Search Results for “Unlock Your Potential With Real Tableau TCA-C01 Exam Dumps 🐕 Open website ➠ www.pdfvce.com 🠰 and search for ▶ TCA-C01 ◀ for free download 😕TCA-C01 Test Duration” – Page 11

What if Trump Used His Twitter Feed to Wage War Against ISIS?

What if Trump Used His Twitter Feed to Wage War Against ISIS?

By John R Guardiano on February 18, 2020

Many critics, myself included, lament the fact that President Trump tweets so much. In truth, though, the problem is not that Trump tweets so much; it’s that so much of what he tweets is embarrassing, juvenile, and blatantly detrimental to his own political interests.

But just imagine, if you will, a president who had greater self-awareness, self-discipline, maturity, wisdom, savvy, and political smarts. Why, such a president could tweet regularly and often, but to much greater political effect. I thought about this when reading an excellent piece by Thomas Joscelyn in The Dispatch.

Joscelyn is a senior editor at the Long War Journal published by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. He notes that, according to fresh reporting by Martin Chulov and Mohammed Rasool in The Guadian, the Islamic State’s new leader is Amir Mohammed Abdul Rahman al-Mawli al-Salbi, also known as Haji Abdullah; and he is not an Arab, but an ethnic Turkmen.

Salbi (or Haji Abdullah) became the leader of ISIS after their previous leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, blew himself up in a U.S. military raid in late October 2019. And the fact that Salbi is not an Arab, but an ethnic Turkmen is a real problem for the Islamic State: because it calls into question Salbi’s legitimacy as a ruler in the eyes of the jihadists whom he’s supposed to lead and command.

Why is that? Because ISIS’s claim to legitimacy its based on the fact that its rulers supposedly descend from the Prophet Muhammad; but such a claim is dubious, Joscelyn points out, if in fact, Salbi is not an Arab.

An earlier leader of the Islamic State, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, had much the same problem, he notes.

Jihadist critics argued that no one really knew Abu Omar’s true identity or background, so it was absurd for anyone to declare their fealty to him. Bin Laden had to answer this charge in both his private correspondence and public statements.

There’s more to the story, but the point is that this could be a real problem for the current Islamic State, which split off from al-Qaeda. But thus far the U.S. and its allies have done little to exploit it.

“If the U.S. and its allies were adept at messaging—and, trust me,” Joscelyn writes, “they are not—this is the sort of apparent discrepancy that would be trumpeted far and wide as part of a counterterrorist media campaign.”

Internecine Jihadi War. This is a great and under-appreciated point. Internecine ideological disputes within the Jihadist ranks are intense and very real—and taken quite seriously by the Jihadists themselves. The United States should be doing everything that it possibly can to exploit these divisions and keep the Jihadists divided and at war with themselves.

This is especially important because, as Joscelyn observes, ISIS is not yet dead. Indeed, despite the loss of its territory, the terrorist group retains an estimated 14,000 to 18,000 combatants in Syria and Iraq combined, including “key veteran personnel” such as Haji Abdullah.

Haji Abdullah, in fact, “is a founding member of the Islamic State’s first incarnation, with his jihadist biography stretching back to the days of al-Qaeda in Iraq (circa 2003-04),” Joscelyn writes.

An American President who understood this (not President Trump, obviously) could use his Twitter feed smartly and wisely to wage war agains the Jihadists.

And there is no need for heavy propaganda or editorializing either. Simply tweeting out a link to this Guardian article, for instance, and mildly asking some fair and legitimate questions about the ISIS leader would do the trick.

Unfortunately, Trump would rather tweet in juvenile and idiotic fashion about what he last saw on Fox News or how he was wronged by the “Deep State.” But the problem is not Twitter, which, in the right hands, can be used well and to good effect. The problem is the man—or the adolescent in a man’s body—behind the tweet.

Feature photo credit: The Guardian

What Prigozhin’s Armed Rebellion Means for the Future of Russia and Ukraine

What Prigozhin’s Armed Rebellion Means for the Future of Russia and Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on June 26, 2023

Commentators routinely say we know nothing. In truth, we know a lot—about the role of NATO, the fear of “escalation,” and Putin’s likely successor.

The ramifications of Yevgeny Prigozhin’s aborted rebellion against the Russian military are still playing out and won’t be fully known for many weeks and possibly many months. However, the rebellion underscores or illuminates three key points of longstanding historical significance:

First, Putin’s war on Ukraine had nothing to do with NATO, NATO expansion, or phantom NATO threats to Russia.

Second, fears that Putin might “escalate” the conflict if the West somehow “provokes” him by fully arming Ukraine are misplaced and misguided.

Third, we can see the type of leader who might succeed Putin. The successor most likely will be an autocrat who is hostile to the West; but he also will be someone the West can tolerate or live with—provided Ukraine wins and Russia loses the war.

*******

First, Putin’s war on Ukraine had nothing to do with NATO, NATO expansion, or phantom NATO threats to Russia.

Many prominent observers have bought into this lie and it remains widely touted; but it was always a ruse used by Putin to try and legitimize his illegal and unprovoked war on Ukraine. Now, Prigozhin himself admits as much.

“The Armed Forces of Ukraine were not going to attack Russia with NATO,” Prigozhin admits in a video uploaded to Telegram Friday, June 23. “The war was needed for a bunch of scumbags to triumph and show how strong of an army they are.”

Prigozhin, reports the New York Times,

described his country’s invasion of Ukraine as a “racket” perpetrated by a corrupt elite chasing money and glory without concern for Russian lives. He also challenged the Kremlin’s claim that Kyiv had been on the verge of attacking Russian-backed separatist territory in Ukraine’s east when Russia invaded.

“The war wasn’t needed to return Russian citizens to our bosom, nor to demilitarize or denazify Ukraine,” Mr. Prigozhin said, referring to Mr. Putin’s initial justifications for the war. “The war was needed so that a bunch of animals could simply exult in glory.”

Second, fears that Putin might “escalate” the conflict if the West somehow “provokes” him by fully arming Ukraine are misguided and misplaced.

As we observed back in February, the Biden administration’s fear of “escalation” never made any sense. Russia has no real ability to “escalate,” militarily, and our objective ought to be to bring the war to a swift and decisive conclusion.

The real danger is a long, costly and drawn-out war or stalemate caused by American self-deterrence and our continued refusal to provide Ukraine with long-range precision weaponry, such as the the U.S. Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), and F-16 fighter jets.

This point has been underscored by Putin’s response to Prigozhin’s armed rebellion. As Michael McFaul points out:

Putin talked tough in his national address [June 24]. He sounded like someone preparing for a big fight. But when faced with the difficult decision of trying to stop Wagner mercenaries with major force, he backed down. In this game of chicken, we swerved off the road. He didn’t escalate. He didn’t need a face-saving off-ramp to declare victory.

When facing the possibility of really losing to Wagner mercenaries coming into Moscow, he instead capitulated. Rather than doubling down with overwhelming force to crush the mutiny, Putin accepted humiliation instead.

