Press "Enter" to skip to content

ResCon1

Ukraine, Israel, and the National Security Myopia of Populist Republicans

Both Ukraine and Israel are key American allies who need and deserve U.S. military aid—now.

The inconsistency is head spinning. Populist “New Right” Republicans have rushed forward to voice their support for Israel after that country came under attack by Hamas, an Iranian proxy force based in Gaza.

Yet, with a straight face, these same populist Republicans say we must stop funding Ukraine.

Israel. v. Ukraine. Israel, you see, is an historic and democratic ally; but Ukraine is a corrupt country that, historically, has never been considered an American ally.

Israel is waging war against Hamas, a ragtag terrorist group with little real military capability. Ukraine, by contrast, is fighting Russia, a nuclear power that could well ignite “World War III.”

Continued military aid to Ukraine, moreover, would mean short-changing Israel of critical weapons systems and munitions, which are in short supply, and which, therefore, must not be diverted to Ukraine.

So argue the populist “New Right” Republicans.

Biden Funding Request. The issue has come to a head because President Biden Thursday gave an Oval Office address calling for $61.4 billion in new funding for Ukraine, $14.3 billion in new funding for Israel, and $7.4 billion in new funding for Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific.

Populist “New Right” Republicans have criticized Biden for lumping these funding requests together.

They want separate funding bills for all three countries or theaters of operation, but especially Ukraine, and the reason why is not hard to discern: They want to fund Israel and defund Ukraine.

This is wrongheaded, dangerous, and myopic.

The truth is that both Ukraine and Israel are key American allies who need and deserve U.S. military support—now. Both countries are being savagely and barbarically attacked by an axis of aligned countries that threaten vital U.S. national security interests.

Russia wants to drive the United States out of Europe, subsume Ukraine and the Baltic States, and bring Eastern Europe back under its heel.

Iran, meanwhile, wants to drive the United States out of the Middle East, destroy Israel, and become the region’s dominant, hegemonic power.

Russian and Iran are both opposed to the American-led, rules-based international order.

Iran uses Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic Jihad, and other proxy forces to wage war against Israel, America, and the West.

Russia uses the Wagner Group, other mercenary forces, and a conscript army to wage war against Ukraine, America, and the West.

Iran and Russia. Iran provides Russia with kamikaze suicide drones to destroy Ukraine and murder innocent Ukrainian civilians.

“Both of these heavily sanctioned pariah states depend on oil revenue to stay afloat. Global instability,” Jonah Goldberg observes, “keeps the petrodollars flowing.”

In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas massacre of 1,400 Israelis, “Russia said nothing… Putin then blamed Hamas’s atrocities on the United States,” Matthew Continetti reports.

Israel and Ukraine are different countries that face unique situations, but as far as the United States is concerned, “this is one war,” he writes.

There is more than enough evidence of a vast international effort to overturn the American-led post-World War II international system.

The rabid dogs tearing at the seams of world order are Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

Holding the leash is Communist China, whose leader Xi Jinping welcomed Vladimir Putin to Beijing the day before Biden touched down in the Holy Land.

Republicans who are serious about protecting the United States, and ensuring that we win and that our enemies lose, must recognize this reality. They must recognize that stopping Iran and protecting Israel necessarily means stopping Russia and protecting Ukraine.

To give one leg of this axis of evil a pass would mean that the other leg could still stand. Both legs must be opposed and taken out; otherwise, they will continue to give succor and support to each other.

Ukraine. Populist Republicans complain that Ukraine has not historically been an American ally. This is true, but so what?

Ukraine is now an American ally because of the crucible of war and necessity. And the same was true of South Korea at the onset of the Korean War in 1950.

South Korea had never been a great or historic American ally before the Communist North Korean invasion.

Yet, in the intervening decades, South Korea has become a key American ally in Asia. And the alliance between our two countries is now more important than ever, given the growing threat posed by Communist China.

Democratization. South Korea is instructive in another way, too. For decades, it was ruled by an authoritarian regime marred by corruption. Yet, over time, it democratized and became more open, transparent, and politically pluralistic.

Ukraine today is far more of a liberal democracy than South Korea was during the Korean War; and, with American and European help, it will continue to democratize in the years and decades to come.

As for a shortage of weapons systems and munitions needed to aid both Ukraine and Israel, this, too, is a false flag.

