Ideology

Longer Boats are coming to win us, they’re coming to win us, they’re coming to win us.
Longer boats are coming to win us. Hold on to the shore.

Longer Boats – Cat Stevens

…..

When the Republican Caucus in the House (actually called the Republican Conference for reasons I never understood) would meet at least weekly, members would speak to the group at various times about various things. Several times when I stood up, I would repeat a phrase which explained my activity in that august body; “My ideology guides my thinking, but it does not replace my thinking.”

Amongst my colleagues, this became a fairly well-known phrase that they saw as defining me in Congress. My point with this phrase was to push back against those who, in my opinion, were unreasonably doctrinaire and rigid in sticking to their ideological positions. Conditions “on the ground” may cause one to take a different path than that ideology might dictate. Can a deficit hawk, for example, remain one in the midst of a depression? Can a government spending advocate continue that view when inflation is running rampant as it is now? 

Nowhere is using ideology to guide rather than replace thinking more important than in foreign affairs. There is very little black and white in the field of foreign relations. Yet, there are the “water’s edge” people who oppose any U.S. involvement in anything until it reaches our shores. On the opposite side are the “NeoCons” who believe the U.S. should be involved in every conflict around the world whenever democracy or good and evil are at play. 

My ideology is that the foreign policy (and by extension the U.S. Military) has one goal and that is to protect the people, the borders and the interests of the United States. It’s not our job to spread democracy worldwide, except to the extent that it makes Americans safer. I don’t think we should be the world’s police force. That said, neither can we ignore events overseas because we believe that the Atlantic and Pacific oceans will protect us no matter what happens “over there.”

Clear as mud huh?

That is intentional. I just don’t think there’s a formula you can place over an international situation and out will pop the U.S. strategy to deal with it. And I’m an accountant so I love formulas!

I have in prior writings on this site given you my view of some of the impacts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But I have not said what I think we should do. That is because I, frankly, was not sure. I try to not knee jerk to some policy particularly when we are talking about war and peace, life and death. 

There is no doubt in my mind that this war would not have occurred without the incredible weakness, incompetence and corruption in the part of the Biden Regime. We should continually point this out, but as they say, you have to deal with the world as it is not as how you would like it to be.

With all that background, I now believe we have to do whatever may be necessary to make sure that either Ukraine wins this war or at least Putin’s objectives are not met. If Putin were to win and take over Ukraine, we will have to have a massive number of troops and arms in those 6 NATO countries that would now be adjacent to Russia, Moldova or Ukraine. Some of them (the Baltic States) are basically indefensible as they would be surrounded by Russian controlled territory and the Baltic Sea. I know the conventional wisdom is that Putin won’t go after a NATO country particularly after his military has been so weakened by this assault. But conventional wisdom was that he would not attack Ukraine either. With every country Hitler was given or conquered it was thought he would stop. We cannot presume that mad men make the decisions we would make.

President Biden showed his colors in Afghanistan. He controls the most powerful military force on earth, but he is determined not to use it. That means it might as well not exist. He has been dragged by allies or Congress in to some sanctions and providing some aide to Ukraine. He has been and still is behind the curve. He is terrified of Putin’s nuclear weapons. He should be making Putin terrified of ours. As General Grant said to his officers about Robert E Lee “I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do….Go back to your command, and think about what we are going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do.”

In my humble opinion, a Russian victory endangers NATO, will put tens of thousands of U.S. troops in jeopardy, encourages bad actors like China, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela and brings us closer to global conflict. A Ukrainian victory does the opposite.

I am not here suggesting engaging U.S. troops. I don’t think Ukraine needs that to win. But there are so many weapons systems we have not yet provided them that they could use. And isn’t it interesting that sanctions have excluded the Russian Oligarch who gave millions of dollars to Hunter Biden? I was against a no-fly zone originally. Now, I am more supportive. I know that might mean a U.S. plane engaging a Russian one. The Russians should be more afraid of that than we are.

Congress and our allies will have to drag Biden to do what needs to be done to give every effort for the Ukrainians to win and to further isolate Russia economically. We don’t want to invite escalation, but we cannot fear it. Already, Iran and China are talking aggressively. We are already on an escalatory path. To get off it, we need to show that Russia’s aggression will not be rewarded. That is what will encourage other bad actors to stand down.

We should decide that we will ensure that Ukraine will win or at least not lose. That is very different than “we will help them”. Once we decide that we are planning to win, every decision is different in that light. 

These things are not easy. They never have been. My ideology and my study of history guide my thinking. But my thinking is directed by events. These are dangerous times. 

I remain respectfully,
Congressman John Campbell
Drive fast and Live free