What should be the U.S. philosopy on war?

[Grumps 3,704]

My intent for this post is to consider what we each think the U.S. SHOULD be doing regarding the defense of other countries.

I was glad to see us get out of Afghanistan. Obviously, I hate war. Before Russia invaded Ukraine I would have told you that I want no part of defending Ukraine. But watching things unfold on television makes me wonder if leaving them to defend themselves is the right thing (strictly from my standpoint not necessarily the U.S's). Part of me thinks that maybe we should be the police for the world since we have historically been perhaps the only country capable and willing to serve in that role. Then another part of me says that we should do anything possible to avoid loss of life for our soldiers.

It seems easy to leave Afghanistan because I can pretend that they are militant radicals who are just looking to fight someone, even though, in reality, they are just as worthy of life as I am. Similarly, before seeing and hearing the Ukrainian people I somewhat felt the same way about them.

What do you all think?

Do you prefer that we avoid becoming involved in war at all costs in Ukraine? What about a NATO country? What about France or UK or Canada? What about limiting our involvement to airstrikes and missile launches from a U.S. base in another country?

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

29 minutes ago, Grumps said:

My intent for this post is to consider what we each think the U.S. SHOULD be doing regarding the defense of other countries.

I was glad to see us get out of Afghanistan. Obviously, I hate war. Before Russia invaded Ukraine I would have told you that I want no part of defending Ukraine. But watching things unfold on television makes me wonder if leaving them to defend themselves is the right thing (strictly from my standpoint not necessarily the U.S's). Part of me thinks that maybe we should be the police for the world since we have historically been perhaps the only country capable and willing to serve in that role. Then another part of me says that we should do anything possible to avoid loss of life for our soldiers.

It seems easy to leave Afghanistan because I can pretend that they are militant radicals who are just looking to fight someone, even though, in reality, they are just as worthy of life as I am. Similarly, before seeing and hearing the Ukrainian people I somewhat felt the same way about them.

What do you all think?

Do you prefer that we avoid becoming involved in war at all costs in Ukraine? What about a NATO country? What about France or UK or Canada? What about limiting our involvement to airstrikes and missile launches from a U.S. base in another country?

It's a good question.  This is a very strategic move by Putin...it's not random at all.  I posted a NYT article on another thread that details exactly why this move will shift the entire balance of power and defense structure in that area.  Not to mention, the article mentions that this will have a significant effect on the world economy.

I think that regardless of the fact that Ukraine didn't join NATO, it's in the best interest of NATO members and the rest of the world to stop this.  Militarily.  

That's my opinion.

[AU9377 5,035]

I prefer Putin being assassinated over a ground war with Russia.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

If our global economic policies had any principles behind them other than greed, this question would not need to be asked.

[DKW 86 7,440]

32 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I prefer Putin being assassinated over a ground war with Russia.

 

7 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

If our global economic policies had any principles behind them other than greed, this question would not need to be asked.

Anything but a ground war with the Red Army. Anyone want to guess what the Red Army considers to be acceptable casualties in a war connected to what it considers to be Russian Soil? 5M? 10M? 20M?

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I prefer Putin being assassinated over a ground war with Russia.

To me that falls under stopping this militarily, so I'm fine with that solution.  Would make the next guy think twice as well.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

War, any kind of war, between nuclear countries is illogical, irrational, unthinkable.  IMHO, we should align our principles with foreign policy and, global trade policies.  If, it is already not too late.  We seem to be positioning China to have the dominate world influence for the next 200 years.  All we seem to be accomplishing is, making about one million Americans fabulously wealthy without any regard for the other 349 million, without thinking about future implications.

[DKW 86 7,440]

18 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

War, any kind of war, between nuclear countries is illogical, irrational, unthinkable.  IMHO, we should align our principles with foreign policy and, global trade policies.  If, it is already not too late.  We seem to be positioning China to have the dominate world influence for the next 200 years.  All we seem to be accomplishing is, making about one million Americans fabulously wealthy without any regard for the other 329 million, without thinking about future implications.

Totally agree...