“For the most part,” reports the New York Times, “Ukraine and Israel are fighting different kinds of wars, and have different capabilities and needs, according to current and former U.S. national security and congressional officials.”

“There’ll be very little overlap between what we’re going to be giving Israel and what we give to Ukraine,” Michael J. Morell, former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said last week.

And, to the extent there is a shortage of weapons systems and munitions, this only underscores the need for a much larger and more robust American defense budget.

The United States currently spends less than three percent of its GDP on defense. “That’s only about half of the burden of defense spending that the U.S. shouldered during the final decade of the Cold War,” David Frum writes.

Finally, the fear of “World War III” from opposing Russia doesn’t make any sense. The United States, after all, opposed Russia for decades throughout the Cold War without igniting “World War III.”

In truth, appeasing Russia is more likely to ignite a larger-scale war. And while Hamas by itself may not have much military wherewithal or capability, it has to be been seen and understood as part of a larger-scale Iranian military force that is, indeed, threatening and worrisome.

The bottom line: American military aid to Ukraine is critical for precisely the same reasons that American military aid to Israel is critical: because both countries are key American allies fighting enemies of the United States, Russia and Iran, respectively.

Populist “New Right” Republicans who try to suggest otherwise just don’t get it and cannot be trusted with American national security.

Feature photo credit: Leaders of the Axis of Evil (L-R): former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, and Chinese Communist Party boss Xi Jinping, courtesy of the Century Foundation.

The Moral Myopia of Populist ‘New Right’ Republican Foreign Policy

Russia’s war on Ukraine was never about a “territorial dispute” between the two countries. Instead, it is a battle between good and evil; and, in that fight, America cannot be impartial or indifferent.

One of the most fallacious, disgraceful, and repugnant assertions made by some isolationists or anti-interventionists is that, when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, both countries are morally and ethically besmirched; and so, the United States should refrain from taking sides in their “territorial dispute.”

Of course, such moral equivalence has absolutely no basis in fact. It has been cut out of whole cloth by populist “New Right” Republicans eager to have America disengage from messy and bloody overseas conflicts.

Horrific Russian War Crimes. In truth, as anyone familiar with Russian history and Vladimir Putin well knows, Russia is a criminal state that has habitually committed horrific war crimes, and this is true in Ukraine today.

Indeed, Russia deliberately and routinely launches missile strikes against Ukrainian civilian population centers, schools and hospitals; pillages Ukrainian cities and homes; rapes Ukrainian women; tortures and executes Ukrainian men; and abducts and kidnaps Ukrainian children.

And these are not scarce or isolated incidents or the work of a few bad actors who have gone rogue. Instead, these horrific war crimes are widespread and the deliberative actions of a Russian state that has long seen barbarism and criminality as necessary instruments of war and statecraft. As Rich Lowry observes:

Where the Russian military goes, war crimes are sure to follow. It is a reflection of a twisted Russian political culture that has never developed an appreciation for individual worth, democratic accountability or humanitarian norms.

Vladimir Putin is not to be confused with Lenin or Stalin—he paints his horrors on a much smaller canvas. But his cold-eyed brutality is characteristically Russian…

What the Russian lacks in planning and proficiency, it makes up in barbarity and utter disregard for humanity. War is hell, but almost all advanced nations try to keep it within some bounds of decency. Russia is an outlier. For it, the cruelty is the point—and the reflexive practice.

The Associated Press reported in April that, according to Ukrainian Prosecutor General Andrea Kostin, “nearly 80,000 cases of war crimes have been registered in Ukraine since the war began in February 2022.”

Ukrainian military action against Russia is in no way comparable. The Ukrainian military does not rape, torture and pillage; it does not target schools and hospitals; and it does not employ terror as a weapon of war.

Instead, the Ukrainian military fights to liberate its country and to free its people of Russian tyranny.

The worst that can be said of Ukraine is that, after a year of horrific Russian war crimes, it began to launch retaliatory drone strikes against Russian airports and military infrastructure inside Russia. But none of these drone strikes compares in intensity or firepower to the horrific missile strikes launched by Russia against Ukrainian civilian targets.

False Moral Equivalence. Yet despite the sheer moral clarity of this war and the stark differences between Russia and Ukraine, populist “New Right” Republicans have tried to draw a moral equivalence between these two countries.

In practice, this has meant seizing upon any evidence that Ukraine might be anything but a pure and perfect liberal democracy; and arguing that the war between Russia and Ukraine stems from a messy “territorial dispute” that is of little interest to the United States.

