Strategizing With Ghosts

I have taught strategy in war colleges in the United States and other countries. Like most instructors, I describe strategy as an endeavor that strives to match ends and means in a rational way, a dialogue between soldiers and politicians seeking to use force for political purposes. That is certainly what the senior officers who attend such institutions believe.
A recent multiweek swing through European capitals, however, has emphasized for me that among the most important influences on the choices that countries make about war and peace are ghosts: memories—be they accurate, fanciful, or, more typically, something in between—of historical experiences and personalities from a remembered past, sometimes reaching back centuries.
Several days in London spent speaking to all manner of generals and spymasters, scholars, and advisers to government, for example, brought home the long shadow of empire that still shapes British military policy, for good and for ill. It was tangible while walking through the House of Lords and seeing the coats of arms of field marshals and admirals of the fleet, as it was during the celebration of V-E Day by veterans, admittedly of later wars, wearing the regimental ties and bonnets of defunct but storied regiments.
Imperial self-assurance and memory helps explain Britain's remarkable leadership in dealing with the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Boris Johnson, whatever his peccadilloes, channeled Churchill's ghost by dashing off to Kyiv, pushing advanced weapons on Ukraine well before America did, and offering a security guarantee to Sweden as it began to move toward NATO membership. Not only Churchill but Palmerston or Pitt the Younger would have approved of such statecraft. Johnson is well read and eloquent enough to summon their spirits.
Unfortunately, however, the reality of actual British power does not match its reach. The U.K. possesses outstanding niche capacities in the world of special operations and intelligence gathering, but its navy now has barely a quarter as many surface combatants as it did during the Falklands War; its nuclear force is obsolescent; and its army is tiny, albeit of high quality. The suggestion by British politicians that the U.K. could regularly deploy a brigade—say, some 4,000 soldiers—as part of a reassurance force to Ukraine in the event of a cease-fire was privately mocked by experts. The U.K. does not have enough troops to do that.
The countries of Eastern Europe wrestle with different ghosts. Estonia is haunted by the Soviet Union's brutal occupation after World War II and the mass deportations of tens of thousands of Estonians, including the family of Kaja Kallas, the European Union's current high representative for foreign affairs and security policy. After the war, as in the other Baltic states, partisans fought the Soviets for another decade, and in some cases even beyond. The memories of those deported, killed, imprisoned, or tortured are with current leaders; so, too, are the ghosts of those who achieved a precarious independence after World War I only to lose it again to the Muscovites. It has led Estonians not only to arm themselves to the teeth and commit utterly to Ukraine's aid, but to disdain the condescending lectures of West Europeans who sought reconciliation with Russia after the Cold War.
'I was studying in Sweden in 1975,' one retired Estonian statesman told me, 'and no one then referred to the Federal Republic of Germany as the 'former Nazi Third Reich.' But somehow the West Europeans, 30 years after we regained our independence, think it's okay to refer to us as 'former Soviet republics.'' The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has changed much of that, but the ghosts of the Soviet period still haunt the relationship between edgy and exposed frontline states and those more comfortably situated to the West that never felt the Russian lash.
