{"id":209233,"date":"2022-04-18T12:01:11","date_gmt":"2022-04-18T11:01:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=209233"},"modified":"2022-04-18T05:31:22","modified_gmt":"2022-04-18T04:31:22","slug":"give-war-a-chance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2022\/04\/give-war-a-chance\/","title":{"rendered":"Give War a Chance"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
More and more, we’re told outright war isn’t just necessary and right, but the thing that will solve U.S. existential problems.<\/em><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
12 Apr 2022 – <\/em>Robert Kagan, neoconservative writer and husband to Deputy Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, wrote a piece called \u201cThe Price of Hegemony<\/a>\u201d in\u00a0Foreign Affairs\u00a0<\/em>last week that was fascinating. If I\u2019d written his opening, people would denounce me as a Putin-concubine:<\/p>\n

Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin\u2019s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9\/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States\u2019 dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post\u2013Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Robert Kagan<\/p><\/div>\n

Kagan went on to make an argument straight out of\u00a0Dr. Strangelove<\/em>. Instead of doing what some critics want and focusing on \u201cimproving the well-being of Americans,\u201d the U.S. government is instead properly recognizing the responsibility that comes with being a superpower. So, while Russia\u2019s invasion may indeed have been a foreseeable consequence of a decision to expand our hegemonic reach, now that we\u2019re here, there\u2019s only one option left. Total commitment:<\/p>\n

It is better for the United States to risk confrontation with belligerent powers when they are in the early stages of ambition and expansion, not after they have already consolidated substantial gains. Russia may possess a fearful nuclear arsenal, but the risk of Moscow using it is not higher now than it would have been in 2008 or 2014, if the West had intervened then. And it has always been extraordinarily small\u2026<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

httpv:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=7PmMIMW5HJY<\/p>\n

A month after Putin\u2019s invasion of Ukraine, blood seems to be rushing to all the wrong places across the Commentariat, which has begun in earnest the predictable process of asking the public to dismiss fears of nuclear combat. Headlines of the \u201cWe\u2019ll take those odds\u201d variety are springing up everywhere, from the\u00a0Seattle Times\u00a0<\/em>(\u201cAtrocities change the nuclear weapons calculus\u201d) to\u00a0Radio Free Europe\u00a0<\/em>(\u201cFormer NATO Commander Says Western Fears Of Nuclear War Are Preventing A Proper Response To Putin\u201d) to Fox (which had on Sean Penn, of all people, to\u00a0say to Sean Hannity<\/a>, \u201cCountries that have nuclear weapons can remain intimidated to use them, and we\u2019re seeing that now with our own country\u201d). This is fast becoming a bipartisan consensus. Check out Republican Adam Kinzinger\u2019s recent comment:<\/p>\n

\n

There are many who say Russia is trying to draw us into the war, and America is almost \u201cheroic\u201d in restraint. Nonsense. If Russia wants to provoke they will. But Putin fears NATO. <\/p>\n

This is the first war where an alliance can stop it in a few days, but fears a weaker enemy.<\/p>\n

— Adam Kinzinger (Slava Ukraini) \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6\ud83c\uddee\ud83c\uddf1 (@AdamKinzinger) April 12, 2022<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n