He was the rat trapped in the corner that so many Putinologists have told us to fear. But he didn’t lash out and go crazy. He didn’t take the riskier path of fighting a civil war. He negotiated…

The lesson for the war in Ukraine is clear. Putin is more likely to negotiate and end his war if he is losing on the battlefield, not when there is a stalemate.

Those who have argued that Ukraine must not attack Crimea for fear of triggering escalation must now reevaluate that hypothesis. The sooner Putin fears he is losing the war, the faster he will negotiate.

Third, we can see the type of leader who might succeed Putin. The successor most likely will be an autocrat who is hostile to the West; but he also will be someone the West can tolerate or live with—provided Ukraine wins and Russia loses the war.

No one has any illusions that a liberal reformer will emerge from the sewer of Russian politics. For the most part, the liberals have all fled the country. Russia, moreover, has no real liberal political tradition or history.

Even prominent dissident Alexei Navalny is a committed Russian nationalist, albeit, as Stephen Kotkin points out, “one who also says out loud that the war was a terrible idea and is hurting Russia.”

Navalny and Prigozhin, in fact, are two different types of nationalists who could could conceivably succeed Putin.

“…An authoritarian Russian nationalist who recognizes the war is a mistake and, whether fully intentionally or not, effectively ends the war, or at least the current active phase of it—that’s the one kind of person who could threaten [and succeed] Putin,” Kotkin explains.

This successor, he adds, would “recognize the separate existence of a Ukrainian nation and state”—not because he is a “good guy” or a liberal reformer, but simply because he bows to the political and military reality brought about by a war that his predecessor, Putin, and not he, foolishly started.

The bottom line: the role, or lack thereof, of NATO expansion in the run-up to the war; the significance, or lack thereof, of military “escalation” in the prosecution of the war; and the type of Russian ruler who succeeds Putin after the war—these three issues have all been brought into stark relief as a result of Prigozhin’s aborted rebellion against the Russian military.

Stay tuned. The best (or at least the most intriguing) is yet to come.

Feature photo credit: Russian dictator Vladimir Putin (L) and Wagner Group mercenary head Yevgeny Prigozhin (R), courtesy of the Toronto Star.

Why Does the West Embrace Ukraine, but Not Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan?

Why Does the West Embrace Ukraine, but Not Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan?

By John R Guardiano on April 9, 2022

Politics and culture, not race and ethnicity, explain why we in the West feel a real sense of kinship with Ukrainians.

Does racism or ethnocentrism explain why we in the West identify with Ukrainians to a far greater extent than we ever did Syrians, Afghans, or Iraqis? That’s what many commentators would have us believe.

“We care more about Ukraine because the victims are white,” declares Newsweek columnist Michael Shank.

“The alarm about a European, or civilized, or First World nation being invaded is a [racist] dog whistle to tell us we should care because they are like us,” argues Nikole-Hannah-Jones, founder of the hugely influential 1619 Project.

‘The coverage of Ukraine has revealed a pretty radical disparity in how human Ukrainians look and feel to Western media compared to their browner and blacker counterparts,” adds MSNBC host Joy Reed.

The Racial Prism. Of course, it is not surprising that American and European leftists have fabricated a racial angle through which to view Russia’s war on Ukraine and thereby bash the West.

The Left, after all, has a deep-seated antipathy for the West and has long used racism, real and imagined, as a cudgel to try and delegitimize the West.

As usual, though, they are wrong, because they conflate race and ethnicity with politics and culture. They mistake a distinctive Western outlook or attitude with a determinative racial identity.

But the truth is that the West is not defined by race; it is multiethnic and multiracial; and it includes people of all hues, complexions, and colors.

True, most Westerners are caucasian and Christian, and the determinative political and cultural ideas that gave rise to the West originated in Christian Europe.

But that does not mean—and historically, it has not meant—that only European Christians can be Westerners or Western in their outlook.

To the contrary: Israel, Japan and South Korea, for instance, must now be considered part of the West; and these countries have relatively few Christians and few Europeans. But their commitment to liberal democracy and democratic civic engagement places them squarely in the Western camp.

America, likewise, cannot be well understood or appreciated without acknowledging the important contributions to our nation’s history made by Jews and African Americans.

And so, while it is undeniably true that we in the West identify with Ukrainians to a far greater extent than we ever did Syrians, Afghans, or Iraqis, the reason for this has nothing to do with race and ethnicity and everything to do with politics and culture.

Indeed, it is not because Ukrainians “look like us,” but rather because they think and act like us, that we feel a sense of kinship with them.

Ukraine, after all, clearly yearns to be part of the West—something that could never be said about Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

That’s why Ukraine seeks membership in the European Union and NATO. And that’s why even Russian-speaking parts of Eastern Ukraine are manifestly anti-Russian and reject Putin’s attempt to subjugate their country within a new Russian empire.

Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, likewise, speaks in Churchillian tones, invokes Shakespeare, and cites critical milestones in American and Western history—Pearl Harbor, 9/11, World War II, Dunkirk, the Holocaust…

Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. No political leader in Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan ever spoke so movingly or so compellingly, or in with such fluency in the Western political and cultural lexicon.

And whereas Afghan President Ashram Ghani fled Afghanistan as the Taliban descended upon Kabul, Zelensky refused to leave Kyiv when the Russians invaded.

In other words, there are very clear and obvious reasons why we in the West feel a real sense of kinship with the people of Ukraine, and these reasons have absolutely nothing to do with race and ethnicity.

Instead, what we in the West identify with is the Ukrainians’ fighting spirit, their desire for freedom and independence, their will to win, and their desire to become part of our political and cultural patrimony.

Indeed, if the Ukrainians were all black or brown, African or Middle Eastern, and exhibited precisely the same Western outlook and behavior, we would feel the same sense of kinship with them that we do now.

Our bond with Ukraine has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Ukrainians “look like us” (meaning caucasian Americans and caucasian Europeans). This is a truly ludicrous and farcical notion that defies the empirical evidence which shows otherwise.

What draws us to Ukraine is the country’s political idealism, the Ukrainians’ manifest commitment to liberal democracy and civic engagement, and their overall (Western) cultural outlook. Race and ethnicity are obviously irrelevant.

Feature photo credit: The stark differences between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (L) and former Afghan President Ashram Ghani (R) go a long way toward explaining why the West has embraced Ukraine much more so than Afghanistan. Courtesy of Khaama Press.

Social Distancing, Yes; Mask Wearing, No.

Social Distancing, Yes; Mask Wearing, No.

By John R Guardiano on May 25, 2020

“The debate over whether Americans should wear face masks to control coronavirus transmission has been settled,” declares the New York Times‘ Knvul Sheikh. “Governments and businesses now require or at least recommend them in many public settings.”

Sheikh is right about the requirement or recommendation to wear masks in many public settings, but wrong about how the debate has been settled.

In truth, the masks do little or nothing to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, and actually cause real harm: by giving some people a false sense of security, thereby leading them to take fewer precautionary measures that actually do help stop or prevent the virus’s spread.

Social distancing, for instance, makes good public health sense. Yet, how many times have we seen people donned up in full mask-covering mode standing just inches away from a friend or colleague who is talking, gesticulating, or jointly texting on their phone?

