Ukraine, NATO & the Powell Doctrine

In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait because it insisted that Kuwait had drilled oil wells that tapped into Iraqi oil. Within hours of that invasion, President George H.W. Bush emphatically stated "This will not stand." Later, in a meeting with Lady Thatcher, Thatcher instructed Bush "George, don't go wobbly." He didn't. Iraq's invasion didn't stand.

Bush 41 got it right in Iraq in the sense that he had a well-defined mission and he had enough troops to defeat Saddam Hussein thanks to what's known as the Powell Doctrine. The Powell Doctrine is named after then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Collin Powell.

The Modern War Institute lays out the Powell Doctrine here:

  1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
  2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
  3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
  4. Have all other nonviolent policy means been fully exhausted?
  5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
  6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
  7. Is the action supported by the American people?
  8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
Next, let's apply these questions to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The answer to Q1 is yes. Ukraine is part of the breadbasket of the world. The sooner Ukraine or NATO throws Russia out of Ukraine, the better off everyone will be from an agricultural standpoint and from an inflation standpoint.

The answer to Q2 is emphatically a yes. Defeating Russia is definitely possibility after the Kremlin announced that they're redeploying their troops from Kyiv to the Donbas region:
The Russian military on Friday signaled that it might be lowering its war ambitions and would be focusing on defeating Ukrainian forces in the eastern Donbas region, though military analysts said it remained to be seen whether the move constituted a meaningful shift or was a maneuver to distract attention ahead of another offensive.

 This is proof that Russia is underperforming. The Russians can spin this whichever way they want but consolidating their gains won in 2014 is admitting defeat. Period.

The Russians are retreating. Now's the time to resupply Ukraine. Retreating from dug-in positions takes time. Now's the time to hit the tanks with as many Javelins as possible.

The best way to defend NATO countries is by defeating Russia in Ukraine. Humiliating Putin's Russia on the international stage is the ultimate victory. In this video, the Russians state that their "main goal" was "the liberation of Donbas":

Putin knows that he's in the process of getting humiliated. It's now clear that his military isn't as powerful as he's projected. To negotiate at this point is foolish. Humiliating Putin should be Ukraine's goal:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Image
After Minnesota's Democrats shoved the most controversial progressive legislation down Minnesotans' throats, gossip started popping up about Gov. Walz being interested in running for president . That's died off but Gov. Walz is still making headlines, this time for all the wrong reasons. First, Gov. Walz isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, Gov. Walz is fighting against Minnesota's history. This Alpha News article quotes David Hann, the chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party, as saying " The flag the DFL has eliminated was a version of the historic flag our regiments fought under during the Civil War. Minnesota was the first state to offer troops to the Union cause in 1861 , beginning a long tradition of leading the nation in confronting injustice. The DFL quest to erase our history is repugnant and should be rejected." Gov. Walz, though, sees things differently. He's quoted as saying "Minnesota is a diverse state, it continue
Read more

What is Kamala Harris afraid of?

Image
Apparently, Kamala Harris suddenly loves debating. Let me rephrase that. Harris loves debating as long as the moderators are partisan hacks. She wants nothing to do with a debate moderated by Fox's Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. She's afraid of Bret and Martha because a) they'll either fact-check both her and Trump or they won't fact-check either of them and b) Bret and Martha aren't afraid of asking follow-up questions. To a candidate whose answers are scripted and who isn't quick on her feet, the last thing you want is a follow-up question. Kamala fears follow-up questions like vampires hate wooden stakes, sunlight and holy water. Why has Kamala Harris avoided Fox News like the plague? The moderators/propagandists fact-checked Donald Trump aggressively but didn't fact-check Harris . Why didn't David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-check both candidates equally? Is it because Harris doesn't like fair fights? Perhaps she's just afraid of getting exp
Read more

Why is Joe Biden letting Hamas off the hook?

Image
It isn't disputable whether Joe Biden's administration is letting Hamas off the hook. That issue was settled months ago, when a spineless Joe Biden caved to activists interested in saving Hamas and thwarting the Israelis' attempt to defend themselves. Gerard Baker's op-ed highlights what's at stake for the U.S. if the terrorists are permitted to survive. In his op-ed, Baker wrote "If, under the pressure of internal Democratic politics and global public opinion, the Biden administration forces a 'cease-fire' that leaves our closest ally in the region short of victory over an enemy that seeks to destroy it, sooner or later we shall all pay the price." It's time to revisit George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. It's required that we remind ourselves of one of its most important paragraphs. In talking about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, President Bush identified al-Qa'ida as "a collectio
Read more