Gunfight Between Maverick and John Wayne  

7/21/14

James Garner died at 86 this past Saturday.  His iconic Maverick and Rockford characters stand in contrast to the John Wayne character.  Garner’s characters recognized his mortality; realized the consequences of his actions, and thus, attempted compromise and reconciliation.  Garner was reluctant to fight without a clear advantage that would make his destruction less likely.  John Wayne, on the other hand, portrayed either indestructibility or the advantage (e.g., honor) to be gained from his destruction.  Wayne assumed that the death or defeat of his enemies would inexorably achieve his goals, and never doubted the efficacy of violence.  Wayne was more than willing to strike because his strength ensured the victory.   The U.S. seems to long for the John Wayne character while the global reality calls for Garner’s characters. 

The calls for the U.S. to do something about Putin’s complicity in the Ukrainian separatist downing of MH17 seem oblivious to two considerations.  First, the most aggrieved parties, the Dutch and the rest of Europe, have expressed considerably less outrage with Putin than U.S. politicians and pundits.  This undoubtedly is because of the deep intertwining of Russia with the European economy.  Some estimates are that at least 300,000 European jobs would be lost from if severe sanctions were placed on Russian goods.  Nonetheless, Lindsey Graham, using a rather curious logic, argues that because the European nations—the parties most involved and with the most at stake--will not take the lead in attempting to curb Russian activities in the Ukraine, then the U.S. must. 

Second, when confronted with the reluctance of Europe to take punitive action if Putin does not do what we want, Graham and his cohorts suggest that we arm the Ukrainians so that they can fight the separatists—who they now seem to forget are either supported by Russia or may even be at least partially composed of Russian military personnel.  They seem to forget what this was all about in the first place.  Namely, when a nation provides arms to one party in a conflict, they own how those arms are used, to some extent.  If we arm the Ukrainians and they shoot down a Russian passenger airplane, then we would share some of the blame.  Alternatively, if the Ukrainians, fortified with our arms, begin an armed conflict with Russia and suffer imminent defeat, as most military experts predict, then what is the U.S. to do?  Simply stand by and see our proxies defeated after our arms have helped to egg them on.  

Despite the U.S. experience in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Mr. Graham and his cohorts still seem to believe that a U.S. demonstration of military strength is enough to make those unexceptional nations back down from an exceptional U.S.  In fact, those unexceptional people will not back down—not even when U.S. bombs start to rain on them.  This is not to argue that the U.S. military, with air power and boots on the ground, cannot defeat most, if not all non-nuclear nations.  It is to argue that as every school boy knows, “if you want to beat butt, you got to bring butt.”  Do we really want to do this in the Ukraine and the steppes of Russia?  After all, we did not learn the lessons of history about the conquest of Afghanistan, why should we have learned anything about Russia?  

Of course, Graham and company would be the first to point out that they are not calling for armed conflict with Russia.  They are merely calling for actions that Putin “had better accept from his exceptional betters.”  Given the nuclear weapons that both sides have, does it make good sense to bet on Putin backing down, or does it make better sense to de-escalate the situation?

As is typical in the last 6 years, the calls for rash and impudent actions by the U.S. starts with an attack on President Barack Obama and ends with a comparison of Obama to previous Presidents such as Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, or Ronald Reagan.  While most of the attacks seem to be because Obama is President and McCain or Romney isn’t, many of the comparisons to previous presidents are simply unfounded, the comparison to Ronald Reagan has a valid basis.  When a Korean airliner was shot down by the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan looking steely eyed, sounding resolute, went on the major networks to condemn the act. (President Reagan was a very good actor who appeared in a string of B movies.) When the cameras stopped rolling, however, Reagan did nothing.  President Obama will continue to increase sanctions against Russia.