People, Putin and Vladimir's Great Terror

If anything is surprising about Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine, it’s that the plan was practically written by a retired British Army general. Sir John Hackett, in his novel, The Third World War: August 1985, published more than 40 years ago, along with his co-authors, described how the Soviet Union invaded western Europe, used a nuclear missile, and, after Great Britain and the United States responded in kind, experienced a coup. Coincidentally enough, in the novel, it’s a Ukrainian, Vasyl Duglenko, who becomes the Soviet Union’s new leader and sues for peace, bringing down the federation and leaving Russia isolated and alone.

The only question today is how Putin’s "special military operation" ends. Will he turn to nuclear weapons, as described in Sir John’s book, or will he continue to fight a conventional war, possibly expanding it against NATO? Will another revolution break out in Russia, similar to what happened during the First World War? And will Putin’s allies, whether it’s China or a former Soviet republic, join him on his military adventure or decline the opportunity? 

The only thing that’s certain, as of right now, is that the West is responding to Russia’s aggression and Putin’s war aims haven’t been met, at least not yet. Given that NATO appears to have found its backbone, it doesn’t appear Russia will be successful.

 

The best way to end this – to show the average Russian, and those in the government, that Putin’s military adventurism was ill-conceived and without any payoff – is for Ukraine to inflict the highest number of casualties possible against Russian armed forces and to liberate the territory that Moscow seized in 2014. Anything less could provide the average Russian, as well as someone in Putin’s government, with a lingering sense that their invasion is or was winnable. 

 

As for Putin’s latest speech, if he wants to return the country to its “glory days” of the 19^th century, so be it. By isolating his country from the West, which has a higher standard of living than Russia, Putin is leading it onto a suicidal path, economically and militarily. In addition, he is, without question, worried about his citizens because he’s censoring and silencing them. Most certainly, he’s making sure Moscow has one reliable ally, China, which could very well be encouraging this fool’s errand so it can gain insight into the U.S. and allied response should it attack Taiwan.

 

Then there’s the issue of Moscow suspending The New START Treaty. Could this lead Putin to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine or a NATO country? It’s hard to fathom he isn’t aware of how NATO would respond. But given the underestimation of NATO’s response to his conventional attack, a nuclear exchange isn’t out of the question.

 

If Russia’s military operation continues without success, say for another year or two, which appears possible, Putin could likely become even more apprehensive, not so much about how he’s perceived by other countries but by his own people, perhaps even those closest to him. Will it lead him to enact a modern-day version of Joseph Stalin’s Great Terror?

 

Russia has a history of revolution. It’s not limited to just 1917. Its people turned against their leaders recently, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, taking down the Soviet Union. At some point, after experiencing the despondency of a soured economy and anguish and torment from burying their sons, brothers, cousins, fathers, and uncles from a failed military operation, they’ll likely do what Sir John and his co-authors wrote: They’ll revolt.

 

How bloody could this next revolution be? Could it be successful and who will be in charge next – one of Putin’s former cronies or a surprise, someone no one saw on the horizon?

 

Putin would be well-advised to declare victory and leave Ukraine.

 

 

 

 

Middle East peace: A modest proposal

Editor's Note:  This is the speech President Obama needs to give to the Middle East.

"My fellow Americans, citizens around the world, especially those in the Middle East, including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Kurdistan, the Gaza Strip, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Gulf States of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Yemen, Somalia, as well as those in Malaysia and any other countries where Muslims or Arabs live:

"It’s time for the Arab World and the Muslim World to grow up!

"For the last sixty or so years, ever since the United States recognized Israel, you’ve acted like petulant two-year-olds, expecting the Western World, the United States and its Allies, in particular, to grant your every wish just so you wouldn’t throw a temper tantrum and then reach for your guns, your bombs and your knives.

"You kill your own people, even those who share your religious faith.  You outright murder innocent Americans trying to tell your story and – even more horrifying – those attempting to help you, like that Briton you recently beheaded. 

"Seriously, what gives with you people?

"I’m not going to tell you that U.S. policies in the Middle East have been perfect because, I, like so many others, know they haven’t been.  But one thing is for sure – more often not, certainly in the last 50 years, the United States has stood for equal rights, human rights and civil rights and, more importantly, the rule of law. 

"Women have voted in every U.S. presidential election since 1920.  And today many women hold top positions not only in government but also in industry.  Women – and this is critical for all you Arabs and Muslims to understand especially if you think your God-given mission is to put them down – are equal partners with men.  They drive cars, fly airplanes, are in the military, are doctors, scientists, stockbrokers, politicians as well as mothers and wives.