[homersapien 11,440]

5 hours ago, Grumps said:

My intent for this post is to consider what we each think the U.S. SHOULD be doing regarding the defense of other countries.

I was glad to see us get out of Afghanistan. Obviously, I hate war. Before Russia invaded Ukraine I would have told you that I want no part of defending Ukraine. But watching things unfold on television makes me wonder if leaving them to defend themselves is the right thing (strictly from my standpoint not necessarily the U.S's). Part of me thinks that maybe we should be the police for the world since we have historically been perhaps the only country capable and willing to serve in that role. Then another part of me says that we should do anything possible to avoid loss of life for our soldiers.

It seems easy to leave Afghanistan because I can pretend that they are militant radicals who are just looking to fight someone, even though, in reality, they are just as worthy of life as I am. Similarly, before seeing and hearing the Ukrainian people I somewhat felt the same way about them.

What do you all think?

Do you prefer that we avoid becoming involved in war at all costs in Ukraine? What about a NATO country? What about France or UK or Canada? What about limiting our involvement to airstrikes and missile launches from a U.S. base in another country?

First, we cannot afford an exchange of thermonuclear weapons with Russia (nor they with us).

Having said that, we are right back where we were last century.  We are being challenged by despotic authoritarian leaders in Russia, China and Iran. 

This is a global conflict between all democratic countries and authoritarian tyrannies not just a conflict between the U.S. and Russia, or Iran, or China.

However, we are the premier democratic "champion" of the world.  The rest of democratic countries cannot succeed against tyrannical regimes without our involvement.

So the key to this global structure between "good and evil" (freedom and subjection) is alliance of democratic interests, militarily and economically. 

In Europe, this is represented primarily by NATO.  The reason we have sent reinforcements to certain NATO countries threatened by Russia is to verify and solidify our agreements with them. If Russia mounts a major attack on one of these NATO countries, we are in it. All we can do at that point is pray it doesn't escalate.

IMO, we need similar formal alliances with all freedom-loving democratic nations.  The only options we really have is diplomacy and deterrence.  Hopefully these totalitarian countries will change internally.  I think freedom is a more or less universal human aspiration.

Meanwhile, the fate of Ukraine is the hands of Ukrainians. I don't think we should act directly against Russian military forces in Ukraine as it would likely lead to war with Russia (see first point). Providing military aid to Ukraine is a different matter. We should certainly do that. 

I think Putin has over reached. Russia is going to suffer mightily from this.  It may be his downfall.  Meanwhile, we need to do everything we can - with our allies - to increase that outcome.

 

 

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

30 minutes ago, homersapien said:

First, we cannot afford an exchange of thermonuclear weapons with Russia (nor they with us).

Having said that, we are right back where we were last century.  We are being challenged by despotic authoritarian leaders in Russia, China and Iran. 

This is a global conflict between all democratic countries and authoritarian tyrannies not just a conflict between the U.S. and Russia, or Iran, or China.

However, we are the premier democratic "champion" of the world.  The rest of democratic countries cannot succeed against tyrannical regimes without our involvement.

So the key to this global structure between "good and evil" (freedom and subjection) is alliance of democratic interests, militarily and economically. 

In Europe, this is represented primarily by NATO.  The reason we have sent reinforcements to certain NATO countries threatened by Russia is to verify and solidify our agreements with them. If Russia mounts a major attack on one of these NATO countries, we are in it. All we can do at that point is pray it doesn't escalate.

IMO, we need similar formal alliances with all freedom-loving democratic nations.  The only options we really have is diplomacy and deterrence.  Hopefully these totalitarian countries will change internally.  I think freedom is a more or less universal human aspiration.

Meanwhile, the fate of Ukraine is the hands of Ukrainians. I don't think we should act directly against Russian military forces in Ukraine as it would likely lead to war with Russia (see first point). Providing military aid to Ukraine is a different matter. We should certainly do that. 

I think Putin has over reached. Russia is going to suffer mightily from this.  It may be his downfall.  Meanwhile, we need to do everything we can - with our allies - to increase that outcome.

 

 

 

I don't disagree with the general idea that we need to cooperate with other like-minded countries.  But how will any of them trust us in the future if we don't honor our commitment to protect Ukraine?  Again, they gave up what they had to enable them to deter attacks and in return we promised to protect them if they did.

