Money in Politics

We are now in the final 30 days of campaigning before the mid-term elections. This is the so-called "silly season." It is so-called by the pundits and professionals who actually earn their livings covering politics. It says something about a person that he or she spends most of his or her time on "silly" things. It also says something that the "professionals" covering our elections view them as silly.

Elections are not silly everywhere. Take Scotland, for example. There was 87% turn out for the Scottish independence vote. The Scots didn't declare war on Britain, and Britain did not try to occupy Scotland to prevent them from voting. No one sent their special forces to pro-British regions to stir up trouble and try to create a counter-separatist movement. Military checkpoints were not set up, artillery pieces were not deployed and passenger jets were not shot down. Scotland ultimately voted to remain a part of the U.K., but in the process they demonstrated to the world how democracy can resolve strong political, cultural, and sectarian disputes.

Our politics and politicians, of course, earn a failing grade on the use of democracy to resolve differences. In fact, as I've pointed out before, our politicians choose to use the democratic process to divide us as a nation. It is roundly accepted that they use "silly" tactics to accomplish this insidious goal, and at some point the reasonable electorate just checks out. 

http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/09/how-language-of-division-conceals-truth.html

One of the reasons our democracy is facing so many domestic challenges is the incessant influence peddling that dominates the landscape. Leadership has become a product of "who you know" rather than "what you know." While some would argue that this has always been the case, when a premium is not placed on competence, you more often than not wind up with incompetence at the helm. Incompetence leads to poor decision making which leads to poor results. Poor results are suffered most by those with the least influence - wash, rinse, repeat.

Influence is primarily peddled using money. It is true that powerful people trade favors more often than money, but if anyone else wants in the game, they have to get out the checkbook. Consider this:

1.  $37 million dollars has been spent in the Kentucky race for Senate against Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell. 

2.  $31 million dollars has been spent to unseat former comedian, yes comedian, Al Franken.

3.  Even an open seat in the House of Representatives averages $7 million.

4.  Many analysts believe that the next Presidential race will cost more than double the last one, which was approximately $2.6 billion dollars.

5.  The numbers above do not include PAC spending...

Now, consider for a moment what all of this money is being spent on. In most races, somewhere between 60 and 85% is being spent on negative advertising. In other words, most of the money is being spent on attacking an opponent, not promoting one's own positive political agenda. Of course, part of the reason for this is that very few politicians actually have a positive political agenda. Most electoral politics have been reduced to "I'm not with that guy" in years the President is unpopular and "I'm just like that guy" when the President is doing well in the polls. 

It is impossible to believe that once a politician gets into office that he or she will not be at least partially influenced by the very donors that put them there. And no one really believes that. Instead, we are resigned to just accepting that we will be ruled by the elite until something gives. Among the many problems with our acceptance of this is that we have real problems to solve that will require competent leadership. Our foreign policy, for example, is in shambles but it is not an easy fix. It will require competent people on both sides of the aisle, to the extent they are there, to exchange ideas, debate strategies and ultimately work together with the President to craft a reasonable and consistent set of policies. The same can be said for our national debt, our loss of manufacturing jobs, our anemic economy, and the vast majority of problems that face the ordinary American family.

This is not to say that all politicians are bad or incompetent. There are good people who do work to make a real difference, but they are few and far between. If they dominated the landscape, we would not be facing the challenges we face, or at least the situation would not be so dire. In our own lives, we all know those people at work who have gotten ahead by having friends and knowing people. It's an old story, but most of us also know that the organization will fail without competent people working behind the scenes, without recognition, to advance our common goals.

America is not too big to fail.

Reality Check

Now that we have actually gone to war in the Middle East, our leaders and pundits are finally considering the concerns many of us raised months ago. For example, you can read (or re-read) my own deep, longstanding misgivings about waging another war in the Middle East.

http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-5-reasons-isis-will-win-iraq_30.html

http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/06/why-we-lost-iraq.html

http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/07/how-democracy-fails.html

http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/08/airstrikes-will-not-change-fate-of-iraq.html

http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-legitimate-use-of-force.html

http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-greater-of-two-evils-gathering.html

http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/09/why-defeating-isis-may-not-be-in-our.html

http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/09/four-observations-on-obamas-isis-speech.html

While I do not claim to have a monopoly on right answers, you could say that I've at least been keeping up...

