Hunter S. Thompson, the wise author, observed that “When things get weird, the weird turn professional.” This is evident in Great Britain where Liz Truss is out, an arguably untalented and empty prime minister. She was almost replaced by Boris Johnson, her vain predecessor.
However, American politics are not immune to the oddities of life. The apparent interest in General (ret. ) is a sign of how bizarre Washington is becoming. David Petraeus recently suggested that Washington and its allies might want to intervene during the conflict between Moscow, and Kyiv.
According To Petraeus, the military intervention he advocates wouldn’t be a NATO-led intervention but a multinational force led and controlled by the US. In other words, an U.S-led Multi-National Force the Iraqi model would consist of conventional ground, air, and naval forces.
Petraeus doesn’t explain why U.S. military actions are necessary. It’s easy to guess. This intervention is intended to save the Ukrainian forces from defeat, and to presumably force Moscow to agree to Washington’s terms.
Although the whole thing seems strange, Petraeus’s suggestion shouldn’t be dismissed. Petraeus’s military experience is not something that should be overlooked. It is important because Petraeus’s military expertise would not merit consideration unless he was urged by Wall Street and Washington leaders. Jeffrey Sachs informs Americans that globalists and Neocon elites want to confront Russia directly.
It is business as usual for Petraeus. Petraeus rose up the ranks by checking in with all those in authority before he did anything. Promoting is as simple as asking permission from those in authority to make sure no one is offended (like a coalition of the willing). It is a good tool for promotion in wartime or against weak and incapable enemies that pose no military threat to Western forces. The Russian Army is not an Iraqi-like force. It is mounted on “technicals”, pickup trucks equipped with automatic cannon.
These points aside, Petraeus’s suggestion confirms 2 critical insights. The first is the dire state of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Ukraine is unable to resist the Russian winter offensives without the help of foreign fighters and Polish troops fighting in Ukrainian uniform. Over the past 60 to 90 days, Ukraine has lost tens of thousands of people and its human capital in uniforms that Kyiv cannot replace.
It is the eleventh hour. The Russian sledgehammer is scheduled to strike the Zelensky regime during the November or December timeframes or whenever the ground freezes.
Petraeus’s true message is that Washington and its coalition are the only ones who can prolong the Zelensky regime’s life. The usual war hawks at the White House, Pentagon, CIA, and on the Hill assume that a passive American electorate will believe that a commitment of U.S forces to Ukraine without a declaration of war could facilitate a facesaving deal with Moscow.
Although it is dangerous and foolish to believe so, Americans should not accept this belief. However, it is reasonable to assume that this kind of delusional thinking is common within the Beltway. American diplomat and historian George F. Kennan insisted that believed so 30 years ago. He argued that Washington’s failure to link the development and use of American military power to the attainable ends of national strategy is the result.
The “going in” assumption is a condition of Washington’s halls. This includes a subservient Congress, unconstrained financial resources, and senior military leaders willing to follow any dumb idea put forth by the politicians. Petraeus and his colleagues have a high chance of receiving some tangible rewards in the form of either future appointments or financial gains.
Questions about how much ground combat operations in Eastern Europe or Ukraine would require in terms of U.S. personnel, logistical infrastructure, ammunition, and evacuation are secondary. The U.S. Army sustained 90-100,000.00 casualties per month. In contrast, while the U.S. Army sustaining 90-100,000.00 deaths per month, the U.S. Army’s Normandy landings saw 100-300% of its fighting strength.
Sign up today
Receive weekly emails in your inbox
Combining the U.S. commitment to fighting with the dispersion of U.S. military power at end of a 5,000-mile stretch across Ukraine (a region the size of Texas) will unavoidably weaken the attacking army’s fighting force. Petraeus’s criticism that Putin wants to avoid a larger conflict is valid. However, this assumption should not be taken to mean that the Russian military enemy will treat U.S. bases across Western Europe and U.S. warships traversing the Atlantic as inviolate. Moscow has escalation dominance and not Washington.
Weirdness in politics isn’t a new phenomenon, as we have already noted. Petraeus’s comments are more than just weirdness. It is tragic that America’s top military officers are of low intellectual and professional ability. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in his landmark book Aug 1914 that Aleksandr Samsonov was the Russian general who was known at the start of the war as the leading strategist for the Russian Army.
Washington has a clear path forward in Ukraine. Congress must do its job and signal readiness to invoke War Powers Act. However, it should also demand that the Biden administration broker peace and not expand the war.
