WHAT’S NEXT REPUBLICANS? (Part 10)

The intent of this series has been to answer President Biden’s question, “What are the Republicans for?”  His point being, at the time he said it, the Republican Party does not stand for anything. 

The intent for the Republicans in the House should be to move quickly with a legislative agenda that will highlight numerous national issues that can be/should be solved during the 118th Congress.  This will also begin framing the Republican Platform for the 2024 presidential campaign.

Part 1, of this series, how to fix education and rede relations and a plan for immigration reform.

Part 2, election reform.

Part 3, a plan for fixing a dysfunctional Congress. 

Part 4, taking on the bloated bureaucracy and uncontrolled spending by the Executive Branch.

Part 5, terms of office and term limits.

Part 6, campaign finance reform.

Part 7, cleaning up the primary election mess.

Part 8, the IRS and tax reform.

Part 9, universal service for America.

Part 10, and the final part of this series, world peace.

Presumptive Speaker of the House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy speaking:

Russia invades the sovereign nation of Ukraine, February, 2022.  The world watches, in real-time, levels of destruction not seen since World War II news reels that would be shown in movie theaters.

Ninety-eight per cent of the world’s current population of 8-plus billion have no personal recollection of the WWII destruction in Europe. Therefore, this ongoing invasion is a game changer invoking questions like, how could this possibly happen today?  Why have we not stopped it?  What can we do?  How can they deliberately target women and children?  Who can help?  Should some collective group of countries join forces and counter attack Russian forces?  What should NATO do?  Should the EU put together a counter offensive force?  Who would/should lead such a force?  Can Ukrainians ever rebuild the thousands of destroyed structures?  If the invasion ended tomorrow, where would the returning refugees live?  Who could/should finance rebuilding Ukraine? Where will they find food and clean water?  Where will they work?   Will there be electricity?” etc. etc. etc.  The questions are almost endless because it is an understatement to say, this is unprecedented. We need answers and actions.

The daily media dose of reality has touched nearly everyone’s heart and mind with feelings of disbelief, distrust, disgust and anger towards Putin and his forces; empathy, sorrow and compassion for the millions of in-country displaced Ukrainians, out of country refugees, those mourning killed or missing family members and what the Ukrainian people face in the foreseeable future. 

 The international after-action-review must not be a thousand-page bureaucratic study published in a couple of years from now which would be worse than worthless. What it must be is a succinct accounting of three simple, but essential, questions:

First, what, collectively, did we, the world, do well?

Second, what should we, could we, the world, have done better?

Third, and most importantly, how can we institutionalize a faster, better, more organized, more aggressive and all-inclusive plan for preemptive actions that would preclude this ever happening again? Let me emphasize the word preemptive because the world watched Russia mass forces and equipment for months and did nothing. That question leads us to a discussion of Russia, Ukraine, the United Nations, world peace and the uprising.

BACKGROUND leading to a proposed solution:

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS:

With technically advanced machine guns, tanks and chemical warfare, World War I was optimistically referred to as the war to end all wars.  January, 1918, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson outlined an idea for an organization that would be charged with resolving conflicts before they exploded into bloodshed.  In 1919 the structure of The League of Nations was laid out in Paris and the Treaty of Versailles went into effect January, 1920 with 48 member countries. The U.S. Congress failed to ratify our membership in the League.  Between 1920 and World War II there were numerous opportunities to act, but it never did.  The League of Nations was abandoned during World War II.  The League was not necessarily a bad idea, but numerous times, when actions were required, European countries found it too difficult to put together an effective united front against an aggressor to include the rise of Germany, pre-World War II. 

THE UNITED NATIONS:

June, 1941 representatives from thirteen nations (the U.S. was not included) met in London and signed the Declaration of St. James’s Palace expressing a vision for a postwar world order.  The next step was the Atlantic Conference August, 1941, at which President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill laid out a more detailed form of the alliance called The Atlantic Charter. The final step was the Yalta Conference, February, 1945 when Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin agreed on the establishment of the United Nations as well as the structure of the Security Council.   

Despite having endured for 77 years, generally speaking, the UN is a weak-intentioned bureaucratic mass that is involved in everything and accomplishes very little.  Case in point, did the UN respond to the Russian invasion?  Yes, and for the UN is was remarkable fast; on March 3rd, one week after the invasion, they voted overwhelmingly for a resolution deploring Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and called for the immediate withdrawal of its forces.  Wow, that must have shaken Putin to his core.

