House “Munich” Republicans Need to Learn the Cost Of Isolationism and Appeasement

The fact that the party of Barry Goldwater intends to let Vladimir Putin concur Ukraine over “Chump Change”utterly appalls me — and I hope you too. Why has Ukraine cost so much? Why hasn’t Ukraine won by now? Joe Biden! But that will have to await another post. The current post is about isolationist Republicans.

 

Ukraine is showing the world how things might have gone had Czechoslovakia told Neville Chamberlain where to stuff his appeasement policy, embodied in the notorious Munich Agreement. Had the Czechs put up the fight that the Ukrainians have since 2022, Hitler’s government might have fallen. Alternately, Hitler might have postponed his invasion of Poland. Briefly, invading Czechoslovakia would have cost Hitler many more losses than he expected. His attack would have gone through fortified, and apparently rugged, mountains not through the relatively open tank-country of Western Poland—now Eastern Poland. Of course, the Czechs would have probably fought alone; just as Ukraine fought alone from 2014 through much of the spring of 2022.

 

Isolationism

 

Pearl Harbor utterly discredited isolationism. During the 1930s isolationist Republicans ignored the “Gathering Storms” in Europe and Asia. They opposed enlarging the Navy and the armed forces generally. “America has 3,000 miles of ocean between us and Europe. We have 6,000 miles of ocean between us and Japan. We don’t need to waste money on ships, planes, and soldiers.” On December 7 1941, they learned just how little those oceans protected us! 

 

From Pearl Harbor until last year, Isolationism was safely tucked away on the Ash Heap of History. Over the last year or two, Republican “Budget Hawks” have resurrected Isolationism, saying that the United States cannot afford to assist Ukraine. That stance is incredibly short-sighted. To quote a European analyst heard on Youtube, “It is much cheaper to deter a war than to win a war. (And we haven’t even started count’n the bodies yet!—DJ)

 

Appeasement

 

Putin initially justified invading Ukraine to rescue ethnic Russians whom he claimed Ukraine was mistreating. Hitler used exactly the same reason—about German speakers—when demanding that Czechoslovakia cede the Sudetenland to Germany. Putin rapidly added “de-De-Nazification” and then NATO to his ever-growing list of justifications as each argument failed to convince other nations. The Munich agreement was among the last times Britain and France backed down from a provocation by Hitler. Each time that the allies caved-in, Hitler’s appetite for conquest grew! When Hitler invaded Poland, the world learned the futility of appeasement—at least until now; or so it would seem. The same holds today. Selling out Ukraine will lead to more than Putin threatening other nations. It will encourage Communist China to follow through on its threats to invade Taiwan. 

 

Chump Change?

 

Total aid to Ukraine through October 31, 2023, was a nominal $75.4 Billion: or roughly $2.3 Billion per month. The Fiscal Year 2023 Federal Budget was roughly 6,350 billion dollars; or 512 billion per month! I do not believe the Fiscal Year 2022 budget was materially less. For now, let’s assume the total Federal Budget for the two years was a mere 12,300 billion dollars. Given the total Federal Budget, the paltry the $75.4 billion, $2.3 billion per month, of Ukraine aid, truly is “Chump Change”. 

 

Keep in mind that a huge proportion of the “funds” sent to Ukraine were nominal dollars consisting of the book values of retired equipment the United States military no longer uses. Weapons and vehicles the Federal Government pays to store as a reserve, for military sales to allies, and for aid to nations such as Ukraine. 

 

Surely, the “Munich Republicans”  can find $2.3 billion out of $512 billion we spend each month to help Ukraine. During the week beginning March 10, 2024, the news reported something like 6,000 earmarks in the upcoming Federal Budget! More importantly President Biden pumped out an extra 3.5 Trillion dollars in pork his first year in office. I’m sure some of that spending has gotten “carved in stone” as a permanent part of the Federal Budget. The Munich Republicans should look for for budget cuts among things such as pork and needless programs. Military assistance to Ukraine is cheaper than fighting a war when Putin eventually invades Poland or Rumania. 

 

What about Border Spending?

 

When the Munich Republicans got little support for their “Chump Change” argument, they switched to the Border as an excuse for their short-sighted campaign against Ukraine aid. They know, or should know, that Biden will break any border agreement he makes. While critically important, Border control is unachievable under any President who wants an open border. Remember DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. President Obama defied the law and setup a bureaucracy to administer a program that violated immigration law. Republican George Walker Bush defied the law requiring him to build a 2,000 mile wall to allow a free flow of illegal immigrants across the border. The Bush Administration slowly built at best about five hundred miles of the 2000-mile wall the law mandated.

The new interest in Border Security by the Munich Republicans is simply a smokescreen to cover their rush to embrace the Isolationism that led to Pearl Harbor.

What are nominal dollars?

