America is no longer alarming to its foes or reassuring to its friends

The Economist has an interesting article that challenges Americas desire, and even its ability, to be a leader on the international stage.

As we have witnessed over the past several months, as Russian has set troops in Crimea, Obama has threatened sanctions, yet has done little else.  His threats had little influence over Putin's efforts.  As Russian annexed Crimea, Obama's America stood on the sidelines, leaning up against a tree.  For that reason, I find this cartoon very fitting. You have the sheep (Ukraine), and the wolf (Russia), and then you have Uncle Sam just leaning against a tree watching.  That said, does the U.S. have any influence at all on the international stage?  In other words, is the U.S. willing and able to defend its allies against aggressors like Russia?

The article starts out by asking:

AMERICA’S allies are nervous. With Russia grabbing territory, China bullying its neighbours and Syria murdering its people, many are asking: where is Globocop? Under what circumstances will America act to deter troublemakers? What, ultimately, would America fight for?

The article continues

The answer to this question matters. Rogue states will behave more roguishly if they doubt America’s will to stop them. As a former head of Saudi intelligence recently said of Vladimir Putin’s land grab in Ukraine: “While the wolf is eating the sheep, there is no shepherd to come to the rescue.” Small wonder that Barack Obama was asked, at every stop during his just-completed four-country swing through Asia, how exactly he plans to wield American power. How would the president respond if China sought to expand its maritime borders by force? How might he curb North Korea’s nuclear provocations? At every press conference he was also quizzed about Ukraine, for world news follows an American president everywhere.

While conservatives chant things like "peace through strength," Obama disagrees.  He said, “Very rarely have I seen the exercise of military power providing a definitive answer,” he told an audience in Seoul."

So it appears apparent that Obama's strategy of using words and sanctions as opposed to military mite will not change.  Because of this, some reporters are asking Obama questions along the lines of "are your actions, or non-actions, emboldening American enemies?"

Yet Obama's answer to this question was that we “haven’t really learned the lesson of the last decade.” In other words, American hawks did not learn the lesson of Iraq.

Yet, as the article notes, Obama's strategy does not appeal to voters, who say defending America is "very important."  However, most Americans do not want U.S. troops in Ukraine, with only 6% saying they would use force, according to polls. And, of course, most people don't want action in Syria either.

Of course this makes sense considering no one wants war.  In fact, even hawks don't want war.  Just because troops are put into a country doesn't mean the U.S. wants to go to war.  In fact, just the opposite is true.

U.S. troops in Ukraine would make sense for two reasons:

1. We promised during the Clinton administration we'd defend them if they disarmed.  So, we'd be honoring our word.
2. Putin doesn't want to go to war with the U.S., and so U.S. troops in Ukraine would disuade Putin from taking action there, allowing Ukranians the opportunity to create a democracy

As far as for the Middle East, U.S. influence isn't any better: 

In the rest of the region the story is not much cheerier. The new government in Egypt ignores American finger-wagging about human rights and buys lots of Russian weapons. In Syria President Bashar Assad was caught red-handed last year gassing his own people, an act that Mr Obama had specifically warned would trigger American punishment. Yet this “red line” was crossed almost with impunity.

There were sound arguments for all these apparent American retreats. Yet the widespread impression in the Middle East is that the lion has turned into a pussycat. Its foes rejoice; its allies bewail their perceived abandonment.

Iraq’s leader, Nuri al-Maliki, is chummier with Iran than America. Iran jauntily backs militias and political parties in Iraq. It sends bullets and “advisers” to Syria via Iraqi airspace. It sponsors Iraqi Shia volunteers to fight American-supplied Sunni rebels in Syria.

Of late, America has sometimes taken a back seat to other countries, as with France’s intervention in Mali and NATO’s in Libya. Or it has simply shied from doing anything much, as in Syria.

The article does note some successes in the Middle East, however.  For instance, "
oil prices are stable, Israel has never been so prosperous or secure and Iran has agreed (under intense pressure) to curb its nuclear ambitions somewhat. Terrorism now poses far more danger within the Middle East than to the rest of the world."

I think the key words per this article are "Lion" and "Pussycat." While the U.S. was once a Lion with a lot of influence around the world, we are now a pussycat, good for nothing more than our cute looks.  As a lion, we were able to protect ourselves and our allies.  As pussycats we have little or no control over what our enemies do or don't do.

In other words, a pussycat military strategy has made it so "America is no longer as alarming to its foes or reassuring to its friends." Since defending our nation and our freedom is the number one responsibility of our government, this is a serious issue, and one that I hope is addressed by republicans during campaign season.

References:

1. The decline of deterrence: America is no longer as alarming to its foes or reassuring to its friends

U.S. should put troops in Ukraine

I discussed on April 16, "Putin and Obama prepare their war strategies," that the west made a pledge to protect Ukraine when Clinton was President, and the U.S. should now honor that pledge.

