The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

The Wars You Don’t Fight

The Wars You Don’t Fight – Part I

No one should want to fight a war, especially a war that has no direct impact on yourself. However, not only should you consider fighting a war that has a direct impact, but you should also consider fighting a war that does not have a direct impact but may eventually engulf yourself. Such indirect wars are hard to justify but even harder to determine if there could be a justification. The last half-century has seen America become involved in conflicts that did not have a direct impact on America and even may have had a dubious indirect impact on America. These indirect wars have made America wary of engaging in indirect wars, and justly so. However, this wariness should not be determinative in going to war, but it should be a precaution about engaging in indirect impact wars.

The history of the beginnings of World War II is illuminative of this dilemma. Prior to the outbreak of WWII in Europe, we saw Germany take many aggressive actions in Europe as follows:

• Re-occupation of the Rhineland in March 1936
• Annexation of Austria in March 1938
• Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia Occupied in September 1938
• Invasion and occupation Czechoslovakia in March 1939
• Invasion of Poland in September 1939
• Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939
• Denmark and Norway invaded and occupied in April 1940
• Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France were invaded and occupied in May 1940
• Yugoslavia and Greece were invaded and occupied in April 1941
• Russia invasion in June 1941

Prior to the outbreak of WWII in Asia, we saw Japan take many aggressive actions in Asia as follows:

• Japan invaded Manchuria in September 1931
• The Second Sino-Japanese War started in July 1937
• The Japanese invasion of French Indochina in September 1940

During this time, America was in the Great Depression and had an isolationist sentiment. Indeed, they wanted no part in another European war after World War I. There was an activist peace movement in America that had rallies to not enter the current European conflict. It was not until the Lend-Lease policy, which was enacted March 11, 1941 (formally titled ‘An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States’), that America began a limited involvement in the European conflict. The Lend-Lease policy was a program under which the United States supplied the United Kingdom (and British Commonwealth), Free France, the Republic of China, and later the Soviet Union and other Allied nations with food, oil, and materiel between 1941 and 1945.  Also, at this time, Americans essentially ignored the Japanese actions in Asia, while the American government attempted to curb Imperial Japanese actions through diplomacy and economic action. They did this by placing an oil embargo against Japan, which only made Imperial Japan more aggressive in obtaining Southeast Asia oil supplies.

As a result of the Japanese Empire's attack on Pearl Harbor, and subsequent American Declaration of War on Japan, and Germany’s Declaration of War on America as an ally of Japan, America finally entered into the war in the Pacific and Europe. A war that resulted in millions of deaths, vast destruction, and huge expenditures of America's treasury. It is impossible to speculate if WWII could have been averted if America had engaged in a confrontation with Germany and Japan before the outbreak of war, but we do know that nonintervention by America did nothing to alleviate a war.

What we can learn from this history is that unless unprovoked aggression by nations is confronted and stymied, these aggressive nations will continue with their aggressions. A lesson that history from ancient to modern times has taught us many times.

The reason for this Chirp is that we are facing a similar situation today. In March 2014, Russian troops took control of Ukraine’s Crimean region before formally annexing the peninsula after Crimeans voted to join the Russian Federation in a disputed local referendum. Their reasoning and actions were very reminiscent of the NAZI takeover of the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia prior to WWII. And now Russia is positioning troops on the border of Ukraine that may be a precursor to an invasion and takeover of Ukraine. We also, today, have China making very bellicose statements against Taiwan and other neighboring nations, much like Imperial Japan threatened China prior to WWII, which was followed by the aggressive actions of Imperial Japan against Manchuria China. Russia and China have recently announced both nations have signed a road map for closer military ties, and they have been strengthening their joint military training activities at sea, in the air, and on land this year. This is very reminiscent of the pact between Germany and Japan prior to WWII.