Why would anyone believe us in the future if we ghost Ukraine on this?  Or are you saying that providing military aid is sufficient to honor our commitment?

Also, when you say you think Putin has over-reached and that Russia is going to suffer mightily, do you mean sanctions?  Have sanctions ever stopped any authoritarian country from doing anything they were committed to doing?  Or toppled an authoritarian ruler?  Has that ever actually happened?

I'm afraid the attack we're seeing now is probably a decade in the making.  I'm afraid that it is a deliberate move as part of a long term plan to geo-defensively position Russia to do exactly what you said was a possibility above, which is mount a major attack on a NATO country.  Not in five months, but maybe five to ten years.

If we (and by we, I am definitely including all of NATO, not just the US) let Putin do this, I believe we are kicking the can down the road to the point that the war (which will happen either way) that happens five to ten years from now will dwarf the one that would happen now.  By then Putin will have stockpiled massive weapons and missiles and troops and established bases within easy striking distance of eastern Europe, and by then he may also have the support of China.

Assassinate Putin with a drone if that's what it takes.  But stop this.

 

[homersapien 11,440]

On 2/27/2022 at 3:27 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I don't disagree with the general idea that we need to cooperate with other like-minded countries.  But how will any of them trust us in the future if we don't honor our commitment to protect Ukraine?  Again, they gave up what they had to enable them to deter attacks and in return we promised to protect them if they did.

Why would anyone believe us in the future if we ghost Ukraine on this?  Or are you saying that providing military aid is sufficient to honor our commitment?

 

I am not familiar enough with the "Budapest Agreement" to argue it, but accepting your points, it sounds like another long line of failures the U.S. has made in making a commitment we couldn't or aren't prepared to fulfill. 

But to answer your questions directly - and not to be crass about it - they don't have a choice. 

Who else can take our place as the preeminent champion of democracy from a military and economic standpoint?

Edited March 2, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

18 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

.....Also, when you say you think Putin has over-reached and that Russia is going to suffer mightily, do you mean sanctions?  Have sanctions ever stopped any authoritarian country from doing anything they were committed to doing?  Or toppled an authoritarian ruler?  Has that ever actually happened?

 

See

Or:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/how-russian-sanctions-work/622940/

Edited February 27, 2022 by homersapien

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

14 hours ago, homersapien said:

I am not familiar enough with the "Budapest Agreement" to argue it, but accepting your points, it sounds like another long line of failures the U.S. has made in making a commitment we couldn't or aren't prepared to fulfill. 

But to answer your questions directly - and not to be crass about it - but they don't have a choice. 

Who else can take our place as the preeminent champion of democracy from a military and economic standpoint?

Not to be argumentative, but if that's the reality of the situation then all of the criticism of Trump with regard to foreign policy is moot as well.

I can't see how Trump could possibly do anything worse than agree to protect another country in exchange for it giving up its means of self-protection and then not protect them when the time comes.

So I suppose if he campaigns again in 2024, any talk of him alienating the rest of the world will be off the table, since it doesn't matter if he does anyway?

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

14 hours ago, homersapien said:

See

Or:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/how-russian-sanctions-work/622940/

Thanks for the link—and I hope like hell that works—but there were a whole lot of ifs, ands, and buts in that article.

For one thing, the more I read on it, the more I don't think this was a recent decision of Putin's.  I think this is roughly the middle of a 20 year plan.

Which suggests to me that there's no way he hasn't already thought of everything in that article.  I don't think there's any way he'd be doing this right now if he didn't have a plan to deal with that contingency, and what scares the hell out of me is that—as the article made reference to—that plan almost certainly involves China.

As the article said, these sorts of economic sanctions could literally force Russia and China closer together to the point that when—not if, IMO—Russia makes its big move, China could end up backing them militarily.

Or, more likely, since they have already said that they will continue normal trade with Russia and are the only major government to have not condemned the invasion, they will end up being the subject of sanctions themselves, and everybody better lock arms real tight if that happens.