In truth, Ukraine is a fledgling liberal democracy that aspires to be part of the West, and which fundamentally shares our liberal democratic values.

And we Americans should care about Ukraine because, as the world’s most powerful and influential nation, the United States has a preeminent interest in maintaining a liberal, rules-based international order. American economic preeminence, after all, depends on international trade and commerce, especially with Europe.

Moral clarity also is an integral part of American foreign policy. Countries and people the world over know that the United States does not covet land, territory, or people. They view us as an honest broker who can be trusted, more so than any other country, to be fair and just and to do the right thing.

Our moral standing, in fact, gives us tremendous leverage and influence, militarily and diplomatically. Which is why we mustn’t squander it by trying to pretend that Ukraine and Russia are equally culpable and blameworthy; and that Russia’s war on Ukraine is of little interest to the United States.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This war is fundamentally a battle between good and evil; and in that fight, America cannot be impartial or indifferent. This is, as Ronald Reagan once said, a time for choosing.

Feature photo credit: A Ukrainian civilian population center targeted and destroyed by the Russian military, courtesy of Alexander Ermochenko/Reuters, published in The Globe and Mail.

Did the First GOP Presidential Debate Winnow the Field?

Yes, and it looks like it will come down to Haley and DeSantis vying for the right to take on the former president. Let’s hope Haley prevails.

With Donald Trump in a commanding lead for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, the big question coming out of the first GOP presidential debate is: what does it portend for the winnowing of the field?

That question is important because the assumption by political analysts all along has been that to defeat Trump, you need to winnow down the anti-Trump field to one primary challenger. Otherwise, the anti-Trump vote will splinter, thus allowing the former president to prevail with only a plurality, and not a majority, of the vote.

2016. That’s what happened in 2016, and Republicans eager to move beyond Trump are deathly worried that it might happen again this year. As New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu explains:

While it’s true that Mr. Trump has an iron grip on more than 30 percent of the electorate, the other 60 percent or so is open to moving forward with a new nominee…

In both Iowa and New Hampshire, he is consistently polling in the low 40 percent range. The floor of his support may be high, but his ceiling is low…

Mr. Trump must face a smaller field. It is only then that his path to victory shrinks…

After the results from Iowa come in, it is paramount that the field must shrink, before the New Hampshire primary, to the top three or four…

Provided the field shrinks by Iowa and New Hampshire, Mr. Trump loses. He will always have his die-hard base, but the majority is up for grabs

So, with that in mind, did the first 2024 GOP presidential debate winnow the field, or is it more splintered than ever?

Byron York argues persuasively that field has been winnowed from 13 candidates to at least seven candidates and, more likely, five candidates.

Winnowing the Field. For starters, he notes, four candidates—Larry Elder, Perry Johnson, Francis Suarez, and Will Hurd—did not meet the debate’s minimal qualification standards and thus were no-shows. That leaves nine candidates.

Two candidates, Gov. Doug Burgum (R-North Dakota) and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, “used funding gimmics to meet the RNC’s donor requirements, and both made little impact on the debate.

“There’s really no reason for them to continue participating in the debates,” York notes. “So that is a nine-candidate field going down to a seven-candidate field.”

Former Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) may stay in the race for a while; however, it is clear that neither man can be nominated. Scott had a very weak debate performance and is not a compelling presidential candidate.

Pence had a strong debate performance, but “given Pence’s history as Trump’s vice president,” York writes, “he has no comfortable place in a race against the president he served.”

Final Five. That leaves five GOP presidential candidates: Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Florida), former Gov. Nikki Haley (R-South Carolina), former Gov. Chris Christie (R-New Jersey), Vivek Ramaswamy, and Trump.

Christie no doubt will leave the race in time for the anti-Trump vote to consolidate around a candidate who can deny Trump the nomination. Christie knows he is not that candidate and is committed to doing whatever it takes to defeat Trump, even if it means falling on his sword.

Vivek will not leave the race because is not running against Trump; he is running interference for Trump as the former president’s defender and blocking back.

That leaves DeSantis and Haley as the only viable candidates who can prevail against Trump. The danger is that neither of them will withdraw from the race; they will split the anti-Trump vote; and the former president will again win out with a plurality of the vote.