We should all be deeply concerned about this new conflict. Already, we are seeing signs of mission creep. Remember, there were not going to be any "boots on the ground." Now, even the President's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is saying that we cannot ultimately defeat ISIS without American boots on the ground. Likewise, you cannot find a political commentator who believes that we have a coherent strategy for "ultimately defeating" ISIS. The same commentators who were in lockstep in the march to war, all beating the same drum, now have "concerns" that "maybe" we will fail - incidentally, for all the same reasons many ordinary Americans identified months ago. (See above).

I find that unacceptable. We are at war and, like it or not, we will have American soldiers fighting that war, on the ground, for a decade. I promise you. The only time both our political parties can get together on anything is to commit folly. This war will be case in point, and it is time for a reality check. Let me just summarize:

1.  We will not win using airpower alone. They will run away and hide, wait us out, and then reemerge when we stop the bombing.

2.  Middle Eastern boots on the ground will add to the chaos and not actually stop the violence. This is a sectarian war. While today we can support the non-ISIS sect, tomorrow we will be appalled by their extermination of other sects. Iraqis have proven once that they do not want to fight ISIS, and they will prove it again.

3.  This will not be cheap. It will cost us another trillion or so to wage another decade of war.

4.  This will not stop terrorism. While we are busy fighting ISIS, there is no shortage of Islamic extremists that want to blow us up. Even if we defeat ISIS, there will continue to be a significant threat.

5.  We will tire or bore of fighting because our leaders will drag this out for as long as possible. We won World War II in  four years. We can't defeat a bunch of savages in the Middle East in ten. We lack the will as a nation to exterminate the enemy, either because we don't really view them as an existential threat, or we have lost the stomach for violence. Something tells me it's the former. Why should ISIS be any different...

6.  If we win, we will have aided Iran, who incidentally wants to nuke Israel while chanting "Death to America." We will eventually have to go to war with them too.

7.  There still will not be democracy in the Middle East. We can just give up that fantasy. Democracy is dependent on  the dogmatic preservation of individual rights. That is not a native concept in the Middle East and never will be unless we spend 50 years occupying the region and guaranteeing those rights through the use of military force.

8.  We will lose soldiers. This last point cannot be overstated. We will have soldiers killed, captured and beheaded, tortured, and humiliated on international television. This will not be a bloodless war. We better be prepared to deal with the consequences when, inevitably, our Congress uniformly agrees that we need American "boots on the ground."

Lest anyone be confused, I am not against war, especially in the defense of women and children who are being crucified by a bunch of savages in the desert. I am, however, against poorly conceived, poorly planned, and poorly executed wars. This has all the markings of such an engagement. Our leadership is late to the party and has hastily crafted a limited and preliminary plan to fight to a stalemate. Generally, haste, significant limitations, and stalemates are not good in war...

The Failure of the NFL's Zero Tolerance Policy

In the wake of the Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson domestic violence scandals, the NFL is considering the implementation of a "zero tolerance" policy. One instance of domestic violence and you are finished, your career is over, and you're pumping gas back in your hometown. It is good that we are having this discussion. It is good that the nation is focused on a very painful issue. But the NFL and the sycophant sports writers that cover it are not the best equipped to lead that discussion.

Ray Rice was caught on video clocking his then fiancé in an elevator. They were having an argument, apparently they were both drunk, and he slammed her head into the elevator wall. She went unconscious. He then dragged her out of the elevator like a sack of potatoes. The NFL originally only suspended Rice for two games. Then, after a loud public outcry, the NFL permanently banned him from the sport. They triumphantly claimed that they had "sent a message."

Rice, sitting next to his now wife, told the press that he was cooperating with the investigation and attempted to answer questions about that night. He is attempting, through the player's union, to get reinstated, but who knows how successful he'll be. In the meantime, he isn't getting paid.

