Tag Archives: diplomacy

Ukraine looks like Vietnam or the beginnings of WWI

1 Reply

The press and our Russian experts claim we’re helping in Ukraine, protecting it from a Russian invasion. I suspect they are wrong, and that our help and protection will prove to be as deadly to all as in the Vietnam war. I’m also uncomfortable with their presentation their framing of Putin as an out of touch autocrat. Putin has popular support, and acts with a strong sense of history, as I see it, just not our version of history. In the Russian version, it was Russia that stopped the Nazis — of Germany and Ukraine. We are not the heroes of WWII in their telling; I doubt we’ll be the heroes of this conflict either.

We have a habit of seeing ourselves as saving heroes as we enter other people’s conflicts. It is how we got into Vietnam, to save the South from the North. It’s also how Europe got into WWI: Russia was saving Serbia, Germany was saving Austria, etc (see cartoon below). We meddle our way, and leave much later than we planned. The result, as in Vietnam and Afghanistan is far more death and destruction than if we’d minded our own business. And US war-dead too. In Vietnam 58,000 US deaths. In Afghanistan 2,400 US dead. and no obvious accomplishment. As Henry Kissinger famously commented: “It’s dangerous to be America’s enemy, but deadly to be America’s friend.”

European aggression in WWII started with the good intention of preventing aggression. It got out of hand, as I fear our good intentions will in Ukraine.

The US troops we’ve sent to Ukraine are not called soldiers. They are “fighting advisors” sent to help the Ukrainians use our weapons. In WWI and Vietnam, fighting advisors are called invaders; it’s how we got drawn into Vietnam. The Russians claimed to send advisors when they entered the Crimea and later the Dundas. We called it an invasion. We can’t be that blind to our own words. Sooner or later, the advisors will start killing each other– something we’ll call an unprovoked attack. Our high tech aid including anti-tank missiles are reported to have killed some 10,000 Russians so far. We don’t seem to think the Russians will mind, or that they’ll give up as the body count mounts. In Vietnam, the more we killed with our high-tech weapons, the more the Vietnamese on both sides called us the villains, and the more Vietnamese joined the fight against us. That’s the future I fear for Ukraine, or worse. The conflict in WWI spiraled quickly beyond the borders of Serbia to include the whole world, and continued through WWII.

Our approach to diplomacy is counterproductive too, in my opinion, and similar to Vietnam too. We call Putin a terrorist, a madman and a narcissist, and then we begin talks with him to end the war. Biden has asked to have Putin removed by assassination.Does he think this will help, or if Putin is removed his successor will be a friend of the US? We demonized Ho Chi Minh, and propped up our favored, corrupt leaders. Minh was popular, as is Putin, and both have valid reasons for opposing us. Putin worries about the expansion of NATO. It’s not an illegitimate worry given Russian history of repeated invasions from the west.

Our desire to remove Russian leadership is a long-standing mistake. It does not lead to peace, or good negotiation, nor even peaceful co-existence.

Russia has been invaded many times. US schools mention Napoleon’s invasion in 1812 and the German’s in 1941, but there are more. They were invaded by the Germans in WWI too, and by the Ukrainian Cossacks in the days of Khmelnytsky, 1646-57. Before that the Polish Lithuanians, 1609-1618, the Swedes, 1701-1709, and in the early days, it was Tartars, Mongols, who invaded and ruled Russia from about 1225 til they joined with the Russian Tzars about 1650. Add to that, our help in the war of the Whites vs the Reds (1917-23) that produced Ukrainian independence — I talk about the relevance here. With a history like that, Russia has every reason to worry about NATO expansion. We should be cognizant of this and stop calling Putin a madman. Let’s accept the Russian version of history, and the sitting ruler of Russia.

Some cite the Budapest memorandum that lead to the removal of “Ukrainian” nuclear weapons –– read it here. It’s short, only 1 page, and deliberately vague. it was signed by Putin’s predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, for the Russian Federation, along with representatives for Ukraine, The US, and The UK. The missiles were not Ukrainian, they were Soviet, and pointed at us. As a result of that agreement, they were dismantled and moved into Russia. There is no sense that this is an invitation for us to protect Ukraine against Russia. The co-signers sort-of agree to protect Ukraine from outsiders (Germany, Turkey,..?), but that’s not clear. We commit ourselves to peace in the region, and can claim that Russia violated the peace first, but there’s no invitation for us to violate it second. Until recently, the UK provided no military aid. China and most of the EU still trades with Russia; if they see a villainy, it’s not enough to stop trade.

Robert McNamara was Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson, and a key “Whiz Kid” pushing for war in Vietnam. Years later, he decided Vietnam was a mistake. A sad cartoon: the veterans are walking past the grave monument for the 58,000 US dead. I worry we’ll have a similar cartoon after this war.