Finnish and Polish ghosts are rather different. Conversations with Finns about the Russian threat invariably turn to the Winter War, the spectacular fight that Finland put up against the Red Army in 1939–40. The heroism, the sense of having to be ready to fight alone and the payoff for being prepared to do so, has shaped Finnish strategic culture to the present day. But NATO membership—and with it the need to fight as part of an alliance elsewhere than along the 850-mile Russian-Finnish border—is something Finns struggle with.
For Poland, the national strategic ghosts are those of betrayal. France and Britain failed to do much while Poland was crushed between Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939. In the Polish understanding, the country was betrayed again at the Yalta Conference in 1945. If past glories lead British statesmen to offer more than they can deliver, past horrors incline Poles to be suspicious of requests to do more than they deem prudent. When discussing whether Poland should contribute to a reassurance force stationed in Ukraine (rather than just over the border), a Polish general first explained the operational requirements of Poland's large army to fend off various other threats and then offered this response: 'You Americans asked us to follow you into Iraq. I lost men there, whom I still mourn. And now you want us to do this, when you are not willing to do it yourselves?'
He had a point. But a rich and increasingly powerful Poland, with the best and largest land army in Europe outside Ukraine, will need to assume a leadership role for which its history has not prepared it. Europeans now speak of an E-4, composed of Britain, France, Germany, and Poland, that may steer the West's support to embattled Ukraine. That is a step in the right direction, at least.
The millions of Ukrainian ghosts, victims of suffering at Russia's hand, explain Ukraine's extraordinary tenacity. Russia's predatory imperial ghosts, who have gathered in legions over centuries of conquest of neighboring lands, have lured Vladimir Putin into a project to restore the Russian empire, one that Russians insist to this day 'has no borders.' The ghosts who fell in America's ill-starred wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are among the reasons (including others far less worthy) for J. D. Vance's and Donald Trump's snarls about renouncing the use of American military power abroad. But even Trump's government cannot quite dispel the worthier ghosts of its past—the U.S. ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, recently avowed America's commitment to the alliance, despite 'America First,' in a speech in Tallinn.
In Europe, at least, some of the ghosts may be gradually dissipating. Germany's new government is willing to break with its past in sacrificing thrift for the imperatives of continental defense. It is also willing to put to rest some of the (self-serving) ghosts of guilt-based aversion to military spending. Sweden has set aside its romanticized history of neutrality for participation in an alliance, although not without misgivings. As one shrewd Swedish strategist put it, 'There we were in our sailboat, the good sloop Nonalignment. A storm blew up, and we were delighted to be rescued by the mighty ocean liner SS NATO. The other passengers were wonderful, the bar excellent—and then we learned that there was a new captain who has decided he wants to play games of chicken with icebergs.'
'War has a way of masking the stage with scenery crudely daubed with fearsome apparitions,' Carl von Clausewitz wrote. Although it is true that we can never quite escape the ghosts, be they benign or malignant, that surround strategists, it is also necessary to lay many of them to rest, if only to find the ways and means to protect this and later generations from murderous madness. For Ukraine and the European future, this exorcism is a moderate sign of hope in a world that is indeed haunted by perfectly reasonable forebodings.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

