I f anyone above a kindergarten pay-grade has figured out America’s vital
interest in the Ukraine, it has not been reported — or even leaked from the
foundering vessel that is the US State Department. In fact, when you consider
the results, it’s hard to understand the rationale behind any recent US
foreign policy endeavor. Mr. Putin of Russia summed it up last week, saying,
“Anything the US touches turns to Libya or Iraq.” Vlad has a point there, and
what he left off the list, of course, was Ukraine, which entered the zone of
failing states a few months ago when the US lubricated the overthrow of its
previously-elected government.
What complicates things is that Ukraine is right next door to Russia. For
many years it was even part of the same nation as Russia. Russia has a lot of
hard assets in Ukraine: pipelines, factories, port facilities. Because they
were recently part of the same nation, a lot of Russian-speaking people live
in the eastern part of Ukraine bordering Russia. The casual observer from
Mars might easily discern that Russia has a range of real interests in
Ukraine. Especially if the central government of Ukraine can’t control its
own economic affairs.
The US claims to have interests in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya.
These nations are respectively 11,925, 11,129, 10,745, and 10,072, miles away
from America — not exactly neighbors of ours. All of them, one way or another,
and partly due to our exertions, are checking into the homeless shelter of
failed statedom. Afghanistan was, shall we say, a special case,
since it was being used thirteen years ago explicitly as a “base” (al
Qaeda) for launching attacks on US soil. But that was then. No other war
or “war” in US history has lasted as long. And it remains unclear whether our
presence there yet today is a “nation-building” project or a mere occupation,
in the absence of some better idea of what to do.
President Obama has made noises about pulling US troops out of
Afghanistan, but we’re still there. How is the nation-building project
working out? With Mr. Osama bin Laden dead and in his watery grave, and the
Islamic extremist action moved to other venues, how significant is
Afghanistan’s role as a strategic base for Jihad?
How many educated, media-marinated professors in their Ivy League turrets
can explain in one paragraph what the necessity of overthrowing Muammar
Gaddafi was, exactly? Anyone remember? I suppose, like many actions in
history, it just seemed like a good idea at the time. If the idea was to keep
the oil and gas flowing to western nations — i.e. the “Carter Doctrine”
—well, excuse me while I cough into my sleeve. Production is about one-eighth
what it was before Mr. Gaddafi exited the scene. That really worked.
Then, of course, there is ISIS (or the Islamic State or the Caliphate),
the most visible outcome of a decade of US foreign policy endeavors in Iraq
and Syria. Good show, ladies and gentlemen! You have managed to give the
world a political movement arguably more barbaric than even the Nazis. On
Sunday, The New York Times stood back in breathless admiration for
the accomplishments and skills of that organization in the headline: ISIS Displaying a Deft
Command of Varied Media. Like a mad scientist in thrall to his own
creation, the Times appears dazzled by the political Frankenstein
monster we have loosed upon the world.
Considering all the current mayhem in the Middle East, and the potential
for deadly mischief from it spreading even into the US and western Europe, do
we really have any business hassling Putin and Russia about its feckless,
floundering next-door-neighbor, Ukraine? In fact, is any other nation in a
better position to prevent Ukraine from descending into full-blown failure?
Why don’t we just shut up and mind our own business?
