Now, before we rush into rash decisions here, realize that Joe Biden hasn’t made any decision to send troops into harms way in Eastern Europe. They aren’t going to Ukraine just yet. Oh, they’re getting ready. That means they are packing their bags, putting their affairs in order, saying goodbye to family and friends. But they’re not shoving off just yet.
Biden wants to wait a bit to see what Vladimir Putin is going to do. After Biden’s remarks during his press conference last week, where he said that “If it were just an insurgency, we wouldn’t send troops, we’d consider other options.” Putin probably took that as a green light to move forward with invading the rest of Ukraine. Remember, he took Crimea from Ukraine with not a shot being fired, and no real response from the United States back during the Obama administration. Biden is showing him that he probably can get away with taking the rest of the country as well.
OK, let’s get to the elephant in the room.
Are we going to trust the same guy that couldn’t withdraw troops from Afghanistan without causing a major catastrophe the ability to run at the very least, a high tension situation with one of our sworn enemies of almost a century? Is Joe Biden, and his secretaries of Defense and State really up to the task of running a war? The man hasn’t been able to run his own party, so how in God’s green earth is he able to send troops thousands of miles away and actively and acutely send them into battle. And with Russia amassing over 100,000 troops, what is 8,500 troops going to do besides become a shooting gallery for the Russians?
Oh, you knew that the whole Afghanistan issue was going to come up here, right? I mean, we aren’t going to let that one go. Biden has shown major incompetence in dealing with the military. His generals haven’t done much better. And the world’s most powerful, best trained, best equipped armed forces have suffered because of the lack of leadership. We don’t often hear of the soldiers fighting the battles throughout history, we hear of the generals leading the troops. Whether it was Marcus Agrippa, Hannibal, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, George Washington, George Patton, or Norman Schwartzkopf, it was the generals that we remember. Not the “best trained, best equipped soldiers.
And throughout history, it was those generals that basically were leading their nations (except for Patton and Schwartzkopf). Would you honestly say that you would put Joe Biden or Mark Milley on that list? I don’t think I could.
Should there be a response to Russia invading any other country…not just a former satellite? Of course! But are we ready to throw our talent and treasure into another Afghanistan? I know Democrats want to think that they can use crippling sanctions against Russia. Well, they haven’t really worked well against others in the past. Oh, it’s starved a lot of people, but the leadership rarely changes. Look at what happened when we put sanctions on Iran. Maybe Russia when they misbehaved. Or what about China? Yes, their economy suffered a bit. But the leaders didn’t. The people are the ones that suffered. Same thing will happen here, and I would contend we don’t really have a fight with the people of Russia. We have a fight with it’s leader. And sanctions aren’t the answer.
Is a “hot war” the way to show him we mean business? No. Of course not. Strong and decisive leadership is the way to do that. Nikita Khrushchev was defeated by John F. Kennedy without firing a shot during the Cuban Missile Crisis. THAT is the type of leadership that we aren’t getting out of this administration.
Can anyone tell me how many presidents in the last 90 years or so have NOT sent troops into battle, but were able to avoid war by their leadership? There has been one. Donald Trump. He inherited Afghanistan, as had several presidents before, but he did not initiate any military action. That’s going back to FDR by the way (90 years).
Carry on world…you’re dismissed!