[GunsmithAU 383]

End all foreign defense pacts, close foreign bases and bring everyone home. 

[creed 1,649]

I'll admit the only thing I know is what I see on U.S. news sources. However, what I don't know is the sentiment inside Ukraine and it's people. So my first question is do they lean Russian, Ukraine, or other lean from a loyalty standpoint? Throw out what you hear on the news, one needs to be engrained in the culture to understand that point. We hear of citizens being handed out guns, but GUNS aren't going to make a dent in the Russian army. That's not being prepared, that's just bizarre and desperate IMO. Second, why didn't Ukraine join NATO? Was there something NATO didn't like about Ukraine? Did NATO already know Russia's plan and just wanted to avoid the impending conflict. Third, Ukraine, is already proposing a cease fire and wanting to discuss the issues with Russian. What's on the table? Money and protection for alignment with Russia? Or, playing better chip to force NATO acceptance?

[AU9377 5,035]

19 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

War, any kind of war, between nuclear countries is illogical, irrational, unthinkable.  IMHO, we should align our principles with foreign policy and, global trade policies.  If, it is already not too late.  We seem to be positioning China to have the dominate world influence for the next 200 years.  All we seem to be accomplishing is, making about one million Americans fabulously wealthy without any regard for the other 349 million, without thinking about future implications.

We must demand more responsible behavior from corporate America. That may require both a reduction in profits and additional incentives, such as reduced health care costs etc, but until we do this, we are not well equipped to push China.

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

The US and Europeare already levying the heaviest sanctions ever made against a major country. We're taking steps that will majorly disrupt and destabilize the national economy of a nuclear armed nation. We are also pumping weapons into Ukraine for them to lose. 

 

Russia has already upgraded it's nuclear status just based on economic sanctions...I don't think it's realistic to go to open war with Russia right now.

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 350]

22 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

The US and Europeare already levying the heaviest sanctions ever made against a major country. We're taking steps that will majorly disrupt and destabilize the national economy of a nuclear armed nation. We are also pumping weapons into Ukraine for them to lose. 

 

Russia has already upgraded it's nuclear status just based on economic sanctions...I don't think it's realistic to go to open war with Russia right now.

 

Maybe. 

I actually found a book (the name escapes me at the moment) that seems to answer my question above (have economic sanctions ever stopped anybody?) A Yale professor wrote it a few years back. 

His historical conclusion is no, it's never stopped anybody or anything.  So if it works in this case it will be the first time in history (as far as his history is concerned, anyway.)

BTW, according to the sources I read this morning, the invasion isn't going so well.  Russian tanks keep running out of gas and soldiers keep (literally) getting lost.  

What if they're largely incompetent and we let them take and take and take anyway when we (NATO) could feasibly stop them just because Putin knows all he has to do is move to DEFCON 4 and we pee ourselves?

[GoAU 1,600]

2 hours ago, GunsmithAU said:

End all foreign defense pacts, close foreign bases and bring everyone home. 

This can make things easy in the short term, but hiding under the covers doesn't mean the boogey man goes away.  Having relationships with like minded countries and treaties makes sense assuming they are fair, equal, and enforced.   I agree that NATO has to shoulder their share of the burden, and you need to pick your allies very carefully.

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

We must demand more responsible behavior from corporate America. That may require both a reduction in profits and additional incentives, such as reduced health care costs etc, but until we do this, we are not well equipped to push China.

I've read this a couple of times and can see a couple of ways to interpret it.  Would you mind expanding on it a little to ensure I understand? 

"Corporate America" delivers what America demands most.  Unfortunately we seem to put more emphasis on lower prices than on "Made in the USA", quality, etc.  Our manufacturing jobs have been pushed overseas due to short sighted cost reductions and unfavorable trade agreements, and the manufacturing jobs we do have are having significant difficulty staffing jobs and getting people that are willing to work (not just show up).  I think I am in agreement with what you are saying, but it's definitely not something a rule, law, or edict can fix - we have a societal issue to resolve.

[homersapien 11,440]

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Not to be argumentative, but if that's the reality of the situation then all of the criticism of Trump with regard to foreign policy is moot as well.

