Eber: Win the battle but lose the war

For generations, expect for the World Wars, Korea and Viet Nam, Americans have not concerned themselves with international events or affairs.  We were concerned with taxes, education and getting a great burger.  To many the idea of foreign policy was too confusing.  Now we know that foreign policy is not only guns and war, but economics, trade and tariffs.

“Going along with current U.S. trade policy with China is Trump making trade deals with Korea, Japan, and other neighbors of the Communist nation.  Hopefully, the result will be to bring China to the bargaining table. If not, the collateral damage could be disastrous throughout the Far East.

In a similar fashion Trump should consider the concept of “Look before you leap” in dealing with the Putin government in Russia.

If the USA isolates Putin with economic sanctions, might this lead to an act of desperation from the beleaguered Russian leader?”

Past Presidents used guns and the threat of war to handle foreign policy.  Trump is using trade and economics to levy war on our enemies.  Which do you prefer?

Win the battle but lose the war by Richard Eber

Richard Eber, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views,  4/22/25  www.capoliticalnewsandviews.com

In the history of armed conflict, the concept of winning the battle but losing the war haunts me.

This phenomenon was invented by Phylis of Eprus over 2800 years ago. He is credited for inventing  Phyric Victories.

This means triumph is accomplished but not for long. Ultimate defeat soon follows.

A good example in the United States was the Pullman Rail Strike in the 1890’s.  After a lengthy battle, the company, with Federal intervention, George Pullman’s company won. Shortly afterwards, the Union emerged to represent the workers.

Pullman’s power dissipated to become a footnote in history books.

A recent case of this type involved the United Auto Workers (UAW) Union strike against General Motors. This dispute took several months to settle.  To show support with the workers, President Joe Biden walked the picket line. Ultimately, management caved in resulting in the UAW winning a lucrative contract. 

Unfortunately, these gains were short lived as many Union members were soon laid off because few consumers wanted to purchase the overpriced and unpopular electric cars being pushed by the President.

As a result the UAW’s power outside the city limits of Detroit has eroded. Present trends indicate most new auto assembly plants will likely be non-union in the future.

This is a cautionary tale to Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff policies.  While he maybe right about the United States being taken advantage of by our trading partners, the long term effects of his actions are dubious.

If the 125% tariff imposed on Chinese imports is permanently effective, it will likely result in the Sino economy collapsing. A regime change might even occur.  What would the composition of new  government leadership in Peking? How might this impact U.S. foreign policy?

If chaos were to ensue, those in power in China  might use a war to unify the people.  Such an environment might result in them invading Taiwan and possibly expanding their borders at the expense of nearby neighbors.  

If such a scenario is the outcome, aggressive American pressure on the Communist regime might be a bridge to far.

Going along with current U.S. trade policy with China is Trump making trade deals with Korea, Japan, and other neighbors of the Communist nation.  Hopefully, the result will be to bring China to the bargaining table. If not, the collateral damage could be disastrous throughout the Far East.

In a similar fashion Trump should consider the concept of “Look before you leap” in dealing with the Putin government in Russia.

If the USA isolates Putin with economic sanctions, might this lead to an act of desperation from the beleaguered Russian leader?

Talking about winning the battle and losing the war, Russia’s victory in taking over Ukraine territory has come at a huge price.  Outside of military expenditures, losing over 1 million soldiers in this conflict has crippled Putin’s ability to threaten any other country.

If Russia needs North Korean troops to fend off the Ukrainian’s, just imagine Putin’s ability to conduct a military excursion into Lithuania, Poland, Estonia or any other country in the Baltic?

For Russia is to be relevant militarily, the threat of using nuclear weapons is about the only way Putin can threaten anyone in Central Europe.

In weighing the pros and cons of Trump’s gambit with Putin, what is the risk-reward for the red, white, and blue? The answer  is not much; but proceed with caution.

The bottom line is that Putin fits a classic profile of a “Paper Tiger” who will be lucky to hold on to power in the near future.

In general, the growing closeness between the Russian Dictator and communist China should not be of great concern.  Going back to when Stalin and Mao were  best buddies, mistrust between  the two countries has  always existed.

It is no coincidence that when Russia built the Railroad for China in the 1920’s, the gauge of the track changed at the border between the two communist countries. Stalin feared Chairman Mao might one day invade his friend using the rails to move troops.

Sometimes things never change as world history has illustrated. Being aware of this phenomena is another matter Iran is another sensitive area for United States that merits scrutiny.  if President Trump uses diplomacy or military action to prevent the terrorist

regime from possessing nuclear weapons, neither option is especially attractive. 

This Islamic Republic is not to be trusted at all.  Military intervention to destroy their nuclear weapons program might be the only viable choice for the United States and Israel to take.

While Donald Trump inherited a world in chaos from his predecessor, he is facing Hobson’s Choice alternatives with regards to the chief sponsor of discord in the Middle East. What constitutes winning on a long term basis will need to be sorted out soon.

Keeping in mind the experience of Greek King Phylis or the Confederacy after their Civil War triumph at Bull Run, I’m as scared as hell of what might transpire in the next couple of years.

The possibility of World War III occurring needs to be factored at all times.

In the long run world trade is a far more potent weapon than tariff’s and military action in creating world peace.  As James Carville  aptly stated “It’s the money stupid.”