"For those of you who think you need to keep women down, well, all that shows me is how weak you really are.  Strong men never fear strong women.  So if you think Allah wants to you to keep her barefoot and pregnant or remain some third-class citizen, think again.

"This sectarian warfare you wage against those who share the basic tenants of your faith or those who don’t, needs to stop immediately.  Even Northern Ireland, once the scene of many battles between Christians in the Catholic and Protestant wings, is peaceful.  And, in a far earlier time, in the 1640s, Catholics and Protestants stopped fighting one another in Europe – for religious reasons.

'The United States has had strong presidents but never once has it had – and never will it have – a dictator.  We vote and adjust our policies based on those in political power.  And as a result, we’re successful.  You buy our products.  You use our social media. 

"The only thing we get from you is oil.  And given what we’re doing in the United States – what with fracking and developing alternative energy sources – soon the United States and the West won’t need the only thing you have to offer.

"Which means if you don’t change your ways, there won’t be a single reason to invest in your part of the world.  Which means more of you will be unemployed and many more of you will be impoverished.  And if you think turning to your guns, your bombs and your knives – and hijacking your religious faith – is going to solve your problems, keep something in mind.

"The American people have limits.  If we feel pressured, whether it’s to end a war in the Middle East or elsewhere around the globe, any president, including this one, has an arsenal that includes some quite nasty weapons that will end any conflict – quickly!

"Of course, no speech is complete without a proposal.  Therefore, today, I’m suggesting that all the Arab and Muslim nations in the Middle East as well as Iran, Israel, Turkey and the Kurds, come to together to write and agree on their version of the Treaty of Westphalia. 

"For those of you who don’t know about this Treaty, way back in the 1640s, it ended thirty years of fighting between Catholics and Protestants in Europe.  It was the beginning of international law and forced each country to recognize each other’s religious preferences – even if they disagreed with it.  Even if they didn’t like it.  It also recognized the rights of religious minorities in those countries. 

"The United States is prepared to host this meeting or, if necessary, we can find another country, a neutral one, where this meeting can take place.  For the sake of your children, for the sake of your very own lives, for the sake of peace, I highly suggest you take me up on this proposal.

"If you don’t want to come together, then the Middle East will remain what it’s been recently – nothing more than a backwater ghetto.

"The choice is up to you.  And know this – it’s time for the Arab World and the Muslim World to grow up!

"Thank you for listening."

What's the war plan, Mr. President?

“And it’s one, two, three,

What are we fighting for?”

                                                                        ~ Country Joe McDonald

So now the Obama Administration, which came into office promising

to “reset” relations with Russia and persuade Middle Eastern terrorists

to convert their weapons into plowshares, is taking the United States

into war.

Teed up is Syria, which is being overrun by numerous anti-state

fighters, and whose condition – that of a failed country – poses

a threat to U.S. and global security unseen since Afghanistan

was under Taliban rule.

Also inside American crosshairs is ISIS, the terrorist group

dominating headlines since it brutally killed American freelance

reporter James Foley and made, until U. S. Navy fighter planes

started bombing them, significant gains in Iraq. 

Not only is ISIS so extreme it makes Al Qaeda look rational,

it’s also highly ambitious, with one member of its ranks saying his

organization won’t rest until its flag flies above the White House.[i]

Seriously, what’s a peace-leaving, smarter-than-you Democrat,

like Barack Obama, to do?

Easy – borrow from the playbook of every president since 1980,

maybe even earlier.

Sure, the White House diatribe sounds good.  We’re going to bomb

ISIS wherever we find it.  Our drones will fly over Syrian cities and

long stretches of Iraqi desert.  If they lack sufficient capabilities to kill

terrorists and destroy weapons, no worry.  Navy and Air Force jets

will be on call.

Parts of our Navy’s surface fleet might even get in on the action

by launching cruise missiles.  Let’s also hope for numerous

opportunities to keep our elite, special forces on top of their

game with plenty of dangerous combat missions.

If only this war were the real thing and not a live-fire exercise.

It’s a few bombs here, a few bombs there, spiced with some

intoxicating, edge-of-the-seat, missions from Delta Force, the

 Seals, maybe even the Green Berets.

But that’s where it stops.