Journalists and former players across the nation celebrated Rice's dismissal with comments like "hit him where it hurts - in his wallet," and "get these guys off the field, take it away," "that's the only thing these guys respect." 

Adrian Peterson's case is more attenuated. He spanked his son with a switch, leaving marks that didn't show up until days later. He has been under investigation for child abuse for several months and, when asked why he used a switch, he said, simply, that's what his dad used on him and if he hadn't, Peterson would've grown into a gangbanger.

Therein lies the problem. Abuse is a cycle. It is not a disciplinary problem with the abuser so much as it is a failure to be aware of the behavior coupled with a strong desire to perpetuate the cycle. I am not in any way excusing the abuser. There is no excuse for the conduct, period. I am, however, pointing out that it is a more complicated problem to solve than, for example, steroid use, and the NFL simply isn't qualified.

For example, consider the law of unintended consequences, which the NFL obviously did not. Firing a man for beating his wife will do nothing to stop that man from abusing his wife. "Zero tolerance" will do nothing more than encourage the victims of abuse to be silent. Why was Rice's wife sitting next to him at the press conference? Because she's about to go from wife of a multimillionaire to wife of a gas-pumper. The "message" the NFL just sent was heard loud and clear - by the wives of every NFL player. Are you suffering in silence? Were you thinking about raising the issue of your husband's abuse? Were you going to leave him? Well don't, because you will lose your sole source of financial support - permanently. 

Anyone who has ever worked with the victims of abuse, especially women, know that this is a significant concern that keeps her in the relationship much longer than she would otherwise. When she does finally leave, she already has to fight for financial support for herself and her children in addition to living in fear that the abuser will hunt her down. If the NFL's zero tolerance policy were applied by every company in America, the abused spouse and her children would be left not only fighting the abuse, but also fighting ever worse poverty. And it's not like the abuser suddenly ends the abuse either.

"Zero tolerance" is nothing more than an excuse to avoid exercising good judgment. The NFL, who makes billions off of these players, wants to wash their hands of the embarrassing ones, you know, so not to damage the pristine image they want to present to the public. Most companies in America don't work that way. Most companies would require the employee to attend some form of employer assisted counseling, and then follow up to make sure the counseling was effective. Most companies actually consider the family, not just the employee, when determining what action to take. Most companies and human resource personnel know that the problem of domestic violence is more complicated than steroid use, and that there are many more considerations that go into exercising good judgment and providing substantive help to the victims.

We can only hope that the NFL's zero tolerance policy will apply to the owners as well, but something tells me I shouldn't hold by breath.

Four Observations on Obama's ISIS Speech

Last night, President Obama addressed the nation to discuss the growing threat posed by ISIS. In the speech, he laid out a four part strategy, involving the use of airpower and U.S. military "advisors"; supporting Kurdish and Iraqi boots on the ground; and expanded counterterrorism efforts specifically targeting ISIS funding. Almost nothing he said in the main body of his speech was new or unexpected. Here are four quick observations. 

1.  Our strategy is entirely dependent on others.

The President rightly pointed out that airpower alone will not defeat ISIS. The President also made it very clear, however, there will be no American ground forces engaged in combat operations. Instead, we will be relying on Kurdish and Iraqi "boots on the ground" to coordinate with our airpower to defeat the enemy. In effect, we have ceded control over the success or failure of the mission to poorly trained, poorly equipped foreign fighters whose own objectives are more limited than ours. 

Our objective is to wage a sustained global war on ISIS. The Kurds, as brave as they are, cannot wage a global, or even a regional war. They have no broad territorial ambitions. When they have secured their own region of Iraq, they will be less willing to support U.S. efforts elsewhere. The Iraqi  army ran away as soon as ISIS began shooting the first time, leaving behind huge caches of American weapons for ISIS to steal. As I said in my last article, to believe that they will suddenly morph into Navy Seals and charge into battle to defeat ISIS is beyond naive. It is reckless.

This strategy has been tried before and has failed before. We provided South Vietnam with "advisors" in an effort to coordinate our air power with South Vietnamese ground forces. Eventually we had to commit huge numbers of our own men to the battle and the Vietnam war was on. When we "withdrew," South Vietnam fell within months because, ultimately, they did not have the will to fight and defeat the communist north.