The UN is an established international organization perfectly positioned to be a greater force for the greater good for the collective world.  But in its current condition it is incapable of deterring or bringing to a close a conflict such as exists in Ukraine today. We need to completely rethink this issue, right now.

THE UN TODAY:

In order to understand what must be fixed, here is a short-hand view of what is wrong. The UN consists of six principal organs:

General Assembly

Security Council

Economic and Social Council

Secretariat

International Court of Justice

Trusteeship Council (currently inactive)

Of these, the General Assembly and Security Council being the dominant pieces.

THE SECURITY COUNCIL:

The Security Council consists of five permanent members, the U.S., China, Russia, France and the UK (allies during WW II) and ten elected members.  The presidency of the Council rotates among the fifteen members, each serving for one month.  Is anyone surprised that Russia was president in February 2022 when they attacked Ukraine?

Under the United Nations Charter, the principle function of the Security Council is to:

Ensure international peace and security. There it is in black and white, ensure international peace and security as its number one responsibility.  Additionally, the subset authority allows the Council to:  

Investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction.

Recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement.

Formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments.

Determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken.

Call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression.

Take military action against an aggressor.

Right there in the Charter are the elements necessary for world peace. Given these clearly articulated responsibilities and authority, we can conclude that the UN in general and the Security Council in particular have been abject failures for almost eight decades.

First of all, can you imagine a large international company CEO having fifteen Executive Vice Presidents, each given the opportunity to lead the company for a month every fifteen months; thereby allowing each to bring his or her biases and priorities to the forefront.  It’s insane. A perfect formula for failure.

A UN INITIATIVE FOR WORLD PEACE:

How is world peace possible? In a word, deterrence.  That is, fear, in the mind of any potential aggressor, of rapid retaliation by a superior force.  It is possible for the United Nations to establish and sustain a world military force to deter and, if necessary, bring to bear on the battlefield the collective military might of the other 194 member nations?  Here is an outline:

Every member nation would agree to contribute to a world-wide deterrent force that can be deployed anywhere in the world within a seven-day period.  Every nation will contribute according to its capabilities.  Some examples:

The U.S. has the greatest capability in the world for world-wide force projection.  For example, the world watched in awe in 1990 as the U.S. deployed an overwhelming force to the Gulf War and, in two days of fighting, defeated Iraqi forces which had invaded Kuwait.  One U.S. contribution to the UN force could be our entire air-cargo fleet to fly directly to various countries and transport their force contribution directly to the targeted area.   Another critical U.S. contribution could be our fleet of about 650 aerial refueling tankers; by comparison, the remaining countries have about 250. 

Countries with few military resources (36 nations do not have a defense budget) could provide field hospitals, portable field surgical units with doctors and nurses, air craft maintenance capabilities, truck drivers, border patrol personnel, etc. Nations with only small maneuver organizations could provide, for example, man portable air defense and anti-tank teams and snipers.  There would be a very long list of non-combatant rear-area support requirements.  Countries with established combat forces could provide special operations personnel, armored units, light infantry, artillery, helicopters, tactical aircraft, naval vessels, air defense, combat engineers, all the elements for a military theater of operations. Selected nations in several regions would be responsible for providing an airport that can be quickly transformed into a full-up military operation with multiple runways, an expanded tarmac, maintenance facilities and housing for the military contingent.  

The force could be called the International Deterrence Force, IDF.  The “D” in IDF definitely does not stand for Defense.  The IDF will not be designed for defense. It will send an undeniable message to any nation that is contemplating an offensive action that within seven days an overwhelming world-wide force can be in-place for a counter offensive.  That is the real-world definition of deterrence.  The UN/IDF could borrow NATO’s Article 5 concept; an attack on one member is an attack against all members.

Who pulls this all together and leads the force?  A 4-star military leader with senior command experience would be nominated by the UN Secretary General.  After being thoroughly vetted, he/she will be voted on by the General Assembly by secret ballot. A majority vote will secure a two-year assignment which can be extended to four years.  The IDF Commander will select a deputy and the two of them will put together a lean-and-mean, full-time, rapidly deployable international staff.  The commander’s headquarters will be in Europe while the deputy will be in Asia.  For the sake of continuity, upon completion of the IDF Commander’s tour, the deputy will get first consideration as the replacement commander. The IDF staff will consist of subordinate commanders for ground forces, air, naval, theater logistics and humanitarian issues. 