A plausible case can be made that U. S. military operations in

World War II’s Pacific Theater could have come to halt once

Japan’s progress was stopped with two critical battles, Coral

Sea and Midway.

In Europe – for a few years at least – the fighting could have

been left to the Army Air Corps as it bombed factories, towns

and military installations in Nazi-occupied Europe and Germany.

That is, until their advance stopped and we figured out a time and

a place to work out a peace treaty with Berlin and, eventually,

Tokyo.

And what would we be dealing with these many years later?  The

fifth generation of Nazi leadership and the 21^st century version

of Japan’s militarists!

And there’s the problem.  President Obama has no more of

strategy to beat the terrorists, whether they’re ISIS, Al Qaeda or

anyone else – in other words, to solve the problem – than

President Johnson did for winning the Vietnam War.

Or than Jimmy Carter did for releasing our hostages in

Tehran.  Or than President Reagan did for winning in Lebanon,

or than President George H. W. Bush did for eliminating

Saddam Hussein or than President Clinton did for outright

defeating Osama bin Laden.

And, frankly, blame can also be left with President George W.

Bush, whose two wars were left unfinished.

Come to think of it, had Presidents Truman and Eisenhower

fought for a victory in Korea, today we wouldn’t be contending

with the third generation of the family running North Korea.

So the question we need to ask – as posed by 1960s music star

Country Joe McDonald – is what are we fighting for?  A total

elimination of the terrorists in Syria and Iraq or is Obama

creating a quagmire the next five to 10 generations of Americans

will deal with?

This same kind of thinking came from Martin Dempsey, the

U.S. military’s top officer.

“They can be contained (but) not into perpetuity,” he said,

referring to ISIS, during last week’s news conference.[ii]

Airstrikes can do so much, Dempsey said.  They alone

cannot stop a determined force, like ISIS.  What we need, the

general inferred, is a plan, something that includes all out

American force, both a military and diplomatic.

The President and his advisors need to craft a strategy similar

to what U. S. Army General Winfield Scott proposed at the

outbreak of the Civil War.  Call it Operation Anaconda, just 

like the general called his plan.

It would surround Syria and Iraq and, through airstrikes, special

operations and conventional infantry forces, destroy ISIS and

every other terrorist movement in those two countries, maybe

even Bashar al-Assad’s government. 

In other words, we need to fight a real war with one objective

– total victory.

Then, of course, we’ll need something along the lines of a

Marshall Plan to win the peace.

If there’s anything President Obama should know, it’s

this:  Failure to eliminate ISIS and restructure Syria and

Iraq will create more costly problems in the future, possibly 

in American and allied lives.

Did you really think Obama was brighter than the rest?

 “Don’t ask me why,

Don’t give a damn,

My next stop is Islam!”

~ with apologies to Country Joe

---

[i] http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/08/new-isis-video-‘we-will-raise-black-flag-over-white-house’

[ii] http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/08/22/dempsey-isis-has-an-end-of-days-strategic-vision/s 

Ich bin ein Berliner

The tragedy of watching President Kennedy’s inspirational 1963 speech in West Berlin, and hearing his now famous phrase, “Ich bin ein Berliner,” met with cheers from the city’s citizens, is that too many people can’t put his words into historical context. 

What they don’t see is what it took for JFK to earn the crowd’s adoration.  It was coming from a people experienced in living under a totalitarian regime, Hitler and his Nazis, who, very suddenly, found themselves at the epicenter of the next greatest political stand off – the fight between freedom and Soviet-style oppression.

Having received the news about the Berlin Wall in August 1961, President Kennedy could have written off West Berlin, letting it fall into the hands of the Soviets and East Germans.  He could have stated there was no strategic consequence to ceding the city.

But instead of taking the easy way out, President Kennedy made a difficult decision, ordering what would become known as the “Berlin Brigade,” a 1,500 strong contingent of U.S. troops, into West Berlin, demonstrating that the United States wasn’t about to allow the Soviet Union and East Germany to occupy the entire city – at least not without a fight.

By doing so, Kennedy was challenging Moscow to a dare – to find out how serious they were about taking West Berlin, since only days earlier they started building the Berlin Wall.

Today, we’re at the same point with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the issue of Ukraine’s sovereignty.  If ever there were an “Ich bin ein Berliner” moment for President Barack Obama, this is it.

This isn’t the fight the United States and its allies want.  Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula likely come with more problems than we would prefer to solve.

But the issue isn’t Ukraine alone.  It’s what happens next if we don’t stop Putin now.