In my opinion, our best course is to reduce our military aid to providing only basics: bullets, blankets, food… We should reopen discussions with Putin, not demonize him, or try to remove him. Ukraine will likely fight on even without our high-tech weapons. Perhaps they’ll buy from Europe, or from independent dealers. The death rate on both sides will be lower and peace will come quicker without us. Crimea might remain Ukrainian or Russian, but that will not be our decision. We’ve done enough damage for now. It took many years after the end of the Vietnam war for the instigators admit is was a mistake.

Robert Buxbaum April 3, 2022. Much of my thinking about Vietnam comes from Francis Fitzgerald’s wonderful book “Fire in the Lake”. I see it all happening again here. Also worth reading is this 2014 letter by Henry Kissinger about how to negotiate a peace: “Damning Putin is not a foreign policy; it’s an alibi for the lack of one.” It’s a nice insight. He seems to understand diplomacy about as well as anyone.

Feminism in law and middle east diplomacy

Leave a reply

If you went to college in the last 40 years and learned there was a concept called “the rape culture” that was supposed to drive law and diplomacy. In terms of law the assumption was that all men – or most — were rapists or would be rapists. Along with this, women are weaker, and almost always the victim in male-female interactions. As such the woman has to be believed in all cases of “he-said, she-said.” To do otherwise was “rape-shaming” a form of blaming the victim. Male on female rape is supposed to have infected international affairs as well. War and peace are assumed to be rape situations where no country is assumed to want foreign influence or industry unless they say so, and any demand that you take your embassy or hotel out has to be met with immediate withdrawal. The female country is the weaker in these deals, and where that could not be determined, the raper country was determined by geography. Israel was always the raper country because of its shape and position within the Arab world. Israel was asked to withdraw — cease to exist as a non-Islamic nation — and admit that it was raping the Arab world just by existing.

Before World War I, there was no such thing as a world court. If one country attacked another, the attacked country could appeal to allies, or perhaps to public opinion, but there was no certainty of rescue. Without a world court, and without a world set of laws, claiming victim status did little. Weaker principalities could be divided up, and sometimes sold off or traded. Manhattan went from being a Dutch settlement to being an English settlement when the English traded an island in the Pacific for it. Napoleon acquired Louisiana from the Spanish by trading northern Italy, then promptly sold Louisiana to America. And all this was normal. The international version of human trafficking, I suppose.

After WWI, a world court was created along with a new diplomatic theory: the world should protect the weak and the wronged. In this context, feminist analysis of which country is wronged would have been important except that there was no army to do the enforcing. Woodrow Wilson championed a League of Nations, one of his 19 points. The weak and abused would be protected from the strong; democracy would be protected from the dictator. This is a softer, kinder view of the world, a cooperative world, a feminist world, and in academia it is considered the only good version — a one world order with academics at the top. Still, without an army or much of a budget, it was all academic, as it were. This changed when the United Nations was created with a budget and an army. If the army was to protect the victim, we had to determine who was the aggressor. In 95% of all cases considered before the UN, the aggressor was asserted to be Israel. This in not despite its small size, but because of it. By feminist analysis, the surrounding country is always the victim.

In feminist analysis, there is the need for a third type of person, almost a third gender. This is the male feminist. This is the warlike defender of the weak. Such people are assumed to make up the UN army and its management. When an outsider country appears within the boundaries of another nation, that’s national rape and has to be prevented by this third-gender army. Hitler’s takeover of Europe was rape, not because he was totalitarian (he was elected democratically) but because his was an unwelcome intrusion. The counter-invasion of Germany was/is only justified by assuming that the allies (the good guys) represented, not rape, but some third gender interaction. It all made a certain type of sense in college seminars, if not in life, and men were not quite expected to understand; we were just expected to become this third gender.

Being a Male Feminist is uncomfortable both in personal and international affairs. It is very uncomfortable to have to defend every victim, making every sacrifice no matter how personally objectionable the victim is, or how arbitrary the distinction of victim, or how much the victim hates her savior. In personal affairs, this is a theme in Bob Dylan song “It’s ain’t me, babe.”  Dylan agrees with a lady that she has a right to want all sorts of things, but says, “it ain’t me babe,” about him being the guy to provide them all.

In international affairs the discomfort is even worse. We found, with depressing frequency, that we were expected to donate the lives of countless soldiers in support of regimes that were objectionable, and that hated us. Jimmy Carter supported the PLO and Idi Amin, and the Ayatollah because they were weak regimes with incursions: by the oil companies or the CIA. The people we were helping hated us before Jimmy Carter, and they hated us more after. The Ayatollah in Iran captured or killed our diplomatic staff, and beheaded anyone with western sympathies.

