Everything to neocons is a “Munich moment.”
John Kerry argued that the U.S. response to chemical weapons in Syria was a “Munich moment.” Music was invoked by Kennedy and Johnson to justify Vietnam. It shaped the thinking behind the Gulf War for both Republicans and Democrats and later the response to 9/11. Who can forget Bush’s line “Our strategy is this: We will fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States of America?”
Invoking Chamberlain has become the standard response to any expressed hesitation at involving the United States further in Ukraine. Simply asking why Ukraine needs billions of our taxpayer dollars without oversight now means you’re a Hitler-appeaser:
The argument between Texas Senator John Cornyn and The Federalist’s Sean Davis began over the former criticizing Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s characterization of the Russia-Ukraine conflict as a territorial dispute.
Davis wasn’t wrong. Cornyn, however, is.
Sidebar: There is some interesting debate around Chamberlain and the British government buying time to prepare for certain war by leveraging a nation they knew they couldn’t save.
“In short, Chamberlain’s government did not believe that Britain had the military muscle either to deter German aggression or to actually defeat Germany in the event that it couldn’t be deterred. The British were well aware that a revisionist Germany had been rearming while Britain and France – in deference to post-war domestic political sensibilities – had been disarming. And the evidence suggests that they were painfully aware that by 1938 Britain had no realistic hope of prevailing in another war with Germany.
And so, the Chamberlain government decided to take the only course of action open to it: delay military confrontation with Germany until Britain had adequately prepared itself for a major war.”
We are not remotely in this same situation.
Sure, there are some similarities: A tyrant, annexation, blathering about the motherland, but that’s where the similarities end. Putin is a weakened shadow of his former self, his economy is propped up by Chinese dollars for dirty Russian gas and OPEC+. The United States and European allies have levied sanctions, not silence, against the aggressor. Putin’s only hope of victory lies in a war of attrition unless peace negotiations take place.
What is his idea of “victory?” What is Ukraine’s?
Neocons who struggle with basic geography argue that Putin’s imperialist expansionism will put Russia at NATO’s borders. Five NATO members already border Russia: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, and Poland. Now what?
There are a few scenarios here:
Cornyn is suggesting that Russia is going to invade a NATO nation.
Cornyn is suggesting that Russia is going to go full “Red Dawn” and invade the U.S.
Both of these are unrealistic scenarios.
Fearmongering a Republican governor with the threat of war in our country — and using the words of a foreign leader to do it — as a substitute for smart deterrence and peace through strength is shallow and lazy.
A strong United States is a deterrent to tyrants. Millions of Americans have no desire to further involve our nation in a conflict encouraged by weak leadership in Washington.
(We reached out to Senator Cornyn’s office to invite him to discuss this on my program and his office replied that he was traveling in the state and unable to join.)
I am really "torn" here... While usually outspoken on many things, the Ukraine has me a little hesitant about coming down on one side or the other. Part of my hesitancy is from not really knowing exactly what is going on and untrusting of the reported situation (I remember hearing WMD repeated and echoed until my ears felt like they were going to bleed). I am NOT professing to have the answers.
My first reaction is that it "galls" me to see Putin invade an adjacent country. A country that (I believe under the Clinton administration) brokered a deal to give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for protection from nuclear war. If they still had nukes, this may never have happened (but that is pure speculation at this point). Also, I hate to see a democratic people, and professed ally, be invaded, structurally destroyed and killed by a Communist declared enemy of the United States. These feelings lead me to want to help.
On the other hand, I definitely am uncomfortable with uncontrolled funding (taxpayer) going over there, with no accounting, no control and no restrictions - in a deal brokered and supervised by the Biden regime. I didn't get a good feeling seeing him and his "people" parading over there. Who knows what kind of deal they came up with off camera? It would probably make Hunter's deal look like a "starter kit". Of course, to the Biden regime, no problem, just print more money and raise taxes - it fits in well in the plan to make us a global powerhouse like,,, maybe Argentina.
So? what? Get some 'control" of dedicated appropriations? Mabe...but - We have a government that is totally incapable of cutting down waste with social security checks, much less policing and controlling funds in a foreign country.
I am not a big fan of/or trust Cornyn or Lindsay Graham types and certainly not Romney, or many of the bureaucrats that are beating war drums. (I turned 18 in 1968 with the Vietnam "Police Action" they called it... in the seldom mentioned, biased "1969 draft lottery" my birthday number was five (5)!) However, I do have trust in the integrity and opinions of many of the conservatives who support our involvement.
But I can, without hesitation, adamantly state that I am against sending even ONE of our young soldiers over there under the control and command of the present doddering, incoherent, "Chief" and his "Keystone cop"acting, wimp, woke, military so-called-leadership he surrounds himself with. They couldn't decide whether or not to take down a balloon before taking some kind of "poll", for God's sake! They are afraid of their own shadow. I think they would have trouble deciding between fries or curly cues at the drive through. I hung my head in shame and grieved while listening to the testimony of the soldier missing an arm and leg from the indecision and outright malicious incompetence during the Afghanistan withdrawal fiasco so Biden could have bragging rights to his base about meeting a "goal". We may have some good solid hard-nosed leadership in our military, but this administration doesn't have the gumption or nerve to find it.
Plus, from the image that our military has shown the world, allies and enemies, I am not sure that anyone in Ukraine would even want our military over there under our present command. The Ukrainians, from all reports have fought hard and valiantly for a year now with thousands of soldiers and innocent women and children killed and/or dislocated. I can't help but admire their tenacity and resolve.
So I guess I am leaning towards, yes, help them - but not with "funding" - I am for sending them weapons and tools to fight with. I wouldn't mind help build a missile to shoot at the Russian military!
The only undeniable, "best", definite solution, unfortunately will be reflected in history books... Unless, of course, the woke liberal crowd get to write it.
Dana, I think the good Senator is afraid of you.