Every six months the Commander will personally brief the UN General Assembly on IDF readiness.  For every nation, their IDF contribution will be subject to inspection by the IDF Commander/Deputy Commander and their staffs. Every nation must regularly inform the IDF when their force will be engaged in military exercises so that they can be observed.  The IDF Commander will establish and publish standards for every contributed element.  Every nation will provide a very detailed quarterly readiness report on the trained-to-standard and deployability status of their IDF contribution. 

The IDF headquarters will maintain a robust intel-processing element linked to the intel gathering capabilities of all 195 countries.  

International Deterrence Force Condition, IDFCon: All contributing nations will exist in a state of one of four different readiness IDFCon’s.

IDFCon 1:  Normal peacetime condition.  A completed plan will be in-place in every member nation.  Readiness standards will be in force for every IDF element.

IDFCon 2:  The Secretary General and IDF Commander having identified a potential threat to a member nation, will tailor a force for deployment and place them on 24-hour alert.

IDFCon 3:  All personnel and equipment for the designated units will move to assembly areas.  Deployment aircraft will move to their first pick-up airfield. 

IDFCon 4:  Deployment of all designated deterrence elements to the target area and prepare to initiate an overwhelming counter offensive. 

FUNDING: 

The UN will budget for the two IDF headquarters.  The participating nations will budget for and fund their participating units and sustain them at trained-and-ready IDF combat-ready standards.  

The IDF Operations Plan will first and foremost be designed with the intent for every element to rapidly deploy to an area of operation where they can represent an overwhelming deterrent force from all 194-member nations.  But the total force may not, in all cases, be necessary.  Therefore, the next planning step is to have the capability to rapidly tailor a force for scenarios that require a lesser, but still overwhelming force sufficient to deter, and if necessary counter attack. As the saying goes, always take a gun to a knife fight.  Two examples:

An attack on small-country “A” in Africa appears imminent by a larger neighboring country “B”.  The IDF Commander determines that inserting a couple infantry battalions on the ground could sufficiently deter the attack. Using the concept of intent to always have an overwhelming advantage, the commander will in fact deploy a full infantry brigade along with combat supporting forces and tactical air support. Result, Country “B” packs up and goes home. Deterrence, a powerful force for world peace. 

A more serious and far-ranging scenario might look like this:  China continues to threaten Taiwan with aggressive air and naval operations.  It is determined that the demonstrations are a rehearsal for an actual attack.   The Secretary General and IDF Commander agree to go to IDFCon 3.  China’s achilleas heel is imported gas and oil.  Inform China that a combined naval force from member nations is enroute to the South China Sea to create an impenetrable blockade to all incoming gas and oil tankers.  Additionally, missiles and aircraft capable of taking out the gas and oil pipelines from Russia will be immediately forward deployed.  Execution of this scenario could shut down China in a few weeks and result in half billion unemployed workers.  The Secretary General will request China publicly sign a pledge to acknowledge that forevermore Taiwan will be considered an independent nation free of all ties to China and provocative military actions against Taiwan is forbidden. Deterrence in action in support of world peace. 

BOTTOM LINE ON THE UN:

Having laid out a concept of operations for an International Deterrence Force capable of achieving world peace, it is time to admit that, given today’s reality, it cannot happen inside the existing UN.

The UN has been a failed institution since its inception in 1945 for one reason, the veto.  At the Yalta Conference in 1945 President Roosevelt, General Secretary Stalin and Prime Minister Churchill agreed that each of the permanent members of the Security Council was to be granted veto power over any resolution under consideration.  The UN Secretary General is a powerless position, the power resides in the Security Council.  More specifically, the power resides with the five permanent members, U.S., UK, France, China and Russia.