The question for America is that is today’s actions of Russia and threats from China a precursor to greater aggression and possible wider conflicts in their respective regions of the world? And if we believe they are precursors, what is the appropriate response of America? Should we sit back and watch as events unfold, or should we take some non-diplomatic and non-economic actions (as diplomatic and economic actions rarely curb the aggression of aggressive nations) to curb Russian aggression and Chinese belligerence? And if we do act against Russia and China, what is the nature and extent of our actions?

I have neither the knowledge, experience, nor wisdom to determine if this Russian aggression will spread and engulf other European nations or China will start aggressive actions in Asia. I have only the fear that if we do nothing, then we increase the chances of further Russian aggression in Europe and the start of China's aggression in Asia. If this happens, there is the possibility that America may need to become involved in another war in Europe and Asia to protect its direct interests in Europe and Asia, as well as our indirect interests of the protection of the Liberties and Freedoms of the European and Asiatic people.

The Wars You Don’t Fight – Part II

The previous section of this article points out that the situation in Ukraine could escalate and pose a danger to peace and possible war in Europe. In March 2014, Russian troops took control of Ukraine’s Crimean region before formally annexing the peninsula after Crimeans voted to join the Russian Federation in a disputed local referendum. And now Russia is positioning troops on the border of Ukraine that may be a precursor to an invasion and takeover of Ukraine.

The question for America is that is today’s actions of Russia a precursor to greater aggression and possible wider conflicts in Europe? And if we believe that this is a precursor, what is the appropriate response of America? Should we sit back and watch as events unfold, or should we take some non-diplomatic and non-economic actions (as diplomatic and economic actions rarely curb the aggression of aggressive nations) to curb Russian aggression? And if we do act against Russia, what is the nature and extent of our actions?

One of the loudest voices for minimal action is Tucker Carlson, while many in government are arguing for more proactive and even military actions by America in the Ukraine situation. I generally agree with Tucker Carlson that America should be wary of getting involved in Ukraine, but I am concerned that his argumentation has some assertions that, if they turn out to be false, could have detrimental consequences for America.

As I have stated many times in my Chirps and Articles, Assertions often contain Presumptions; Assumptions; Incorrect Facts; Incomplete Facts; Missing Facts; Irrelevant Facts; Faulty Reasoning; Logical Fallacies; Cognitive Biases; and the Unintended Consequences problems that may be inherent in the assertion. Some of Tucker Carlson’s assertions about the situation in Ukraine, and my notes on these assertions are:

• Vladimir Putin has no intention of invading Western Europe.
  (Note – Tucker says nothing of Vladimir Putin’s intentions of invading Eastern Europe.)
• Vladimir Putin just wants to keep his western borders secure.
  (Note – This was said of the reasons for the Soviet Union domination and control of Eastern Europe, which is not a valid reason for the aggression against any country.)
• The United States would gain precisely nothing from taking over Ukraine.
  (Note – I agree with Tucker that there is nothing to be gained, but the United States does not want to take over Ukraine, it only wants to stop Russia from taking over Ukraine.)
• Vladimir Putin doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO as I would become a satellite country.
  (Note – NATO countries are not satellites of any other country – they are independent states.)
• NATO currently exists primarily to torment Vladimir Putin.
  (Note – I thought NATO currently exists to primarily torment America.)
• NATO wishes to take over Ukraine.
  (Note – Rather than Ukraine wanting to join NATO to protect itself against Russian aggression.)
• A NATO takeover of Ukraine would compromise Russia’s access to its Sevastopol Naval Base.
  (Note - Sevastopol Naval Base existed in Ukraine’s Crimean region prior to Russia seizing control of Crimea, and it was protected by the Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet between Ukraine and Russia, which could have been extended or additionally protected by an international treaty if necessary.)
• We are driving Russia deeper into the arms of the government of China.
  (Note – We don’t need to drive Russia into the arms of China. They seem quite happy to do this themselves as a means to extend their influence across the world.)