Fast forward to Afghanistan. We committed special forces to coordinate with the Northern Alliance, using our air power to defeat the Taliban. Our efforts were initially successful but, as is usually the case, the enemy regrouped, launched a counter-attack, and we were forced to commit significant additional forces to hold our gains. When we withdraw at the end of this year, the Taliban will be back in power, unrestrained.

2.  ISIS is in fact Islamic and a state.

One of President Obama's most forceful points was that ISIS is neither "Islamic" nor is it a "state." While I agree with his hopeful sentiments, he is plainly wrong. It would be completely wrong to paint all Muslims in the world with the same broad brush. It would be completely wrong to paint all Muslims in the Middle East with the same broad brush. That does not mean, however, that we are obligated to go door to door and separate the radicals from the moderates before going to war.

Radical, violent Islamic terrorists make up a small minority of Muslims the same way that only a small minority of Germans were members of the Nazi party. Very few Italians were fascists. Nevertheless, World War II was waged against all Germans and Italians, whether or not they were active supporters of their fascist governments. The allies made no effort to distinguish those who were complacent bystanders from their leadership. It would have been impractical to do so and ultimately would have hampered the war effort.

Such is the case here. It is the complacency of the silent majority of Muslims in the Middle East that has at least in part enabled the radicals to continue to wage war. If the moderate Muslims and moderate states in the region are not willing to take the fight to ISIS, then we should make them responsible for the consequences. 

3.  There was no mention of the border.

As DHS reported yesterday, ISIS is actively pursuing strategies to import Jihadis into the United States across the Mexican border. The open border remains the greatest threat to the national security of this country, and President Obama failed to mention it in his speech. There is a war going on between terrorists and our nation. One of the fronts in that war is our homeland, as was proven on 9/11. Allowing the border to remain open is the equivalent of inviting our enemies behind the lines and into our tent. It is the one weakness they can exploit to gain a decisive victory.

4.  President Obama surrendered to Putin in a side note.

 In a surreal moment, the President said, as a side note, that he "stood up to Russian aggression" in the Ukraine. That point was laughable, but what he said next was extraordinary. He went on to tout America's support of the "Ukrainian people's right of self-determination." Until last night, the only people who had been talking about Ukrainian "self-determination" were Putin and his allies in Eastern Ukraine. Ukrainian self-determination was decided hundreds of years ago and renewed at the end of the Cold War. The current discussion about "self-determination" is centered on whether Russian speaking Ukrainians are entitled to secede from the country and join Russia. They are fighting a war over that very issue right now, and Ukraine is losing. 

I'll write more on Putin's victory in a couple of days, but suffice it to say that President Obama is surrendering Eastern Ukraine to Putin. The next step in Putin's strategy is to gain "self-determination" for the east, through "elections," and then allow the new state to join Russia. The United States and its NATO allies should have resisted these efforts, not condoned them. The President certainly did not need to telegraph our surrender of Eastern Ukraine to Russia in a speech about ISIS.

How the Language of Division Conceals the Truth

It is election season and, for most Americans, it is no longer something that is celebrated. All the flags, the fireworks and the parades of Independence Day give way to the negative ads, vicious personal attacks and hyperbole. It is unfortunate that in the greatest nation on Earth, we feel so collectively defeated as election day approaches. Our government is polling at historic lows. Our leaders seem more out of touch than at any other time in recent memory. Generations of Americans look back instead of forward, wondering where genuine leadership found its final resting place.

Many modern analysts dismiss our dismay as a simple case of the grass being greener on the other side. They argue that, historically, our leaders have always been self-serving, corrupt, and divisive. I don't think that is the case, but even if it is, our collective discontent with government effectiveness is at least more pronounced now than ever before. Part of the problem is that government is a much larger part of our lives now than it was in the past. Sixty years ago, for example, government was half  its current size, reaching only a fraction of our lives. Taxes were as certain as death, but the DMV, EPA, and local ordinance nazis were nothing more than minor inconveniences that rarely, if ever, touched our lives. Most people were free to pursue their daily lives in peace, never burdened by the long reach of government. Regulatory agencies were too small to assault our daily lives, focused instead on curbing the obvious problems.