 

A huge chunk of weapons the United States sent to Ukraine were obsolescent, obsolete, or otherwise retired. Consider M-109 Paladin Self-propelled howitzers and M1A1 Tanks. Our armed forces use newer versions of the M1 tank and the Paladins sent to Ukraine. The United States Army has just over 2000 M1 tanks deployed and roughly 2900 in storage. The 31 M1 tanks we sent to Ukraine were long since retired M1A1s.

 

Enabling Ukraine to visit a humiliating defeat on Russia is the best way to deter further adventurism in Europe and Asia, 

 

Munich Republicans need to learn the lesson that the Second World War taught their 1930s predecessors before Europe and Asia boil over. 

Thoughts for Donald Trump

Mr. President:

You must state facts, clear, convincing, well known or easily verified facts before you ever utter a positive superlative about anything other than your wife or your descendants. 

 

You would be President today IF you had stated facts rather than saying you had done “great things” during the first 2020 Presidential Debate. 

 

Mr. President, you must tell the American People in detail what you got done! Very few Americans know any, much less many, of your very remarkable accomplishments as President. Fewer yet realize how effectively Nancy Pelosi blocked so many of your initiatives, especially the Wall. I suspect that if a pollster asked 100 American voters the last time America was energy independent, over half would answer 1970 or earlier. Some would say never. Few would know it was early 2021!

 

I only heard you speak about deregulation once or twice over your entire presidency; yet deregulation was the primary reason for the “Miracle Recovery” during your first year in office.

 

Rather than, “I had the greatest recovery ever,” how about:

 

My first official act as President was to reverse 50 job killing executive orders issued by Barack Obama. In addition, I ordered all departments to repeal two regulations for every new regulation they wanted to impose. Three months later, the Economy took off like a rocket ship in no small part because I removed the suffocating lead boot of Obama from the neck of the Economy. Joe Biden has plunked that heavy boot right back onto the neck of your employer. That puts everyone’s job right in the crosshairs!”

 

 

Instead of, “Illegal immigrants are ‘poisoning the blood’ of America, list six of the greatest harms trafficking in illegals does to our nation—starting with:

·      “Fifty-nine percent of non-citizen households (e.g. green card holders and illegal immigrants)” receive some kind of transfer payment—a technical term for welfare programs. (Note 1. Below)

·      Many illegals “pay” the coyotes who lead them here by carrying a pack of fentanyl or other illicit drugs on their backs.

·      The cartels force many illegals, including children, into actual, not figurative, slavery—including sex-slavery. [How troubling that this item is arguably number four on a list of ills brought to America by the trafficking in persons on the Southern Border.]

 

Instead of, “I had the strongest foreign policy ever,” perhaps:

     

President Obama famously said that he could not bring peace to the Middle East in one speech. After a great deal of hard work, I personally meditated “The Abraham Accords”—peace treaties between Israel and three Muslim nations. If given four more years, I can move the Abraham Accords further ahead. In addition, I got “Little Kim” of North Korea to stop threatening his neighbors and launching missiles over their territories.

 

Yes, Mr. President, you had many more Foreign Policy wins; unfortunately, your campaign did not seem to mention those accomplishments. Of course, I live in Soviet California; and your campaign did not do much here.

 

You probably will find more success by purging from your public statements:

·      All forms of “Great” and all of its synonyms

·      Inflammatory terms such as, “Poisoning the blood.” Again, your supporters know what you mean by such comments; the people you need to reach generally do not.

 

Bottom Line: 

 

You must state facts, clear, convincing, well known or easily verified facts before you ever utter a positive superlative about anything other than your wife or your descendants. 

 

Those facts should consist of your accomplishments as President. 

 

Do not call any opponent a name. That’s not stating a fact.

 

 

Note 1: New Survey of Income and Program Participation Data Available 

                        https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/sipp-data.html

                        Referenced in, https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrants-and-USBorn

            Both retrieved 10 January 2024

Responding to Iran and the Houthis

To the people of the Russian federation Remember Chernobyl!

 

Only if hundreds of thousands of Russians demonstrate in the streets of virtually every Russian city and town soon, and continue do so, can they have any assurance that Vladimir Putin will not plunge them and the world into a horrific nuclear war. 

 

Seeing that tens of thousands demonstrated in Moscow was encouraging. The people of Russia must turn out in great enough numbers every day that arrests do not deter most other demonstrators. 

 

On, 21 August 2022, President Putin threatened the use of nuclear weapons in the Ukraine War! President Putin’s threat followed months of similar threats by lower ranking Russian officials, most notably, Dmitry Medvedev. Putin said he was not bluffing. I believe him. 

 

In all likelihood, Putin has already picked the date, the time, and targets of the attack. Here is how I see the start of Putin’s Nuclear War. 