26 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

With military strike his predecessors avoided, Trump takes a huge gamble

The prime target was the deeply buried enrichment center at Fordo, which Israel was incapable of reaching. Advertisement For Trump, the decision to attack the nuclear infrastructure of a hostile nation represents the biggest -- and potentially most dangerous -- gamble of his second term. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up He is betting that the United States can repel whatever retaliation Iran's leadership orders against more than 40,000 U.S. troops spread over bases throughout the region. All are within range of Tehran's missile fleet, even after eight days of relentless attacks by Israel. And he is betting that he can deter a vastly debilitated Iran from using its familiar techniques -- terrorism, hostage-taking and cyberattacks -- as a more indirect line of attack to wreak revenge. Most importantly, he is betting that he has destroyed Iran's chances of ever reconstituting its nuclear program. That is an ambitious goal: Iran has made clear that, if attacked, it would exit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and take its vast program underground. That is why Trump focused so much attention on destroying Fordo, the facility Iran built in secret that was publicly exposed by President Barack Obama in 2009. That is where Iran was producing almost all of the near-bomb-grade fuel that most alarmed the United States and its allies. Advertisement Trump's aides were telling those allies Saturday night that Washington's sole mission was to destroy the nuclear program. They described the complex strike as a limited, contained operation akin to the special operation that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011. 'They explicitly said this was not a declaration of war,' one senior European diplomat said late Saturday, describing his conversation with a high-ranking administration official. But, the diplomat added, bin Laden had killed 3,000 Americans. Iran had yet to build a bomb. In short, the administration is arguing that it was engaged in an act of preemption, seeking to terminate a threat, not the Iranian regime. But it is far from clear that the Iranians will perceive it that way. In a brief address from the White House on Saturday night, flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump threatened Iran with more destruction if it does not bend to his demands. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' he said. 'If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' 'There will be either peace,' he added, 'or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left.' He promised that if Iran did not relent, he would go after them 'with precision, speed and skill.' Advertisement In essence, Trump was threatening to broaden his military partnership with Israel, which has spent the last eight days systematically targeting Iran's top military and nuclear leadership, killing them in their beds, their laboratories and their bunkers. The United States initially separated itself from that operation. In the Trump administration's first public statement about those strikes, Rubio emphasized that Israel took 'unilateral action against Iran,' adding that the United States was 'not involved.' But then, a few days ago, Trump mused on his social media platform about the ability of the United States to kill Iran's 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, anytime he wanted. And Saturday night, he made clear that the United States was all in, and that contrary to Rubio's statement, the country was now deeply involved. Now, having set back Iran's enrichment capability, Trump is clearly hoping that he can seize on a remarkable moment of weakness -- the weakness that allowed the American B-2 bombers to fly in and out of Iranian territory with little resistance. After Israel's fierce retaliation for the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks that killed over 1,000 Israeli civilians, Iran is suddenly bereft of its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Its closest ally, Syria's Bashar Assad, had to flee the country. And Russia and China, which formed a partnership of convenience with Iran, were nowhere to be seen after Israel attacked the country. That left only the nuclear program as Iran's ultimate defense. It was always more than just a scientific project -- it was the symbol of Iranian resistance to the West, and the core of the leadership's plan to hold on to power. Advertisement Along with the repression of dissent, the program had become the ultimate means of defense for the inheritors of the Iranian revolution that began in 1979. If the taking of 52 American hostages was Iran's way of standing up to a far larger, far more powerful adversary in 1979, the nuclear program has been the symbol of resistance for the last two decades. One day historians may well draw a line from those images of blindfolded Americans, who were held for 444 days, to the dropping of GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs on the mountainous redoubt called Fordo. They will likely ask whether the United States, its allies or the Iranians themselves could have played this differently. And they will almost certainly ask whether Trump's gamble paid off. His critics in Congress were already questioning his approach. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Trump had acted 'without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community' that Iran had made no decision to take the final steps to a bomb. If Iran finds itself unable to respond effectively, if the ayatollah's hold on power is now loosened, or if the country gives up its long-running nuclear ambitions, Trump will doubtless claim that only he was willing to use America's military reach to achieve a goal his last four predecessors deemed too risky. But there is another possibility. Iran could slowly recover, its surviving nuclear scientists could take their skills underground and the country could follow the pathway lit by North Korea, with a race to build a bomb. Today, North Korea has 60 or more nuclear weapons by some intelligence estimates, an arsenal that likely makes it too powerful to attack. Advertisement That, Iran may conclude, is the only pathway to keep larger, hostile powers at bay, and to prevent the United States and Israel from carrying out an operation like the one that lit up the Iranian skies Sunday morning. This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Yahoo

36 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Spain agrees with NATO to skip 5% defence spending target

MADRID (Reuters) -Spain agreed with the NATO military alliance to be excluded from spending 5% of its gross domestic product on defence, Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said on Sunday. "A 5% spending would be disproportionate and unnecessary," Sanchez said in an address on national television. "We fully respect the legitimate desire of other countries to increase their defence investment, but we are not going to do it," he said, adding Spain could meet all its commitments to NATO, in terms of staff or equipment, by spending only 2.1% of its GDP. Diplomats had said earlier on Sunday the 32 countries comprising NATO had agreed on a statement for the upcoming summit setting a goal of 5% of GDP for annual defence and security related by 2035 overcoming Spain's objection. In a letter sent on Thursday, Sanchez had told NATO chief Mark Rutte his country wanted to opt out of a new 5% spending target. The letter raised concerns that Spain would derail the whole summit. At an estimated 1.28% of GDP, Spain had the lowest proportion of expenditure on defence in the alliance last year, according to NATO estimates. Sanchez agreed in April to accelerate efforts to meet NATO's current target of 2% this year.