Are a country’s borders for real?  Or can they simply be shifted back and moved around at will, depending on which army invades?

When does Putin look at a map of the United States, to see where Russian émigrés are living, and do the unthinkable:  Decide his fellow citizens, inhabiting towns like Ashland, Brookline, Newton, Millers Falls and Sharon Massachusetts; Sharon Springs, New York; Mountain View, California, and various suburbs around Chicago, like Northbrook and Wheeling, Illinois, and think they, too, need to be protected.[i]

In fact, according to the source for that information, there are 101 cities and towns in the United States where many Russian immigrants are living.

Do they require the services of the Russian Armed Forces?

President Obama needs to make the hard decision.  He needs to put a contingent of troops on the ground in Ukraine and in the Crimea, showing Putin that he better withdraw his ground forces.

If he does so, he might just get the “Ich bin ein Berliner” moment he so very much wants.

If he cedes so much as an inch of ground to Russia in this latest international standoff, he looks no better than Jimmy Carter or, worse, Neville Chamberlin.

---

[i] http://www.city-data.com/top2/h64.html

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!

 That iconic American, Mark Twain, said it best:  “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

It shows in the comments from Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday, justifying his country’s military takeover of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula:

“He … insisted that if Russian-speaking citizens in the east of

 Ukraine ask for Russia's help, Russia has the right ‘to take all

 measures to protect the rights of those people.’”[i]

And from Adolf Hitler as his forces entered Austria – without a shot fired – in what’s termed the “Anschluss” (or union) in March 1938:

            “The Reich will not permit Germans to be persecuted any longer

             in this territory because of their membership of our nation or

their loyalty to certain views … I have, therefore, decided to place

the assistance of the Reich at the disposal of the millions of Germans

in Austria … soldiers of the German armed forces have been

marching across the entire border of German Austria … They

will guarantee that the Austrian people will shortly be given the

opportunity to decide their future and their destiny by means

of a genuine plebiscite.”[ii]

Before long, posters were going up, declaring, “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!  (One people, one empire, one leader!)

Soon after, Hitler broke up Czechoslovakia, by taking over the Sudetenland, where ethnic Germans lived, and, later that same year, with the acquiescence of Great Britain and France, ended the country’s existence (at least until the war ended).

So here we are, facing the greatest fascist since Hitler, figuring out how to prevent Putin from issuing the next order, which will likely send his troops into combat in the Crimea and on a march toward Kiev.

There’s speculation, by one CNN military analyst, President Obama told Putin he wouldn’t commit American soldiers to resolve this problem.[iii] 

So what’s Putin doing?  Biding his time before making a move that will shock the world even more. 

The tragedy of this situation is that it parallels Germany and the 1930s, a time when a forceful response from Great Britain and France, maybe even the United States, to Hitler’s provocations could likely have averted an even greater calamity, a European war that, all totaled up, killed about 40 million people, maybe more.[iv]

Just like today, no western European nation then had the stomach for military action, even a limited amount, which could stop something worse.

Sure, it’s hard to find a reason Americans and its western European counterparts will fight in the Crimea or in Ukraine but it’s better to initiate a standoff now, when the situation is more favorable to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 

In fact, if Putin isn’t forced to withdraw, you can be certain, just as we learned from Hitler, he’ll strike again.  He was emboldened after Obama failed to involve the United States in Syria.  You have to fear what Putin will do next if Obama does nothing now.

Coincidence?

The Anschluss happened nearly 20 years after the end of World War I, a time when many people viewed Germany as a defeated warrior.  It was just over 20 years ago today that Soviet leaders learned they lost the Cold War. 

Right now, many look upon Russia and see what their grandparents and great grandparents saw in Germany up until September 1939 – a country that was.

Putin knows this and, like his long ago predecessor, the czar Peter the Great, he’s reestablishing his country’s former dominance. 

In addition, if this latest provocation shows anything, it’s this:  There’s no such thing as a “peace dividend,” when defense budgets can be cut.  With the end of the Cold War, the world’s more dangerous.

What’s next? 

That’s the question that needs to be answered.  The possibilities are endless but Putin could do any of the following:

• ·      Move against the Baltics.
• ·      Team up with China (one of the few countries supporting Putin’s actions) – it could send one submarine to make sure the United States and its Asian allies are prevented from keeping the South China Sea open to international fishing.
• ·      Align with China to prevent Japan from asserting its sovereignty over the Senkaku islands.  Here again, Russia could send a submarine to make a statement.
• ·      Russia occupies the rest of its former Soviet state, Georgia, also located along the Black Sea.