·      Putin will soon hold “elections” in Donbas 

·      Within hours of those sham elections, the Duma will vote to annex Donbas,  the territory linking Donbas to Crimea, and the already annexed Crimea

·      Putin will demand that Ukraine remove its troops from “Russia”. 

·      Ukraine will refuse

·      Nuclear war of unknown magnitude will ensue

Apparently erroneously, I concluded long ago that the Soviet notion of “winning a [protracted] nuclear war” had died among the ashes and debris of Chernobyl. Putin’s speech on the 21^st has proven me wrong. 

 

At some point, a short-sighted Russian strategist apparently came up with the stupid notion of “Escalating [with nuclear weapons] to Deescalate” a war. A nuclear attack on Ukraine will amount to betting millions of Russian lives on an untried and idiotic idea. Putin appears to think the idea has merit. 

 

President Putin must have forgotten Chernobyl. Within a week of the •meltdown•, the Soviets went from denying anything had happened to asking for help from the west, from the whole world. The Soviets admitted they could not deal with the casualties, the mitigation, and the cleanup of Chernobyl — much less of nuclear attacks on cities. 

I recall that hundreds, if not thousands, of Western doctors and other experts went to Chernobyl to help the Soviets recover from the disaster. Embarrassingly, I cannot find the relevant statistics. Regardles, the people of Russia know that Chernobyl overwhelmed the Soviets. To state the obvious, if President Putin starts a nuclear war, Western doctors and other experts will not be going to Russia to aid with casualties or anything else.

 

Finally, I realize how easily I can ask Russians to turn out in Russia. Still, if 1000 Americans picketed the Russian embassy, Putin would simply snicker and continue his plans. Only people in Russia can influence this man.

 

 

 Protect Critical Infrastructure

President Biden should reallocate funds in his Infrastructure Bill from its lowest priority projects to hardening our nakedly vulnerable, most critical infrastructure (critical systems) against Cyber-attacks from the Public Internet. Some of the most critical systems: Electrical Grid, Water purification and distribution, and pipelines. Long ago, China had reportedly penetrated many electrical systems; and, “60 Minutes” showed the ••destruction•• via the Internet of a large generator in only a few minutes.

Private Wide Area Networks (Private WANs) can provide a fast, feasible, proven way to secure critical systems. If President Biden plans to spend two Trillion dollars on infrastructure, that should include helping all critical intrauterine utilities to quickly move those systems to private WANs—••NOT•• a single government network. That would quickly morph into the same mess we have today. Specifically:  

·       Move every critical system, including remote computers used to monitor and control the equipment, from the Public Internet to a Private WAN. This would a computer that cannot reach the Internet; not simply putting a second Network Interface Card in a computer attached to the Internet.

·       Copy every computer and server, prior to wiping the drive, “bit-buy-bit” for offline later penetration analysis.

·       Rebuild each computer and server from a blank drive to its proper configuration.

Recently, Admiral Charles Richard, Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, was reported as testifying that nuclear weapons could become “the least bad option” in a war with Russia, China, or both. As war clouds gather, over Taiwan, North Korea, Russia, Ukraine, Iran, Lebanon, and Israel, critical systems need hardening against cyber-attacks more than ever; doing less could tie the hands of the President in a crisis.

In 1982, the bank for which I worked, and virtually every other bank, used a Private WAN, whether owned or leased, to operate every terminal and printer in every branch and office. This included processing virtually every financial transaction. I believe Public Utilities also used private WANs before the Public Internet became available; although, I have no experience in that industry.

Considering the testimony of Admiral Richard, please consider the following very plausible scenarios:

·       China:

o   China invades Taiwan.

o   The President moves to the defense of Taiwan.

o   China ••destroys•• every electric generator near the Mississippi River from Cape Giraudoux, MO to Cairo, IL,

o   China threatens to destroy every generator in the United States unless the President gives up Taiwan.

·       Russia probably can attack critical systems almost as effectively as China. That could allow Putin to use similar threats against an American intervention in defense of Ukraine.

·       Perhaps worst of all, the Mullahs in Iran might get the same attack capability. If successful, they conceivably could:

o   Attack Israel and follow the “China scenario” above.

o   Try to ignite a war between the great powers by launching an attack on one and “pinning the attack on” one or both of the others.

I do not want any President to have to consider either jeopardizing the entire electrical grid or using nuclear weapons in the face of aggression by any nation. Moving critical utilities to Private WANs could reduce the danger of any nation miscalculating American Resolve. Some other advantages of hardening infrastructure include:

Addressing a critical vulnerability earlier Presidents have ignored or kicked down the road.

• ·       Republicans might support the project, rendering the entire Bill bipartisan.
• ·       Having utility rate payers pay for most of the project over time by making low interest
       or no-interest loans to the utilities for, say, ten years.
• ·       Upon completion, the Project will leave America, our allies, our adversaries, the world,
       much safer.

 As always, comments invited.

DJ