DeSantis won’t want to withdraw from the race because he has been the anti-Trump favorite all along, polling consistently a distant second to the former president.

DeSantis was underwhelming in the debate. His stellar record as governor, his superb management of the COVID crisis, and his fight against woke indoctrination in the schools have earned him GOP support; but he has been a weak, wooden, and uninspiring presidential candidate.

Haley, meanwhile, started out the race respectably, but did nothing to distinguish herself —until that is she literally lit it up in the debate.

“Voter interest in Nikki Haley is surging after the underdog presidential contender delivered a breakthrough performance during a combative Republican debate in Milwaukee,” write David Drucker, Audrey Fahlberg, and Steve Hayes in The Dispatch.

“We’ve raised more online in the last 24 hours than on any day since the campaign started,” says Haley’s campaign spokeswoman Olivia Perez-Cubas.

Haley’s surge in the race is, indeed, well deserved. She would be the Republican Party’s most formidable presidential candidate against Joe Biden or Kamala Harris and is far better positioned than DeSantis to take down Trump.

She is simply a better and more compelling candidate. And the fact that she is a woman is a decided political advantage, given the GOP’s gender gap and loss of suburban women if Trump is the nominee.

But will DeSantis recognize this and bow out gracefully, thus giving Haley a one-on-one matchup against Trump?

Probably not—unless and until Haley can best him in one or more primary contests.

Conclusion. As I say, DeSantis probably has too much invested in this race to cede the nomination to Haley. As the number two candidate in the polls for many months, he no doubt feels entitled to be the party’s anti-Trump candidate.

But if GOP voters reject him and embrace Haley instead, DeSantis may have no choice but to face the music and accept defeat. We’ll know soon enough.

The Iowa Caucuses are Jan. 15; New Hampshire voters go to the polls a couple of weeks later; the Nevada Caucuses are Feb. 8; and South Carolina renders its verdict Feb. 24. Stay tuned.

Feature photo credit: YouTube video screenshots of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.

Vivek Ramaswamy’s Dangerous and Demagogic Foreign Policy Views

The glib millennial would have the GOP abandon its commitment to international leadership, forsake Ukraine, and appease Putin. 

Thirty-eight-year-old Vivek Ramaswamy has never been elected to any political office—federal, state or local—and his half-baked ideas about America foreign policy show why he should be kept far away from the Oval Office.

Ramaswamy’s big idea is to turn Russia against China by ending American support for Ukraine, pledging that Ukraine will never become a member of NATO, and renewing economic ties with Moscow. This, he argues, is “a reverse maneuver of what Nixon accomplished with [Chinese dictator] Mao [Zedong] in 1972.”

Of course, Ramaswamy’s idea is ludicrous and unworkable: because despite whatever paper promises Russian dictator Vladimir Putin might make in order to fulfill his dream of conquering Ukraine, Russia and China today have strategic interests that coincide.

China and Russia. Both countries are opposed to the American-led, rules-based, liberal international order. And nothing America can do other than surrender, internationally, will appease or placate Putin’s Russia and Xi Jinping’s China.

By contrast, back in 1972, Mao’s China and Soviet Russia were already strategic adversaries that viewed each other with suspicion and alarm. The Sino-Soviet split had occurred more than a decade earlier, in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

“…Frequent border skirmishes between the Soviets and the Chinese verged on all-out war,” notes history.com.

The situation today, obviously, is very different. Russia and China have put their historic differences in the rearview mirror to combat what they see as the greater and more immediate threat: the United States. Hence their 2022 “no limits” partnership or pact.

In short, Ramaswamy’s big idea is a pipe dream. It will never happen—or, if it does happen, it will prove as endurable and prophetic as Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 pledge, “peace for our time.”

The cost and collateral damage, meanwhile, will be deep-seated and profound. Ramaswamy’s attempt to appease Putin and forsake Ukraine will rupture NATO and probably result in the alliance’s demise as frontline states in Eastern Europe and the Nordic region rebel and vow to go their own way.

As for Asia, Ramaswamy promises to “deter China from annexing Taiwan by shifting from strategic ambiguity to strategic clarity.” But appeasing Putin will alarm and frighten American allies in Asia, who, consequently,  will doubt the resolve, staying power, and commitment of the United States.