If any one of these assertions is incorrect, then the conclusions that Tucker Carlson reaches would be wrong. History has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, to predetermine the motivations and goals of aggressors and that when you misjudge an aggressive leaders’ intentions, you often pay the penalty for your misjudgments. In modern history, we have the examples of the misjudgments of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Napoleon Bonaparte that led to war in Europe. Many of his assertions about the intentions of Vladimir Putin were also made about the intentions of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Napoleon Bonaparte, with disastrous consequences. I would therefore ask Tucker Carlson, as in the words of wisdom of one of our Founding Fathers, that he:

"Doubt a little of your own infallibility."
  - Benjamin Franklin

I would also ask that he ponder the possibility that he is wrong in these assertions and that, therefore, we could be blundering into another armed conflict in Europe.

I have neither the knowledge, experience, nor wisdom to determine if this Russian aggression will spread and engulf other European nations. I also believe that our current and past government leaders do not have the wisdom to make a judgment on the intentions of Vladimir Putin. I have only the fear that if we do nothing, then we increase the chances of further Russian aggression in Europe. If this happens, there is the possibility that America may need to become involved in another war in Europe to protect its direct interests in Europe, as well as our indirect interests of the protection of the Liberties and Freedoms of the European people.

The Wars You Don’t Fight – Part III

In my Chirps on "11/28/21 The Wars You Don't Fight" and "12/10/21 The Wars You Don't Fight - Part II", I discussed several points as to America’s intervention in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict may be justified, and I also pointed out how some of the objections to America's involvement in this conflict were baseless. There is, no doubt, a basis for criticism of how we have approached this (now) war, some of which I unreservedly agree with. Tucker Carlson has taken the lead in objecting to this war, and many of his points are valid and should be addressed. The incompetence of the Biden Administration in their approach to this war is another reflection of the incompetence of the Biden Administration in almost all other matters. The support for the Biden Administrations' approach to this war by many Democrat Party Leaders and Republican Party Leaders is another example of the failures of our elected representatives to govern with intelligent reasoning and cognizant explanations to the American public and instead resort to emotional appeals to the American public.

Yet, the underlying justifications for this war remain the same as I discussed in my Chirps. A new article by Michael Allen, “Top 5 reasons America must support Ukraine and help it defeat Russia”, he points out that this war advances America's interests. These American interests are:

1. Ukraine keeps the war from spreading
2. Ukraine is degrading a hostile Russia
3. Ukrainian success helps restore economic vitality
4. A victorious Ukraine helps the U.S. competition with China
5. A Ukrainian Victory Promotes American Values

There is much short-term pain for America and Europe in pursuing this war, but the long-term gain is worth the pain, as this article explains. Consequently, we should resolve to win this war but also resolve to fight this war more effectively and efficiently to bring it to an end as soon as possible. But we should also remember General Douglas MacArthur’s maxim that “In war, there is no substitute for victory” and that victory is the attainment of the goals for which you fought the war. A negotiated settlement in which you do not obtain your goals is only an invitation for further war in the future. Let us not, therefore, negotiate peace for less than our goals, as this would only beget a future conflict over the same goals.

In War There is No Substitute for Victory

With the war in Ukraine raging on, many are hoping that we can arrive at a peaceful diplomatic solution to the conflict. But in war, there is no substitute for victory, as anything short of victory in the face of unprovoked aggression or evil conduct will often reward the aggressor or evildoer.

We did not pursue a peaceful diplomatic solution to the aggression and evil of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in WW II, but we did pursue and achieve victory to end their actions and punish the aggressors and evildoers. Since WW II, we have often entered into conflicts without the goal of victory but for the purposes of obtaining a peaceful diplomatic solution to conflicts. This has led to more aggression and evil-doing throughout the world, as aggressors and evildoers know that they will suffer little or no punishments for their actions.