I’ve seen this image many times. These people no doubt think they’re safe and doing the right thing because they are wearing a mask, but nothing could be further from the truth.

The mask, of course, does not protect the mask wearer. Instead, the mask theoretically protects other people from being the infected by the mask wearer if the mask wearer is an unknown or asymptomatic carrier of the coronavirus.

(A known or symptomatic carrier of the coronavirus would presumably be self-quarantined and not out and about in a public setting.)

I say theoretically because the logic or rationale behind the requirement to wear a mask depends on dubious assumptions that don’t stand up to practical, everyday scrutiny.

Makeshift Cloth Masks. First, the studies and analyses that say masks can prevent the spread of the coronavirus involve surgical masks. But most people aren’t wearing surgical masks. Instead, they’re wearing makeshift cloth masks, which are inherently subpar and leaky.

“Fabric masks also allow air in around the sides, but lack non-woven, moisture-repelling layers. They impede only about two percent of airflow in,” said May Chu, a clinical professor in epidemiology at the Colorado School of Public Health in an interview with LIveScience.

N95 surgical masks, reports Live Science, “effectively prevent viral spread [by filtering] out 95 percent of particles .03 microns or larger.”

However, because N95 surgical masks are in short supply, even for the medical professionals who most need them, and because they are difficult to properly wear or fit, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “does not recommend them for general use.”

As for airflow outward through a mask, whether surgical or nonsurgical, studies report marginal benefits at best.

“The evidence for the efficacy of surgical or homemade masks is limited, and masks aren’t the most important protection against the coronavirus,” LiveScience notes.

“To me, it’s not harmful to wear these masks, but it doesn’t look from this study, [April 3, 2020, in the journal Nature Medicine], like there is a whole lot of benefit,” said Rachel Jones, an associative professor of family and preventative medicine at the University of Utah…

The recommendations that everyone wear masks are because “any kind of impediment is better than nothing,” Chu said. But fabric masks are not expected to be as protective as surgical masks, she said…

“There’s been enough research done to be able to confidently say that masks wouldn’t be able to stop the spread of infection, that they would only have a small effect on transmission,” added Ben Cowling, head of the Divison of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the Hong Kong University.

“We shouldn’t be relying on masks to help us get back to normal.”

“Another April study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine,” writes Mark Siegel, a clinical professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health, “revealed that the force of sick patients’ coughs propelled droplets through both surgical masks as well as cloth masks.”

The CDC,” Siegel explains,

based its revised mask recommendation on studies that found asymptomatic spread was far more common than had been thought. But there have been no studies on masks’ effectiveness in preventing it [emphasis added].

Although the coronavirus is highly contagious, it is much less so than, say, measles, which can linger in the air for two hours after a cough. a sneeze or even speech.

By contrast, the Covid-19 virus has not been proved to be aerosolized. Coronaviruses often enter the body through the eyes, and frequent hand and face washing and social distancing is much more effective than masks at preventing that.

Moreover, as Sheikh acknowledges:

“Many people also wear masks incorrectly, letting them dangle off the tips of their noses, or concealing just their mouths.

People also tend to readjust face masks frequently, or remove them to communicate with others, which increases their risk of being exposed or infecting others, he said.

He is Dr. Eli Perencevich, an infectious disease physician at the University of Iowa and the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Dr. Perencevich recognizes the problems inherent with masks, which is why, as Sheikh reports, he advocates the use of face shields instead.

Face shields, unlike masks,

protect the entire face, including the eyes, and prevent people from touching their faces or inadvertently exposing themselves to the coronavirus.

Face shields may be easier to wear than masks, he said, comparing them with wearing glasses or a hat. They wrap around a small portion of a person’s forehead rather than covering more than half their face with material that can create the urge to itch.

Importantly, face shields are far more sanitary than masks, which are supposed to be disposed of or regularly washed, but often aren’t. Indeed, mucus and germs can and do accumulate on the mask, thus putting the wearer at risk of other viral infections.

“The nice thing about face shields,” by contrast, “is that they can be resterilized and cleaned by the user, so they’re reusable indefinitely until some component breaks or cracks,” Dr. Yu said. A simple alcohol wipe or rinse with soap and hot water is all it takes for the shields to be contaminant-free again.

Dr. Yu, Sheikh notes, is a dermatology resident affiliated with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Siegel agrees: face shields make a lot more sense than masks. “When I worked on a coronavirus ward, I felt much safer because I also wore a plastic face shield, which blocks viral particles from even reaching the mask,” he writes.

Science Says. But my point here is not to argue for face shields instead of masks. My point is that people who (often self-righteously) insist we wear masks do so not because the science impels them to. They do so because it makes them feel good.

In truth, the science behind mask wearing is weak and lacking. The science behind social distancing, hand washing, and good hygienic practice, by contrast, is strong and compelling.

Which is why I avoid wearing a mask whenever I can while still practicing social distancing. The latter makes individual and public health sense; the former does not.

Feature photo credit: The Catholic Weekly.

The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis Is No Template for 2022 Ukraine

The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis Is No Template for 2022 Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on September 23, 2022

Pretending otherwise will result in NATO negotiating with itself, appeasing Putin, and abandoning Ukraine.

Washington Post foreign policy columnist David Ignatius thinks the 1962 Cuban missile crisis might offer clues on how President Biden can simultaneously achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives in Ukraine, while also giving Russian dictator Vladimir Putin an “off-ramp,”or some “face-saving way out” of his dire predicament.

Ignatius, of course, is rightly concerned about Putin’s threat to use tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons. However, the historical template that he cites is misplaced and decidedly unhelpful.

Simply put, 2022 Ukraine is not 1962 Cuba, and pretending that it might be will lead President Biden and other policymakers astray.

For starters, Russian missiles in Cuba were a direct threat to the American homeland. Which means they were an existential threat to the United States. Tactical or battlefield nukes in Ukraine, by contrast, do not threaten the American homeland. Nor do they threaten any NATO country.

Russian tactical nukes do threaten Ukraine, obviously. But pretending that they spell worldwide armageddon is hyperbolic and untrue.

Second, when Russia deployed nukes in Cuba, the West had reason to believe it was facing a formidable military and economic power. No one has any such illusions about Russia today.

As the Financial Times notes, “the Russian economy is not globally significant, though individual sectors such as oil and gas do matter.” The Russian military, meanwhile, has show itself in Ukraine to be utterly incompetent and incapable of waging war, and it now teeters on the verge of collapse.

Russia does have the world’s largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, and that is, indeed, worrisome. However, Russia never has launched a nuclear strike against a NATO country because it knows that would result in an immediate retaliatory strike against Moscow.

Deterrence worked throughout the Cold War and deterrence will work today—if President Biden and other NATO leaders do not waver and remain resolved and determined.

Third, in 1962 Cuba, Russian dictator Nikita Khrushchev was looking for an off-ramp. In 2022 Ukraine, by contrast, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, clearly is not—something Ignatius himself admits.