What can be done?

What’s surprising is that not even The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page editors saw this one.  They suggested deploying the U.S. Sixth Fleet into the Black Sea, long the dominion of the Russian (and, previously, Soviet) navy. 

An even better idea comes from the playbook of the one president Obama likely admires, Jack Kennedy.

On August 13, 1961, East Germans sealed off the crossing points between East and West Berlin and started building the Berlin Wall.  There was a very good chance they would move into West Berlin, kicking out the United States and its allies from the city. 

Instead of playing a weak hand, President Kennedy and his generals played a strong one.

They created the Berlin Brigade and seven days later, on the 20^th, marched 1,500 U.S. troops into West Berlin.[v]  Tensions were high but East Germany and the Soviet Union received the message – the United States would not be thrown out of West Berlin without a fight.

The same play could be used in Ukraine, perhaps in the Crimea, too.  Put U.S. troops, and allied ones on the ground and on patrol, saying very publicly they’re going to make sure the rights of those supporting the Kiev government are protected.

This puts Putin on notice.  If he fires a shot at an American or allied solider, there will be a vigorous military response.  Otherwise, we’re there as a peaceful force.

Journalist Gordon Brook-Shepherd, in his book about the Anschluss, states that Austria was always the world’s rehearsal ground.  Today, it’s in the Crimea and Ukraine.

If the United States and its allies fail to stand up to Putin, where does the stage go next?  How much worse will it be?

These critical questions require answers from President Obama and his foreign policy experts.

---

[i] CNN.com -- http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/world/europe/ukraine-russia-tensions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[ii] Gordon Brook-Shepherd, The Anschluss, (New York:  J. B. Lippincott Company, 1963), page 188.

[iii] CNN.com -- http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1403/03/cnr.05.html

[iv] http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html and http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Austria/Anschluss01.html

[v] http://www.armyheritage.org/education-and-programs/educational-resources/education-materials-index/50-information/soldier-stories/303-berlinbrigade

Inspired to attack

Let's keep something in mind: The appeasement policies of Neville Chamberlain inspired Adolf Hitler. Chamberlain tried hard to keep Hitler in a bottle and even gave away Austria, thinking it would satisfy him.

As we all know, it didn't. Hitler attacked Poland and then followed up that campaign with one against Western Europe.

So, if anyone tells you that the war in Iraq is only inspiring the terrorists and making the United States more vulnerable to attack, ask them this: What did the United States do, before 9/11, to inspire the terrorists?

If anything, we've done more for Muslims than they've ever done for Christians or, for that matter, Jews. At the direction of President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the United States, and its NATO allies, defended Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo with bombing campaigns over Serbia and other parts of the Balkans.

And, I note, there were no Saudi fighter jets, or any other planes from Muslim and Arab countries, flying sorties against the Serbians. If they hate us, fine. But, at the very least, Arabs and Muslims could do a better job of defending their own kind.

In addition, the United States has provided millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians.

Sometimes a country can do nothing, like Great Britain, and yet still be hated by another country, like Germany of the 1930s, or a terrorist group.

Update on the United States Military

This update: The United States military, reports today's New York Times, because of its combat obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan, wants more help from the National Guard.

While the Army is planning to expand to 42 combat brigades, there's concern, among people in the know, that the military -- including the Marines, Air Force and Navy -- lacks enough manpower to handle another war.

It's not likely that the North Koreans would cross the DMZ but if they did, we would be hard-pressed to stop them.

The United States Census Bureau reports, in its 2000 census, that there are 63 million men between the ages of 18 - 49.

While not everyone in that pool is qualified to serve, it's time for the United States to reinstate the draft, so we have the forces necessary to win in Iraq and Afghanistan. Citizenship means more than just voting and paying taxes. It also means serving the country in time of need.

For the record, your writer is 44 and in pretty good shape. But who knows, I may not be fit for combat.

NATO's Secretary-General, meantime, reports that the organization needs additional forces to defeat the Taliban. NATO has performed well against the enemy. But it needs more troops if it is to succeed in the longrun.

It's time for us to have a debate in this country about victory. Do we want it? Or do we want to hole up on our shores and pretend that the terrorists, whatever their stripe, will just go away. Also, what's our obligation to Iraq and Afghanistan now that we're there?