Why Cease-fires Fail

Just days after a European brokered cease-fire went into effect, Ukrainian and Russian forces fought a major battle over two railroad depots in Eastern Ukraine. The rail lines have significant strategic importance because they connect the two Russian-backed separatist strongholds in the region. For Ukraine, it was an utter defeat. It appears from early reports that more than 100 Ukrainian soldiers were killed and 300 were taken prisoner. Russian separatists captured the prize.

It has almost always been the case that cease-fires, brokered by non-combatants in distant capitals, fail. They fail because the struggle is never shared to the same degree by the would be peacemakers. Peace is rarely achieved before the warring parties have exhausted themselves in the struggle. Whether it's Eastern Ukraine, Iraq, the Balkans, or Vietnam, peace only lasts so long as someone is willing to enforce that peace through the threat of force. As soon as that threat is removed, the factions resume fighting.

It is human nature. People will fight for their land. They will fight for their way of life, their communities and their families. Many of the same people who would object to fighting someone else's war in some distant land have no compunction about picking up a rifle to defend their own neighborhoods. And any leader who tells them to put down their weapons will have their orders disregarded. That is especially true if that leader is from another country, like say, Germany. Leaders who prevent their people from effectively defending their homes, whether it be from civil war, foreign invasion, forest fire, or intruder, quickly find themselves out of power.

This is what is happening in Ukraine. Leaders from Germany and France pushed a cease-fire that included a "demilitarized zone," effectively carving out a part of the East for Russia. The Ukrainian people, especially those fighting on the front lines, were not fooled and do not believe that their country should be carved up. Even those who may be willing to concede their friend's neighborhood in exchange for peace are not so foolish as to believe that their own neighborhoods are then safe. So the fighting continues because, after all, there are some things worth fighting for.

Lasting peace will only be achieved in Ukraine when the world convinces Russia that it will not be allowed to keep the prize. As it stands now, Russia has carved off pieces of Georgia and Ukraine, and has annexed Crimea with nary a whimper from the rest of the world. It is understandable that they believe they will be allowed to keep their gains. So far no one has challenged them. Until that happens, Russian will continue. In fact, Russia will continue until they seize something the world is not willing to give up, like Poland. Then we will be in another massive European war that will make the 20 years we spent in Iraq look like toddlers playing in a sandbox.

The Crisis in the Middle East vs. World War II, A Comparative Analysis

In three hours of news coverage last night, there were no fewer than a dozen comparisons between the current crisis in the Middle East and World War II. Very bright analysts and former military leaders are in lockstep: ISIS is the greatest threat to the World since Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. They could not be more wrong and any comparison between ISIS and World War II demonstrates a stunning lack of perspective.

According to the National World War II museum, by 1945, 12,209,238 Americans were actively serving in the military in 94 divisions. 407,316 servicemen were killed. Another 250,000 were wounded. 4,730 were missing in action and presumed killed. Only 38.8% had non-combat jobs. 

The United States alone had 12,200 combat aircraft deployed, and had produced more than 40,000 during the course of the war. The Allies flew over 300,000 sorties in more than 20 countries. The United States lost 157 warships, including 11 aircraft carriers. It had, however, produced over 100,000 ships of all types during the war. Also produced were over 100,000 tanks and armored vehicles, 12.5 million rifles and more than 41 billion rounds of ammunition.

And that was just our contribution to the war effort.

The latest estimates are that ISIS boasts somewhere between 30,000 and 200,000 members. However, the higher estimates include ISIS members who are in administrative roles, like police, tax collectors, engineers, supply officers and the like. Since ISIS only controls a regional population of about 3.4 million, it seems extremely unlikely they have been able to recruit 200,000 hardcore fighters. But let's say they did... That's 200,000 Jihadis engaged in a regional conflict as opposed to 12.2 million Americans engaged in Europe and Asia in World War II. There is no comparison.

We could end the analysis there, but someone might argue that the scale of the casualties is comparable. It is not. If ISIS were to kill every single man, woman and child in the territories they control, that horror would yield between 3 and 4 million dead. While horrific, if we are simply comparing scales, that holocaust is still smaller than the 6 million Jews exterminated during World War II. It also pales in comparison to the 80 million people killed during the course of the entire war. In fact, World War II deaths accounted for between 3% and 5% of the total population of the entire world. Entire generations of men were wiped out in Europe and Asia.

