OPINION:
There’s no such thing as a winnable war
It’s a lie we don’t believe anymore
We share the same biology, regardless of ideology
But what might save us, me and you
Is if the Russians love their children too
— Sting, “Russians”
Sting was — I think he still is — a marvelous singer. But the naive notions expressed in that 1985 song are long past their sell-by date.
Start with the Russians.
Vladimir Putin firmly believes his war of conquest against Ukraine is winnable. Russians who love their children have no say in the matter. As for Ukrainian parents, roughly 20,000 of their children have been abducted into Russia to be raised as Russians.
In China, Xi Jinping has told his military to be prepared to wage war by 2027. His goal is to conquer Taiwan, a democratic society that doesn’t want to be crushed under a communist jackboot. Do Chinese parents love their children — including those children serving in the Chinese army? I’m sure they do, but dictators don’t take direction from those they rule.
Iran’s dictator, Ali Khamenei, has been fighting a war against Israel for years — primarily using Arab militias in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. He aims to eradicate Israel and establish a modern Muslim empire that will end the global preeminence of the United States. At home, his thugs have been murdering, beating and blinding Iranian children — parental love notwithstanding.
I’ll note, too, that the ideologies of Osama bin Laden, Hassan Nasrallah and Yahya Sinwar trumped their biologies until warfighters from free nations killed them.
It’s disappointing that so many Western political and thought leaders subscribe to the Sting Doctrine, telling themselves that our enemies just have “grievances” that we must “address.”
They think that peace, like cheese, can be processed.
The quaint notion that there are “no military solutions,” only “diplomatic solutions,” doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It’s after the military defeat of an enemy that diplomats can be most useful, building political structures atop the rubble. That’s how World War II ended.
The mistake too many diplomats make is to regard negotiations as an end rather than a means. That inclination is reinforced when they are rewarded for concluding flawed agreement based on attempts to appease sworn enemies.
I mentioned World War II. Now consider the next war the U.S. fought on the Korean Peninsula (1950-1953). It culminated in a cease-fire, an armistice, a stalemate.
After that came decades of negotiations intended to prevent the dynastic dictatorship in North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. Deals were cut. All of those deals failed.
Yet the congressionally funded U.S. Institute of Peace continues to argue that “political-military dialogue with North Korea is key to defusing military tensions and reducing nuclear risks.”
Last week, Kim Jong Un test-fired a new and improved ICBM with the range to strike anywhere on the U.S. mainland. That elicited a statement from Secretary of State Antony Blinken “strongly urging” Mr. Kim to cease his “destabilizing actions that threaten peace and security.” You think he took that to heart?
Mr. Kim has sent 10,000 troops to help Mr. Putin conquer Ukraine. The munitions he’s providing, including more than 9 million artillery shells, will be even more impactful.
In return, there is a “high chance,” according to South Korea’s defense minister, that Mr. Kim will ask Mr. Putin for technology useful for making tactical nukes or improving ICBMs.
Mr. Putin may also give such technology to Mr. Khamenei as a quid pro quo for the hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles he’s received from Iran.
A few days ago, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Tehran and Moscow will sign a defense cooperation treaty in the near future.
Another example: The love that parents in the Gaza Strip feel for their children did not prevent Hamas from attacking Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and carrying out a barbaric pogrom, thereby initiating a war in which children have been forced to serve as Hamas’ shields.
The next day, Hezbollah began firing missiles at northern Israel from Lebanon, initiating a second front in that war.
Israeli troops are now in southern Lebanon, where they’ve found an extensive, elaborate and expensive system of tunnels that were intended to be used in Hezbollah’s “Conquer the Galilee” plan — an attack on Israel that would have been similar to that carried out by Hamas.
This underground fortress — containing command centers, thousands of missiles, drones and explosives — “would not exist were it not for the expertise, engineering, equipment, advisors, and technicians provided by North Korea,” wrote Bruce E. Bechtol, president of the International Council on Korean Studies.
Twice this year, Mr. Khamenei has attacked Israel directly. On April 13, he sent a barrage of more than 300 drones and ballistic missiles. Then, on Oct. 1, he launched from Iranian soil some 200 ballistic missiles at Israeli population centers. Thanks to Israel’s high-technology air defense system and assistance from the U.S., most were intercepted.
On Oct. 25, Israel struck back against Iran, hitting only military targets and knocking out the S-300 air defense systems supplied by Mr. Putin.
Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh told reporters, “We don’t think that Iran should or needs to respond.” She added that opportunities exist “to use diplomacy to dial down tensions in the region.”
But that’s not on Mr. Khamenei’s to-do list. On Saturday, he threatened a “crushing response” to the “enemies, both the USA and the Zionist regime.”
Contra Sting, he thinks his war is winnable. The lesson he needs to be taught is that it’s also losable.
• Clifford D. May is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for tTe Washington Times.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.