Beware: Promises Being Kept

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

You may also like...

43 Responses

  1. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    He’s definitely keeping his promise to drain the swamp. Tens of thousands of probationary federal employees are being fired as I type.

    The only problem is most of them don’t sit in DC. Which means there will be real impacts elsewhere.

    To say nothing of the economic devastation being wrought by ending grants and clawing back infrastructure funding.Report

  2. John Puccio
    Ignored
    says:

    I appreciate the attempt to defend a neocon position with a George Orwell quote.

    Only problem is that there is no evidence he ever said or wrote that sentence – or anything like it.Report

    • Chris in reply to John Puccio
      Ignored
      says:

      Only problem is that there is no evidence he ever said or wrote that sentence – or anything like it.

      Not only is this an actual Orwell quote, but it’s from a fairly well known Orwell essay, one in which he discusses one of his major influences for the ideas in 1984, James Burnham, a man who was a frequent contributor to the National Review, and an influence on American neoconservatism, though like Orwell, the early neoconservatives disagreed with him on many points, and Burnham was himself openly critical of neoconservatives, as was pretty much required back in the day to publish in National Review.Report

      • Chris in reply to Chris
        Ignored
        says:

        Sorry, meant to link to the essay, and somehow didn’t:

        https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/second-thoughts-on-james-burnham/

        I’m genuinely curious about what made you so confident that he hadn’t said it. Not only is it on his Wikiquote page, with the source, but it’s from a pretty well-known Orwell essay, at least among people who actually read Orwell beyond the two books everyone’s read. Hell, the essay has its own Wikipedia page:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Thoughts_on_James_BurnhamReport

        • John Puccio in reply to Chris
          Ignored
          says:

          Thanks for sharing this. Great essay.

          To answer your question, I read the quote and thought – that’s a curious Orwell attribution and wondered about the context, because it didn’t sound particularly Orwellian.

          I Googled but couldn’t find the source. I asked ChatGPT a couple of ways and its response was: The quote “The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.” is attributed to George Orwell, but there is no clear record of him writing or saying it in any of his known works. It does not appear in his books, essays, or journalistic writings.

          I prompted Gronk, and it had a similar output.

          Hence my confidence. Lesson learned.

          In my defense, Thornton did write “but as George Orwell supposedly said” – so I’m not the only one here unfamiliar with this essay. And as I suspected, having now read the essay, the context of the Orwell quote doesn’t actually support the OPs neocon argument.Report

  3. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    One of the best dark comedy moments from his 45 term was actually moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
    He said he was gonna do it and, by gum, he did it!

    And no one will ever be able to use the whole “we’re gonna move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem!” applause line in a campaign speech ever again.

    Well, until the Dems move it back.Report

  4. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    The eternal question is “is a war continuing a worse moral failure than it ending on terms you don’t like?”

    And if the war doesn’t end, we can ask it again next year.

    “This is all well and good, but why do we have to keep sending funds to keep the war continuing?” is a good question to ask and, to be fair, I have received a handful of good answers to the question.

    “We have a moral obligation to make sure that the war ends on our terms and not their terms.”
    “We’re getting real-time feedback on the quality of the weapons we’re sending Ukraine and that means that our weapons will be even better next time.”
    “Russia messed with us during Vietnam, now we mess with them. Payback is a best served cold.”

    And next year is just 10 1/2 months away!Report

    • Chris in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      “Russia messed with us during Vietnam, now we mess with them. Payback is a best served cold.”

      I thought we got them back much sooner, in their “Vietnam.”

      Hopefully this time our payback doesn’t produce villains who will haunt us for decades and result in our being mired in an endless war on a concept like the last one.Report

    • InMD in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      I think you’re being too reductive, which may well be downstream of the politics created by the Biden admin’s apparent lack of strategic thinking.

      The question facing the US is whether any settlement with Russia at this moment can result not just in a temporary halt to hostilities but in sustainable peace. If we cut off support to Ukraine and Russia rebuilds and comes back in a few years, like what’s happened previously, then it wasn’t really peace to begin with. And if that happens, it opens the possibility that the conflict expands to NATO countries which in turn forces us to decide whether mutual defense is real or a bluff. That position is a no win whichever direction we go because we’re either in a hot war with a nuclear armed adversary or we’ve removed ourselves from relevance as a major world power.

