What are allies for?
Choices: Stalemate, defeat, or victory
Ageneral named Douglas MacArthur said in war, there is no substitute for victory. But there are substitutes for leaders. We can start a list of the low-calorie saccharin-types in Washington, D.C., these days, but we only have so many column inches.
The real kind of leaders Back East make news mainly because there are so few of them. And here we must admit to homerism: We enjoy it when somebody from Arkansas shows grit and savvy on the national stage.
French Hill, the U.S. representative from Little Rock, led a trip to Poland and Ukraine earlier this week. He came back talking to the press about what it would take for the Ukrainians to have “success” against Russia.
According to Alex Thomas’ story in the paper Thursday: French Hill “said Wednesday that
Ukraine’s success in its war against Russia must continue to involve unified support from the United States and allies, emphasizing a stalemate or defeat would threaten regional and international security.”
It’s as if French Hill wasn’t listening when a former president said the 1980s were calling and it wants its foreign policy back. Then again, Barack Obama wasn’t a psychic, even though some thought him a prophet. He was just wrong about Russia being a threat not only to the United States, but the world. Funny how a treacherous invasion of a peaceful democracy will concentrate the world’s mind. Before Putin’s War, we were still calling it “the” Ukraine.
French Hill & Congressional Co. flew to meet Volodymyr Zelenskyy, president of Ukraine, as their colleagues in Congress were debating whether to keep funding that defensive war. Believe it or not, there are some in Congress—who dare call themselves conservative—who don’t think much about helping allies in tight spots. Or maybe they just don’t think much. French Hill told the press that the fight in Ukraine, not to mention Israel and tensions in the Indo-Pacific, are “strategically important.”
As far as Ukraine, Representative Hill said: “President Zelenskyy reiterated Ukrainians are in this fight to win, they’re in this fight for victory; they are going to be successful in this fight due to the support and partnership from their allies.”
Who is this person who keeps talking about victory and such? Somebody who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence? French Hill probably hears things.
The big question is whether the rest of Congress hears him. The Senate seems reasonable enough, but the House is a House divided. The new speaker, as somebody put it the other day, is trying to herd peacocks.
Leaders in the House say they want a bill solely helping our allies in Israel as that country tries to stay in existence against a mortal enemy that wants the opposite. And those leaders say they want separate votes for other military aid. The Biden administration—and apparently folks in both parties in the Senate—want an “international security package” that sets aside money for Ukraine, Israel and to prop up our allies in the western Pacific. (Read: Taiwan.)
It really doesn’t matter as long as this country continues to support its allies. The $105 billion the administration is asking for isn’t much when it comes to the federal budget. But it might be everything to the Ukrainians. Without American aid, it’s a good bet that German aid, British aid and French aid might dry up, too. Then Vlad the Impaler could wear out the Urkainians via attrition.
The United States might not be the “arsenal of democracy” as it was during the 1940s. But we still might be the warehouse.
The existence of certain democracies depends on it.