New York Post

an hour ago

• New York Post

US dealt Iran's nukes a major blow — but here's why the cheers may be premature

One of the most profound threats to global security for the last thirty years or more has suffered a historic setback that will resonate for decades. In a ruse worthy of World War II's 'Operation Fortitude,' which enabled the D-Day landings, President Donald Trump launched heavy ordnance airstrikes against Iran's nuclear weapons program late Saturday — 48 hours after telling the clerical regime he was going to mull his response over the next two weeks. Overnight, the US Air Force has perhaps irreversibly degraded Iran's drive for the bomb. 3 U.S. President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation accompanied by U.S. Vice President JD Vance, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025, following U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. REUTERS It's tempting to react to the US strikes with unbridled euphoria — but that's still premature. The next few hours and days will produce a sober battle damage assessment by both the United States and Israel, detailing the degree of destruction sustained at these facilities. That in turn will determine whether the badly bruised Iranian regime can embark on a reconstruction effort. According to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, 'Operation Midnight Hammer' unleashed 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrators — 'bunker-buster' bombs carrying 30,000-pound payloads — on the three nuclear sites, marking the first time that these had been deployed in an operational setting. Speaking to reporters Sunday morning, Hegseth said all three facilities had sustained 'extremely severe damage and destruction.' 3 Aerial view of the Fordow underground complex in Iran after the American airstrikes. MAXAR Technologies But neither the Americans nor the Israelis have yet confirmed that the Iranian nuclear program has been neutralized entirely. The extent of the destruction of the underground advanced centrifuge site at Fordow is still unclear. Predictably, in the immediate aftermath of the strike, the Iranians vehemently denied that comprehensive damage had been sustained. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters An Islamic regime official in Qom, where the facility is located, insisted that 'contrary to the claims of the lying US president, the Fordow nuclear facility has not been seriously damaged, and most of what was damaged was only on the ground, which can be restored.' Another particular concern is the fate of more than 400 kilograms of nuclear weapons-grade uranium concealed by the regime at Isfahan. The whereabouts of this stockpile is presently unknown. 3 Six B-2 Stealth Bombers dropped 12 bunker-buster bombs on the Fordow nuclear site. – Submarines fired 30 Tomahawk missiles from an undisclosed location 400 miles away. Rob Jejenich / NY Post Design Last week Rafael Grossi, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, revealed that the Iranians had told him the stockpile could be removed and placed under 'special protective measures' in the event of an attack. 'We haven't been informed of anything in detail,' Grossi said. 'We don't know what these protective additional measures are.' In addition, an even more deeply buried enrichment site than Fordow, known as Pickaxe Mountain, is now under construction at Natanz. It's not clear how much damage that facility — said to be immune from the MOPs dropped on Fordow — sustained in Saturday's strikes. If it survived, Pickaxe Mountain could allow Iran to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. Outside of the nuclear program, significant risks remain on the ground. The United States has 40,000 troops in the Middle East, now readying to both pre-empt and respond to Iranian missile attacks on their bases as well as on US allies. Iran's Houthi rebel proxy in Yemen may resume its campaign of strikes against the US naval presence and commercial shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, once again shutting down access to the Suez Canal. In Lebanon, Hezbollah appears to be refraining from joining the fight but remains a threat. Should Iran's tottering regime reach a point of collapse, it could well decide to opt for martyrdom in a blaze of glory — with strikes against Israel, Sunni Arab nations whom it regards as 'Zionist collaborators,' as well as American, Jewish and Israeli targets in Europe, North America and beyond. Yet the US strikes could herald the transformation of a region that has been synonymous with foreign-policy and national-security failure since the occupation of Iraq more than 22 years ago. In 2003, FDD's Mark Dubowitz believed that the Islamist regime in Tehran, rather than the Iraqi Baathist one, was the true existential threat in the Middle East. That contention has only become stronger in the intervening years. What's critical now is for the US to remain engaged — using its political clout and unmatched military capabilities to defend its interests in the Middle East, in partnership with a strong Israeli ally and perhaps, one day, with a free Iran. Mark Dubowitz is chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Ben Cohen is a senior analyst and director of FDD's rapid response outreach.