What Is It Good For?

Why cutting off aid to Ukraine is a bad idea.

By
42

As 2023 draws to a close, Jonah invites Frederick Kagan—director of the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project—back on The Remnant to explore how we can expect the conflicts between Israel and Hamas and Russia and Ukraine to unfold in 2024. They also discuss how the Biden administration should approach Iran and China, what the 2024 election could mean for American foreign policy, and what history can teach us about modern warfare.

Show Notes:

–Dr. Kagan’s page at AEI

–Dr. Kagan: “If the West Cuts Aid to Ukraine, Russia Will Win. If the West Leans In, Ukraine Can Win.”

–Dr. Kagan: “The High Price of Losing Ukraine”

By
Comments (42)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Erik Borncamp

    What an excellent guest! So refreshing to hear such an intelligent presentation of both sides of the issue of Gaza, Yemen and Ukraine. As you know, we never hear this on Fox News or NPR. The guests and hosts always salivate all over each other to agree and challenge none of the statements . Thank you Jonah. Please have much more of Mr. Kagan in the future.

    Collapse
  2. Ben Kissling

    Maybe we should be talking about how to win the war. Seems important.

    Collapse
  3. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  4. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Maybe the reason the Israelis aren’t willing to absorb more IDF casualties, the way Kagan would like, is that they are a small country that just sustained the level of 10x 9/11s in civilian casualties and they are fighting an existential war of survival against a terrorist organization embedded in a population that CELEBRATED 10/7 and in some cases participated in the torture of captives.

    Collapse
    1. Betsybowditch

      “fighting an existential war of survival against a terrorist organization embedded in a population that CELEBRATED 10/7 and in some cases participated in the torture of captives”

      PERCEIVED existential war of survival. This is the Israeli view after an assault no one imagined could happen.

      But empirically speaking, nobody expects Israel to disappear. Its effort to vanquish Hamas is proof of that. Much of Gaza has been reduced to rubble.

      The Pope should mind his business and not lament the death of civilians.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Thomas Grimmer

      And to reiterate a point by KDW, the point of the Israeli government is to protect Israelis, not Palestinians. If Palestinians want to be safe, perhaps they should pursue a government that will try to guarantee that end.

      Collapse
  5. Israel.D.Gale

    Regarding civilian casualty numbers in Gaza, what Kagan said was that Israel is willing to inflict greater civilian casualties than the US has done in "post-surge counter-insurgency operations". As someone who has been a fan of Kagan in the past, I am astonished that he would say this. Israel is clearly in full-on "surge" mode, why is he comparing their current operations to post-surge mop-up? Unless I am misunderstanding, this borders on the disingenuous. This is very much in need of clarification.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Charley Warns

      Do you believe the Israeli government was telling the truth in saying the attack on the USS Liberty was an accident? This is off Wikipedia:

      "The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship (spy ship), USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats, on 8 June 1967, during the Six-Day War.[2] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two marines, and one civilian NSA employee), wounded 171 crew members, and severely damaged the ship.[3] At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi (29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1][4]"

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Thomas Grimmer

        Seems that if there is conspiracy theory here, you'd have to demonstrate how Israel would benefit from intentionally attacking a US ship. Otherwise Occam's Razor would apply: accident or incompetence.

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Charley Warns

    Jonah at 40 minutes: "I do want to get into Ukraine before you go, but first let me ask ...?" Whatever, Jonah. China is taking notes on how we're helping Ukraine.

    Kagan said that Iran doesn't take orders from China. Now that's interesting! It raises the question of how much of a threat Iran is. I'm doing some googling as to why that canal is of such vital interest to the United States. Don't we have different trade partners now (e.g., Mexico, Canada, East Asia) than we did back when the U.S. attacked the Barbary Coast pirates? And if it more directly hurts China, why should we help them?

    Collapse
  7. Ellisrt1031

    Jonah. Republican. Don't support Trump. Don't support Biden. Why haven't we used US air to hit Russian positions with Ukraine and supply lines coming into Ukraine
    It seems our current strategy is a stalemate which is a Putin win. Even if we give more hardware.

    Collapse
  8. Joseph Stevens

    Always good to hear different perspectives from people that are knowledgeable in this area.

    Collapse
  9. Sean Smith

    Lord these conversations are exasperating. Of COURSE Israel is trying to minimize IDF casualties in Gaza. Why on earth SHOULDN'T they be doing so in this war they didn't start or ask for?!?! I'm too old to go to war, but if my son were called to fight and I found out he was killed because some dirtbag officer somewhere wasn't doing everything possible to minimize casualties on our side, I'd drive a bulldozer rigged with flamethrowers into a certain 5-sided building. Hamas launched this unprovoked attack knowing full-well it would trigger a massively destructive retaliation. Gazans have empowered Hamas and have done nothing to overthrow them. Since nobody else will say it, I guess I'll be the asshole: They brought this upon themselves. Full stop.

    Secondly, Dr. Kagan is absolutely right that the long-term costs to us of being a non-dangerous enemy and a flakey, treacherous ally are absolutely staggering in comparison to defending peaceable democracies against unprovoked aggression. Shout it from the rooftops. If we don't stand for something this basic, we stand for nothing.

    Collapse
    1. Incognito

      Your logic is extremely problematic nonetheless inconsistent with internal law surrounding civilians during war time.

      First, soldiers are inherently at risk because of their position in military activity. Civilians are not recognized as inherently at risk. We placed great emphasis on that after WWII and transitioned from Total War to Modern Warfare.

