Lead War Dogs John McCain and Lindsey Graham headline a list of 26 Republican co-sponsors to an aggression act that if taken to its end point would, as Pat Buchanan notes, virtually sever relations between the U.S. and Russia.
The aggression act has little chance of gaining enough traction to pass as not a single Democrat is listed as a co-sponsor. Also missing from the co-sponsor list are Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee.
So why have any serious concern about an act that has so little chance of becoming policy? While indeed the public policy issue may not today be at hand, the issue of individual and party policy needs to be examined. S.2277 would, as Pat notes, direct the secretary of state to intensify efforts to strengthen democratic institutions inside the Russian Federation, e.g., subvert Vladimir Putin’s government looking toward regime chance.
How would Americans react if the Russians introduced an act that sought to intensify efforts to strengthen communist institutions inside America?
S.2277 would declare Moldova (our interest in Moldova is exactly what?), Georgia, and Ukraine “major non-NATO allies.” How would Americans react were Russia to introduce an act that sought to tie in Mexico as a militarily aligned ally to Russia? And I could go on listing points that, were the tables turned, would outrage Americans.
So just what is the end game for the McCain/Graham led War Dogs? I explained yesterday that S.2277 does not meet even one of the five essential elements of the Weinberger Powell Doctrine, which should be the template for the consideration of any U.S. foreign military involvement.
S.2277 then makes not a shred of sense based on military considerations and is offered as a stick in the eye and slap in the face to Putin.
Sound like much of a plan to you? Of course not. S.2277 is an embarrassment to its co-sponsors and strongly indicative of the sort of reactive stupidity that could be expected if the War Dog crowd, led by McCain and Graham, once again became the majority in Washington.
Rand Paul, at the top of a long list, has a lot to gain here by clearly outlining to American voters that once again poking our nose into business that is of no national security interest to America is a losing hand. Just look to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Read Part I here.
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- Cato’s Chris Preble Asks, Who’s Advising Trump on Syria? - January 19, 2018
- Turkey/Syria/America: Disaster Ahead? - January 19, 2018
- Trump Administration to Strike Back Against Sanctuary Laws in California - January 19, 2018