For the last eight months, the standard response of any administration official when questioned about the depth of U.S. commitment to the Ukraine war has been: As long as it takes.
President Biden said it himself in last week’s State of the Union address. Looking at where the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States was seated, he said, “Ambassador, America is united in our support for your country. We will stand with you as long as it takes.”
Such an ambiguous open-ended commitment is music to Washington Neocons and the Western military-industrial complex. It forms the basis of a diplomatic cover that European countries badly need to force their own parliaments to step up weapons production and support. And it is the song that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy loves to hear constantly. But if history is any indication, an “as long as it takes” war strategy is a terrible idea, especially involving a nuclear-armed nation with the world’s deepest weapons stockpile.
Even when war objectives are well and precisely defined, such as during the Persian Gulf war, outcomes are unpredictable and have unintended consequences. Recall that in 1991 President Bush 41 outlined four specific goals:
- To effect the immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait
- To restore Kuwait’s legitimate government
- To protect the lives of American citizens abroad, and
- To promote the security and stability of the Persian Gulf.
Bush was such a stickler for limiting action to what was authorized by Congress and the United Nations that even when he could go into Baghdad and oust a massively-weakened Saddam Hussein, he ordered American troops to stand down, a decision that historians have frequently criticized. But until his death, Bush expressed no regrets about his decision, pointing out how his first two objectives were met.
In fact, his third and fourth objectives never stood a chance of being successful. Worse, they suffered a significant setback when his son, President Bush 43, used the WMD excuse to return to Iraq after 9/11. The lengthy second Gulf war triggered years of strife, leading to the Arab Spring, wars in Yemen and Syria that strengthened Russian and Iranian influences, and increased terror attacks on the West by organizations like ISIS, forever changing the geopolitical balance in the region.
The “as long as it takes” strategy makes sense when fighting stateless enemies like terrorists or diseases. Even then, the goals are clear, but timelines are elastic. President Nixon declared his war on cancer in 1971, authorizing the creation of the National Cancer Institute and a clear mandate to eradicate the disease. Few would have expected then that with massive federal government resources to support research, training, and the development of treatments, cancer would still be an enemy. Fifty years later, cancer remains America’s second-leading killer with no change in sight.
President Biden’s “as long as it takes” Ukraine strategy is morally dishonest because the goals are unclear. As Sumantra Maitra points out in the American Conservative, no one knows what objective America is pursuing. Ousting Russia from territory it has acquired since Feb 24, 2022? Expelling Russia from Crimea? Regime change in Russia? Testing out American weapons on the battlefield in preparation for a future war with China?
One goal the administration has specified is supporting Ukraine’s right to protect sovereign borders by emphasizing the rules-based international order. Speaking at the U.N. Security Council, Secretary Antony Blinken said: “We cannot – we will not – allow President Putin to get away with it. Defending Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is about much more than standing up for one nation’s right to choose its own path, fundamental as that right is. It’s also about protecting an international order where no nation can redraw the borders of another by force.”
But this goal is still too broad because the administration does not specify to what length it will go to stop Putin. Will it allow him to fire a nuclear weapon on Ukraine? Will the administration fire a weapon back? Is America ready to escalate the conflict to World War III?
We know from prior administration statements that America does not want a nuclear conflict or World War III. Still, an open-ended, “as-long-as-it-takes” war ironically has a high risk of pushing America into both.
As we watch President Biden’s frequent gaffes, we are not assured by statements from his even-more gaffe-prone Vice President. We wonder who is actually in charge of war policy at the White House. Press reports state that Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin are the champions of an ideologically based war, but Jake Sullivan, the National Security Adviser, is increasingly leaning toward peace. With Ron Klain, the former Chief of Staff, a steady hand who earned the moniker of “Prime Minister,” having stepped down, we now have a rookie in Jeff Zients, whose notable contribution to the administration was in orchestrating a response to Covid-19.
A vague, open-ended war policy without good strong leadership when there appears to be disagreement among top lieutenants makes the situation worse. And it cannot come at a worse time, either. Russia is making steady advances in Ukraine’s east when Zelenskyy is consumed by cleaning house within Ukraine’s senior ranks.
Related Public Opinion
Please email [email protected]
Republished with permission from TIPP Insights