Instead, by word and by deed, Putin has demonstrated that he interested in gobbling up as much of Ukraine as he possibly can now, while husbanding his resources for its complete subjugation later.

Given this reality, it is beyond futile to try and give Putin something he clearly does not want. We end up negotiating not with Putin, but with ourselves. This results in more self-defeating self-deterrence and appeasement.

Fourth, 1962 Cuba was a communist territory firmly ensconced in the Soviet orbit. 2022 Ukraine, by contrast, is a Western democracy valiantly and heroically seeking to free itself of Russian domination or attempted Russian domination.

For this reason, it arguably made sense for President Kennedy to pledge (as he did) that the United States would not invade Cuba or intervene in Cuban internal affairs in exchange for the removal of Russian missiles there.

But given the very different status of Ukraine today, any substantive concession that the United States or NATO pledges to Russia re: Ukraine will result in the unconscionable abandonment of that country and its people. This is and ought to be a nonstarter.

Ukraine’s entry into the EU and NATO, for instance, is more necessary and inevitable now than it was before the Russian invasion.

Fifth, like many observers, Ignatius laments Ukraine’s determination to defeat Russia on the battlefield and drive Russia out of all of Ukrainian territory. He laments this because Ignatius would like to see Ukraine give Putin something Russian can crow about and call a victory. That, after all, would make a “face-saving compromise” possible.

But the only thing a “face-saving compromise” can possibly mean is giving some Ukrainian territory to Russia and abandoning millions of Ukrainians to the tender mercies of Russian rule and domination.

Given all that we know about Russian rule, this is truly unconscionable and wrong. It also violates a fundamental principle, the territorial integrity of nations, that underlies the international order.

The danger of rewarding Russian military aggression should be obvious. The precedent established will inevitably result in other countries (China perhaps) unilaterally using military might to redraw the world’s national boundaries and territorial claims.

Sixth, Ignatius suggests that Ukraine is still poised to lose to Russia. He says that Ukraine “needs a reality check about its longer-term battlefield prospects”

This is a remarkable statement. It might have made sense back in February, when Western intelligence estimated that the Ukrainian Army would quickly crumble, Kyiv would fall within days, Zelensky would flee the country, and Russian rule would be established.

In fact, as we now know, nothing of the sort happened. In fact, the opposite has happened. David has heroically beaten back Goliath. And David might well defeat Goliath if America and NATO stop slow-walking their delivery of aid to the Ukrainian military out of an utterly misplaced fear of “provoking” or “cornering” Putin.

“Despite the large quantities [of military aid] flowing to Ukraine,” writes Eliot A. Cohen,

the fact remains that it is not enough, and that the logistical system can handle more…

Some capable countries, [i.e., Germany], are unwilling to give at scale…

Most other countries, including the United States, continue to refrain from the level of industrial mobilization necessary. It is too much business as usual…

Some of the hesitancy, too, has stemmed from a patronizing wariness about Ukrainian capabilities. Yet if we have learned anything in this war, it is that the Ukrainians, smart and driven as they are, can absorb even the most advanced systems fast, and exploit them shrewdly.

At this point, they know more about high-intensity warfare than we do.

Exactly. There is a time and a place to negotiate and to try and offer one’s adversary an “off-ramp” or a “face-saving way out.” That worked in 1962 Cuba. It will not work in 2022 Ukraine. The differences between these two times and places are too stark, and pretending that they’re not will lead President Biden and other policymakers astray.

What America and NATO must now do is accelerate their military aid to Ukraine to ensure Russia’s utter and abject defeat.

At the same time, the West must ensure that Russia is under no illusions. Russian use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine will result in the swift demise of the Russian military there via conventional NATO military means.

Then and only then can a real and lasting peace be achieved.

Feature photo credit: Russian dictators Vladimir Putin (2022) and Nikita Khrushchev (1962), courtesy of the The Telegraph.

The ‘America First’ Case for Victory in Ukraine

The ‘America First’ Case for Victory in Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on February 26, 2023

Neither Ukraine nor the United States should settle for anything less than the complete expulsion of each and every last Russian from all of Ukraine.

If, like Andrew C. McCarthy, you think that Russian annexation of some portion of Ukraine is inevitable, then it makes some sense to argue (as he does) that “the sooner that happens, the better…” The war, after all, is horrific and costly—in lives lost, dollars consumed, and weapons destroyed.

But virtually every military analyst of note disagrees with McCarthy. They look at this past year of war and conclude, contra McCarthy, that, if adequately armed in a quick and timely fashion, Ukraine can, indeed, drive Russia out of all of Ukraine (Crimea included) by the end of this year.

“Ukraine is fully capable of defeating Russia’s unprovoked war of aggression and eliminating Russia’s military ability to conquer Ukraine,” writes Mason Clark.

A satisfactory end to the war—a lasting conclusion that will secure Ukrainian territory and sovereignty and harden Ukraine against future Russian aggression—is achievable with sustained and substantial Western support.

Ukraine can fully liberate their country “if we get the proper weapons to them on time,” adds retired Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the successful “surge” in Iraq.

Cost. McCarthy’s constrained and distorted vision of a successful end state in Ukraine is reinforced by his understandable concern about the cost of the war for the United States.

According to U.S. estimates, the tab for Ukraine aid so far is $113 billion; the Zelensky regime, factoring in assurances it says it have been given, says the total is more like $196 billion.

Are we willing to pay that much annually for another two or five or eight years? If so, what are we prepared to cut to persist in that level of aid? If we’re not prepared to cut anything, is the plan to have our children and grandchildren pay the freight?

Some $100 billion to $200 billion is, indeed, a lot of money, but McCarthy never asks three crucial questions:

what are we getting for our money;
how do these vast sums of money compare with the overall defense budget; and
how will American money spent today in Ukraine affect future U.S. defense expenditures in Europe and Asia?

These questions are crucial because they provide context, perspective, and understanding for dollars figures which are otherwise meaningless.

Russia. McCarthy acknowledges that Russia is an enemy of the United States. That is obviously and demonstrably true. He also points out that “it is not in America’s vital interests to be drawn into a war with Russia over Ukraine…”

McCarthy means a hot or shooting war involving American troops or American-operated weapons systems: because America long ago was “draw into a war with Russia over Ukraine.”

Americans aren’t fighting that war; Ukrainians are. But make no mistake: we are “drawn in” and involved in a big way: through the provision of weapons systems and armaments, battlefield intelligence, and military training.

A direct war with Russia obviously ought to be avoided. A direct war with any country ought to be avoided if at all possible. But McCarthy and other critics overstate and hype the danger of a direct conflict involving American and Russian forces.

The Russian military, after all, has shown itself to be utterly incompetent and incapable of waging a combined arms offensive. And tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons give the Russians no military benefit or advantage in Ukraine.

Ditto strategic nuclear weapons, which would risk the destruction of Moscow—a risk Putin and his fellow apparatchiks haven’t taken and won’t take, since it is wildly disproportionate to what is at stake in Ukraine.

America v. Russia. We should also remember that the only time in recent memory when American and Russian forces squared off was in Syria back in 2018.