      Two, most people I read recognize Israel must defend itself and that there will be civilian losses. But that does not mean IDF is clearly doing everything within its means to remain consistent with international law; the militaries of every nation should be viewed skeptically when engaging in military action in populated areas.

      Three, concluding a civilian population is culpable, and therefore high casualties are acceptable, because they did not revolt against their government is fallacious on multiple levels. The most obvious flaw in reasoning comes down to means; how do you expect a relatively impoverished population under containment by both it's government and neighbor Israel (control of ports, etc) to organize and then execute a rebellion? And remember, for the past 2 months we've been told of the difficulty even the IDF has in infiltrating the terrorists networks; it's one of the principle arguments to support Israel's current campaign.

      Citizens around the world have seen what happens when you don't maintain pressure on national military operations. For the United States we've seen firebombing of neutral countries, use of torture despite military & international code, extraordinary rendition, etc.

      The simple fact is modern nations aren't immune to abuses even when they are signatories of international law. And the only time we find out the full truth is when we challenge them or are lucky enough to have whistleblowers.

      Collapse
      1. Sean Smith

        Not sure which logic you're identifying as problematic, but Hamas is not an ordinary antagonist. They don't care if they die, and they don't care how many innocents they take with them. So wiping them out completely is the only viable solution, because they don't respond to the same incentives as ordinary, non-fanatical humans.

        I'm not cavalier about civilian casualties, Palestinian or any other. I value all equally. But Israel didn't ask for this war, thus I view every death that has resulted from 10/7 as the fault of Hamas, not Israel. Nor do I mean to suggest it would be a small matter for Gazans to overthrow Hamas. But how much more death and destruction will it take before they conclude they have everything to gain and nothing to lose? People get whatever they're willing to put up with, and at some point they're going to need to take ownership of their lives and quit blaming their misery and privation on external causes.

        Collapse
        1. Incognito

          That's not how government abuse works. That's not how abuse works in general. You don't get what you're willing to put up with. They get, in these cases, what Hamas is willing to do to them. Just like Hamas is responsible for the atrocities of 10/7, they are also responsible for the real life conditions in Gaza.

          The moment we shift culpability to civilian populations during war is the moment we enter the another very dark period in the West.

          And it's irrational to assume only Hamas is responsible for civilian casualties in war. When you launch missiles into civilian populations you have some culpability for what happens. The exact amount is debatable but it's not zero. That no more rational than simply assuming Israel is doing everything in its means without evidence.

          And to clarify skepticism, it doesn't mean I don't believe them. It's not about belief. It's recognizing there is a burden of proof to such claims. It's quite possible they are. But we won't know until we can see proof.

          What we do know is an unusual amount of civilian deaths are happening as being reported by respectable organizations, ie not Hamas. I sincerely hope those turn out to have just cause as delineated by international laws of war. Time will tell.

          Collapse
          1. Sean Smith

            In case you can't get to the article linked to below, here's the relevant passage: "A poll conducted in Gaza and the West Bank at the end of November found that support for Hamas tripled since the start of the war, while support for the Palestinian Authority and its president, Mahmoud Abbas, dropped significantly. Over 90 percent want Abbas to resign. Many would rather have Hamas in power, and more would like Abbas replaced by convicted killer Marwan Barghouti, who is currently imprisoned in Israel."

            So who, exactly, the "innocent" civilians are is far from clear. Children, certainly, but these aren't normal people. It's a sick society that has been marinating in the hateful dogma of a death cult for decades. This isn't to suggest that they "have it coming," but that it's not as black and white as, "these are the bad guys, and these over here are the innocents." Reconstruction of Gaza is going to require some sort of radical overhaul of these people's basic wiring. Something perhaps similar to the de-Nazification measures taken after WWII, only running deeper and probably of longer duration. Their current mindset makes them fundamentally incompatible with civilization or existing peacefully alongside it.

            Here's the link: https://thespectator.com/topic/hamas-split-war-israel-fatah-west-bank/?utm_source=Spectator%20World%20Signup&utm_campaign=d82110ac42-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_12_23_01_49&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-d82110ac42-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D

            Collapse
          2. Sean Smith

            It’s not merely difficult to wipe out an enemy that commingles with noncombatants without killing tragic numbers of the latter; it’s impossible. So yes, I blame Hamas. Entirely.

            Collapse
    2. Brandon Hartley

      Well, the safest way to minimize casualties would be to level the entire city with high yield bombs dropped from long range bombers. Is that what you're advocating? The problem with this defense, and I agree with it to an extent, and I would agree much more if my own son were fighting, is that there's no limiting principle. If minimizing IDF casualties is the only consideration, then dropping those ariel weapons and massacreing the entire population is legitimate. What is the limiting principle to this goal?

      Collapse
      1. Sean Smith

        Yes, Brandon, that's clearly what I'm advocating (sarcasm).

        If you want to blame anyone for civilian casualties, blame Hamas. It's they who are commingling military assets with concentrations of civilians and who are preventing noncombatants from evacuating targeted areas after the IDF drops pamphlets and issues warnings. Oh yeah, and did I mention they started this?

        At what point does it become the responsibility of Gazans to rise up and depose those who brought this upon them? Maybe I'm crazy, but I think I'll keep blaming the baby beheaders and rapists of murdered corpses for this hellscape horror show. This is about as 1-sided as it gets.

        Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Stephen Hall

    This guest was great at framing so many issues around both Ukraine and Gaza. Really insightful. A top-tier Remnant interview.

    Collapse
Load More