And let us not forget the weapons that were used. World War II saw the world powers unleash carpet bombs, fire bombs and, of course, the atomic bomb. Entire cities were destroyed by these weapons. For example, in one single bombing raid over Tokyo, more than 80,000 men, women and children were killed by American bombers. 347 planes were used to drop 2,000 pounds of incendiary bombs on the Japanese over a period of 48 hours. The atomic bomb was dropped, in part, to "shock" the Japanese into surrender. It was hoped that the weapon would be so horrifying that all but the most devoted followers would either quit fighting or commit suicide. It worked.

One may ask why, after seeing such a comparison, World War II was so bloody? How can the bloodshed and violence possibly be justified? So many civilians dead. So many children slaughtered by bombs. 

The answer is quite simple really. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were existential threats to Europe and the United States. Those powers were racing to gain technological superiority over the Allies so they could literally conquer and occupy us. Nazi Germany was developing an atomic bomb as early as 1936. Imagine if they had won the atomic race. They had already won the race for jet planes, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Germany would have had a functional ICBM decades before us had they been allowed to continue unchecked. Germany had invaded and conquered half of Europe before the French and British declared war, and it would be another two years before the United States would intervene. By the time we did, it had become a desperate struggle for the survival of our way of life and our nation. There is little doubt that, had the Nazis been given the opportunity, they would have used their technological superiority to at least menace our nation for decades.

ISIS just isn't that kind of threat. And if it ever becomes that kind of threat, we are decades ahead of this enemy in the development of military technology. And that is the key. ISIS may be bent on world domination the way Nazi Germany was, but the comparison ends there. They simply do not have the means to accomplish their goal and they likely never will. ISIS uses swords and crosses to brutally murder those who they consider Infidels. The Nazis used gas chambers to kill hundreds of Jews at a time. The United States just deployed its first laser on a destroyer. Swords vs. Lasers. Toyota pickups versus tanks. RPGs versus cruise missiles. AK-47s versus ICBMs. The only question is one of will, not weaponry.

If ISIS chooses to provoke a total war with the United States, it will be utterly annihilated. But we are not there yet. Let us not pretend that we are in order to justify another long, hard slog through the Middle East with no serious objective.

How Delay And Inaction Created An Advantage In the Middle East

As Congress debates yet another authorization to use force in the Middle East, Americans remain divided on how to proceed. On one side, many Americans believe that, while weak, Obama's limited approach to intervening in the fight against ISIS is the proper course of action. After all, we have already blundered into three wars there in the last 25 years, none of which ever led to the securing of any lasting strategic objective. Committing to yet another war, especially one of the size and scope necessary to actually defeat ISIS, is unpalatable to most of us.

On the other side are the traditional hawks. They predictably want a broader resolution, enabling President Obama (and the next President) to wage a massive war, using ground troops, to secure an undeveloped objective over a period of decades. The arguments in favor of this approach are emotional and underwhelming. ISIS is an evil group, there is no doubt about that. But there is something unseemly about choosing to fight one evil group over the others just because it is, in our judgment, a little more evil. Saddam Hussein gassing the Kurds, for example, was pretty evil. Yet we left him in power for another decade.

The fact is, the war in the Middle East is just another sad chapter in a region of the world filled with millennia of sad chapters. Radical ideologies are nothing new in the Levant region. Unfortunately, neither are the brutal tactics currently being used to achieve dominance over the region. While it is true that American policy in the Middle East is partly responsible for the current crisis, it is exceedingly naive to believe that 50 or so years of Western intervention is the principal cause of a 1600 year old Islamic civil war. American policy is nothing more than the excuse du jour for another group of violent extremists to recruit young men to their cause. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether they are Sunni or Shia. They both hate America, and they only use America to the extent that they can gain an advantage over each other.

The hawks also argue that, if America is not part of the final resolution to the ISIS problem, then our influence in the Middle East will be diminished. This is outmoded thinking. American influence in the Middle East is entirely based on military and financial support. America is not ideologically aligned with any government in the region, except Israel, and even that relationship is strained. Our so called "allies" in the region have no loyalty to us beyond our ability to keep their governments wealthy and in power. That is not a sustainable model, which has been made painfully clear to us over the last 20 years with the rise of Al Qaeda and other groups who get their financial support from those same allies.