      So while we need to be cautious about escalations the idea that we can just walk away from this isn’t born out by the strategic realities.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        So we have to be there indefinitely, giving them money indefinitely, until… what?

        If the answer is “until we’re relatively certain that it won’t happen again the second we stop looking”, I’d like to know how we’re going to measure that.Report

        • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Give them some nukes. Problem solved.Report

        • James K in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          The endgame needs to be to force Russia into a status quo antebellum peace – i.e. Ukraine returns the Russia it is occupying, and Russia returns the Ukraine it is occupying. Since Russia and Ukraine signed a treaty in 1992, it’s easy to identify which bits of land are which. And Russia needs to understand that fi they won’t accept this peace that the US will not only continue giving its cast-off munitions to Ukraine, it will also stop requiring that Ukraine not use them to strike into Russia itself. Russia’s economy is falling apart, they’ve burned through most of their Soviet-era munitions and the people they can conscript without causing problems. By contrast, the US’s contributions in treasure are minimal, and in bool are nil. This US can bankroll this conflict forever if it has to, but it won’t have to because Russia will collapse if it keep this up for much longer. And then, as you say, re-evaluate every year or so.

          After that, start inducting Ukraine into NATO so Russia can’t try again without risking war with the US because there’s no way Russia will want to do that.Report

          • InMD in reply to James K
            Ignored
            says:

            This is a nice thought but it will almost certainly never happen, or if it does, the timeline will be similar to Finland’s entry into NATO.Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to James K
            Ignored
            says:

            In some ways, we’ve already destroyed NATO – or, I should clarify – the effective deterrent that was once NATO. So, arguing for an expanded NATO really means arguing for a diluted and less effective NATO. Compared, that is, to what NATO originally intended.

            That’s ok, I suppose, as long as we realize that extending and diluting NATO makes challenging NATO and the risk of NATO failing in its obligations that much larger.

            As I said at the top… I think NATO is already deprecated ever since we included the Baltics (2004). There’s no chance we invoke the Nuclear Umbrella for Vilnius; and there’s almost no chance we put boots on the ground for Estonia. That’s a fundamental deprecation of what made NATO so effective. There was no doubt that invading Germany by Russia would trigger a massive retaliation – quite likely nuclear.

            So… what is NATO now? It trades on a security promise that we no longer believe; it’s a sort of UN Security force that works on paper, but isn’t really the thing we imagine (and want) NATO to be.

            So to that extent… sure, let’s keep expanding NATO, but it isn’t going to do what we think it will do… and we shouldn’t be surprised when it fails in the predictable ways we know it will fail.

            We should have kept NATO as the anvil of security for Europe and created secondary and tertiary treaty organizations. We can feel better and blame George Bush and the Neo-Cons (like McCain) if we want to know where we went wrong… but I’d rather we NOT invite Ukraine into NATO (such as it is) and instead create non-NATO strategies that have plausible deterrent factors, plus the ability to localize, or scale-up, and/or strategically reatreat from when needed. That’s not NATO.

            The key tldr here is expanding NATO weakens NATO… we should build layers of security frameworks, not break the ones that work.Report

            • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
              Ignored
              says:

              I think there’s a good possibility that if European security wasn’t ‘NATO or bust’ then maybe this doesn’t happen. However now that it has I agree that the path to resolution needs to be something short of NATO that still creates a serious deterrent to future Russian incursions.

              This is where I will be kind of mean to what IMHO is a serious deterioration in the realism of the Realist community. Just like it was always 1938 for the Neocons I think the Realists have entered a similarly current events agnostic cul-de-sac where it’s perpetually 2002.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s not what I’m suggesting. I don’t care about Russia’s security or their feelings about their security. My point is that we’ve deprecated NATO’s effectiveness… for what? I’m not sure.

                I was explicit that we should have multiple layers of treaty obligations *in addition* to NATO… but each layer shifts primary obligations to local/regional actors with US support.

                Just because we’ve made bad decisions in the past, doesn’t mean we have to keep making them… Ukraine in 2025 shouldn’t be a NATO project, it could and should be the start of a new project.Report

              • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                Nah I wasn’t accusing you personally of that, sorry it came off that way. Big picture I agree with you about the deterioration of the NATO deterrent due to untenable expansion.