I have come to think that a redefinition of rape is what is needed. I note that not all rape is male-on female, and not all wars are won by incursion. The Mongols won by surrounding. Similarly, the game of GO is won by surrounding. I would like to stop assuming that the surrounding nation is always the victim and that the woman is always telling the truth. In personal injury law, I’d like more freedom to try to decide which is right or wrong or maybe both have a case, and we may want to just sit back and wait to offer mediation. Here’s another Bob Dylan song on the difficulty of figuring out who is right or wrong: “God on our sides.”

Robert E. Buxbaum, September 21, 2018

Comic colonialism I: How the US got Guam without a fight.

2 Replies

America is often criticized for land it acquired by war e.g. Guam in the Spanish-American War. Though Spanish were corrupt and incompetent, and had (it seems) sunk the USS Maine by accident, the idea is that conquest is bad. Well, for better or worse, here’s how the US acquired Guam in a comic bloodless non-battle that provides an example of God laughing as he protects children, fools, and the U.S. of A.

It’s mid June, 1898, the Spanish-American War has raged for two months, and Theodore Roosevelt is in Cuba. Four ships lead by the USS Charleston leave Hawaii on a secret mission with orders to be opened only at sea. Captain Glass of the Charleston find he is to try to take Guam and destroy its fortress before proceeding to the Philippines for the major battle of the war. Glass is informed that Guam Harbor is defended Spanish warships plus a thick-walled fort housing many heavy cannon. A land assault will face, he’s told, over 1000 fighting men, dug in, heavily armed, and thoroughly familiar with the terrain. As it happens, military intelligence had vastly overstated the challenge. There are only 56 soldiers on Guam, and Span has neglected to tell the garrison that there’s a war on.

USS Charleston

The USS Charleston, victor of the non-battle of Guam.

Expecting a fierce battle, our soldiers and naval gunners practice shooting at towed targets and get excellently proficient, or so Glass believes. Fortunately, he’s wrong. On June 20, 1898, The Charleston steams into Guam’s harbor and finds no resistance. The only major ship is a Japanese trader sitting at anchor. No shots are fired, and there is no apparent activity on shore. In some confusion, Captain Glass order that 13 shots be fired at the fort. As it happens, it’s a fortuitous number. Also fortuitous, is that all the shots miss. In complete ignorance, the folks on shore think it is a 13 gun salute: that the Charleston is here for an official, state visit.

Now, the normal response would be for folks on Guam to return the 13 gun salute. If they had, it would have likely begun a cycle of death and destruction. But God is the protector of fools, and the fortress is out of gunpowder. The Spanish send an officer to the Charleston to ask for gunpowder and apologize for not returning the salute. After what must have been a most uncomfortable parlé, it is agreed that our nations were at war; that the officer was now a captured prisoner; and that he is being released to request surrender.

Coins celebrating our colonial territories.

Coins celebrating our colonial territories. None have senators or congressmen. Only DC gets to vote for president, a result of the 23rd amendment, 1961.

As soon as he is sent off, captain Glass begins to worry: maybe this is a trap. Maybe the guns are now focussed on him and his men? Maybe he should resume fire on the fort! Right about then, a friendly whaleboat sails by flying the American flag. It’s captained by Francisco “Frank”Portusach-Martinez from Chicago, an old friend of an officer aboard the Charleston. Captain Portusach comes on board, shows his US bona-fides, and explains that it’s no trap, just ignorance. Taking his advice, Captain Glass lands with a small party, arrests all 56 soldiers without a fight, and raises the American flag. The Star Spangled Banner is played, and Glass doesn’t quite know what to do next. What would you do in his shoes?

Captain Henry Glass

Captain Henry Glass, man with a mustache.

Having no experience or other orders, Captain Glass appoints Portusach as the first US Governor of Guam, and leaves to join Dewey in the Philippines. He does not destroy the fort as he finds it in such poor repair that he can claim it’s already destroyed. And that’s how we got Guam. Credit to Captain Glass for not screwing things up or angering the locals needlessly. One hundred and eighteen years later, Guam is still a US territory, though there have been movements for statehood, for union with Hawaii, and for independence. Until the folks on Guam decide otherwise, they are US citizens, but can not vote for president or have representation in congress. They pay federal income taxes, but not state taxes. Bill Clinton is the only US president to ever visit Guam.

Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum. February 1, 2016. I’ve written previously on the ways of peace, and on what makes a country, and on beards: why only communists and Republicans have them. Stay tuned for “Comic Colonialism II: Canada’s Queen.”