This cycle of conflict and peaceful diplomatic solutions has led to more conflict and more death and injuries to civilians, and to the destruction of infrastructure, buildings, property, and the economies in the affected countries. A cycle that cannot be broken by peaceful diplomatic solutions but requires victory and the punishment of the aggressors and evildoers. Then, and only with victory and punishment can we hope to end this cycle of conflict and peaceful diplomatic solutions.

Give Peace A Chance

“All we are saying is give peace a chance.”
 - John Lennon lyrics from ‘Give Peace A Chance’

"Give Peace a Chance" is an anti-war song by John Lennon, written and released in July 1969, which became an anthem of the American anti-war movement during the 1970s. Peace is always desirable, but peace does not mean the absence of conflict, as the great philosopher has said:

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
  - Baruch Spinoza

Peace, when confronted with evil, rarely has a chance, for evil does not recognize nor pay heed to peace. Evil must often be confronted by power and conflict for the true meaning of peace to prevail. Otherwise, evil may triumph to the detriment of true peace. And in this triumph, it often attempts to expand its evil and engulfs others in its despotism. The evildoers often attempt to justify their actions with lofty-sounding rhetoric and justifications for their evil, but it is nevertheless evil.

Natural Law and Natural Rights know no national boundaries, and all governments need to respect Natural Law and Natural Rights for them to be legitimate governments. Therefore, any such governments that do not respect Natural Law and Natural Rights are engaging in evil. Consequently, we must always confront this evil and extinguish its power. To not do so is as the great Anglo-Irish statesman, economist, and philosopher has said:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing."
- Edmund Burke

As the great American General William Tecumseh Sherman said, “War is hell”, but sometimes you must go through hell to extinguish evil when the evil is greater than the hell of war. Today, we are faced with a choice between doing nothing or responding insufficiently or sufficiently to oppose evil, as the evil of Russia and China needs confrontation. The actions of Russia in Ukraine are the result of not confronting the evil of Vladimir Putin. Tomorrow, the actions of China in Taiwan and other countries by Xi Jinping will require confrontation. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are the faces of evil, but the governments of Russia and China are the sources of their evil. Russia and China need to be reformulated to eliminate evil, as evil is the basis of their governments. Any government or business that supports Russia or China is enabling evil, and such support needs to end for peace to prevail. Decades of support by governments and businesses in the hopes of reforming Russia and China have failed, and until a full reformulation of these governments happens, it will not be possible to give peace a chance.

A Diplomatic Solution

In a previous section of this article, ‘In War There is No Substitute for Victory’, I discuss the importance of victory in a war. As the war in Ukraine rages on and atrocities against civilians mount, many are hoping that we can arrive at a peaceful diplomatic solution to end the war and restore peace in Ukraine. For those that are desirous of peace, I would remind you of the words of a great philosopher:

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
  - Baruch Spinoza

Will a peaceful diplomatic solution in Ukraine restore justice to Ukraine or instill a benevolent state of mind in Russia toward Ukraine? Will a peaceful diplomatic solution require Russia to turn over to an international court those persons accused of war crimes in Ukraine? Will a peaceful diplomatic solution require Russia to pay restitution to the Ukrainian people who suffered death, injury, and property losses as a result of Russia’s actions during the war? Will a peaceful diplomatic solution require Russia to pay restitution to Ukraine for the destruction of its infrastructure and economy by its Crime of Aggression in the invasion of Ukraine?

I do not expect any of the above to happen in a peaceful diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian war. Therefore, there will be no ‘peaceful’ solution in Ukraine, only a cessation of hostilities without justice in Ukraine. There will also be no deterrence against Russia engaging in future Crimes of Aggression against Ukraine or any other country that they may target in the future. It also sends a signal to other countries that they could engage in Crimes of Aggression and suffer little consequences if they negotiate a peaceful diplomatic solution to end the wars that they started.

A peaceful diplomatic solution is only possible before an aggressive war begins. Any peaceful diplomatic solution to end any war requires “a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice" to restore peace. Otherwise, it is just a cessation of hostilities that can lead to future hostilities and not ‘Peace’.