Then Secretary of Defense James Mattis ordered the Wagner Group mercenaries “annihilated.” And so they were: without any real difficulty or trouble by a vastly superior American military force.

Did this precipitate “World War III”? No, of course not. The Russians realized they what they were up against and wisely stood down.

For this reason, it is highly doubtful that, had America established a “no-fly zone” in Ukraine to stop Russian war crimes and prevent innocent Ukrainian civilians from being slaughtered, Russia would have had any recourse other than to accept it.

The Russian Air Force, after all, by and large has been a non-factor in this conflict.

Benefits. In any case, here is how Gen. Keane and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas)Gen. Keane and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) answer the first two key questions—”what are we getting for our money” and “how do these vast sums of money compare with the overall defense budget”—re: American aid to Ukraine:

With just over $30 billion in U.S. security assistance, which is about 3% of the U.S. defense budget, Ukraine has crippled the military of America’s second-greatest adversary without placing a single U.S. servicemember in harm’s way.

That is a fairly good return on our investment. To complain, as McCarthy does, that it costs too much is to ignore crucial clarifying context and perspective, as well as the clear and obvious benefit to the United Staters of crippling the Russian military in Ukraine.

McCarthy also ignores the cost of appeasement, while discounting the financial rewards of a Ukrainian victory. Like the Biden administration, McCarthy says that “Putin is not winning,” and that that is a good enough outcome for the United States.

But “not winning” is not synonymous with “losing” or “lost.” And unless and until Russia is shown, conclusively, to have lost in Ukraine, Putin will simply spin any annexation of Ukrainian territory as a win, husband his resources, rebuild Russia’s military, and plan for his next attack on Ukraine.

This point is made well by National Review in its editorial against which McCarthy rails:

It’s true that the continued provision of assistance to Ukraine has added to our already-strained government finances, but we should remember that there will be no peace dividend in the event of a Russian victory, only further and ruinously expensive geopolitical destabilization…

In victory, a vindicated, hungry Russia would look to capitalize on its conquest. It would rebuild and reconstitute its military, financed on the profits of a petrofuel-based economy freed from the restraints of Western sanctions, the lifting of which would of course be a precondition for a Russian-accepted peace deal.

In one or two or five years’ time, there would be further Russian provocations, more Kremlin claims on disputed border lands, more chances for Putin’s little green men to ply their trade inside the frontiers of Russia’s neighbors.

Conversely, a humiliated and defeated Russia, chastened by its resounding defeat in Ukraine, would have no choice but to look inward and set about the long and arduous task of rebuilding their country. And Putin himself likely would not survive such a defeat.

To be sure, given Russia’s decrepit political culture, Russia may not get a better ruler or dictator; but it almost certainly would get a more realistic and accommodating dictator, and that would benefit America and the West.

As for Ukraine, McCarthy and other critics fear that it will become a costly American dependent.

But Ukraine will require billions of dollars in American aid for many years to come regardless of whether we see them through to victory or force them to give up territory to Russia. However, it will be far less costly for the West if the Russian threat has been crushed and stymied for a generation.

McCarthy and other critics also discount the tremendous benefits to the United States of a Ukrainian victory. The reality is that Ukraine can and should aspire to be the Israel of Eastern Europe—and not just militarily, but economically and technologically.

Like Israel, Ukraine almost certainly will be a military force to be reckoned with. Battle hardened and on edge always because of the Russian threat, Ukraine almost certainly will be NATO’s tip of the spear, thus relieving the United States of an otherwise heavy military burden.

And, if they embrace free market reforms, Ukraine has demonstrated that it has the capacity to become an economic and technological powerhouse, just as Israel has become. In this way, Ukraine will help to keep the peace in Europe, while the United States focuses on Asia and the growing threat from China.

China. Finally, McCarthy discounts the notion that China would draw inspiration from a protected stalemate in Ukraine, given the strong level of U.S. and allied support there. But again, “not losing” is not synonymous with “winning” or “won.”

Nothing succeeds like success. Countries follow the strong or successful horse.

A Ukrainian victory over Russia made possible by steadfast American support is a powerful deterrent to China because its demonstrates that the United States plays to win. Settling for a prolonged stalemate that Russia can plausibly spin as a win signals a lack of resolve and staying power.

The bottom line: McCarthy and other critics of American aid to Ukraine want to see the war end sooner rather than later. Supporters of Ukraine and the Ukrainians themselves feel the same way. This war is horrific and costly. But the way to end the war is to quickly and adequately arm Ukraine so that they can drive each and every last Russian out of their country.

McCarthy and his fellow editors at National Review to the contrary notwithstanding, this is achievable and within a matter of months, not years—but only if the Biden administration overcomes its misguided fear of “escalation” and accelerates the delivery of much-needed weapon systems to Ukraine.

American Interests. McCarthy and other critics also say that U.S. foreign policy should be focused on protecting American interests, not Ukrainian interests. But right now, this is a distinction without a difference.

Russia is, as National Review acknowledges, “an implacable foe of the United States and the international order.” And so, a Russian defeat there serves the interests of both countries, and the sooner the better.

Feature photo credit: “Ukrainian soldiers take part in a training exercise some 10 kilometers away from the border with Russia and Belarus in the northern Ukrainian region of Chernihiv,” Feb. 2, 2023, Kyodo via AP Images, courtesy of the Harvard Gazette.

Trump and NSC Adviser Robert O’Brien Launch New Smear Against Vindman

Trump and NSC Adviser Robert O’Brien Launch New Smear Against Vindman

By John R Guardiano on February 11, 2020

Trump and his National Security Adviser, Robert O’Brien, dug an even deeper hole for themselves today by continuing to focus public attention on the president’s quest for revenge over impeachment, and by continuing to defame the good name of one Alexander Vindman, Lieutenant Colonel, United States Army.

Trump spoke about Vindman and other matters during an impromptu talk with reporters after a bill signing in the Oval Office. He repeated the same demonstrably false charges against Vindman that we debunked here at ResCon1 yesterday and then added:

[He] did a lot of bad things. So we sent him [Vindman] on his way to a much different location, and the military can handle him any way they want. Gen. Milley has him now. I congratulate Gen. Milley. He can have him, and his brother also…”

When asked whether Vindman should face disciplinary action, Trump said: “That’s going to be up to the military; we’ll have to see. But if you look at what happened, they’re going to, certainly, I would imagine, take a look at that.”

This led to a flurry of news headlines like this one in Politico: “Trump says military may consider disciplinary action against Vindman.”

Later in the day, in a Q&A before the Atlantic Council, O’Brien chimed in with this gem: “We’re not a banana republic where lieutenant colonels get together and decide what the policy is.”

Margaret Brennan, the host of CBS News’ Face the Nation, then reportedly challenged O’Brien. Is that what you think happened? she asked. O’Brien said no, he was just making the point that that’s not how U.S. policy is made, tweeted Ali Rogin, a reporter with the PBS News Hour.

In other words, O’Brien first smeared Vindman, then says he doesn’t believe the smear. He’s just making the point that people who defend Vindman have a distorted or warped understanding of how public policy is made in the United States.