I can't see how Trump could possibly do anything worse than agree to protect another country in exchange for it giving up its means of self-protection and then not protect them when the time comes.

So I suppose if he campaigns again in 2024, any talk of him alienating the rest of the world will be off the table, since it doesn't matter if he does anyway?

I agree that any criticism of Trump is now moot.

But nothing will be "off the table" if he runs again in 24, particularly how his presidency might affect our relationship with our allies.

 

[homersapien 11,440]

2 hours ago, creed said:

I'll admit the only thing I know is what I see on U.S. news sources. However, what I don't know is the sentiment inside Ukraine and it's people. So my first question is do they lean Russian, Ukraine, or other lean from a loyalty standpoint? Throw out what you hear on the news, one needs to be engrained in the culture to understand that point. We hear of citizens being handed out guns, but GUNS aren't going to make a dent in the Russian army. That's not being prepared, that's just bizarre and desperate IMO. Second, why didn't Ukraine join NATO? Was there something NATO didn't like about Ukraine? Did NATO already know Russia's plan and just wanted to avoid the impending conflict. Third, Ukraine, is already proposing a cease fire and wanting to discuss the issues with Russian. What's on the table? Money and protection for alignment with Russia? Or, playing better chip to force NATO acceptance?

I don't know the details. but my understanding is there are a lot of requirements to join NATO regarding governance and possibly the economy.  Ukraine has been struggling with corruption in their government.

 

[homersapien 11,440]

9 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Maybe. 

I actually found a book (the name escapes me at the moment) that seems to answer my question above (have economic sanctions ever stopped anybody?) A Yale professor wrote it a few years back. 

His historical conclusion is no, it's never stopped anybody or anything.  So if it works in this case it will be the first time in history (as far as his history is concerned, anyway.)

BTW, according to the sources I read this morning, the invasion isn't going so well.  Russian tanks keep running out of gas and soldiers keep (literally) getting lost.  

What if they're largely incompetent and we let them take and take and take anyway when we (NATO) could feasibly stop them just because Putin knows all he has to do is move to DEFCON 4 and we pee ourselves?

But these are unprecedented sanctions.

U.S., European allies freeze ‘Putin’s war chest’ as Russia careens toward economic crisis

The U.S. Treasury Department on Monday morning released details of its new economic restrictions against Moscow

By Jeff Stein

Today at 7:30 a.m. EST

The U.S. government and its European allies put into effect on Monday sweeping new penalties aimed at crippling Russia’s economy, as the west escalates its financial war against the Kremlin over the invasion of Ukraine.

Russia’s economy was already showing signs of severe distress before the new measures were implemented, with crowds of Russians rushing to withdraw cash from ATMs and the value of the nation’s currency plunging dramatically.

Overnight, European leaders imposed new measures that effectively cut Russia off from its financial reserves. The U.S. Treasury Department followed suit with similar steps on Monday morning. Under the new regime, all people in the United States and European Union are banned from trading with Russia’s central bank. The sanctions also apply to Russia’s finance ministry and its sovereign wealth fund, to prevent the Kremlin from using loopholes to continue to access the reserves.

The restrictions amount to choking off Russia from the international financial system, depriving the country of assets that are likely necessary to stabilize its economy. Such a step has never been taken before against a country with nuclear weapons or one with as powerful a military as Russia, according to sanctions experts.

Treasury also announced sanctions Monday morning on entities tied to Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, including its management company and one of the sovereign wealth fund’s subsidiaries. It also sanctioned the leader of that management company.

“The unprecedented action we are taking today will significantly limit Russia’s ability to use assets to finance its destabilizing activities, and target the funds [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and his inner circle depend on to enable his invasion of Ukraine,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said in a statement. “Today, in coordination with partners and allies, we are following through on key commitments to restrict Russia’s access to these valuable resources.”

Two senior administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe the White House’s announcement, said Monday that the freeze was immediately effective and intended to head off signs that Russia aimed to recall its international reserves from around the world.

