Sanctuary Denied

What Ukraine Gets Right About War (and We Got Wrong)

Ukraine’s recent foray into the Kursk region of Russia filled me with both hope and fear. Ukraine’s refusal to allow Russia a military sanctuary nearby but within Russia shows that Ukraine learned from the US’s errors of the last 80 years. Our mistakes in Vietnam and Afghanistan involved subordinating the military effort piecemeal to diplomatic concerns instead of coordinating them effectively to achieve our goal, in particular by allowing the enemy sanctuary across international borders. But Ukraine also risked nuclear escalation by Russia.

Sanctuary and the US. US policy is built on the sound theory that diplomacy and military action should both support a common political goal. Diplomatic restrictions on military action sometimes make sense, like not using nuclear weapons except in defense of the homeland. More often, the US has allowed diplomatic restrictions to be used inappropriately, for example by allowing “neutral countries” across the borders in Vietnam and Afghanistan to give sanctuary to opposing military forces. I am not suggesting that we should have gone to war with, respectively, Cambodia/Laos and Pakistan. But, conversely, when a country allows or is unable to prevent the use of its territory as a sanctuary, then we cannot pretend it is neutral in a conflict. Providing or allowing sanctuary is evidence of bias, not neutrality.

US soldiers responding to a cross-border attack in Afghanistan in 2011 (when I was there). Photo courtesy of NYTimes.

I saw this at work when I served in Afghanistan in 2011. At that time, Pakistan routinely allowed Taliban forces to use Pakistan as a sanctuary and would often shoot at our troops pursuing the Taliban, whether or not our troops even crossed the border. Pakistan was allowing both Osama bin Laden and Bowe Bergdahl’s kidnappers to operate within their territory. These are not the actions of an ostensible ally. There was much debate as to whether this was because of Pakistan’s inability or their unwillingness to prevent their territory from being used this way, but the distinction was immaterial for those of us on the ground. Limitations like engaging only in “hot pursuit” across the border don’t make any military sense.

When we send our soldiers to fight and die overseas, we have to be willing to allow them to pursue their mission where it takes them, or we shouldn’t send them at all. We must accept that, when our military can’t accomplish their mission within the diplomatic restrictions placed upon them, it’s time to bring them home, not to force them to die for the myth of neutrality.

Ukraine’s Kursk Offensive. Russia used its border as a similar sanctuary. Operating under the belief, supported by US restrictions on the use of our military aid, that Ukraine would not counter-invade their territory, they were able to concentrate their military assets in Ukraine. In turn, this let Russia take more Ukrainian territory while leaving the border lightly defended. Ukraine called their bluff, blowing through the border between the Sumy and Kursk regions and taking significant Russian territory.

A Russian column of reinforcements destroyed by the Ukrainian military in the Kursk region. Photo courtesy of Denys Davydov.

While Ukraine’s operational goals remain unclear, it has enjoyed some success so far. At the very least, Ukraine has forced Russia to redeploy military assets that would otherwise be used to take more Ukrainian territory. Ukraine took the calculated risk that Russia would not respond by using tactical nuclear weapons. This was a kind of political jiu jitsu. Ukraine used the US policy of massive conventional retaliation against any Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons to deter a nuclear response to the invasion.

Russian soldiers surrendering to Ukraine in the Kursk region.

Some of the restrictions on the use of US military aid make sense—not using ballistic missiles that could carry a nuclear payload deep inside Russia seems prudent—but many do not. For too long, we have allowed a faulty diplomatic theory of so-called “escalation management” to constrain not only our own actions, but those of our allies. Who are we kidding? The US is not going to stop military aid to Israel if they engage in (justified) use of our aid against Iran. Neither are we going to stop aid to Ukraine if they use our weapons legitimately in Russia. While I do not subscribe to the Sherman-esque idea that war is hell and it should never be restrained, neither should we act as if it can be carefully calibrated.

Conclusion. With the Kursk offensive, Ukraine overturned the diplomatic chessboard and changed the nature of the conflict. They are responding to a threat to their very existence against an enemy that routinely engages in atrocities to accomplish its ends. The US should accept this and remove our restrictions on the use of our military aid. One of the likely consequences of the lack of military experience in the leadership of both political parties in the US is the lack of a strong concept of the use of military force. Diplomacy and military force must work together to achieve a political end. The military is not an instrument of diplomacy, but rather a co-equal contributor to the goal and one with its own strengths and limitations. We should be grateful Ukraine has reminded us of this and remember it for our own future military endeavors.

Other News

Travel. Nick Kristof has a great column about the reason more people should embrace international travel, as well as some tips to do so safely. If we wish to avoid future conflicts, we need to understand the world better.

Talking with Those You Disagree With. Vice President Harris invited pro-Palestinian protestors to meet with her. One of my frustrations has been the interruptions of Democratic campaign events by these protestors. Do they really believe that a Trump administration would be more favorable to their cause? Nevertheless, the protection of civilian lives (on both sides of the Israel/Gaza border) is of critical importance. We lose nothing by talking and stand to gain much.

Appropriate Use of the National Guard. The discussion of Gov. Tim Walz’s lengthy and distinguished National Guard service brought one issue back to mind for me - the Army and Air Force’s inappropriate use of their reserve components in the 2000’s. Like many of us who served, Gov. Walz was called up after the Iraq invasion. Also like many of us in the Guard, he was not employed in the job that he trained decades for, but rather to perform base security functions outside the combat zone. These duties can more appropriately be performed by host country militaries or even civilian contractors. Guardsmen want to do the jobs they are trained to do, not perform gate guard duty, however pleasant the destination. While the active components have improved somewhat, there is still substantial discrimination, especially in the Army, against using reservists in the combat roles they train for. I’m hopeful that a Harris/Walz administration will use the Guard, when necessary, in the two roles in which it excels - the primary wartime mission and the domestic support mission - and not as a second-class auxiliary.

Guest Columnist. I’ve invited Rep. Charlie Conrad to write about some of the things he’s doing to reduce polarization in our political system. If you like, write a comment encouraging him below.

Recommendations

David French. Mr. French is a conservative opinion writer for the New York Times. While I often disagree with him, I appreciate the way he thinks about events. His writing makes me challenge my own assumptions. He also participates in a solid podcast, Advisory Opinions.

Unforgotten. I have a weakness for British police procedurals. This is a smart one that refuses to paint everyone in either black or white.

Command and Control by Eric Schlosser. This non-fiction accounting of a serious accident involving a nuclear weapon is a must-read.

Keep Letters from a Recovering Politician Free

As always, the best thing you can do to support this column is to share it with people who might be interested. I do not have a paid plan because I want folks to be able to access it without worrying about money. If you’d like to leave me a tip to show your appreciation, you can click on the “buy me a coffee” button below.