Every significant resolution to be considered by the General Assembly must first be voted out of the Security Council.  Each of the fifteen members (five permanent and ten elected for a temporary term) have one vote.  But here is the problem, the Charter says, quote, affirmative decisions shall be made by a vote of nine members, including the concurring votes of all five of the permanent members.  One veto by a permanent member and the resolution is dead. I say again, all five of the permanent members must vote yes. Most would agree that Communist China and Communist Russia will never agree to changes to the UN Charter that would stand-up the IDF. 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the unprecedented civilian casualties and wanton destruction of civilian property has become a wake-up call for the world.  Now is the time, and it may never be more relevant, to strike with a plan that will, to the greatest extent possible, guarantee world peace.  There are two courses of action, one internal to the UN and the second external:

COURSE OF ACTION 1, INTERNAL UN UPRISING: 

The Secretary General could work to garner support from, let’s say, about 150 member nations for a change to the UN Charter.  The changes, none of which are currently authorized, could be as follows:

Do away with the Security Council and/or the five-permanent-member concept and/or the one-vote-veto rule.

Move the mission statement, that for seven plus decades has been the unfulfilled responsibility of the Security Council, to the Secretariat; that is, ensure international peace and security.

Replace the appointment process for a new Secretary General with a system whereby anyone from a member nation can campaign for the position.  A new Secretary General will be elected for a 6-year term by a secret ballot majority vote of the General Assembly.  Proceed to establish the International Deterrence Force.

It is highly unlikely this course of action will ever happen.

COURSE OF ACTION TWO, UPRISING EXTERNAL TO THE UN:

The U.S. should initiate actions to seek support from most of the 195 current UN member nations to join a new organization called United for World Peace. The organization would look like this:

A small headquarters anywhere in the world.

An elected president for one six-year term.

A fully operational International Deterrence Force as previously described.

The United for World Peace mission statement could be pulled directly from the UN Charter as follows:

One, ensure international peace and security.

Two, investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction.

Three, recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement.

Four, formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments.

Five, determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken.

Six, call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression. 

Seven, take military action against an aggressor.

UNITED STATES LEAD:

The U.S. could lead this initiative and it should be done based on an international after-action-review of the Russian invasion of Ukraine which answered the three important questions:

First, what, collectively, did we, the world, do well?

Second, what should we, could we, the world, have done better?

Third, and most importantly, how can we institutionalize a faster, better, more organized, more aggressive and all-inclusive plan for preemptive actions that would preclude this ever happening again?

The five selling points for a United for World Peace organization are obvious:

One, the UN Charter, with its one veto policy cannot be fixed and renders the UN helpless.

Two, we must prevent a repeat of a Ukrainian-like disaster.

Three, we must be proactive with an overwhelming deterrence force continuously in place.

Four, NATO, in being since 1949, is a perfect example of deterrence in action for forty years of the Cold War.

Five, for all United for World Peace member nations, an attack against one would be an attack against all.

Every member nation would commit some resource to the International Deterrence Force in accordance with their capability. Why would countries sign up to be a member? Here is a starter list of answers as to why a United for World Peace organization is needed now and why it would be an easy sell at this point in time. 

Middle East countries and Israel are fearful of the hegemony intentions of a nuclear-equipped Iran but powerless individually to stop it. South Korea and Japan are very nervous about North Korea’s aggressive offensive missile and nuclear programs.  Taiwan is fearful of a China invasion. Europe is fearful of more Russian aggression.  Former Soviet Republics are fearful that they may be next on Putin’s list. The Baltic countries and Finland are fearful of Russia. India is in a constant state of unrest over China’s border incursions. Who knows what the next move may be by dictators in Latin America?  African border disputes are a recurring concern.  Nations’ support for terrorist activities threatens the world. Aggressors who would use cyber-attacks to inflict humanitarian and economic disaster on another nation is a growing threat. 

It is not difficult to believe the United for World Peace organization could quickly become a 150-nation force for peace.

CONCLUSIOINS for both courses of action:

A successful United for World Peace organization (Course of action 2) could be subsumed by the UN if they can find a way to revise the existing Charter (course of action 1). 

With an International Deterrence Force in place there is no longer a requirement for NATO. The combined defense budgets of the NATO members was $1.2 trillion in 2022.

With the IDF in place, defense funding could probably be reduced around the world by hundreds of billions of dollars through elimination of redundant force capabilities. For example, right now NATO members (Germany in particular) are ramping up their defense spending for forces that may, in fact, be redundant beyond IDF requirements.  

There will no longer be a need for nations’ bilateral treaties for mutual defense.  

