‘Wars,’ ‘Incursions,’ &c.

Notes on Iran, Ukraine, and more

A U.S. soldier follows the news while in Cambodia, 1970 (Wikimedia)

‘You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you,” goes a cynical old line (often attributed to Trotsky). Is it cynical or realistic? I would like to offer a few notes on two wars: the Iran war and the Ukraine war.

Is that how the current war in Iran will be known, in the future? “The Iran war”? Perhaps with a capital “w”? For years now, we have written “the Ukraine war.” In history, will it be known as “the Ukraine War”?

Many officials in the Trump administration, and many Republicans on Capitol Hill, are unwilling to call the Iran war a “war.” I’m not sure what the dictionary would tell us. But when two sides are warring, that looks like a war.

I remember the Ukraine war in its earliest days—I mean, the earliest days of the full-scale war, which began in February 2022. Senator Mitt Romney said that the word “war” did not seem right. One country had invaded another, in an attempt to destroy and subjugate it.

I understood him. I agreed with him, actually. But the Ukrainians have been fighting back for a long time, and it is indeed a war: a war for survival, on the Ukrainians’ part.

***

My first note—or this second note—will involve both wars: both Iran and Ukraine. You may have seen articles such as this one, which begins,

Ukrainian military experts are due this week in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, President Volodymyr Zelensky told journalists on Tuesday, where they will share expertise on downing Iranian drones.

Ukraine has to fend off nightly barrages of Iranian-designed Shahed attack drones launched by Russia, an ally of Tehran, and says it has unmatchable expertise in how to thwart the attacks.

Yes.

Bernard-Henri Lévy, the French philosopher and writer, commented as follows:

So, Ukraine has the drones, the drone operators, and the drone interceptors. And this tech—unique in the world—Ukraine is ready to share. A new world is taking shape. With President Zelensky becoming the military leader of the Free World. What an extraordinary turnaround!

What BHL says today may sound odd, and off. Tomorrow, it may be conventional wisdom.

Earlier this week, I published a piece quoting Kimberly Kagan, the founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War. She says that the Ukrainians are doing a lot of “discovery” in the field of contemporary warfare. Ukraine is a veritable “laboratory” in this respect.

I wrote, “Like Israelis, Ukrainians may not have wanted to become expert warriors. But life has forced them to.”

***

Another news report:

Before the ongoing conflict with Iran, Donald Trump bragged about bringing down gas prices. But Thursday, the president turned that brag on its head.

“The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,” Trump posted to Truth Social.

I thought of an old expression from golf (cynical or realistic?): “Every shot pleases someone.”

As others have pointed out, higher gas prices can probably not be sold as a positive development on the campaign trail.

***

Above, we were talking about words—“war,” in particular. President Trump keeps calling our operation in Iran an “excursion.” “Just a little excursion.” The journalist James Surowiecki wrote,

There’s no question someone in the White House told Trump to call the war in Iran an “incursion,” but he heard it as “excursion” and now he keeps calling it that—making the war sound like a holiday getaway—because no one around him ever corrects him when he makes a mistake.

That could be. I associate the word “incursion” with Cambodia in 1970—our “incursion” into that country during the Vietnam War. The Nixon administration took a lot of heat for using the word “incursion.” It seemed weaselly, to some.

(We also said we were “in hot pursuit,” across an international border.)

“Incursion” is an old word. Merriam-Webster says, “a hostile entrance into a territory,” like “raid.”

***

I am not Little Bo-Peep about war. About war and its casualties. (“Casualties” is too soft a word, almost bloodless.) You don’t have to lecture me about Dresden. Or about our firebombing of Tokyo, or about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I know.

Still: When the Iran war is over, I think Americans may be startled to learn of the civilian deaths. It’s not all “the leaders,” the bad guys.

Sober people acknowledge this and account for it.

I talked with some Iranian dissidents for a piece published last week. All of them dearly want to see the downfall of the Islamist regime. They want it more than most! Some of them were imprisoned and tortured, by this regime.

Still, they tended to be very sober, to say the least, about the civilian deaths.

***

I have observed Secretary Hegseth’s performances at press conferences and such. And I would like to point out the following:

Men such as Eisenhower and Marshall weren’t excited about killing people. (I have studied Marshall in particular.) They weren’t giddy. They thought it was their grim duty. And they went about their business with full recognition of its awfulness, whatever the necessity—even the righteousness—of it.

That’s how leaders ought to be, I think.

(Let me recommend Marshall’s Nobel lecture, given in 1953, the year he won the peace prize.)

***

You may have seen this story: “Pentagon bars press photographers over ‘unflattering’ Hegseth photos.” One quick comment from me. I know the “anti-snowflake” crowd very well. And it includes some of the snowflakiest people you ever met in your life.

***

Here is a headline to make the blood run cold: “Russia sits back as the Iran war escalates, expecting long-term gains.” (That article is here.)

***

This story, you are familiar with: “Russia is providing Iran intelligence to target U.S. forces, officials say.” President Trump has dismissed this, waved it off, and so (accordingly) have others in his administration.

I think of Hillel: “If I am not for myself …”

I also wonder: Could anything—anything in this world—get Trump & Co. to say a critical word about Putin? I swear, the Russians could bomb Dubuque, and this crowd would say, “NATO provoked them. The Iowans are woke.”

Steve Witkoff is the president’s envoy to the Kremlin. On television, an interviewer asked him, “Do we think that the Russians have shared intelligence about the location of U.S. military assets, and if they have, why would we be giving waivers on Russian oil sanctions?”

Witkoff answered, “Well, I’m not an intel officer, so I can’t tell you. I can tell you that yesterday, on the call with the president, the Russians said that they have not been sharing. That’s what they said. So, you know, we can take them at their word.”

“We can take them at their word.” I was a Republican for many years (from about 1983 to 2016). We used to say that the Democrats were naïve about the Kremlin. Gullible. We hadn’t seen anything yet.

***

Let me end on Cuba. A few days ago, I wrote,

For decades, interested parties have talked about what comes “after” in Cuba—after the communist dictatorship. As a conservative, I know that things can always get worse. With some exceptions. Cubans have been tormented by that murderous regime for 66 years. Basta.

No, let me end on Iran.

What will—or what would—come after the Islamist regime? To say it again, I’m a conservative, and a key part of conservatism is: “Things could always be worse.” But in the case of Iran, I don’t see how.

Thanks for listening to these war notes of mine, and I will have other subjects—happier subjects—later. And thank you for your subscriptions: so appreciated, so helpful. Talk soon.