Finally, it is also possible that ISIS will win, consolidate power, and then successfully export terrorism and carnage to the United States and Europe. This is the most compelling argument in favor of fighting another war in the Middle East. We have already seen these sorts of attacks in France and Denmark, and we should make no mistake that ISIS is a threat that we should take seriously. If given the opportunity, there is no doubt that they would kill as many Americans as possible. They would like nothing more than to behead our neighbors in our own neighborhoods and televise it on the internet. But, to believe that the solution is to wage another limited war against radical Islam is to ignore the utter failure of the last 20 years. Our strategy of winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and Afghanis failed. It failed so miserably in fact that the Taliban will soon be back in charge in Afghanistan and ISIS emerged out of the thin desert air the second we withdrew from Iraq. Using limited warfare to win the hearts and minds of the people in that region has been a spectacular waste of time, lives and money. It is no wonder that the American people, in their collective wisdom, are decidedly against another major conflict. There is a way to defeat radical Islam in the Middle East, but this is not it.

President Obama's approach, whether by accident or by design, has forced the regional powers in the Middle East to begin to defend themselves. It is horribly sad that last week ISIS murdered Coptic Christians on video for the world to see, but it is not our fault, and the Coptic Christians are Egyptian, not American. As a result of their actions, ISIS has now provoked the largest, most powerful country in the Middle East. The Egyptians are now motivated to destroy ISIS and have vowed to do so. The immolation of a Jordanian pilot has provoked a similar response from Jordan. In another example, the radical Shia group that just organized a coup in Yemen is not going to be friendly to the U.S. But, they also hate Al Qaeda, Sunni radicals like ISIS, and have already been engaged their own war against those groups. Delay and inaction has in fact forced other muslims to act to defend themselves and their own positions in the region. ISIS is now vastly outnumbered by better organized, better equipped militaries in Jordan, Egypt and Iran. They will fight to the death, but at least this time it will not be Americans dying in the desert for a bunch of people who have no use for us anyway.

Europe Strikes Out In Ukraine

Shortly after President Obama declared in his State of the Union Address that Putin had been effectively contained, Russia launched a new, barely covert, offensive in Eastern Ukraine. As Vice President Biden observed last week, Putin's "little green men" have again been working to assault and destabilize the region. Russia is motivated to renew its efforts in the region because of low oil prices. Russia is a petro-state, and its economy has been struggling since oil dropped below $100 a barrel. Renewed aggression in Ukraine was predictable. Ukraine is a very important part of the Russian economy and Russia cannot thrive without it. While it is true that Eastern Ukraine is poor, Putin can still use the east as leverage in trade negotiations with the west.

That assumes Putin intends to stop in Eastern Ukraine.

Russia will dominate Eastern Ukraine for generations. That is a done deal now. Just as the Ukrainian government was developing plans to push the "separatists" out of the east, Europe intervened on Russia's behalf, proposing a "demilitarized zone" along the battle front. "Demilitarized zones" have had a unique place in history. They are often employed to stop conflicts that have reached a stalemate. Each side agrees to pull back 50 miles or so, the front lines are then flooded with land mines, barbed wire, and targeted with artillery. Demilitarized zones remain for generations and prevent the migration of people back and forth. The country is then divided by region and thereafter referred to as "North Korea," "South Vietnam," or "Eastern Ukraine." 

This is exactly the result Putin was pursuing when he first invaded. He used covert military assets to destabilize the region and take control of the major cities and infrastructure. He then "called for elections," controlled the elections through force, and used the result as a mandate for continued interference. He massed a large military presence on the border to deter interference from Europe and the United States, rattled his saber, and the world surrendered. 

Among the many ironies is the fact that German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, is the loudest supporter of the demilitarized zone strategy. Germans should be particularly sensitive to the idea of any nation being divided between East and West because of Russian expansionism. The French, also proponents of the plan, should be particularly sensitive to calls for appeasement and partition. And the British just seem lost. Their schizophrenic approach to Putin, condemning him on the one hand but refusing to take any significant steps to stop him on the other, just makes them look weak.

This is Europe's third strike and now the game is over. When Russia massed troops on the border of Crimea, they did nothing. When Russia annexed Crimea, they did nothing. When Russia massed troops on the border of Ukraine, they did nothing. When Russia invaded with irregular troops, they did nothing. Now they want to "end the bloodshed" by giving Putin exactly what he wants - a clear border between East and West with a bunch of land mines in-between a "buffer zone." Eastern Ukraine now belongs to Putin, and he is not going to give it back.