They (we) think that “a group of lieutenant colonels” (or other National Security Council bureaucrats) get to override the commander-in-chief and make public policy. But that’s not how it’s done. The United States, after all, is not a “banana republic.”

False Talking Point. This has become a favorite talking point of Trump apologists Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham: the notion that Vindman and other NSC staffers (“bureaucrats”) tried to superimpose their will over that of the president.

As these apologists tell it, the real wrong was not Trump’s phone call to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, but rather the effort by Vindman and other bureaucrats to falsely malign Trump simply because they did not like his policy, which they viewed as straying from their prepared talking points. But the president gets to make policy, not the bureaucrats! cry Hannity and Ingraham.

Nice try, but no cigar. Obviously the president (and Congress) decide U.S. foreign policy. No one—including Vindman—disputes that. That’s never been at issue.

Indeed, Vindman did not raise concerns about Trump’s phone call because he disagreed with Trump’s policy, or the policy of the U.S. government vis-a-vis Ukraine. To the contrary: he was an enthusiastic supporter and executor of that policy.

Instead, he raised concerns because it appeared to him that Trump was demanding that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent (Joe Biden), and because he believed that such a demand would undermine stated and long-standing U.S. foreign policy.

Vindman had a solemn obligation, both as a U.S. citizen and as a U.S. military officer, to raise those concerns with his chain of command, which he did. Yet, in typical Trumpian fashion, O’Brien nonetheless smears Vindman with an utterly false charge.

Banana Republic. O’Brien is, however, absolutely right about America not being a banana republic. This means that the president, even Trump, does not have dictatorial power. He is restrained (or at least should be restrained) by the Constitution, Congress, and the rule of law. Yet, O’Brien and other Trump lackeys seem not to fully appreciate this.

As for disciplinary action against Vindman because he testified before Congress after being subpoenaed, it won’t happen. The U.S. military is far more professional than the president.

The Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, have stated publicly that Vindman will be protected from retribution “or anything like that.” “We protect all of our people [and have] already addressed that in policy and [through] other means,” Esper said.

In fact, to anyone who knows anything about the U.S. military, the notion that Vindman would suffer retribution is ludicrous. Senior military leaders fully recognize and appreciate the political perils and landmines that accompany service on the National Security Council.

They also recognize and appreciate that Trump is, to put it mildly, a completely unique and unusual president. Thus Vindman’s service will not be held against him. To the contrary: it will be recognized for what it was: exceptional, especially considering how politicized national security decision-making had become under pressure from Trump and Rudy Giuliani.

Thus it has been publicly announced that after a brief tour at the Pentagon, Vindman will be attending the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

But what does this sordid incident say about the Commander-in-Chief when he suggests that a U.S. military officer should be punished for testifying, truthfully and dispassionately, before Congress?

What does it say about his understanding of the men and women whom he’s entrusted to lead? What does it say about his understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law? And what does it portend for our future as a free and self-governing people?

Feature photo credit: The Hindu.

DeSantis Should Triangulate Between Biden and Trump re: Ukraine

DeSantis Should Triangulate Between Biden and Trump re: Ukraine

By John R Guardiano on February 19, 2023

Biden is pushing for a long, drawn-out tie. Trump would effect a quick Russian win. DeSantis should argue for a swift Ukrainian victory.

Nikki Haley’s entry into the 2024 presidential race has raised anew the question of how Ukraine will figure in the Republican presidential primary.

More specifically, how should Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, the clear and dominant frontrunner in the race, approach the issue of Ukraine, given the conspicuous rise of isolationist or non-interventionist Republicans led by one, Donald J. Trump?

Haley has positioned herself as a hawk firmly in synch with the Reagan Republican tradition of peace through strength and military aid to freedom fighters willing to bear arms for their own freedom and against America’s enemies.

Trump, meanwhile, has gone soft and limp. He would, he says, force Ukraine and Russia to negotiate and thereby end the war “within 24 hours.” Cutting off, or cutting back on, American military aid to Ukraine, he argues, would help force the two countries to negotiate “peace.”

Of course, the resultant “peace” would be a frozen conflict in which Russia retains significant chunks of Ukrainian territory while rearming and preparing for the day when it can reignite the conflict and conquer all of Ukraine. This is the “peace” that Putin wants and hopes for.

DeSantis wisely has not spoken out about Ukraine. Unlike Trump and unlike Haley, he has a full-time job as governor of America’s third-most populous state, Florida. And he was just reelected governor there by the biggest margin statewide in 40 years, and by the biggest margin ever for a Florida Republican gubernatorial candidate.

The people of Florida expect him to do the job to which he was just reelected and Ukraine, obviously, is out of his lane as governor.

However, when DeSantis does announce later this year that he is running for president, the war in Ukraine most likely will be raging still and with no end in sight thanks to Biden’s slow walking of aid to Ukraine. And DeSantis no longer will be able to ignore the issue. He will have to take a stand that is bound to be controversial with some GOP voters.

Here’s what I think DeSantis should do and will do: He should triangulate between Biden and Trump. He should say that both men have bad and dangerous ideas re: Ukraine.

Biden, as Sen. Tom Cotton has observed,

has dragged his feet all along, hesitating fearfully to send the Ukrainians the weapons and intelligence they need to win.

Today, Mr. Biden stubbornly refuses to provide fighter jets, cluster munitions and long-range missiles to Ukraine. As a result of Mr. Biden’s half-measures, Ukraine has only half-succeeded.

Trump, meanwhile, wants to effectively pull the rug out from under Ukraine and thereby give Putin a victory. But neither approach serves the American national interest.

The United States, DeSantis should say, does not want a long, drawn-out war that kills countless Ukrainians while consuming vast amounts of American money and scarce military resources. Yet that is what Biden’s dithering and delay has wrought.

Nor does America want a Russian victory that will create a new zone of war and conflict in Europe. Yet that is what Trump’s call for “negotiations” and an “immediate” end to the war will inevitably bring about.

Instead, Americans want, and America needs, a swift and decisive Ukrainian victory, which is possible with real presidential leadership. DeSantis will provide this leadership and thereby quickly end the war, but on terms favorable to the American national interest. He will, finally, put “America First” in Ukraine.

Politics. Will this work politically in today’s Republican Party? I believe that it will. Most Republicans, and certainly most GOP primary voters, are not isolationists or anti-interventionists. However, they are opposed to long, drawn-out wars with no end in sight.

As they see it, the problem in Ukraine is that Biden doesn’t have a strategy for winning. Instead, he’s committed to half-measures for “as long as it takes”—and “as long as it takes” suggests another interminable, decades-long “forever war.” No thanks.

Fortunately, the war in Ukraine doesn’t have to end that way. There is a real and viable alternative waiting to happen but for a lack of presidential leadership.

As a former Navy JAG attorney who saw service in “The Surge” in Iraq (2007), DeSantis surely understands this. He knows war in a way that Donald Trump never has and never will. (Trump received five military draft deferments to avoid service in the Vietnam War.)