In today's world one is touched by government from the minute they wake in the morning until they retire for the evening. Then, government watches over us while we sleep, regulating the lightbulbs with which we light our children's rooms, the refrigerators in which we keep their milk, and the temperatures at which we keep their rooms. We walk out a regulated door, and get into a regulated car, to drive down the regulated street to our regulated workplace. We do our regulated jobs, accept our regulated pay and return to our regulated homes in our regulated neighborhoods. Our obsession with promoting the general welfare has supplanted our natural desire to take personal responsibility for our lives and be free.

And therein lies the problem for our incumbent politicians. A government that regulates every aspect of life best do it effectively. If a person demands to take responsibility for your life and then fails to do it well, that person will eventually be held to account. The problem we have as a nation is that rather than refusing to allow the incompetent governess to continue governing our lives, we simply shrug her off for a "more promising governor." We are then disappointed with the result. 

Today's politicians have a much more difficult task now than has been historically the case. He or she has taken responsibility for being everything to everybody, knowing that the task is impossible. Enter the language of division. Impossible government necessarily gives way to division, pitting one group against another in an effort to gain maximum reach. The divisions themselves are meaningless. Sometimes it is black against white, sometimes it is rich against poor, sometimes it is some seemingly crucial social issue. In the end, it is just a tool used by the governors to motivate the governed to maintain the status quo. 

There are real idealogical divisions in our society, and they can be debated in a passionate, but respectful and measured way. If the divisions are so deep that neither side can be persuaded to change its position, then there is little point to continuing the debate at all. I don't think we are there yet as a nation, but when we succumb to the pitched, vitriolic language of our politicians, we surrender our good judgment to their proven poor judgment. Again, we are then, predictably, disappointed with the result.

I don't think I am naive to believe that most Americans proceed through their day with the best of intentions, serving their God and their families as best they can. We put our pants on the same way in the morning, one leg at a time. We kiss our children the same way, with the same love. We worry about the money the same way, the mortgage, the car payment. We proceed in good faith in our communities, even if we differ on the best way to achieve our common goals. The language of division cuts these common threads that keep our families, neighborhoods, communities and our nation together. The language of division conceals the truth; that we are, in fact, more similar than we are different. The language of division, and those who seek to capitalize on it, should be rejected in favor of honest debate, even if we do not ultimately agree on the outcome. Only then can we really begin to rebuild confidence in our government - and in each other.

Why Defeating ISIS May Not Be In Our National Interest

As the steady drumbeat of war gets louder, I am reminded of the old adage, "be careful what you wish for." There is no doubt that The Caliphate (a.k.a. ISIS) is a brutal, evil organization bent on spreading violence throughout the world. There is no doubt that The Caliphate is using a form of violence that is beyond sickening to any civilized person. There is no doubt that The Caliphate would like to take over the entire Middle East and attack the United States. But as we get closer to war, we should be certain that our strategic objectives will not harm our national interests in the long run, and the arguments in favor of war, as well as the proposed strategies being considered, are not compelling.

Most Congressmen favor some form of intervention, be it airstrikes or some limited use of special forces in support of the Iraqi Shiites and Kurdish Peshmerga. Their fear is that The Caliphate will attack us sooner or later if we do not intervene. It is unremarkable, however, that yet another Islamic terrorist group wants to attack the United States and it should come as no surprise to anyone. In fact, The Caliphate is one of many groups which, if given the chance, would obliterate our country. The steps we take at home to secure our nation from one group does not suddenly change just because a new group enters the picture. That aside, whether we choose to fight The Caliphate or not, it will not change their desire to attack us. While attacking The Caliphate may diminish their ability to project power, it also may not. Terrorism is a tactic deployed specifically because traditional warfare is impossible. It is not at all certain that defeating ISIS will make us safer at home.

