From a domestic point of view, it is not the best time to engage in a military confrontation. The US recently ended its long war in Afghanistan. The economy is not in good shape though there are faint signs of recovery. Issues such as consumer goods shortages, inflation, unemployment, pandemic weariness are all affecting the polity and economy, and in this backdrop engaging in another military confrontation perhaps is not the best policy decision. Internationally, a war with Russia in distant lands, closer to the Russian border, might further help realize Russian strategy to drain America’s resources. It might also provide China, the increasing assertive power in Asia, an advantage to realize its foreign policy goals in the Asia-Pacific.
Afghanistan should be instructive to the leaders who call for military confrontation. Though the US went to Afghanistan with the goal to rout Al Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden, it stayed in the mountainous country a decade after Laden was killed. The US spent more than two trillion dollars in Afghanistan.
The Congressman from Florida, Michael Waltz, after his recent tour to Ukraine recommended stronger actions in terms of sending lethal weapons to Ukraine to stop Russian advances. Waltz said, “I would love to see – and would encourage and demand – the White House to take stronger moves now.” He further said, “If Putin invades, I want him to know he’ll have trouble buying a soda from a vending machine in the next five minutes.” True, America and its allies are capable enough to stop Russian advances in Ukraine and give it a befitting reply for its undemocratic and aggressive moves.
From a larger context, the confrontation can be seen as a battle between the values of democracy, represented by the US and its allies, and the values of authoritarianism, represented by countries like Russia and China. The Cold War saw the world divided along the lines of liberal capitalist democracy and communism, resulting in a victory of liberal ideas. The new Cold War may see the repetition of such a war. But in the globalized world with advanced means of communication, social media, and cyber warfare, the battle will not be fought only on the ground but also in other spheres. The deadly weapons will not only ensure the defeat of Putin and its maneuvers, it will also cause civilian casualties, environmental damage, economic underdevelopment, and other spillover effects.
President Eisenhower, who as a military commander played a key role in the victory of the allied powers in the Second World War, said in 1953, “The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities…We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.” On another occasion, while making a case for peace by peaceful means, Eisenhower said, “The peace we seek and need means much more than mere absence of war. It means the acceptance of law, and the fostering of justice, in all the world.”
A robust diplomacy must be pursued to address the ongoing conflict. There are already multiple rounds of meetings between the diplomats of the US and Russia, and these meetings need to be continued without giving up. Putin must be made to understand through diplomacy that a war will devastate Russia, which is already suffering on many fronts.
While war can be an option, the US and its allies must listen to the wise counsel of President Eisenhower and explore all means of dialogue and diplomacy to avoid war, while ensuring a safe and secure future for Ukraine. While agreeing with Waltz that Putin understands the language of strength, that strength does not necessarily mean only military strength. It also implies convincing the Russian leader through the means of dialogue, deterrence, and sanctions, that any aggressive move will increase the suffering of Russia. War only proves one’s power of destruction is stronger, and the goals which can be realized through the means of dialogue need not be realized through the weapons of war.
While not rejecting war as an option, the American leaders must use all ingenuity to avoid military confrontation while realizing the goals of peace. There are instances when the US leaders pursued dialogue in times of crisis. President Kennedy, who despite provocation of military confrontation from some of his advisors, addressed the Cuban Missile Crisis with wisdom and astute diplomacy. Perhaps it is time to reenact Kennedy diplomacy.
The Congressman from Florida, Michael Waltz, after his recent tour to Ukraine recommended stronger actions in terms of sending lethal weapons to Ukraine to stop Russian advances. Waltz said, “I would love to see – and would encourage and demand – the White House to take stronger moves now.” He further said, “If Putin invades, I want him to know he’ll have trouble buying a soda from a vending machine in the next five minutes.” True, America and its allies are capable enough to stop Russian advances in Ukraine and give it a befitting reply for its undemocratic and aggressive moves.
From a larger context, the confrontation can be seen as a battle between the values of democracy, represented by the US and its allies, and the values of authoritarianism, represented by countries like Russia and China. The Cold War saw the world divided along the lines of liberal capitalist democracy and communism, resulting in a victory of liberal ideas. The new Cold War may see the repetition of such a war. But in the globalized world with advanced means of communication, social media, and cyber warfare, the battle will not be fought only on the ground but also in other spheres. The deadly weapons will not only ensure the defeat of Putin and its maneuvers, it will also cause civilian casualties, environmental damage, economic underdevelopment, and other spillover effects.
President Eisenhower, who as a military commander played a key role in the victory of the allied powers in the Second World War, said in 1953, “The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities…We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.” On another occasion, while making a case for peace by peaceful means, Eisenhower said, “The peace we seek and need means much more than mere absence of war. It means the acceptance of law, and the fostering of justice, in all the world.”
A robust diplomacy must be pursued to address the ongoing conflict. There are already multiple rounds of meetings between the diplomats of the US and Russia, and these meetings need to be continued without giving up. Putin must be made to understand through diplomacy that a war will devastate Russia, which is already suffering on many fronts.
While war can be an option, the US and its allies must listen to the wise counsel of President Eisenhower and explore all means of dialogue and diplomacy to avoid war, while ensuring a safe and secure future for Ukraine. While agreeing with Waltz that Putin understands the language of strength, that strength does not necessarily mean only military strength. It also implies convincing the Russian leader through the means of dialogue, deterrence, and sanctions, that any aggressive move will increase the suffering of Russia. War only proves one’s power of destruction is stronger, and the goals which can be realized through the means of dialogue need not be realized through the weapons of war.
While not rejecting war as an option, the American leaders must use all ingenuity to avoid military confrontation while realizing the goals of peace. There are instances when the US leaders pursued dialogue in times of crisis. President Kennedy, who despite provocation of military confrontation from some of his advisors, addressed the Cuban Missile Crisis with wisdom and astute diplomacy. Perhaps it is time to reenact Kennedy diplomacy.
(Another version of this article was published in Florida Times-Union on February 5, 2022.)
No comments:
Post a Comment