The Case Against Daylight Savings Time

There is no feeling like the feeling I get the day after Daylight Savings Time goes into effect. Like many Americans, I wake up Sunday morning, confused by why I slept so long. I head downstairs to make coffee and realize the clocks don't match the time on my iPhone. Then it hits me, that sinking, depressing, angry feeling - time to "spring forward." Like losing a good friend, the comfortable, warm sleep pattern that makes winter tolerable is now over. The next few months, as I "adjust" to the new time change, will be uncomfortable. As the days get longer, my bedtime gets later. Like most people, I can't sleep when it's daylight out. In fact for me, daylight is the ultimate stimulant. If the sun's up, I'm up. And as I get to bed later and later, I get to get up an hour earlier, leaving me in a foggy daze, as if "DST" were some kind of illegal drug. And for what?

Daylight savings time was first proposed by Benjamin Franklin in 1794. He got the idea from his time in Europe. In connection with his proposal, Franklin argued that setting the clocks ahead by one hour, thus making the days ridiculously long in the Summer, would cut down on the use of candles. Mr. Franklin made the first conservation argument in favor of DST, but it would not be the last. Beginning in World War I, the U.S. Government, in response to the German military's move, made the first implementation of DST. The intention was to help with wartime production by forcing "an extra hour" of work by "lengthening the day." DST was once again implemented during World War II and referred to as "War Time."

Weather these wartime efforts actually worked has been a point of significant debate. Nevertheless, in 1966, the U.S. Congress made DST the norm across the country. Since then, it has been shortened and lengthened from time to time at the whim of politicians in an effort solve some problem, either real or imagined. Daylight Savings time now runs for 8 months, while "standard" time only runs for 4 months. Go figure.

There is a reason why the four months off of DST is called "standard." Standard is normal. Standard is what one finds when looking for the ordinary. "Standard" is based on the notion that people generally get up about 30 minutes to an hour after sunrise and go to sleep about two hours after sunset, allowing for a full 8 hours of sleep. "Standard" has been repeatedly demonstrated to be normal human behavior in multiple academic studies, but we don't need elaborate studies to prove it. We have tens of thousands of years of history and decades of our own personal experience all of which tells us that we do best when we follow our natural circadian rhythms. Disrupting those rhythms is suicide, maybe not in the short term, but in the long term our health suffers.

Sleep affects everything we do. Humans require between 7 and 9 hours of sleep a day to stay healthy and operate at peak levels. Sleeping less than that has been clinically proven to cause increased depression and increased anxiety, leading to the release of stress hormones like cortisol and insulin, which tend to make us overweight. Poor sleep has a significant impact on our immune systems, compromising our ability to fight illness by as much as a third. Poor sleep increases the risk of almost every major illness from heart disease and diabetes to Alzheimer's disease. Spending 8 months of the year in a sleep deprived state makes our entire nation less healthy, and less healthy people are less productive.

A wise Native American once mused: "Only the white man would cut off the top of a blanket and sew it to the bottom and claim that he now has a longer blanket." It seems to me he had a point. Daylight Savings Time has been sold to us like so much snake oil. Supporters of DST argue that the extra hour of daylight at the end of the day helps conserve energy. Like Franklin's argument, they say that we use less electricity. That argument has been largely disproven by long term studies, most notably in the states of California and Indiana. In both states, the government found that energy use actually increased during daylight savings time, ostensibly because people are awake longer and use more air conditioning. I have another theory. It is nearly indisputable that the human body requires about two hours of darkness or low light before the neurotransmitters regulating sleep will be released. That's why doctors have been telling us for years to turn off the iPads and the TV an hour or two before bed, especially for children. The light keeps us awake. My guess is that people still use the same amount of electricity during DST because they are still awake, because it is still light outside and, in fact, they won't start getting tired until two hours after sunset. Nothing is saved, and sleep is lost. The snake oil did not work as advertised...

So, as you sip your fifth cup of coffee today, think about whether the 200 year experiment with DST has really benefited us as Americans and whether it fits into the modern world. We are already terribly sleep deprived. We are still the most productive nation in the world, and we don't need any additional catalyst to stay that way.

Finally, I'll leave you with this question: Didn't the inventors of DST mix up the seasons? Why make the already long days of summer longer? If there were any time of year when you would want to lengthen the day, wouldn't it be winter, when it gets dark at 5? Daylight Savings Time was a solution to a problem that never existed. There is no longer any reason to keep using this snake oil, and it should be abolished.

Why Clinton's Emails Matter

Hillary Clinton has been caught (red handed) using a personal server and personal email address to conduct sensitive government business. Her actions constitute a violation of at least two federal laws, one of which is criminal. Undoubtedly, the Chinese and Russians have been able to hack that account and steal vital national secrets. What she did was foolish, and disqualifies her from being President.