GOP primary voters will respond well to a candidate who unapologetically puts American interests first and pledges to swiftly and successfully end the war in Ukraine by ensuring Russia loses. Such an approach will distinguish DeSantis from his main primary opponent, Donald Trump, and also his likely general election opponent, Joe Biden.

Triangulating between Trump and Biden on Ukraine and on other issues (Social Security, Medicare, and entitlements, for instance, where Trump wants to do nothing and Biden wants only to raise taxes) will allow DeSantis to crush Trump in the primaries while simultaneously appealing to centrists and independents in the general election.

Nikki Haley is pioneering this approach, but it will be a winning strategy for Ron DeSantis.

Feature photo credit: Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, former President Trump, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis are all vying for the 2024 Republican Party presidential nomination, courtesy of Newsweek.

In the Fight Against the Coronavirus, Cuomo and Trump Show the Difference Between Style and Substance

In the Fight Against the Coronavirus, Cuomo and Trump Show the Difference Between Style and Substance

By John R Guardiano on May 9, 2020

When assessing how well our political leaders are doing and their job performance, it is important to look beyond the rhetoric to examine actual policies and real-world results.

Sometimes, political leaders who speak or behave poorly do a surprisingly good job, while political leaders who speak and behave in a more suave and polished fashion implement bad and disastrous policies.

Yet, if we focus simply on rhetoric and demeanor, and not policies and results, we miss what is most important. We elevate style over substance. We deprecate rhetorically challenged leaders with good records, while lauding silver-tongued politicos with bad records.

This is, of course, precisely backward. Results should matter more than rhetoric.

President Trump, obviously, is a political leader who is, to put it charitably, rhetorically challenged. His public pronouncements, especially his tweets, are often juvenile, embarrassing, and subliterate. Yet, his record as president is far better than his rhetoric would suggest.

Until the coronavirus pandemic hit, the U.S. economy was doing remarkably well, with record low unemployment, renewed economic growth, and a booming stock market.

The United States had avoided any major foreign policy crises, while adopting a more realistic approach toward China. Trump’s two Supreme Court appointments are superb, as are most of his federal court nominations.

Yes, Trump was pathetically slow to recognize the gravity of the coronavirus, largely because he was too trusting of China’s communist dictator, Xi Jinping. And his daily press briefings have been too often depressing, unenlightening, uninformative, and uninspiring.

This is not at all what we Americans want or expect from our president during a national crisis that is unprecedented in any of our lifetimes.

Still, despite his rhetorical weakness and tardiness, Trump has taken strong and decisive action to combat the coronavirus, and these politics have worked. The virus has been contained, and the worst predictions—two million dead, rationed care, a lack of ventilators, et al.—were never realized.

And—this is important—the worst predictions were never realized because of Trump administration policies.

The supply of ventilators to our nation’s hospitals is the most compelling case in point. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo spent most of March eloquently speechifying about how his state needed an additional 30,000 ventilators. Otherwise, he ominously warned, some patients who urgently need ventilators might be denied ventilators.

Trump was heavily criticized by his Democratic and media opponents for supposedly failing to deliver these ventilators.

Yet, behind the scenes, his administration was working diligently and creatively to ensure that ventilator production was ramped-up; and that ventilators were distributed in real-time, on an as-needed basis, nationwide to ensure that all patients were covered and cared for—and that exactly what happened.

In the end, no patient who ever needed a ventilator was ever denied a ventilator; and New York ended up donating ventilators to other states that needed them.

Of course, Trump never really explained this to the American people because he is so rhetorically weak and challenged. But his record of success here is impressive and undeniable.

Cuomo. Now, compare that to silver-tongued Andrew Cuomo, who speaks, acts and behaves like a political leader should during a time of national crisis. We here at ResCon1 have praised Cuomo for his leadership.

We even have suggested that, because of his performance during the coronavirus pandemic, Cuomo, and not Joe Biden, should be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.

This is all true. However, it is also true that, despite his rhetorical gifts and undeniable leadership, Cuomo’s record during this crisis is suspect and deserves serious criticism.

Ventilators. Specifically, Cuomo and his health commissioner, Dr. Howard Zucker, issued an edict Mar. 25 that required nursing homes “to admit or readmit recovering COVID-19 patients—despite openly acknowledging that the elderly are among the most vulnerable,” reports the New York Post.

The unsurprising result: “The coronavirus’ suspected death toll among New York’s nursing home residents exploded by an additional 1,700 fatalities.”

“COVID-19 complications have killed 4,813 residents of nursing homes and adult-care facilities—and that doesn’t include those who died in hospitals,” notes the Post’s editorial board.

“Known nursing deaths represent 25 percent of all deaths in the state,” adds Post columnist Michael Goodwin.

This is disgraceful precisely because these deaths were so predictable and avoidable. They resulted from a disastrous policy that Cuomo forced upon New York’s nursing homes.

“To them [the nursing homes],” explains Goodwin, Cuomo’s “March 25 order was a death sentence. Some facilities say they had no deaths or even positive patients before that date, but many of both since, including among staff members.”

New York’s nursing homes, reports the Post, “were clearly unprepared for the pandemic, lacking infection control protocols, sufficient personal protective equipment and tests to properly identify residents and staff infected with the virus.”

Rhetoric. Cuomo, of course, has tried to talk his way out of responsibility for this fiasco; and, truth be told, he is a much better talker than Trump. But rhetoric, no matter how eloquent and compelling, can conceal undeniable and indisputable truths.

And the truth is that Cuomo’s stupid and ill-advised policy re: nursing home admissions caused thousands of needless coronavirus deaths.

Yet, Cuomo’s more polished public persona and soothing rhetoric has had one beneficial effect, at least for him: It has spared him much media criticism that otherwise should be coming his way.

Trump, by contrast, has been the object of withering media criticism despite averting similarly bad outcomes and policy disasters.

The reason for this discrepancy, of course, is that Trump is, as they say, rough around the edges. He speaks poorly, shoots from the hip, vents his spleen, is prone to public displays of anger and frustration, and in general, behaves impulsively and acts out of pique.

What Matters. It would be much better for Trump and for the nation if he were more polished and disciplined; but at 73 years old, Trump is who he is. He won’t ever change.

We, however, can change our national focus and our national obsession. Instead of giving undue credence to Trump’s every utterance and solitary tweet, let’s focus more on his administration’s policies, record, and results.

And let’s do the same for his Democratic political opponents. That would result in a fairer and more balanced assessment of the Trump administration, as well as its possible successor or replacement.

Feature photo credit: New York Post.

Why Deploying the Active-Duty Military to America’s Cities Is a Reasonable Idea

Why Deploying the Active-Duty Military to America’s Cities Is a Reasonable Idea

By John R Guardiano on June 7, 2020

The critics—including former Defense Secretary James Mattis—have it precisely backward: Deploying the U.S. military for domestic security missions is all about protecting our Constitutional rights and liberties.

There has been a lot of elite Sturm und Drang over President Trump’s announcement last week that he would deploy the active-duty military forces to restore “law and order” in American cities torn asunder by violent rioting and looting.