                Read my previous comment as frustration about the state of the debate. I don’t think NATO membership was ever a plausible solution to Ukraine but I’m also pretty convinced that neither Vance nor Hegseth appreciate the perils of getting Ukraine wrong (ironically based on a kind of Greenwaldian/Gabbardian inability to understand that different situations call for different strategies) and I think there’s a decent chance that’s about to happen.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, I agree with the original comment, and that’s why I wanted to add an explicit rationale for *why* expanding NATO isn’t the right path for Ukraine.

                NATO membership restricts our options and it’s just bad strategic thinking to reduce our options while simultaneously expanding our obligations and reducing effectiveness by weak countries like Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltics.

                To paraphrase the intertubes, the best time to pivot was the 90s, but the next best time is now.Report

        • InMD in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          I don’t know about indefinitely, but you have to create a plausible long-term deterrent. I don’t know if it was due to age or just lack of vision but the best time to push for something was probably just before Ukraine’s failed counter offensive.

          Anyway at this point it doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to negotiate. It does mean though that the deal can’t be something like ‘Ukraine gives up its east and everyone promises to play nice from now on.’ It might be something like there’s a demilitarized zone and Rheinmetal builds a bunch of arms factories on Ukrainian soil, all of Europe and in particular Poland is allowed to export indefinite weapons (Ukraine can of course build its own too) so long as those arms don’t cross whatever line, and the US is permitted to install a modern air defense system and provide ammunition and logistical support for it.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            a plausible long-term deterrent

            Every year, every billion, makes the whole thing more irritating and more and more people are asking “why is this my obligation, again?”

            “Because it’s good and right!”, say the people who don’t provide a whole lot of billions but a lot of moral authority.

            It’s not a situation that will create a plausible long-term anything.Report

            • InMD in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              I think the chances of people complaining about selling weapons is low, especially if a lot of them are made here. At the end of the day that’s what this proposal would come down to.

              But sure there are a lot of really naive people in America who think we can have all of the upside of Pax Americana and none of the costs. At best they’re penny wise pound foolish.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m sure you’ve seen the footage of Zelenskyy asserting that only half of the $177 Billion given to Ukraine ever actually made it there.

                Peace sells, I guess.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                All I can think of is the baseline to the Megadeth song.

                But bigger picture and beyond whatever happens with Ukraine, the US and the West generally may need to re-arm. We got a 30 year break which was nice even if we kind of squandered it. I’m not sure anyone is taking the situation seriously from a fiscal or strategic perspective. We’ve got all this bitching and moaning about giving away a bunch of old, obsolete kit gathering dust when the real problem is that projections suggest we’d run out of ammo for basic weapons systems in days or weeks in the event of a conflict with a real adversary.Report

        • DavidTC in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Haven’t we _always_ had to defend the world against aggressive countries indefinitely? Was there some timeline we were going to stop?

          And I say that as someone who isn’t really a fan of that, but the option to doing it is…not doing it, and watching the world get conquered by whoever.

          And even if we don’t care about that for some reason (Pretty sure we should), that already threatens our allies, so are we going to stop having allies?

          And…won’t that eventually that threaten us? There’s not some imaginary world where we live safely with a nation that makes it clear it wants to conquer the world. You can’t give people 11 inches and expect them not to take the entire foot.

          Of course, the ideal situation is that no country wants to behave that way, then we don’t have to defend anyone, and that _used_ to be the ultimate policy goal of the US, which we did with soft power and the little bit of threat of hard power.

          …well, until very recently, where Trump has made it clear that expansionism was good, actually.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        And if that happens, it opens the possibility that the conflict expands to NATO countries which in turn forces us to decide whether mutual defense is real or a bluff.

        Some days, I’m inclined to the position that the EU has 5x the population of Russia and 10x the GDP, so why does the EU need us for military assistance at all? (Note that the EU treaties include mutual military defense. If NATO were dissolved today, France and Germany and Poland and Italy would still have a mutual defense agreement.) My answer on some of those days is they regard the US nuclear umbrella, the US military-industrial manufacturing complex, and the US Navy’s ability to keep the Atlantic open for a massive one-way military logistics flow, as a public good. Trump’s position is fundamentally that they are not a public good, and the EU ought to be paying a bunch for those services.Report

    • North in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Part of the quandary is that, contra what the Trumpkins say, Putin has given no concrete indication he’s interested in even stopping the war on terms that Trump is suggesting (an essential draw). He’s still demanding a demilitarized Ukraine which, of course, the Ukrainians would never, ever, agree to even under threat of America cutting off all aid.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *