The lucky thing for Americans is that our security doesn’t depend on retrieving the credibility of commitments made only by foreign policy intellectuals.

Pundits are terrified of waking up one day to find that their arguments have been dismembered. Accordingly, they constantly retreat from real-world calculations into narrative calculations.

This is happening in real time as pundits seriously argue for expending American weapons in tertiary theaters in order to deter primary rivals with the supposed “messages” they send.

John Puri, piggybacking off Noah Rothman, sensibly asks, “What Are American Weapons Stockpiles For?”

I have an answer. Defending Americans. The answer of my peers is far more circuitous: They are for killing Russians to send messages to Chinese people.

Puri argues: “Their purpose is to be used — or, at least, to be available for use — in a conflict that demands enormous military resources.” And that there is such a conflict going on in Ukraine.

Rothman frames things this way: “But if we’re evaluating Ukraine’s cause purely as a proxy theater in which we can pantomime messages meant for Beijing — a narrow outlook is contemptuous of our core security interests in Europe — let’s think about it from China’s perspective.” He then writes:

Is the People’s Republic somehow going to rethink its desire for adventurism in the South China Sea because America is cutting off its frontline partners abroad? Will Beijing think twice about attacking Taiwan only because America has theoretically redoubled its commitment to the defense of Guam? Or does that posture convey Washington’s indecision, insecurity, and impatience with its beleaguered foreign partners?

Really? I find this whole line of analysis difficult to swallow. Puri correctly outlines the tremendous resources that Russia has poured into the war. But, going all the way back to February 2022, Americans have always polled overwhelmingly that they do not want to play a major role in this conflict. This is not a surprise because the American people have correctly intuited that their prosperity and security are not directly challenged in Ukraine. One proof of this is that even with energy inflation dragging the economies of Europe, and Russia absolutely pounding the width and breadth of Ukraine, the American economy continues to prosper. The United States has shrugged off this war as if it were little more than a forgotten hurricane. If anything, Russia’s invasion has inspired European partners not to flee from America, but to finally heed the repeated calls that run from the Eisenhower administration through the Obama years to Trump, and finally promise to become the competent partners we wish them to be. (We’ll see how the promise turns out.)

As for sending messages, what message does China receive when The Guardian reports, as it does today:

The United States only has about 25% of the Patriot missile interceptors it needs for all of the Pentagon’s military plans after burning through stockpiles in the Middle East in recent months, an alarming depletion that led to the Trump administration freezing the latest transfer of munitions to Ukraine.

I don’t think people understand, but the Ukraine war has actually revealed an increased need for Patriots by Americans. Lockheed Martin made only 500 units last year, and a new contract anticipates them boosting to 650 annually. We have no timeline for replenishments to our own stocks, let alone when new orders would be fulfilled. The Guardian reports that the U.S. already transferred two and half years’ worth of production of Stingers, another weapon that is heavily in demand for our military, and overdue for Taiwan.

So what message is being sent? I think we know, because China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, made surprisingly blunt comments to his European counterparts recently, implying strongly that China sees a strategic benefit in a prolonged conflict in Ukraine, because it keeps the U.S. expending resources in a part of Europe where we have little strategic or economic interest. Far from intimidated, the Chinese seem delighted every time a Stinger missile that was promised to Taiwan years ago is diverted to Ukraine today.

Rothman, as committed in just the way he hopes to commit his countryman, walks off the logical plank he has constructed for himself:

His administration will pay a reputational price for letting Ukraine burn. It will not lead the news, but Ukraine’s torturous exsanguination will become background radiation that Americans will slowly, bitterly absorb. They’ll catch glimpses now and then of the horrors their leaders tacitly sanction, and they’ll resent seeing America once again abandon its friends for fear of its enemies.

This is the hawkish version of Blame America. It comes when the American people fail to live up to the global mission assigned to them by a foreign policy court around the executive. American leaders are not “sanctioning” anything in Ukraine, as in granting official approval for an action just because they do not stop it. Not any more than I’m sanctioning the crime in New York City by my refusal to wear cape and cowl and battle criminals in the night. Precisely because what’s at stake for Americans are the “messages” and “narratives,” rather than their security and prosperity, the American people never committed to defeating Russia in Ukraine. Americans elected Donald Trump knowing that his instincts and inclinations were against deep involvement in Ukraine. This doesn’t diminish the tragedy that faces Ukraine. But it seems that if there was an intention behind it, it was to limit our losses, of treasure and readiness, in a conflict where our rival was always going to fight harder for its dearer interests than we were for our peripheral ones.

The lucky thing for Americans is that our security doesn’t depend on retrieving the credibility of commitments made only by foreign policy intellectuals. Our rivals, for the most part, know that when they challenge our dear interests, the American people and its military are a horror of an opponent.