Eighty-nine former defense officials, for instance, have published a piece in the Washington Post saying they “are alarmed at how the president is betraying [his] oath [of office] by threatening to order members of the U.S. military to violate the rights of their fellow Americans.”

“President Trump has given governors a stark choice,” they insist: “either end the protests that continue to demand equal justice under our laws, or expect that he will send active-duty military units into their states.”

Of course, Trump does not express himself well. He is a poor communicator who often uses awkward terminology and cringe-inducing rhetoric.

But the idea that he wishes to employ the military to violate the Constitutional rights of peaceably assembling, law-abiding Americans is ludicrous. You have to be a blinkered anti-Trump zealot to believe that the president is somehow conspiring to use the military to squelch dissent.

There is absolutely no evidence for this fervid, far-fetched proposition. It reflects the lurid imaginations of anti-Trump partisans, not objective, empirical reality.

Averting Violence. The truth, in fact, is quite the opposite: the rationale for deploying active-duty military forces is precisely to protect the Constitutional rights of peaceably assembling Americans from what Sen. Tom Cotton has righty called “nihilist criminals and cadres of left-wing radicals like Antifa.”

These criminals and radicals, Cotton explains, have marred the protests with an “orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic.”

This orgy of violence seems to have abated somewhat in the past couple of days; however, rioting and looting is still a real and omnipresent problem. Indeed, as the New York Post reports:

“Violence has been used multiple times during what could have been and what should have been peaceful protests,” [NYPD Commissioner Dermot] Shea said at a live-streamed press conference Thursday evening

[…]

There have been 292 members of the force who suffered injuries as some of the demonstrations have seen violent clashes, cops said.

As of June 3, according to the Forbes, at least 12 people have been killed and hundreds of others injured in the protests, including a black federal police officer in Oakland, California; a retired black police captain in St. Louis; and a former Indiana University football player and local business owner who is also black.

“Four police officers were shot in downtown St. Louis early Tuesday, [June 2, 2020], as a day of peaceful protests turned into a violent and destructive night in the city,” reports the St. Louis Post Dispatch.

In Las Vegas, reports the Daily Beast,

an officer responding to a looting incident was reportedly shot in the head early Tuesday, [June 2, 2020], after exchanging gunfire with an angry mob, according to several Nevada news sources.

County Sheriff Joe Lombardo told the Las Vegas Review Journal that the officer survived. “He is in extremely critical condition on life support,” Lombardo said “This is a sad night for our LVMPD family and a tragic night for our community.”

Mad Dog Mattis. Yet, in the face of these facts—this incontrovertible empirical evidence—the former Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, declared:

We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.

With all due respect to Secretary Mattis, this is ludicrous and nonsensical. Of course we have to be “distracted” or concerned about the reportedly small number of lawbreakers wreaking havoc in our nation’s cities.

Why? Precisely because they threaten the safety and well-being of the “thousands of people of conscience” Mattis rightly says we need to protect.

Moreover, as Pat Buchanan observes:

In Mattis’ statement, one finds not a word of sympathy or support for the police bearing the brunt of mob brutality for defending the communities they serve, while defending the constitutional right of the protesters to curse them as racist and rogue cops.

Trump Derangement Syndrome. I understand why Mattis doesn’t like Trump. His disdain for the president he once served is completely legitimate and understandable.

But Mattis’ failure to understand that violent thugs who threaten to kill the innocent need to be identified and stopped—and by deadly force if necessary—is wrong, inexcusable and unconscionable. Just because Trump proposes something doesn’t make it wrong, dangerous, and unconstitutional.

Too many people—including Mattis and the aforementioned 89 former defense officials—have allowed their disdain for Trump to cloud their judgment and analysis.

In truth, as Ross Douthat has explained, while Trump may well have authoritarian instincts,

real political authority, the power to rule and not just to survive, is something that Donald Trump conspicuously does not seem to want.

Executive Protection. Trump’s critics can and do point to one instance where it can be argued Trump may have tried to infringe upon the Constitutional rights of the protesters.

But that instance—outside of the White House, June 1, as Trump and his team walked to the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church, which had been attacked and burned the night before—is the exception that proves the rule.

Trump’s decision to walk to the church apparently was not well communicated to the Secret Service, U.S. Park Service, and other federal law enforcement agencies. These agencies had to act quickly, therefore, to ensure the president’s safety. And ensuring the president’s safety, remember, is their job.

As the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney points out:

If Trump knew he was going to do this [walk from the White House to the church], he could have had the Secret Service set up the barricade further out before the evening protests got crowded. Then, there would have been no shoving or smoke grenades needed.

Instead, as WUSA 9 reports, “pepper balls and smoke canisters, which irritate the eyes and throat and cause coughing, [were used] to disperse the protesters.”

This is unfortunate. But given the circumstances—the need to ensure the president’s safety at a time when violent riots and looting were taking place nationwide, and police and innocent bystanders were being killed as a result—these actions are understandable and hardly constitute a gratuitous assault on First Amendment rights.

Indeed, the incident resulted from a lack of planning and coordination, and not because of any Machiavellian plot to betray the Constitution.

Historical Precedent. In truth, as even the 89 aforementioned defense officials acknowledge: “several past presidents have called on our armed services to provide additional aid to law enforcement in times of national crisis—among them Ulysses S. Grant, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson.”

Eisenhower, Cotton notes, federalized the the Arkansas National Guard and called in the 101st Airborne Division to protect the civil rights of black school children during a time of integration.

Were the active-duty military to be deployed domestically to American cities torn asunder by violent rioting and looting, they would, likewise, be protecting basic civil rights—namely, the Constitutionally protected right to peaceably assemble without fear of bodily harm, injury or death.

That is a wholly legitimate use of the Armed Forces of the United States.

It won’t happen. Trump already has ordered the National Guard to leave Washington, D.C.; the states and mayors don’t want active-duty military units; and the protests seem to have turned more peaceful and less violent in recent days.

Plus: there may well be prudential and political arguments against using active-duty military units to restore peace, safety and the rule of law to America’s cities. However, the notion that doing so is an unprecedented attack on Constitutional liberties is simply absurd and completely untrue.

Active-Duty Military. Some critics, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), complain that the active-duty military is untrained and unprepared for law enforcement work; but this, too, is untrue.

In fact, we have military police units that are specifically trained to perform law enforcement functions, including riot and crowd control. The idea that U.S military personnel are trained only to shoot and kill is not something that anyone familiar with the U.S. military would ever say or suggest.

It’s certainly not something that anyone familiar with the U.S. military mission in Kosovo (1990’s), Iraq or Afghanistan (2000’s) would every say or suggest, since these missions involved peacekeeping, stability and law enforcement operations to a very considerable extent.

The bottom line: use of the U.S. military to safeguard important Constitutional rights is not some lunatic-fringe idea that poses an inherent threat to American democracy.

To the contrary: there is ample historical precedent for this idea, and it can be wise public policy. The U.S. military is trained, ready and prepared for such a mission regardless of who is president.

Donald Trump has nothing to do with it.

Feature photo credit: Police Chief magazine.