That said, I am not one of those citizens who actually believes he has a right to know everything the government does, when it does it or why. I don't think I'm entitled to know every personal matter ever experienced by the politicians that serve me or seek to serve me. In fact, I think the Federal Records Act, the Watergate Tapes, and the multitude of federal lawsuits against individual politicians were all - very - bad - ideas. 

We are not entitled to know everything about everybody, even if they are a politician. We are not entitled to know about every conversation the Secretary of State has with the President of the United States. We just aren't. What the Secretary of State says to her staff during a crisis is important for history, but I do not have a right to know the details as they develop. What I am most concerned about is whether they get it right, not what communications they had in the process of getting it right or wrong. To insist that we be privy to every communication or every part of the process is to invite disaster. Decision makers and those who advise them must be free to articulate the good, the bad and the ugly. There must be an open discussion that is free from reprisal or the decision will be, at the very least, incomplete. It is not possible to make a good decision without good advisors, and it is not possible to get good advice from advisors who believe that speaking their mind will result in either personal humiliation, jail, extraordinary legal bills, general anxiety or personal destruction. The Clintons are particularly paranoid about that, which is undoubtedly one of the reasons Hillary set up her own personal server to hide her communications.

Let's be clear about what this is though. She violated federal law, she set up her server and email to, in fact, intentionally hide communications, and she felt she was entitled to do so. In the process, she also compromised national security. But, kind of like our bizarre debate about torture, our national policies have created this bizarre spectacle of a sitting Secretary of State, so afraid of her own frank communications, that she had to break the law in order hide them. Now, some would say: "Have the courage of your convictions. If you believe it in private, be willing to say it in public." To those people I say, pick your most uncomfortable decision and disclose, right now on Facebook, all of the various thoughts you had before coming to your ultimate conclusion. Let the public vet your inner most thoughts and fears. We are all more than willing to tell you where you went wrong. Better yet, disclose on Facebook your tax returns. Publish them for us all to see. Let's all take a look at your deductions and your expense receipts. Let's see how much you make. Let's see where you ate dinner on March 3rd and with whom. 

The fact is that since Watergate, we have become too obsessed with our public servants and have created a truly dehumanizing experience for anyone wishing to serve. Your finances, your sex life, the things you said in college when your were 19, are all fair game and open to public ridicule. Nevertheless, once in office, even the most plastic politicians still cannot allow the rest of us to see every single communication they have in their official capacity. To do so would be irresponsible, and in a culture of irresponsible partisan politics, I cannot find it in my heart to blame a politician who does not trust that we the people will be fair in our criticism. After all, it's good television.

Like with everything else, the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction since Watergate. I really don't care how the job gets done, but I care deeply about the result. If Hillary needs to send 104 emails espousing bad ideas before sending one that precipitates a good result, I just don't care. Leadership is not easy, and there is no shortage of arm chair quarterbacks ready to use any ammunition they think they've found to embarrass an adversary for not getting the desired result. This is because true leadership has a second, and very ugly side to it. Sometimes leaders fail. One of my favorite pieces of advice came from one of my favorite law professors, Keith Beyler, who I'm sure heard it from someone else: "If you haven't lost a case, you haven't tried that many." In other words, to lose big, you have to be playing a big game. 

American politicians are playing a big game. We are still the most powerful country in the world. World leaders still form their national policies around what our leaders think. Powerful nations still shape their national policies based on what they believe our leaders may or may not be willing to support. And the consequences for failure are enormous. Hillary Clinton obviously believes that she is above the law, especially if it is a bad law. For that reason, she should not be President. But we need to take a really close look at ourselves as a nation and decide whether we should require transparency in every aspect of public life, or whether maybe, just maybe, we should allow our leaders to lead. 

Good decisions are never made in a vacuum. Neither are bad decisions. But the constant struggle between debate and disclosure has damaged our republic. Hillary Clinton should not be keeping secret email accounts, because she shouldn't have to. If you don't like the way she handled her duties, then don't vote for her. As a republic, we cannot absolve ourselves of the responsibly for having chosen poor leaders by acquiescing to poor policies and later crying about being misled. We are all smarter than that, and we should start voting like the responsible citizens we are.

Netanyahu's Churchill Moment

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, took time away from a tough reelection campaign in his home country to address a joint session of Congress on the topic of Iran. The lead up to the speech has been controversial, even if the content of the speech was not. In it, Netanyahu laid out a precise case against the current nuclear arms treaty with Iran, which President Obama hopes will be his signature foreign policy achievement.

Prime Minister Netanyahu received the invitation from the Speaker of the House, not from the President. After years of watching President Obama encroach on the Constitutional powers given to Congress, Speaker Boehner saw an opportunity to embarrass the President on foreign policy.  There is little doubt that the Speaker's motivation was, in part, to embarrass Obama. There is also little doubt that President Obama is embarrassed. He should be. Prime Minister Netanyahu persuasively presented his case against Iran in a way that President Obama has not. He demonstrated a command of the issues, a superior understanding of the players and their motivations, and provided crucial historical context. While it was not quite Churchill, it was a good speech.

