An admitted hawk says intervention in Ukraine would be disastrous. From Kurt Schlichter at theburningplatform.com:
At the Army War College a decade ago, they were pretty insistent on having an actual objective that supports actual American interest when you committed American blood and treasure. Of course, no one in DC ever listens. No matter how many stupid wars we get into, no matter how many times we end up burying a bunch of soldiers and looking like fools, there’s always someone in DC ready to send your kid off to Whocaresistan to do something for some reason that no one ever bothers to explain to us, the people who either do or whose kids do the dirty work.
I’m at a loss as to the concrete American objective in Ukraine. When you ask the question – or the reasonable follow-up of, “Fine, and how many Americans dead or maimed is achieving that objective worth to you?” – the best you get is a blank stare. Usually, you get told you love Putin, as if protecting American lives from being wasted on another impulsive crusade is playing into his bloodstained hands. But we must break this cycle of tragic failure by asking these questions, and demanding the answers.
What is the American interest served by intervening in Ukraine against Russian aggression?
And how many dead and maimed Americans are you willing to expend in order to achieve that objective?
These questions are not unfair or unreasonable, and they are certainly not unpatriotic. But the Beltway brigadiers sure get huffy when you dare pose them. And they positively freak out when you suggest that if America is going to commit itself to the defense of another country that we should go through the process of declaring war to do so. But declaring war means having a debate, and the last thing they want is a debate because, as we all know, there is no critical American objective to be achieved by sending our forces to fight Russia over this border dispute.