, an indication of just how prepared he is to handle such a response, and have already written about the need for reforming our approach to foreign policy in much broader terms, I've been reasonably pleased with his calls to ban Russia from the G8, granting loans to the recognized Ukrainian government, and freezing assets of individual Russian officials and overall flexing what little leverage we have over Russia in an attempt to raise the price, both monetarily and politically, of Russia's actions.

Obviously this leverage is not enough to stop Putin, it was glaringly obvious from day one that US was in no position to actually stop him short of a massive military mobilization. Then what is the correct course of action? What else can our Commander in Chief do to dissuade Russia and continue to increase the cost to Russia for this clear violation of International Law? 

Well, apparently the answer is to gut up from the table, tell your Phone Czar to hold all your calls and your Airplane Czar to gas up the jet, and to go on vacation. Because that is exactly what he is doing.

Are the European's joining us in establishing sanctions? Idunno. Are we changing to Defcon 3 and mobilizing a force to help stabilize the region? Shrug. Will more calls to Putin finally wake him up to reason? Obama only knows that he isn't letting the incursion of Russian troops into Ukraine's Crimean peninsula prevent him and his family from enjoying a weekend away from Washington, currently beset by cold temperatures and sloppy piles of melting snow.

I'm sure staff and resources will travel with the President as they always do, but when you wake up every morning at he beautiful Ocean Reef Club in Key Largo. Will that Jack Ryan want to be CIA agent be traveling with him? I dunno, you can't take all of Washington with you on vacation.

It's an insult to the seriousness of the situation and another example how this President prioritizes the aspects of his office. Imaging the phone call Saturday morning when Putin finally calls Obama to try and negotiate some terms. So in the spirit of not taking this thing seriously at all, here is what I would imagine a phone call between President Obama and President Putin going this weekend.

"Hello"

"Yes, Barry, this is Vlad, I have seen light and am prepared to withdraw my forces. You have time to go over the terms for removing sanctions and get G8 summit back on schedule now, yes?" 

"Oh, yeah, Vlad, I'd love to, but... can I have you call back in about 5 hours, I got a tee time in 10 minutes and it is really hard to get one of those at this place, <chuckle>. I mean, how much taxpayer money do you have to spend to get some respect around here, you know what I mean?"

"I do not, Barry. In Russia, we have none of these golf courses. I spend vacations wrestling bears, not because I find it fun, but because if bear enters Russian Village, everyone gets in a hoopla, demanding show of force with nuclear weapons, I try to explain, 'bear is in Russian village and we cannot use nuclear warhead on Russians'.... well, you know how it is."

"Oh sure, sure. Like this one time, <chuckles> Michelle and I were trying to decide what stars to invite over to the White House for dinner last Tuesday, well, I wanted to invite the entire cast of Game of Thrones..."

"<interrupting> Mr. President, I am sorry, but Para-Olympic Ice Hockey game is currently in final period on Russian TV distracting people who oppose me making this call, if we can not come to deal right away I fear window of opportunity will close like Church once Vodka store opens."

"<Inhaling through teeth> You're putting me in a tough spot, Vlad. We have fantastic weather here, 76 and sunny."

"I understand, one time I shrug off meeting with fur hat makers union to enjoy 8 mile swim in lake, it was 20 of your degrees outside, who could refuse? I am sorry we are unable to come to terms today, perhaps you call me after we invade Lithuania?"

"Sure thing, Vlad. Always good to catch up, say hi to the Mrs. for me?"

"Absoloutely, and you give a hug and a kiss to Michelle for me, no?"

There is a moment of silence before both men break out laughing and hang up the phones.

Someone Should Call the Cops

Syria is using chemical weapons, Russia is re-establishing the USSR, China is disputing Japanese claims to waters in the South China Sea, and even Iran has warships en route to our shores.

It reads like the introduction to a superhero movie, or an episode of 24, or a summary of the entire plot of Team America: World Police.

There is only one small problem, Team America does't appear to want to be the World Police anymore.

Since World War II, the United States has assumed the position 'guarantor of world order' and the 'enforcer of global rules'. Whenever a threat to world peace or stability has emerged such as in 1991 Kuwait or 1998 Kosovo or 2002 Afghanistan or even the 'lead from behind' route taken in 2011 Libya. In any of these instances, if the U.S. had not acted, nothing would have been done to combat tyrants and terrorists.

