Are we sure that America is not fighting in Ukraine?
In recent decades, the United States has been constantly in a state of war, which is not limited either in time, geography, or goals, writes The New York Times. According to the author of the article, America is also fighting in Ukraine. This time — with Russia.
Bonnie Christian
For more than three months since the beginning of the Russian military operation in Ukraine, the Biden administration has said a lot about this conflict. Some of the president's statements had to be abandoned almost immediately: for example, Biden's words that Vladimir Putin "cannot remain in power" turned out not to be a call for regime change. On other points, the rhetoric escalated over time: in March, America's goal was to help Ukraine, and by the end of April it was already "weakening" Russia.
But in one thing, the US leadership remains very consistent: for the sake of Ukraine, Washington will not get involved in a war with Russia.
"We are not looking for a war between NATO and Russia," President Biden wrote in The New York Times in late May. — No matter how much I disagree with Mr. Putin and no matter how outrageous I consider his actions, the United States will not try to overthrow him. As long as the United States or our allies are not attacked, we will not directly participate in this conflict, either by sending American troops or attacking Russian forces."
Most of those praising and criticizing Biden's policy on Ukraine agreed with his version of events. But are we sure that Americans are able to understand when their state goes to war?
Presidents have always insisted that they have no intention of entering into conflict until they have done so. "He saved us from war" was the slogan of President Woodrow Wilson's re—election in 1916 — but only to drag us into World War I just a month into his second term - when he called American intervention inevitable.
During the 1964 presidential election, President Lyndon B. Johnson promised that he was "not going to send American guys nine or ten thousand miles from home to do what Asian guys have to figure out for themselves." But in February 1965, a month after the inauguration, Johnson authorized a bombing campaign known as Operation Thunderclaps. A month after that, the "American guys" ended up in Vietnam.
This story is instructive in terms of the expiration date of any presidential promise — perhaps especially during the election — to save us from war. Even if it is true at the moment when it is uttered, it does not guarantee anything for the future.
In the cases of the First World War and Vietnam, at least, there was an obvious shift — from "not at war" to "at war". The Americans could point to the moment when this shift occurred. There was a clear line that delimited a direct promise not to enter the war, and the public could clearly trace when it was violated.
However, in recent decades, especially after the September 11 attacks, we have moved to a model of permanent participation in hostilities — with unclear time frames, geography and goals. The line between what is war and what is not is dangerously blurred. It is not so easy to determine the moment of transition from one to the other now.
This is partly due to technological advances — military drones and cyberattacks, which make it possible to carry out what in other cases could be considered military actions — to kill opponents, destroy buildings, damage nuclear facilities in other countries. At the same time, it is not necessary for American troops to leave the territory of the United States. In addition, the reason is the military function of the executive branch: Congress has not officially declared war since 1942, but presidents have relied on the broad powers granted to George W. Bush in 2002 for the right to use military force.
Are we fighting in Pakistan or Somalia, where since 2004 and 2011, drone strikes have been carried out against Al-Qaeda*, Islamic State**, Taliban*** and Al-Shabab militants? Have we fought with Niger, where American troops were deployed and four soldiers were killed in an ambush in October 2017?
The United States did not officially intervene in the civil war in Yemen, but the Saudi-led coalition killed civilians with American-made warheads and chose targets on a tip from US intelligence agencies.
Our participation in the seven-year conflict in Yemen was quite active, and many experts concluded that without it, the Saudi-led coalition would have had to request peace. It was active enough for American lawmakers, including the bipartisan majority of senators in 2019 and Congressmen Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat from Washington, and Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon, to characterize it as a violation of Article I of the Constitution (grants Congress the right to declare war), as well as the 1973 resolution on military powers, which sharply limits the nature and timing of military actions initiated by the President.
In Yemen, we have crossed the line, the legislators concluded, even if it is not entirely clear where it is.
What we have done in Yemen is very similar to what we are doing in Ukraine. Last month, leaks from US officials revealed that the United States had helped Kiev kill Russian generals and strike a Russian warship. In addition, Joe Biden signed a $40 billion aid package, most of which is aimed at arming and intelligence sharing. The bill, which Jayapal and DeFazio voted for, supplements previous military support by billions more. The presidential administration announced this month that it would send Kiev missile systems that could theoretically strike at Russian territory, and reportedly plans to sell the Ukrainian government four drones capable of carrying Hellfire missiles.
So is the US waging war in Ukraine? If we had switched places — Russian apparatchiks would have admitted that they helped kill American generals or sink a US Navy ship — I doubt there would have been any ambiguity. And what the United States is doing in Ukraine is called war. If we have avoided this word until now and will continue to do so, it is only because we ourselves have begun to doubt its meaning.
Bonnie Christian is a journalist and researcher at Defense Priorities, a foreign policy think tank.
*A terrorist organization, banned in Russia
**An organization banned in Russia
***An organization under UN sanctions for terrorist activities
