Tag: charity

Dishonest writing about war

W.J. Astore

No charity, just more “investments” in Ukraine

I saw the following oped at the Boston Globe yesterday morning:

If Republicans won’t stand up to Putin, he won’t stand down in his threats to American interests

Helping Ukraine fight off Russia is not an act of charity. It is a vital investment in world security.

There’s so much to write about here. First, as Vice President Kamala Harris has already said, charity is now a bad or disreputable idea. Helping Ukraine is not about charity, apparently because that message doesn’t resonate strongly with Congress. So, what does resonate? The idea of war as “a vital investment.” Apparently, if the House approves $61 billion in more aid to Ukraine, the payoff will be “world security.” How can you argue against that, right?

Second, apparently Republicans who oppose another $61 billion in aid to Ukraine, on top of roughly $120 billion in aid already provided since the Russian invasion two years ago, are all Putin appeasers. They are weak, refusing to “stand up to Putin.” Apparently Democrats are strong because they are standing up to Putin.

In sum, if America wants to be smart and strong, it must “invest” in more war against Putin and Russia.

How about “investing” in more trench warfare? Such a “rich” history!

I’m sorry but I never see war as an “investment.” Perhaps I would if I were the CEO of Boeing or Raytheon, but I’m not. I see war as “all hell,” as Civil War general William T. Sherman famously said. It’s horrific, it’s wasteful, it’s the negation of humanity. Sorry: no “vital investments” in war for me.

The war isn’t going well for Ukraine. Russia currently has the edge, Ukraine is short on troops and ammunition, and now might be a propitious time for serious negotiations to end the killing, before Ukraine collapses. Yes, in seeking peace, Ukraine will probably have to cede territory. Yes, perhaps Putin will sell this as a Russian victory. But I very much doubt that Putin’s costly “victory” in Ukraine will embolden him to launch attacks on NATO countries. He knows he would risk total defeat and nuclear war if he did so, and Putin, whatever else he is, is no fool.

Meanwhile, the French are making noises about the possibility of European troops deploying to Ukraine to fight against Russia. This would be folly in the extreme, turning a regional Russia-Ukraine conflict into a more general European war on Russia, with echoes to World War II.

Here’s how Reuters put it: 

French President Emmanuel Macron wanted to create “strategic ambiguity” by openly discussing the idea of sending Western troops to Ukraine. Listen to Europe Affairs Editor Andrew Gray discuss the reaction to Macron’s comments.

I love that term, “strategic ambiguity.” Is that a good idea, creating “strategic ambiguity” against Russia, a nuclear power with the ability to destroy the world? Macron was being recklessly idiotic here.

Forget about “investments” in more war and strategic ambiguity. Try charity and peace. It’s time to end the killing.

“Not based on the virtues of charity”

W.J. Astore

Kamala Harris at Munich tells you what America is and isn’t about

Yesterday, in her remarks before the Munich Security Conference, Vice President Kamala Harris made some remarkable claims while speaking a bold truth about what U.S. foreign policy is all about.

First, let’s turn to the bold truth:

And please do understand, [Vice President Harris said,] our approach is not based on the virtues of charity.  We pursue our approach because it is in our strategic interest. 

I strongly believe America’s role of global leadership is to the direct benefit of the American people.  Our leadership keeps our homeland safe, supports American jobs, secures supply chains, and opens new markets for American goods.

I bolded the key phrase: America’s approach to the rest of the world isn’t charitable in any way. It’s about jobs, supply chains, and new markets. It’s about dominance and profits and “the homeland.” End of story.

It put me to mind of a passage in the Bible (Corinthians) about the inestimable value of charity:

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. (KJV; 1 Corinthians 13:2)

The U.S. can certainly move (or remove) mountains with its nuclear weapons; it certainly thinks it has a gift of prophecy with all its surveillance and spy agencies; but unless it has charity toward those less fortunate, it is nothing. It’s good to hear the Vice President avow so clearly that the U.S. approach to the world isn’t in any way charitable or even well-meaning.

Charity? Nope. “Our approach is not based on the virtues of charity”

The remarkable claims came as Harris attacked the Republicans and Trump but without specifically naming them. Here’s what she said about them:

However, there are some in the United States who disagree.  They suggest it is in the best interest of the American people to isolate ourselves from the world, to flout common understandings among nations, to embrace dictators and adopt their repressive tactics, and abandon commitments to our allies in favor of unilateral action.

Let me be clear: That worldview is dangerous, destabilizing, and indeed short-sighted.  That view would weaken America and would undermine global stability and undermine global prosperity.

President Biden and I, therefore, reject that view.

Are Trump and his followers arguing that America should isolate itself from the world? That America should embrace dictators? That America should betray its allies? That America should be a repressive autocracy? This is a misleading and disturbing caricature of Republicans as it accuses them of treason to the U.S. Constitution.

Perhaps some believe that Trump and MAGA truly are this malevolent. But should these accusations be made before foreign leaders at a summit in Munich, Germany?

Something is seriously wrong with America’s leadership. Without charity, they are nothing.