By
Philip GiraldiPrussian Major General Carl von Clausewitz
famously drew on his own experience in the Napoleonic Wars to examine
war as a political phenomenon. In his 1832 book “On War” he provided a
frequently quoted pithy summary of war versus peace, writing in terms of
politico-military strategy that “War is a mere continuation of politics
by other means.” In other words, war-making is a tool provided to
statesmen to achieve a nation’s political objectives when all else
fails.
One can reject
the ultimate amorality of Clausewitz’s thinking about war while also
recognizing that some nations have historically speaking exploited
war-making as a tool for physical expansion and the appropriation of
foreigners’ resources. As far back as the Roman Republic, the country’s
elected leaders doubled as heads of its consular armies, which were
expected to go out each spring to expand the imperium. More recently,
Britain notably engaged in almost constant colonial wars over the course
of centuries to establish what was to become history’s largest empire.
America’s
dominant neocons characteristically believe they have inherited the
mantle of empire and of the war powers that go hand-in-hand with that
attribute, but they have avoided other aspects of the transition in
turning the United States into a nation made and empowered by war. First
of all, what comes out the other end after one has initiated
hostilities with another country is unpredictable. Starting with Korea
and continuing with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq as well as other minor
operations in Latin America, Africa and Asia, American war-making has
brought nothing but grief on those on the receiving end with little
positive to show for the death, destruction and accumulated debt. Also
forgotten in the rush to use force is the raison d’etre to have
a federal national government at all, which is to bring tangible
benefit to the American people. There has been none of that since 9/11
and even before, while Washington’s hard-line stance on what has become a
proxy war against Russia over Ukraine promises more pain – perhaps
disastrously so – and no real gain.
If one has any
doubt that going to war has become the principal function of both
Democrats and Republicans in Washington, it is only necessary to
consider several stories that have appeared in the past several weeks.
The first comes from the Republican side, and it includes a possibly positive development. House Minority leader Republican Kevin McCarthy
warned two weeks ago that the GOP will not necessarily continue to
write a “blank check” for Ukraine if they obtain the House majority in
next month’s election, reflecting his party’s growing skepticism about
unlimited financial support for the corrupt regime in place in Kiev.
McCarthy explained
“I
think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going
to write a blank check to Ukraine. They just won’t do it. … It’s not a
free blank check.”
America’s
uncritical support for Ukraine, which has been a contrivance by the
White House and media since the fighting started, has led to a growing
number of Republicans, particularly some of those aligned with Donald
Trump’s “America First” approach, to challenge the need for massive
federal spending abroad at a time of record-high inflation at home.
Since Russia launched its invasion in February, Congress has approved
tens of billions in emergency security and humanitarian assistance for
Ukraine, while the Biden administration has shipped billions more worth
of weapons and equipment from military inventories, all done with only
limited or even no oversight of where the money and weapons are winding
up.
But, unfortunately, the GOP is far from unified on its approach to Ukraine-Russia. Congressman Liz Cheney demonstrated that her apple did not fall far from her father’s tree, taking some time off from trying to hang Donald Trump to denounce what she refers to as the “Putin wing of the Republican Party.” She put it this way:
“You
know, the Republican Party is the party of Reagan, the party that
essentially won the Cold War. And you look now at what I think is really
a growing Putin wing of the Republican Party.”
Cheney criticized
Fox News for “running propaganda” on the issue and in particular called
out Fox host Tucker Carlson as “the biggest propagandist for Putin on
that network… You really have to ask yourself, whose side is Fox on in
this battle? And how could it be that you have a wing of the Republican
Party that thinks that America would be standing with Putin as he
conducts that brutal invasion of Ukraine?”
Cheney notably
did not address the issue of how the war developed in the first place
because the US and UK preferred saber rattling to diplomacy with Moscow.
Or why the United States feels compelled to tip-toe to the brink of a
possible nuclear war over a foreign policy issue that is of no real
national interest to the American people. And where did she make her
comments? At the McCain Institute in Arizona. Yes, that’s a legacy of Senator John McCain another Republican who never saw a war he couldn’t enthusiastically support.
Both President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have confirmed that
the US is in with Ukraine until “victory” is obtained, whatever that is
supposed to mean, while other Administration officials have indicated
that the actual purpose of the fighting is to weaken Russia and remove
President Putin. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre
glibly spouted the party line when asked about McCarthy’s comments. She
thanked congressional leaders for bipartisan work to “support Ukraine
to defend itself from Russia’s war crimes and atrocities,” adding that
“We will continue to work with Congress and continue to monitor those
conversations on these efforts and support Ukraine as long as it takes.
We are going to keep that promise that we’re making to the brave
Ukrainians who are fighting every day, to fight for their freedom and
their democracy.”
Perhaps more bizarre than Cheney’s comments is the tale of a letter
that was prepared by thirty Democratic Party progressives urging US
support for negotiations to end the fighting in Ukraine. The letter was
prepared in June but not released until last week before being quickly
retracted under pressure on the following day. Pramila Jayapal,
who heads the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said it was retracted
because it “was being conflated with [the] comments” made by McCarthy
over his warning about budget cutting for Ukraine. Jayapal referred to
the letter as a “distraction,” but what she really meant was that her
group had no desire to make common cause with the Republicans over any
issue, including war and peace in an escalating conflict that is
manifestly pointless.
A clueless
Jayapal also took pains to contradict the message put out by her own
group, emphasizing that there has been no opposition to the
administration’s Ukraine policy from Democrats in Congress. She said
Democrats “have strongly and unanimously supported and voted for every
package of military, strategic, and economic assistance to the Ukrainian
people.” She doubled down on the White House message, affirming that
the war in Ukraine will only end with diplomacy after “a Ukrainian
victory.”
So basically,
anyone talking sense about Ukraine in Washington is being shut down by
forces within the political parties themselves working together with a
compliant national media that is mis-representing everything that is
taking place on the ground. It is a formula for tragedy as the Biden
administration has shown no sign of seeking diplomacy with Russia to end
the conflict despite the president’s recent surprising warning that the
world is now facing the highest risk of nuclear “Armageddon,” which he,
of course, blames on Putin. Given all of that, in my humble opinion a
government that is unable or unwilling to take reasonable steps to
protect its own citizens while also avoiding a possible nuclear
catastrophe that could end up engulfing the entire world is
fundamentally evil and has lost all legitimacy. It should recognize that
fact before submitting its resignation.