One of the great conundrums for American foreign policy is what precisely should we consider before entering into war. Attacks on us? Just domestic or also attacks on our citizens abroad? How big do they have to be to merit a military response? Beyond that, there is the difficult question of when should we go into military conflict on behalf of others. Our treaty partners (e.g., NATO members)? Others? Taiwan? Our official policy on Taiwan is strategic ambiguity (unless we are to believe Mr. Biden), and it’s pretty much that way everywhere else–we get in the middle of fights elsewhere when we believe in the cause and a linkage to our own self-interest (e.g., Kuwait in 1990).

As we continue to see the horrifying images of Russia’s unprovoked war on its smaller neighbor Ukraine, there is a question that will only continue to grow–what more should we be doing? We’re doing a lot, but from prior to the invasion, Mr. Biden has been clear that no U.S. troops would be involved, which he reiterated last night in his state of the union speech. Yet there are increasing calls for U.S./NATO military involvement, one of them being for the creation of a No-Fly zone over Ukraine, and most outlets (including conservative ones) are rejecting that.

Thankfully, the White House — like the vast majority of senators and congressmen — has maintained a level-headed line on this. An NFZ over Ukraine would require “implementation by the U.S. military — it would essentially mean the U.S. military would be shooting down planes, Russian planes,” Jen Psaki said on Monday. And that, to put it lightly, would be bad. America should absolutely support Ukraine. But there’s a line that we must not cross. American foreign policy should serve the interests of the American people. An NFZ — and the ensuing war with Russia that it would likely provoke — does not fit that criteria.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/senator-wickers-proposed-no-fly-zone-is-a-very-bad-idea/

The downside risks of a NFZ are there and they are not small: it would have the U.S. in direct conflict with Russia–enforcement of it would mean that we would have to be prepared not only to shoot down Russian planes over Ukraine, but to launch strikes inside Russia to take out anti-aircraft systems that would be able to shoot down our planes. The overwhelming reason we should not do this is simply we don’t want to risk going into a war with Russia that very easily might go nuclear, given his mental instability. So let’s think about this objection a little further. The reality is that in context of a battle for air superiority, the U.S./NATO conventional air power would dominate the Russians. Not at zero cost for sure, but the outcome would not be in doubt. This in turn raises the possibility of Russian escalation to a more aggressive cyber war against us (and they are very good at this, but then again, so are we!). But the real public fear is going nuclear. The logic is that Mr. Putin cares a lot more about Ukraine than we do, and since he may use nukes, then we should not get involved in an affair that doesn’t really concern us. There are two problems with this. The first is that if we have a policy position that we will not get involved in any conflict that doesn’t directly concern us if it potentially could lead to a nuclear war, then we have just given Russia in the future license to care a lot more about Lithuania, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, etc., than we do–and I don’t think Article V of NATO will stop that, if we allow this. Much more importantly, China is watching, and if we allow Putin to win on this, Taiwan is gone. And Taiwan produces 92% of the world’s semiconductors–the free world depends on the free flow of trade and goods. I’m skeptical that in a world that is going to have more nuclear actors not less, that our policy framework should be conditional on the potential of nuclear war. It is a very important factor, but should not be a veto.

The second objection is that we can ride this out and still defeat Russia’s aggression over time. But that begs the question, at what cost? If we are faithful to sustain this and punish Russia so that it ultimately relents, then we may effectively preclude the domino effect concern I made above. But how many lives are we willing to see lost while Mr. Putin continues? History is not encouraging here; when Mr. Putin’s army could not quickly conquer Grozny in 1999, the city was completely destroyed. Kyiv has three million people (albeit many have fled), and Kharkiv has 1.5 million. Russian Tyrants of the past starved ~5 million to death during the Holodomor. The Ukrainians have surprised Mr. Putin and inspired the world with their tenacious defense of their country–and Mr. Putin is now pounding the cities much more aggressively. Will we stand by while Russia makes Kyiv and Kharkiv another Grozny? Will we allow him to kill literally millions? We are already seeing this on our screens at a small level. What happens when the horrors of war are increased and brought into our view again and again? If he kills in the low millions, is that too much? If not, what is? Calls to only act in the national interest are incredibly narrowly focused. Is it not part of our national interest to be America? And doesn’t it mean to be American that we are the people who do what others cannot or will not do? We are an exceptional people, and that should remind us of Uncle Ben: With great power comes great responsibility.

Bill Clinton said his biggest regret of his presidency was his failure to stop the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda. My trip through the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC was impactful as I pondered how we could allow that. We have seen what Russia has done historically, and what Mr. Putin is capable of. He must be stopped. If that requires U.S. force, this is one part of the American populace that is supportive. And I promise you, if Mr. Putin is not stopped fast, as the death toll and destruction mounts, there will be many more like me. So the question for each of you readers is what level of atrocity in Ukraine would be your limit? I’m not suggesting there is one right answer, but I am suggesting that each of us should have a limit and understand why. Just because we can’t be policeman of the world doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be the peacekeeper in some parts. I don’t want to be part of a country that thinks that nothing is worth war.