The punishments reflect the extraordinary outpouring of support for Ukraine in the West, but they also carry the risk of a further escalation in hostilities with Moscow. Putin has responded to Western statements in recent days by putting the country’s nuclear forces on alert, although Ukraine and Russian officials planned Monday to hold their first diplomatic talks since the invasion began. The European Union has also announced it will shut down airspace to Russian planes and support Ukraine’s purchase of weapons.

The new banking restrictions are arguably the most serious form of economic retaliation yet approved by the Western powers in response to Russia’s attack on Ukraine. They are aimed at preventing Putin from using his sizable financial reserves — totaling more than $600 billion — to stabilize the Russian economy in the face of other sanctions and economic measures imposed by the West.

Already, the value of the ruble fell by close to 30 percent between Friday and Monday before paring back some of its losses, according to Bloomberg trading data.

As of June 30 last year, 32 percent of Russia’s foreign currency reserves were in euros and 16 percent were in U.S. dollars, according to its central bank. About 7 percent were in British pounds, 13 percent in Chinese renminbi, and 22 percent in monetary gold. The remainder was held in other currencies.

The United States said it is also simultaneously issuing an exemption allowing “certain energy-related transactions” with the central bank of Russia, as the West has tried to continue the flow of Russian energy exports to sustain the European economy and maintain gas prices.

“In one fell swoop, the U.S. and Europe have rendered Putin’s war chest unusable.… That the U.S. and Europe have done this in unified fashion sends a crystal-clear message that Russia will face dramatic costs so long as Putin’s war of aggression continues,” said Edward Fishman, former Russian and Europe sanctions lead at the State Department. “This action represents a sea change in U.S. and European strategy. Just 72 hours ago, a step like this was unthinkable.”

The United States had already announced sanctions targeting nearly 80 percent of the Russian banking sector’s total assets. Its steps include cutting Russia’s largest bank off from the U.S. financial system, in addition to cutting off many technological inputs necessary for parts of Russian industry. U.S. sanctions have also targeted members of Putin’s inner circle and other business leaders in Russia.

The effect has been dramatic. Russia’s stock markets suffered one of the worst drops in history, according to Bloomberg. The S&P credit rating agency also downgraded Russia’s debt to junk status shortly after the U.S. actions were released. Reports have emerged of Russians crowding ATMs to make emergency cash withdrawals. The Bank of Russia announced Monday morning that it will not open its stock exchange in face of the unprecedented pressure.

Putin’s bank reserves were intended to buffer the impact of such a blow. “The steps being announced will undermine Russia’s ability to prop up the ruble,” said Richard Nephew, a senior research scholar at Columbia University. “The Russians won’t be able to defend the currency easily, and its value will tank.”

Some critics have wondered how Putin may react to the attack on Russia’s economy. Mark Weisbrot, a liberal economist and a director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said the sanctioning of the reserves could lead to an “economic collapse.”

“The Biden administration needs to de-escalate this conflict, and move toward a diplomatic solution before it is too late,” Weisbrot said. “Zelensky wants to negotiate without preconditions; Washington should do the same.”

But the senior administration officials defended their strategy as a necessary response to Putin’s aggression. They also said they are closely monitoring potential support by Belarus for the war effort, which may trigger separate economic restrictions on that country.

Adam Smith, a partner at Gibson Dunn and a former Obama administration sanctions official, said the attack on Russia’s central bank reflects just how quickly events have moved in Eastern Europe. Smith emphasized that such moves have typically been off the table because central banks play such a crucial role in a nation’s economy, noting that going after them includes “severe and potentially unknowable collateral effects.” In this case, Smith said it’s possible the sanctions make it more difficult for Europe to buy oil and gas while also hurting the average Russian economically.

“It has historically been viewed as almost beyond the pale — the thing to do when sanctions, and diplomacy, have been seemingly exhausted,” Smith said. “That the international community was willing to go this far, and suffer the consequences of doing so … suggests just how far this crisis has gone in just its first week.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/02/28/white-house-europe-russia-ukraine-sanctions/

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Anyone else notice that Israel did NOT vote to condemn Russia in the UN.

[jj3jordan 2,060]

1. Occupy the enemy homeland.

2. Impose our will on the population.

We should go to war ONLY if those are our objectives, they are within reach, and they are justified.