That argument that it is the responsibility for the United States to take action has hit a roadblock. The American people are not interested in playing that role any more. In truth, Americans have never been enthusiastic about assuming the burden of global leadership. We didn't get into World War I until the final year of war. We entered World War II only after we were bombed by the Japanese two years after the war started. And especially after the Vietnam conflict, it is hard for the American people to take an interest in the affairs of other nations.

This is reflected in the political standings of our politicians too. Democrats are quicker to abdicate this responsibility to international groups such as the UN. Where as the Republican party has been historically up to the task of being the muscle in foreign policies. Now, the political landscape is shifting on the Republican's side, where ever louder subsets of libertarians and tea party members promote policies that include limited government and non-intervention all the way to reducing our global military presence. 

In all of this we are trying to answer one fundamental question; Is it in our best interests to expend our resources to promote our agenda in other countries? The resolve of one who believes in the blanketing 'You leave us alone and we'll leave you alone' is tested greatly when we see a democratic republic like the Ukraine invaded by an embolden President Putin. The fear of the such a large portion of the globe falling into a limited number of ruling countries is a valid fear that has lead America into almost every prior war. The person who wants to accept the duty of being the worlds police and draw a line in the sand must be prepared to defend that line with capital of money and blood. 

For years we enjoyed the relative peace of a world that did not question the U.S.'s resolve to stand up for democracy and against tyranny in all forms, so long as certain criteria are met. We paid it forward in World War II and other battles, but our copiousness of respect appears to be running on empty.

  

What is, then, the correct answer? The current establishment's stance is easy enough to figure out. Cut the military, take no action in Syria, and threaten to not attend a G8 shin dig if Russia doesn't stop expanding their empire. Until the next election cycle we are not going to answer the 911 calls of the world anymore. In my opinion, this is one of the stupidest things we could allow to happen. The unfortunate thing about the Ukraine take over is that it is too late. Ukraine is not in the EU, they are not a member of NATO, we have no direct ties that would allow us to take a any tangible stance to stop Russia from doing exactly what it is that they are doing. Foreign policy is a chess match and Putin just placed us in check. Chalk this one up to failing to see this coming, despite the warnings of Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney during the last 2 presidential election cycles. This was nothing more then a brazen lack of foresight, and a weak foreign policy stance from our President.

America's roll for the next generation may be decided in the next few weeks. Our next move needs to be one that is proactive that places Russia back on the defensive. Establish new and public trade partnerships with former block countries that are practicing democracy and promote more policies that allow countries like Georgia, Belarus, and Romania to become independently wealthy and more appealing to EU or NATO membership. Then, we need to start promoting non-American-centric alliances, such as the African Union. Despite it's flaws, that union provides the avenue for regions to be more self policing and will, over time, alleviate the burden that we currently bear too much of. But, the most important policy change that we can implement that would prevent such an emboldened move from occurring again? Stop punting on enforcement of items that we have already stated our stance on. Case and point, Syria. He stated clearly that the use of chemical weapons was not to be tolerated, he stated clearly that we have proof that Syria was in fact using chemical weapons. Our response to date? Nothing, we allow ourselves to be stone walled and played for fools. No doubt to the chagrin of allies like Japan, South Korea, and Israel, who are largely dependent on us to deter action from countries like China, North Korea, or Iran. 

That is my conclusion, the end game needs to be a world that relies much less on us to take direct action, but we are making wrong move after wrong move to achieve anything even close to such a world. We can neither make one single sweeping move to suddenly become spectators in the world and abdicate our duties that we have already signed onto, nor can we continue in perpetuity the ever increasing cost of becoming a formidable fighting force for not only ourselves but scores of other countries.

Is it a thin line to follow? Yes. It will require some scale ups and scale downs periods of our military forces by region over time, a couple decades to get to a point where we have a powerful central force located within our borders and several quick response teams designed to work in conjuncture with a pacific alliance groups and European alliance groups. At this time, however, we have established that we are dangerously far off that line to the side of spectator, it is time to swing back to the side of being the worlds police until we can get the international structure needed to allow the proper winding down of our duties as a nation who has taken on too many responsibilities in the world.