It was, however, a Churchill moment. Shortly after World War II ended, Winston Churchill lost his bid for reelection. Embarrassed but undeterred, he was invited to give a speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. President Truman was in attendance. In that speech, Churchill famously laid out the case against the emerging Soviet threat, announcing that an "Iron Curtain" had fallen across Europe. His speech foreshadowed decades of cold war and pinned upon the Soviets the shameful label of world menace for generations to come.

Churchill was an effective leader because he was prescient and because of his unique ability to explain threats in clear terms. He was never afraid to see things for what they are. Throughout his political career, his clear vision and sharp analysis were ignored by political rivals, most of whom were later embarrassed when his dire predictions came to fruition. Churchill often took principled but unpopular positions because, in his view, the alternative was unacceptable. Had his peers listened at the time, the world would have been a very different place. These Churchillian moments became historically important only because his advice was ignored and the consequences suffered. In a nuclear world, however, we cannot make that mistake again.

Iran wants nuclear weapons and it is on the verge, according to all parties involved, of developing those weapons. Prime Minster Netanyahu correctly pointed out the obvious: Militant Islamic regimes that believe they have a religious obligation to use weapons of mass destruction on non-believers should not possess any nuclear capability - ever. The current nuclear deal would only delay the inevitable. It has an automatic expiration date just ten years from its inception. Under the terms of the deal, Iran would then be free to legally develop nuclear weapons, and they would possess the means with which to do that in less than one year. Eleven years is not a long time. Where were you eleven years ago? For most people, that seems like just yesterday. The more appropriate question, however, is this: How old will your children be in eleven years? Now imagine a world in which the Ayatollah can attend a nuclear weapons test right after his weekly "Death to America" rally in Tehran.  I think most Americans would agree that this should be avoided at almost any cost.

The Prime Minister had to point out the obvious because many in this country would rather just ignore it. Iran is run by a dark and insidious regime that oppresses its people and menaces the peaceful nations of the world. It is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. Intelligence reports that only recently have been released show that Iran was working with Al Qaeda and even Osama Bin Laden himself to attack the West. Iran is our enemy and they cannot be allowed to develop the technology necessary to build a bomb. It is impossible to overstate the threat. 

Liberal Democrats boycotted the speech because they did not like the circumstances surrounding the invitation. To the extent the President was embarrassed by the speech or the invitation, he has brought that embarrassment on himself. He has had six years to pursue his engagement strategy. During that time, he has chosen to denigrate Israel and Netanyahu while the efficacy of his own strategy has been unclear to say the least. To the extent Israelis and their leaders don't trust the President, it is by his own doing.

This is a speech Netanyahu had to give. A nuclear Iran is so great a threat to Israel, that if the current deal doesn't go far enough in giving Israel the assurances it needs, Israel will have no choice but to strike. Israel cannot wait to see whether Obama, who has negotiated some famously bad deals, suddenly gets it right on Iran. The Prime Minister was giving us fair warning.

As Netanyahu said, Israel will go it alone if it has to. They will strike Iran as they have stuck other countries that pose a credible threat to their ultimate survival. It is difficult for many of us as Americans to understand why the Israelis are so impatient, and the Prime Minister was prepared to provide us with an explanation. He brought with him Elie Wiesel, who was sitting in the gallery. If you don't know who that is, you need to read his book Night. You will understand why, exactly, the Israelis will never again stand by while an aggressive enemy exterminates jews. That aside, no country has the right to ask them to take that risk.

The Prime Minister, in his Churchill moment, argued that the world is at a crossroads. Almost everyone agrees with this sentiment. Down one path is a policy of containment under which the West will attempt to keep Iran more or less in check. As we saw during the Cold War however, containment is a costly, painful policy that ultimately does not prevent wars. In 40 years of containment, the United States fought the Korean War, the Vietnam War, made multiple incursions into South America and the Middle East, and reached the brink of nuclear war on at least two occasions. But for the fact that nuclear war was ultimately avoided, the efficacy of that containment policy would be questionable at best. The Soviets were able to oppress millions of people and menace the world with the threat of total annihilation for generations. Since the Soviets already had nuclear weapons, we had little choice. In the case of Iran, we have a choice. 

The President, to his credit, has repeatedly said that he will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. He has assured the public and the Israelis that he would rather have no deal than a bad deal. He has not taken the threat of military force off the table. However, to achieve his stated objective, President Obama will have to negotiate a much better deal than the one being reported today. More importantly, however, if he fails, he will have to be committed to using whatever force is required to ensure the long term stability of that region. This is because if he's wrong, the consequences may well mimic biblical Armageddon. That, of course, makes a nuclear Iran an existential threat to all of us.

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.