And with good reason. Ramaswamy says the United States should promise to defend Taiwan “until 2029 but not afterward.” By 2030, he argues,

we will have full semiconductor independence from Taiwan; significantly reduced economic independence on China; stronger relationships with India, Japan, and South Korea; and stronger U.S. homeland defense capabilities to protect against cyber, super-EMP, and nuclear attacks.

In other words, by 2030, America finally can withdraw, militarily and diplomatically, from Asia and Europe and revert back to fortress America, defense of the homeland, and protection of the Western Hemisphere.

Disaster. This would be a geo-strategic disaster for the United States. It would cede leadership of the world to China and Russia, who would now write the rules that other countries would be forced to follow and obey while America hid behind its phantom moat in the Western Hemisphere.

If we were living in 1723 or 1823, such an approach might be tenable. But it’s 2023. Americans are too engaged in the world, economically and commercially, to revert back to a foreign policy of fortress America.

Our economy, which depends heavily on international trade, will suffer in a world led and shaped by China and Russia, not the United States.

Demagoguery. Equally bad, Ramswamy engages in rank demagoguery to explain and defend his foreign policy of appeasement.

The Biden administration may be aiding Ukraine, he says, “to make good on a bribe from a nation whose state-affiliated company paid off the President’s son,” Hunter Biden.

Never mind the utter lack of evidence to support this nonsensical charge. And never mind that virtually all of Europe, too, has acted to aid Ukraine after it came under savage and unprovoked assault from Russia.

Ramaswamy also demagogically asserts that America must adopt his foreign policy of appeasement to avert “a potential nuclear war with Russia.” Never mind that, throughout the Cold War, the United States averted nuclear war precisely by checking and not appeasing Russian aggression.

The bottom line: Vivek is too naive, too inexperienced, and too gullible to trust with the reins of American power. He would surrender American international leadership to the likes of Xi and Putin. He would abandon and forsake our allies in Europe and Asia.

He would bring America home when Americans increasingly are going abroad. And he would revert back to a foreign policy of fortress America in a world in which isolated fortresses cannot long survive and prosper.

Simply put: Ramswamy’s dangerous and demagogic foreign policy views make him entirely unfit to be President of the United States.

Feature photo credit: YouTube screenshot courtesy of Fox News Sunday.

What the Korean War Can Teach Us about Ending Russia’s War on Ukraine

In Ukraine, President Biden is drawing exactly the wrong lessons from President Truman’s mishandling of the Korean War in 1951.

Opponents of American aid to Ukraine often tout the Korean War as a model for ending the war in Ukraine. The United States, it is argued, wisely refrained from “escalating” in Korea, instead signing an armistice that ended the conflict, thus allowing for a cold but endurable peace.

The Communists retained control of North Korea, but failed to achieve their objective of conquering all of Korea.

In the same way, argue the opponents of American aid to Ukraine, Russia should be allowed to retain control of Crimea, the Donbas, and other parts of southeastern Ukraine nominally or firmly in its control.

This will allow a free, sovereign, and independent Ukraine to coexist alongside Russian-occupied Ukraine—just as free, sovereign, and independent South Korea has coexisted for decades alongside Communist North Korea.

Then and only then, they insist, can the war end and peace be realized or achieved.

In fact, the Korean War is instructive to American policymakers, but not in the ways that opponents of American aid to Ukraine think.

The Korean War is an example of American self-deterrence that needlessly prolonged the war and the horrific human cost of that war. The United States eschewed a relatively quick victory for a bloody and prolonged stalemate or tie.

For this reason, the Korean War is a cautionary tale of what America should not do when aiding and abetting a country fighting for its survival against a tyrannical foe.

For starters, the war dragged on for three long, inconclusive, and interminable years in which American casualties mounted. Why? Because U.S. President Harry Truman refused to pursue victory out of a misguided fear of “escalation” and “World War III.”

Truman and Biden. Most historians today laud Truman’s caution and restraint in Korea—just as most observers today laud Biden’s caution and restraint in Ukraine. But Truman was wrong then and Biden is wrong today.

Truman is seen as wise because he is juxtaposed against U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who failed to anticipate the Chinese intervention in Korea, and whose insubordination and bellicosity subsequently resulted in his dismissal by Truman.

Biden, likewise, is seen as wise because he is juxtaposed against Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Putin and his henchmen often intimate that he might use nuclear weapons. Zelensky, meanwhile, is constantly beseeching Biden to send Ukraine more and more advanced weapons.