Moreover, the strategies being considered are not likely to lead to victory. As I wrote a few weeks ago, airstrikes alone, or even in concert with limited ground forces, will not be effective in defeating the enemy. Halt the advance for a time - yes - defeat - no. 

http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/08/airstrikes-will-not-change-fate-of-iraq.html

Airplanes cannot occupy the desert. Special forces cannot occupy Tikrit, or Mosul, or any other Caliphate strong hold. That requires a regular army and, in this case, one that is specially trained in counter-insurgency. Welcome back to the days of The Surge, roadside bombs, IEDs, and snipers. I cannot imagine a scenario in which the American people would stand for such a redeployment, the enemy knows it, and so the strategy is doomed to fail.

Nor are the Kurdish Peshmerga or Iraqi Army going to occupy these areas for us. The Peshmerga interests are limited to Kurdistan and do not extend to territory outside their ethnic region. They have neither the resources, manpower, nor the inclination to fight a Sunni insurgency in perpetuity. We certainly didn't and so we withdrew. The Iraqi Army is even worse. They turned and ran at the first sign of battle, leaving behind huge caches of American weapons and tanks for ISIS to seize. To trust the Iraqi Army to "fight harder next time," is beyond naive. It is reckless.

Eventually someone else will have to occupy Iraq. It will come down to America or the U.N. or some coalition. The Caliphate has shown itself to be an extremely determined enemy. Whatever else we prepare for, we should be prepared to fight an insurgency for a decade or more should we choose this route.

More importantly, however, defeating ISIS (assuming that's even possible), upsets the delicate balance of power in the Middle East. Yes, they are horrifically violent. But they are only marginally more violent than the rest of the terrorists in the Middle East. As the battle lines sit now, ISIS is at war with Iran, Syria, Iraqi Shiites, Kurds, and Al Qaeda. In fact, there are some factions within Al Qaeda that are in pitched military battles with ISIS at this very moment. If we intervene and defeat ISIS, we absolutely must consider from a strategic perspective who that benefits the most. I would argue that it benefits Al Qaeda and Iran the most. Al Qaeda has serious competition for resources and soldiers from ISIS. They have lost their monopoly on anti-western, Islamic Jihadism. They are literally killing ISIS fighters to reassert themselves in the region. They are also getting killed in the process.

Likewise, Iran is already exercising hegemony in the region, but faces a serious threat from ISIS. While they have not committed all of their forces to defeat ISIS yet, they certainly will if they believe their interests are threatened. Thereafter, they will have very little opposition in the Middle East and can continue to pursue their anti-western agenda unimpeded. I submit to you that a nuclear armed Iran poses a much greater threat to national security than 30,000 or so Jihadis in Toyota pickup trucks. The inability of these various factions to coexist creates a strategic opportunity for the United States which, if turned to our advantage, can make us more secure at home.

I typically disagree with President Obama on most things, but I have to agree with his cautious approach to this crisis. "Doing nothing" may in fact be the best strategy, and I have serious misgivings about my Republican friends bashing the President for proceeding delicately. "Bombing them back to the stone age," as Ted Cruz has suggested, is not even possible and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the situation. ISIS already lives in the stone age and bombs will do little to change that. John McCain's strategy is even less compelling: "kill them all."  Ok, with what? Are we going to use nuclear weapons? How many soldiers are we going to commit to this "strategy," and what will happen when we leave? We cannot "kill them all," as was conclusively demonstrated by our past counter-insurgency efforts in the region. They simply lay down their weapons, melt back into the desert and reemerge when we leave. Unless we are willing to exterminate unarmed men who look like ISIS fighters, there will always be a remnant patiently waiting us out.

The vitriolic calls to arms are not productive. To be successful in this region of the world, we first have to recognize the extraordinary and ancient complexities at work. Any long term strategy must take into consideration the ultimate balance of power we would like to achieve in the Middle East. It is not going to be regional democracy and we will have to choose sides. I see no evidence from hawkish Republicans that they have thought this through any better than President Obama has.

For now, we should proceed deliberately, but cautiously, securing our borders here at home and increasing the focus of our intelligence efforts on terrorism. Arming the Kurds, and even deploying special forces to aid friendly factions as President Obama has already done, will help stem the tide. But at the moment, choosing Iran and Al Qaeda over ISIS is a reckless strategy for which we may ultimately pay a much higher price.

