On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

President Trump should make it clear that the Biden administration’s determination to help build a Ukrainian military establishment designed to wage offensive war against Russia rather than engage in the diplomacy necessary to avoid it before 2022 was a serious strategic error. Washington’s European allies are fundamentally wrong when they insist that Moscow had no right to challenge an existential threat from NATO on its border. Without the decades-long project of transferring technology, advice and cash to Ukraine, the threat to Russia in Ukraine might not have emerged.

President Trump’s recent decision to reexamine the wisdom of shipping Tomahawk missiles for use in Ukraine is a step in the right direction. Just as Washington has legitimate interests in Mexico and the Caribbean Basin, it is time for Washington recognize Moscow’s legitimate national security interests in regards to Ukraine and NATO member states in its own backyard. It is also time for Europe and the U.S. to realize that stability in the region is of everyone’s interest, and that means not encouraging, through endless war, a failed state in Ukraine.

Hopefully, President Trump was finally briefed on America’s missile inventory. His reticence to send Tomahawks that cannot operate without American mission planning and execution suggests that he and his staff may have also asked for the status of more vital missile systems such as the family of Standard Missiles. The exact numbers for the American missile inventory are unknown, but President Trump should demand detailed answers.

It’s also vital for him to understand that regardless of how much pressure he exerts on America’s defense industrial base to increase production, timelines for delivery will not change much. Wars are fought with precision strike weapons. The side with the most missiles on hand at the outset stands an excellent chance of prevailing. The side with too few will lose.

American military power is in a state of decline that will require a decade or more to reverse. In pursuit of true military strength, President Trump should not conflate the eagerness of his senior military leaders to comply with his policies or ideas as evidence of loyalty, professionalism or agreement. In Washington, DC, there is never a shortage of sycophantic, blowhard generals and admirals whose own experience with real war is at best at a cocktail level of familiarity.

General Christopher Donahue, commander of U.S. Army Europe and Africa, achieved notoriety when he stated in June of this year that U.S. and NATO Forces could capture Russia's heavily fortified Kaliningrad region "in a timeframe that is unheard of." Perhaps, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth or President Trump welcomed these statements. Emotions often play a larger role in national decision-making than they should. However, generals who publicly broadcast claims of military supremacy should be treated with skepticism. It has happened before.

After the outbreak of the Korean War, Major General (MG) Dean, the 24th Infantry Division Commander, insisted that his men “had merely to make an appearance on the battlefield and the North Korean People’s Army would melt into the hills.” According to the historian Max Hastings, when the North Koreans attacked Dean’s division, the resulting rout “resembled the collapse of the French Army in 1940 and the British at Singapore in 1942.”

General Paul Harkins, the American Commander of Military Assistance Command Vietnam, confidently predicted victory for the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) in its war with the Viet Cong by Christmas 1963. Described as an “American General with a swagger stick and cigarette holder,” General Harkins simply reported the defeat of South Vietnamese forces in the Battle of Ap Bac during January 1963 as a victory. Harkins understood the message Washington wanted to receive and he delivered it.

Before President Trump schedules a future meeting with President Vladimir Putin, he should abandon the false narratives of Russian weakness and alleged “Ukrainian strength” from Keith Kellogg, Marco Rubio, and a host of neocons on the Hill. He also needs to pay attention to revelations about the true state of readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces.

A truthful briefing may give the president pause to reconsider pushing Moscow to the edge, hoping for a “win” that he can broadcast to the American public. An analysis of the contemporary U.S. Navy’s state of mind and readiness entitled, “The Navy’s Kuhnian Crisis,” is illuminating. The article is the latest in a series of warnings that reach back to the aftermath of Desert Storm and the so-called “peace dividend.” The “anomalies are everywhere” the author said, pointing to:

• Littoral Combat Ships decommissioned before they deploy—a $30 billion experiment that could not survive contact with reality.
• Destroyers delayed by years—the Zumwalt class, conceived as revolutionary, delivered as dysfunctional.
• the F-35C, a symbol of joint acquisition dysfunction.
• And shipyards that can’t build or repair on schedule.

Problems are not limited to the U.S. Air and Naval Forces. According to congressional sources, most ground combat vehicles used by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps are not ready to support operations missions due to a lack of maintenance and shortages of spare parts. Tracked and wheeled vehicles that regularly fail to meet their expected standards of readiness include 18 key types of combat and support vehicles used by both services.

Going to war with the forces you have is unavoidable, but conflict should be avoided if the forces are not effectively led, organized, trained, and equipped for the fight even when the opponent is as militarily weak as Venezuela. Before President Trump and his cabinet decide to begin a new conflict with Venezuela, the deficit Trump should worry most about is intellectual, not fiscal.

As Commander-in-Chief, President Trump must suppress the unfortunate habit in the senior military ranks of obedience to dumb ideas and, instead, nourish a core group of military professionals with the integrity and the competence competent to cope with the unexpected when it arises. The history of warfare demonstrates time and again that Character, Competence and Intelligence (C2I) must exceed all other considerations in selection for promotion and command.

In sum, If President Trump’s reconsideration of the Tomahawk option signals a new inclination to a sobering self-assessment of the limits of American military power, it’s good news. Meanwhile, the key strategic challenge for President Trump is not to meddle in Ukraine, the Middle East, or Latin America.

President Trump’s top priority is to restore American economic productivity and prosperity. In the future, the security of the United States will increasingly depend much more on its economic power than on its military power. “Twenty years’ peace,” Washington argued in 1796, “combined with our remote situation would enable us in a just cause to bid defiance to any power on earth.” President Washington’s words are still valid.