For this reason, Biden is often seen as wiser and more sober-minded than Putin and Zelensky. Truman, too, is typically remembered as more rational and level-headed than MacArthur.

Limited or Total War? But the choice between a prolonged war of indecision on the one hand and a global nuclear conflagration on the other hand is a silly and fallacious choice that did not exist then and does not exist now.

“Between the extremes of Truman’s restraint and the possibility of global war,” write Rep. Michael Gallagher (R-Wisconsin) and Aaron MacLean, “numerous options existed.

Truman’s decision to renounce nuclear threats and to restrict combat operations to Korea and its airspace prolonged the war and, paradoxically, extended the period in which it could have escalated.

In truth, shortly after MacArthur had been relieved of his command by Truman on Apr. 11, 1951, the United States was well on its way to routing the Chinese and North Koreans, reuniting the Korean peninsula, and ending the war with Korea wholly free and intact.

However, Truman and his military appointees on the Joint Chiefs of Staff put the kibosh on Lieutenant General James Van Fleet’s May 28, 1951, request “for a major offensive into North Korea to complete the destruction of the Chinese Armies,” reports Robert B. Bruce in Army History magazine (Winter 2012).

Instead of military victory, the United States pursued a negotiated solution in Korea and thus gave Communist forces a sanctuary in North Korea. As a result, the war dragged on for two more long years and at a horrific human cost.

In Ukraine, Biden, too, has called for a negotiated solution, while deliberately withholding from Ukraine advanced weapons—including, for instance, long-range precision artillery, tanks, jets, and aircraft, which would allow the Ukrainians to more quickly and aggressively attack Russian positions and drive Russian forces out of Ukraine.

Biden also has refused to use U.S. air and naval forces to safeguard the shipment of Ukrainian grain through the Black Sea. The reason: he fears “escalation” and “World War III.”

But in truth, Russia is exhausted militarily and is in no position to “escalate” its war on Ukraine.

Sure, Russia has nuclear weapons, but the use of tactical or battlefield nukes serves no military purpose and gives Russia no battlefield edge other than shock value.

Korea 1951. And the same was true of Chinese and North Korean forces in June 1951. They were exhausted, militarily, and did not even possess nuclear weapons. Russia, a North Korean ally and supporter, did have nuclear weapons, but in numbers dwarfed by the United States.

Moreover, although Russian leader Joseph Stalin conceived of the Korean War as a way to expand Communist influence and control, internationally, Russia was not directly involved in the Korean War and had no intention of becoming involved, as its focus was on Europe.

Ironically, as Gallagher and MacLean note, the Korean War ended only when former World War II Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected president (in 1952) and “contemplated and discussed the possibility of escalation, even approving the development of war plans that involved the use of nuclear weapons.”

Then, too, Stalin died on Mar. 5, 1953. This was significant because Stalin was the foremost obstacle to peace in Korea. He had “insisted that the war continue despite the misgivings of Chinese and North Korean leaders,” writes Mark Kramer.

Putin, likewise, is the foremost obstacle to peace in Ukraine. Thus his death, resulting in regime change in Russia, certainly would greatly enhance the prospects of a peace agreement.

The bottom line: President Truman’s mismanagement of the Korean War 72 years ago does, indeed, hold lessons for President Biden as he manages the war in Ukraine today. But those lessons teach Biden what not to do.

Unfortunately, our president is drawing the exact opposite conclusion and the result is a needlessly prolonged war of indecision at a horrific human cost to innocent Ukrainians.

One of the chief lessons of the Korean War is that the fear of “escalation” against a weak and exhausted military enemy is a catastrophic mistake. In truth, the risk of “escalation” rises if the war is allowed to drag on and the enemy is permitted to regroup.

Ditto “World War III”. That was not a realistic concern in 1951 and it is not a realistic concern today, in 2023. However, by allowing the North Korean regime to survive, Truman increased the risk of World War III significantly in the intervening decades.

Likewise, in Ukraine. If Russia is not clearly and explicitly defeated, militarily, and expelled from all of Ukraine, it will regroup and resume its fight in Ukraine at a later date when it is better prepared. “World War III” then becomes more likely.

In short, there is no substitute for victory and there is no reason not to pursue victory. That was true in Korea 1951 and it is true in Ukraine 2023.

Feature photo credit: President Biden (L), courtesy of the Associated Press and President Harry S. Truman (R), courtesy of Harry S. Truman Library and Museum, published in NPR.