The Greater of two Evils, The Gathering Storm, Perpetual War, and The Folly of Western Thinking

In his six volume masterpiece, The Second World War, Winston Churchill chronicled British, French and American efforts to contain and then later fight Nazi Germany. In his first volume, The Gathering Storm, the former Prime Minister provides a meticulous analysis of the various misconceptions held by the Allied nations, which emboldened Hitler and eventually made war inevitable. It is not a quick read.

In it Churchill wrote:

"Delight in smooth sounding platitudes, refusal to face unpleasant facts ... genuine love of peace and pathetic belief that love can be its sole foundation ... the utter devotion of the Liberals to sentiment apart from reality ... though free from wickedness or evil design, played a definite part in the unleashing upon the world of horrors and miseries [of World War II.]” 

Churchill himself gave a prescient speech in November of 1934 condemning the world to industrial-scale war if the government continued to ignore the emerging threat from Nazi Germany.  He was nearly thrown out as a "war monger." The threat was ignored. When Hitler began carving off pieces of Europe in 1936, Churchill's invective became pitched, and even fewer Britons were persuaded. The general consensus was that Hitler was asserting influence "in his own backyard," and it simply wasn't worth a war to stop him. We all know how that ended.

The news around the world has become even more bleak in the last two weeks. Russia has now launched full scale military operations in the Ukraine, albeit with Russian soldiers who are out of uniform. While Western leaders fumble over which sanctions to consider next, Putin is invading and, in one weekend, has driven the Ukrainian military out of the east. The new Ukrainian President has all but surrendered, urging his countrymen to "remain calm" in the face of the invasion, as he sues for peace. Their military is in full retreat, now sure that no help is ever going to come.

And it isn't even leading the news. It isn't even the fourth story on the news today.

Instead, we are focused on ISIS. The retired generals are out again, polishing their stars on national television, pressing for a third invasion of Iraq. Because the first two went so well. One particularly  giddy Fox News military analyst actually cracked a smile this morning as he said that this "engagement...if we really want to stop ISIS," could last a decade or more. Think about that for a minute. A decade. That is what the hawks and military industrial complex are selling to us. Another decade of war in Iraq. By the time that decade ends, we will have been at war with Iraq for thirty years. Perhaps we should have stayed the first time, instead of waging this mad perpetual war for the souls of people who do not want to be converted to Jeffersonian democracy.

The irony here is that if we continue to ignore Russian expansionism, the hawks will get all the war they could ever want. You see, Western warfare is waged on an entirely different level than it is by a bunch of Jihadis living in the stone age. Western warfare is waged with the sustained use of massive weapons that inflict massive casualties. Western warfare is fought with columns of tanks, attack helicopters, strategic bombers, and millions of soldiers. Western warfare is fought with nuclear warheads, EMP equipped satellites, and other "secret" or experimental strategic weapons that leave tens of millions of people homeless and starving. Western warfare is the greater of the two evils, and it cannot be ignored.

War waged on a modern, industrial scale has historically been a slaughter in which one side must be forced to unconditionally surrender. There is no paternalistic "winning of the hearts and minds," or "allowing Iraqis to exercise their sovereignty." There is victory or there is death. Just as ISIS shocks the West with its unparalleled brutality towards women and children, the West has historically shocked the world with the unparalleled scope and size of industrialized warfare. And we are at risk once again. As Albert Einstein once mused, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Americans should not be fooled into thinking that it cannot happen again. It is fair to say that Mr. Churchill would disagree with the politicians who believe Putin is simply "playing in his own backyard." Churchill would caution the allied nations not to "delight in smooth sounding platitudes" or refuse to "face unpleasant facts." Mr. Churchill would remind us that the "malice of the wicked [is] reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous." In the West, we love peace so much that we recoil at anyone who says that peace is not always lasting. It is the folly of Western thinking. We live in denial, ignoring the storm clouds, pretending the words matter more than the actions, secretly reassured by our enemies' willingness to soothe our fears... 

Until the wolf is at the door, looking for his dinner.