Since 2016 the European Union has been talking about the need for an EU armed force.  Cancel that nonsense. 

With world peace assurances in place, the next step could be a world without nuclear weapons, chemical weapons or biological weapons.

The UN peacekeeping force budget for 2021 was $6.38 billion.  With active world-wide deterrence and an overwhelming rapidly-deployable counter-offensive force, no in-place peacekeeping forces will be necessary.

The next step could be for the IDF Commander to visit North Korea to discuss ICBM and nuclear testing.  Then on to Iran to discuss Iran’s role as the world’s leading supporter of terrorist organizations, etc.; proactive measures.

With a proactive International Deterrence Force in place, no nation would ever need to feel alone or stand alone.

PUTTING WORLD PEACE IN PERSPECTIVE:

The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic wherein We-The-People delegate our responsibilities to elected representatives.  We are a Democracy; a form of government where every person has a voice. For the past 250 years this transformational success story has made us the envy of the world. Through the decades we expanded across the continent. We led the world by outlawing the scourge of slavery. We transformed from an agrarian society into the world’s leading industrial powerhouse.  We rapidly expanded into a world military power, fought and won two World Wars and then benevolently helped rebuild the defeated nations.  We have explored space and shared our findings. We lead and won the forty-year Cold War against the USSR. But there remains one final task to transform the world into a better, kinder, safer place than it has ever been; a tremendous undertaking that no other nation is capable of performing.  The United States of America must create the conditions that will guarantee world peace forever.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

During a press conference, January 2022, President Biden, insinuating that republicans only want to criticize his programs, asked the rhetorical question, “What are Republicans for?”  Well, Mr. President, the Republicans in the 118th Congress, representing all Americans are for what we have been talking about for the last couple weeks. Let me recap:

One, education results are pathetic and getting worse.  We must transform the system.  Cost to taxpayers, zero.

Two, we must stop the massive flow of illegal immigrants forever, redeploy the Border Patrol agents to stop criminals, drugs and terrorists and provide the hard-working, law-abiding immigrants a path to citizenship.  Cost to taxpayers zero, saving billions.

Three, without election reform we are in a category with despicable third-world dictatorships.  Cost to the taxpayers to reform the election system, zero.

Four, our Congress is dysfunctional; it is wasting hundreds of billions of dollars each year and hurting all Americans. Cost to reform it, zero.

Five, massive bureaucracy and excessive spending by the Executive Branch must get fixed.  Cost to the taxpayers zero, saving billions.

Six, we are for changing federal government terms of office and imposing term limits. Cost to the taxpayers, zero.

Seven, unconstrained political campaign contributions have threatened the viability of our election system. Cost to fix it, zero.

Eight, make the primary election process more effective, efficient and fair.  Cost to fix it, zero.

Nine, the current tax code and a bloated, inefficient, incompetent, weaponized IRS must be completely rebuilt. Cost to the taxpayers zero, saving billions. 

Ten, universal service for America will transform the nation and return a culture of accountability, trust and respect. Taxpayers will finance this investment and it may well be the best money we ever spend.

Eleven, world peace is within the art of the possible. The U.S. must lead this initiative; we are the only ones who can do it. Cost to taxpayers, zero and it will save hundreds of billions of dollars world-wide in defense spending.

From Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “There is a tide in the affairs of men, when taken at the flood leads one to fortune.” There will never be a more appropriate time than now to pursue these transformational issues for the benefit of every American.

There is currently considerable discussion about the New World Order. Well, here is a new twist on The New World Order; call it World Peace.

Thank you for meeting with me over the past few days to gain an understanding of new initiatives for the 118th Congress that define what the Republicans stand for. This is what we intend to do for, not to the American people. 

Author’s note:  This concept of ops can be found in FIX THE SYSTEMS, TRANSFORM AMERICA, chapter 8

The Republican Party cannot afford to miss an opportunity to pass this transformational program for world peace.   Again, I ask, if you have contact with any movers-and-shakers in Washington, please provide them a copy of this plan.  Thank you.  Marv

Marvin L. Covault, Lt Gen US Army, retired, is the author of VISION TO EXECUTION, a book for leaders, and a new book May 2022, FIX THE SYSTEMS, TRANSFORM AMERICA as well as the author of a blog WeThePeopleSpeaking.com.