Twelve days after I wrote my post, Dick Morris discussed this same topic in his April 29, 2014, column, "Send U.S. Troops to Ukraine, he said:

In 1994, President Clinton, British Prime Minister Major, Russian President Yeltsin, and Ukranian President Kuchma signed The Budapest Memorandum pledging themselves and their nations to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.”

The Treaty was signed as part of a successful effort to persuade Ukraine to relinquish its nuclear stockpile, armaments stationed there when the Soviet Union broke up. In return for the joint guarantee, Ukraine promised to give up its nuclear weapons.

Its there in black and white: An American commitment we must honor.

Morris added:

When I asked President Clinton why he was so anxious to bring Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO, he spoke of the importance of maintaining freedom in those countries, but also said that we needed “a land bridge” to Ukraine. “Ukraine,” he said, “is key. We have to make sure they can stay independent.”

If the U.S. led it, NATO would surely be willing to follow and deploy at least a token force from every European nation.

There is no way Russia would attack Ukraine if it meant war with the United States. Just as the tripwire defense we maintained in Germany throughout the Cold War did not cost us a single US life and not one shot was fired in anger, so a robust show of support for Ukraine would not lead to war. It would avert one.

If we do not stop Russia in Ukraine, Putin will attack Azerbaijan, Moldova, and the Baltic States. If we do not stop him there, Poland and Eastern Europe could well be next.

We all know the story of how Allied refusal to intervene catalyzed Hitler’s push for European domination. We all realize now that a show of force when Hitler marched into the Rhineland or into Austria would have averted World War II.

Our successful deployment in Germany throughout the Cold War gives us ample evidence that you can face down the Russians without loss of life. Putin will take what we give him as long as its free, but not at the price of war.
My work in Russian politics (for Yeltsin in the 90s) left me with a strong impression that the fear of war with the U.S. is uppermost in Russian minds and the memories of World War II have not receded.

And, we gave our word to Ukraine. What is that worth?  

I think Morris is exactly right.  Once again we must honor our pledge, our promise. Not doing so risks further damaging respect for America, further hampering U.S. influence.
----------
Update 5/11/14
The problem here is not just democrats fault, as not one republican or democrat has called for sending troops to Ukraine.  However, as Charles Krauthhammer notes in his May 1, 2014, column "Obama's foreign policy of denial:"

The critique by John McCain and others is that when the Ukrainians last month came asking for weapons to defend themselves, Obama turned them down. The Pentagon offered instead MREs, ready-to-eat burgers to defend against 40,000 well-armed Russians. Obama even denied Ukraine such defensive gear as night-vision goggles and body armor.

Obama did, however, issue these words:

...in Ukraine, what we’ve done is mobilize the international community. . . . Russia is having to engage in activities that have been rejected uniformly around the world.”

So, as Krauthammer said, "That’s a deterrent? Fear of criticism? Empty words?"

Bottom line: It's not just Obama and democrats who are choosing to ignore Ukraine's cries for help, even after the West promised to defend them if they put down their weapons at the end of the Cold War.  Republicans are equally guilty.

Putin and Obama prepare their war strategies

Putin's strategy involves gazing at a map of the world,
trying to decide where in the West he wants to attack first.
Obama tries to stop him with doctors, nurses, negotiations
global warming threats, and sanctions.   

Do you remember when Clinton was president the West promised to defend Ukraine?  Well, the West did.  On that promise Ukraine demilitarized and disarmed itself.  This contract was renewed by Obama.

So when Putin aimed tanks at them, Ukraine was a sitting duck. But all the United States did was promise sanctions.

Now there are warnings that Putin might be trying to rebuild the Soviet Union, and most people are ignoring these warnings.  The realists who say it are called idiots and conspiracy theorists by the idealists.  No one wants to hear the warnings.

And I'm not saying the warnings are true, either.  I mean, who knows what Russian has planned.  But, I think, it's better to be prepared and proactive than to respond. Or, worded another way, there's nothing to fear except not being prepared.

Yet people like me are called conspiracy theorists.

What Putin did shouldn't shock anyone

Let's talk conspiracy theories for just this one post.  Based on what I have read on the subject, and I read a lot from a lot of sources, the writing appears to be on the wall that Vladimir Putin is trying to reassemble the Soviet Union.

By listening to the various folks in Washington you'd think they were just shocked that Putin used his military might to over take Crimea.  But should they be?  Isn't it the job of the people running this country to be expecting this kind of stuff, and to be prepared for it, in order to prevent it from ever happening?  

I mean, it's not like Russia has never invaded a country before? In 1979 they invaded Afghanistan, and they did it on Christmas while everyone else was distracted. They also colonized Georgia, and what about Shalikashvili and South Ossetia? So, there should be no surprise to what Putin is doing, for those who pay attention to history anyway.

So Russia puts troops around Crimea in the Ukraine, and folks in Washington are all surprised about it. Let's use Obama's words from March 24, 2014,as one example:

The United States does not view Europe as a battleground between East and West, nor do we see the situation in Ukraine as a zero-sum game. That’s the kind of thinking that should have ended with the Cold War.

