..................
Well, on the one hand Ambassador Jeffrey has served Presidents of both parties and has been there, so to speak, in Vietnam. I find the "tripwire" concept absurd in that part of the world, and given the resolve of this administration, but Jeffrey is absolutely correct that half a world away and six decades ago, the United States took a different approach, withdrawing its forces from South Korea. North Korea and its Russian supporters saw that as a green light to invade, only to learn, three years and millions of casualties later, that the United States was serious about defending a friend.
So to use the Jeffrey analogy, we need to be prepared to defend our friend. Just over 1.5 million Americans served in Korea, peak UN forces in country just under a million, under 150,000 casualties, so the Ambassador is potentially advocating a rather significant undertaking. I'd suggest an immediate draft.
Unless, of course, we're sending a tripwire we won't back if tripped. Kind of a red line. In that case, I'd prefer European troops provide the wire.
Needless to say that won't happen. A better idea, send some BLM agents, supported by the ATF who can take the Russians guns. Or sell them some.
As long as we don't step up energy production, creating American jobs and depressing energy prices. That might hurt turtles somewhere.
This mutt Jeffrey is a big hero when it comes to sending other folks’ kids into battle. One can bet he never served in the military.
No troops, but we should help them with arms and let them learn how to make IED’s so they the freedom fighters can make hell for the Russkies just how the Afghans kicked their asses.
or
WWIII
I guess somebody thinks World War III might possibly sell some newspapers?
And those troops must be made up exclusively of Washington Post staffers.
HOOAH!
The US has no interest in the Ukraine. If Europe wants to pony up troops to send there, well fine. No more US troops to die for people who will not fight for themselves.
Obama is an ass for starting this. US soldiers should not have to die for it.
Where is Cindy Sheehan?
Such a ground deployment in the current crisis with Russia could change perceptions on all sides.
Yes, you might say that.
Would such a deployment be provocative? Only if being serious about deterring Putin is provocative.
Breathtaking. I would gently suggest that whatever one's personal attitude is toward "deterring" Putin, the placement of ground troops into that volatile situation would be provocative regardless. However, if Field Marshal Jeffrey is serious about inserting ground troops I'd like to offer one tentative question: what is the mission? Is there an objective, the accomplishment of which will result in the troops returning home? Or are they there just to be there, maybe getting killed or wounded in order to provide an exploitable diplomatic crisis?
There are, of course, other minor military matters such as air cover and logistics that seem somehow to have escaped the notice of the diplomatic mind. What exactly are the troops supposed to do when they've run out of food, ammunition, and air cover? Surrender? Die to the last man before a single foot of Stalingrad is ceded?
I'm not sure the author has thought this through. I'm not sure he's capable.
We’ll do if; if you’ll be point man, Jimmy Jeff!
Send the BLM.
Michael Roop can bring his dog and his old lady tackling technique.
No BLOOD FOR VODKA
There are so many other things we could do if we actually gave a crap. We could use our strategic petroleum reserves to tank the price of oil in the short term, while authorizing international sale of LNG and building the infrastructure on both sides to end their natural gas dominance in europe. We could pull out of the silly nuclear agreements Obama has negotiated with Putin and put Star Wars and nuclear testing back on the table. We could reposition NATO forces forward into the Poland, Romania and the Baltics and make every showing that we plan to leave them there permanently. We could coax Finland and Sweden into NATO and create a northern command with the Canadians and Scandinavians that’d be an irritant to Russian plans for the arctic. Etc, etc. There are a tons of ways to push back, without sending US forces on another foreign adventure. If we’re not even exploring the simpler options, what in the world would make people think we’d jump to something like this?
Must have gotten some really bad dope at the WaPo.
Sending OUR troops to the Ukraine would be the EPITOME of “Foreign Entanglements”....
Bloody hell, no!
send all the gays and lesbians, let them have a love-in over there in the ukrain. that will do a lot to bolster the us standings in the world. hey at least back in the good ole usa less faggots and queers around.
This is an European problem for the most part, so the Europeans should muster the combined might of their militaries and take care of this if they are so concerned (he said with irony).