As Charle's Krauthhammer said in his March 24, 2014, column, "Obama vs. Putin: The Mismatch:"

Should. Lovely sentiment. As lovely as what Obama said five years ago to the United Nations: “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.”

That’s the kind of sentiment you expect from a Miss America contestant asked to name her fondest wish, not from the leader of the free world explaining his foreign policy.

 Now let us use Secretary of State John Kerry's words: 

What has already happened is a brazen act of aggression in violation of international law, in violation of the UN charter, in violation of the Helsinki Final Act, in violation of 1997 Ukraine-Russia basing agreement. Russia has engaged in a military act of aggression against another country, and it has huge risks, George. It's a Nineteenth Century act in the Twenty-First Century.

Kerry and Obama are acting like it's a big surprise surprise what Putin is doing. Kerry is upset Putin violated rules set by the United Nations.  The truth, however, is that world history is a history of wars, so it should be no secret that the aggressor in any war sets the rules. In this case, Russia is the aggressor. Russia wants to win.

So it should be no surprise that Putin is setting the rules.  Why?  Well, consider the following:

1. The purpose of any military is to kill people and break things. It's not to advance anybody's social agenda. It's not a laboratory for social ideas or playgrounds. It is to kill people and break things
2. The aggressor in any conflict sets the rules. And if they violate an existing rule book, then so be. In other words, the aggressor does whatever is needed to win, regardless of the century.

When people like Vladimir Putin are the aggressors, they don't care about international law, U.N. Charters, or things like that.  They don't care that we are in the 21st century and rulers aren't supposed to do things like this.  Putin wants to take over Crimea, and so he's going to do it by any means he can, regardless what the rest of the world thinks.

So here you have Putin acting, using 19th century tactics as Kerry said, and you have people in Washington, the media, and other people, standing around with their mouths agape saying things like: "He can't do that!"

Well, he just did.

Prior to WWII, despite warnings by Nevelle Chamberlain, neither Britain nor the United States were ready for war.  Prior to 911, no one expected Muslims to blow up the twin towers.  We were not prepared.

Krauthammer said:

Putin’s irredentist grievances go very deep. Obama seems unable to fathom them. Asked whether he’d misjudged Russia, whether it really is our greatest geopolitical foe, he disdainfully replied that Russia is nothing but “a regional power” acting “out of weakness.”

Where does one begin? Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan were also regional powers, yet managed to leave behind at least 50 million dead. And yes, Russia should be no match for the American superpower. Yet under this president, Russia has run rings around America, from the attempted ingratiation of the “reset” to America’s empty threats of “consequences” were Russia to annex Crimea.

Annex Crimea it did. For which the “consequences” have been risible. Numberless 19th- and 20th-century European soldiers died for Crimea. Putin conquered it in a swift and stealthy campaign that took three weeks and cost his forces not a sprained ankle. That’s “weakness”?

What are the allies thinking now? Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and other Pacific Rim friends are wondering where this America will be as China expands its reach and claims. The Gulf states are near panic as they see the United States playacting nuclear negotiations with Iran that, at best, will leave their mortal Shiite enemy just weeks away from the bomb.

America never sought the role that history gave it after World War II to bear unbidden burdens “to assure the survival and the success of liberty,” as movingly described by John Kennedy. We have an appropriate aversion to the stark fact that the alternative to U.S. leadership is either global chaos or dominance by the likes of China, Russia and Iran.

The main job of any government is to protect the people; to provide national security.  In fact, this is the number one, most important, job of any nation.

It's the job of our leaders to be proactive, as opposed to worrying about the media calling them conspiracy theorists, as I will probably be called.

I think people today are so isolated from bad people, from war,  from history (because they don't teach it in public schools) that they forget that human history is a history of war, and war isn't pretty. It's gotten so bad that too many Americans forget that the world is filled with people waiting, salivating, for an opportunity to strike.

At all costs, we should do everything and anything, even what's not popular (as George W. Bush learned), to prevent it: and we aren't.  Instead we have our leaders making arms agreements to get rid of our nuclear weapons, and tearing down our military.

If we need to spend money on anything in this country, those are the two most important things.  If we are not secure, if some other nation takes us over, nothing else matters.  If another nation gains power over us, it won't matter what job you have, or that you have one, nor that you are fed, nor that you have a retirement plan, nor that you have health insurance.

Someone is going to be the world's super power.  Do you want it to be the good guys, or do you want it to be Putin.  Or, worse, do you want it to be Iran? Or North Korea? Or, even worse than that, some rogue terrorist organization.

Aggressors like Putin don't care about rules, they care about getting their way. Putin is salivating, says the writing on the wall, about rebuilding the Soviet Union, and the only way he will succeed is if the United States lets him.

Sure you might be unpopular to tell your friends that Putin looks like he's trying to re-create the old Soviet Union, which might cause a new cold war.  Surely Washington might not be popular in doing so either?  But isn't it better to err on the side of caution?

Further reading:

• Is the Kremlin rallying Russians for a new USSR-lite?