Well, it happened. Last night Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

There are enough takes on this already to completely break the internet, so I’ll keep mine brief. After all, I’ve spilled enough digital ink on Ukraine already: in the Omaha World-Herald last month and on this blog in November.

But here are just a few additional thoughts on horror and hope from the first day of this expanded conflict.

I had a conversation with a friend this week about calls for “accountability” following civilian casualties during recent US military operations:

• “NGO Letter to US Secretary of Defense Demands Accountability and Reform…”

• “The Defense Department Inspector General will examine whether elite US commando forces are doing enough to comply with the laws of armed conflict and hold violators accountable”

• “No US troops behind a drone strike that killed Afghan civilians will be punished”

Headlines like this understandably upset and anger folks: the US military kills innocent civilians, either on purpose or on accident, it’s investigated, and nothing happens. Time after time. How is that okay?

Today I’ll try to tackle the weighty goal of explaining why many actions in combat that result in civilian casualties are—well, not okay, but—lawful, and why it’s actually proper that those responsible typically aren’t punished.

As I wrote in November, Putin is about to invade Ukraine.

And now, in the past week, tensions in the region have reached a boiling point. In today’s Omaha World-Herald, I answer three common objections to strong American leadership to deter Putin’s looming invasion of Ukraine:

• This is Ukraine’s problem. It’s not worth American lives and we are tired of endless wars.

• We should be more concerned about our southern border than Ukraine’s.

• Where were you Republican hawks when Trump was appeasing Putin?

There was a fascinating article in last Sunday’s last New York Times, “How the U.S. Hid an Airstrike That Killed Dozens of Civilians in Syria.” You should read it: the piece raises important questions about how the U.S. military conducts itself in war and our processes for transparency and accountability when civilians are harmed. It also provides a detailed account of ISIS’s last gasp in the Battle of Baghuz and the chaos that preceded a deadly strike.

Here, however, I identify three major problems with the New York Times report. First, as I described in the Omaha World-Herald, the Times piece paints a false picture of U.S. special operations forces as secretive military assassins, restrained only by heroic lawyers and whistleblowers. Second, the reporting accepts the legal and policy conclusions of its “hero” whistleblowers—conclusions which crumble when subjected to scrutiny. Third, the lack of balance in the piece directs readers to a false moral equivalence among rules-based nations like the United States and those nations and groups which make little or no effort to comply with the law of armed conflict whatsoever.

Earlier this year I spent some time researching Russian hybrid warfare for a presentation I gave to members of the Air Force Reserve. It was sobering reminder of Russian methods and intentions under Putin’s rule, examining the Russian strategy at work in Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria.

And now, Russia is offering real-time examples of hybrid warfare in action, operations which demonstrate that Russia is on its way to an invasion of Ukraine.

This week marks the fourteenth anniversary of the Second Battle of Fallujah. On November 7, 2004, at the peak of the Iraq War, Coalition and Iraqi forces launched an offensive into Fallujah (not quite 50 miles west of Baghdad) to liberate it from Iraqi insurgents.

According to a great story this week on Task & Purpose, in the battalion that led the attack, “33 gave their lives and more than 400 were injured…Of that number, 23 were killed and 275 were wounded during 12 days of intense and unrelenting combat as the Marines fought to take Fallujah from enemy hands.”

This is war. It is terrible, horrific, and tragic. Men and women die by the scores. Families starve. Homes and businesses are destroyed.

Which brings me to a little video I saw a couple weeks back about FoxNews. In it, FoxNews commentators and guests insist that (usually unnamed) progressives have declared war on a number of hilarious things (VIDEO)…

With the passing of Colin Powell last month, our nation lost a pillar of humility, integrity and principle.

Over the course of his distinguished career, Powell served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, national security advisor, and secretary of state — an incredible resume even before you consider he was the first African American to hold any of those positions…

We throw around words like hero and patriot a lot these days. But heroism doesn’t mean always getting it right —sometimes it means having the moral courage to admit when you’re wrong. And patriotism doesn’t mean loyalty to a party or a politician — more often it’s seen in a lifetime of quiet sacrifice and service to others…

With the passing of Colin Powell this week, I was reminded of how grateful I am for his “Thirteen Rules.” Described in Part I of his book It Worked for Me: In Life and Leadership, the principles Powell sets forth are clear and practical:

1. It ain’t as bad as you think! It will look better in the morning.

2. Get mad then get over it.

3. Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it.

4. It can be done.

5. Be careful what you choose. You may get it…

While I am generally opposed to the idea of microaggressions, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t treat everyone with dignity and respect. And doing that requires us to understand a wide range of ideas and experiences, especially when those ideas and experiences are not something come to us naturally. That’s one of the reasons it’s so important to read histories and biographies: they allow us to see the world from a variety of perspectives (not to mention the fact that truth is often stranger than fiction). Otherwise, we end up living in little, comfortable bubbles that blind us to what’s going on in the rest of the world.

Which brings me to an email I received this week from an organization called LawCrossing…

Over the past two weeks, our Nation had the sad duty to bury 13 American servicemembers, including two women: Marine Sergeants Johanny Rosario Pichardo and Nicole Gee.

Seeing their pictures in the news reminded me of comments made by Tucker Carlson a few months back. I anger-typed out some thoughts on my phone that night, and a few days later those thoughts became an op-ed in the Omaha World-Herald. With the sacrifice of all servicemembers fresh in our minds so recently after the Kabul disaster and the anniversary of 9/11, I thought it might be worth reiterating what I said then…

The Washington Post has reported that the U.S. is working on plans to evacuate some of the Afghans who worked with our government over the last 20 years, especially our interpreters and translators. In spite of the heated and partisan debate about immigration in our country generally, one thing is clear here: These Afghans should be welcomed to the United States and treated as partners and heroes.

…

If we abandon another partner, we may not have one next time. That would mean more American boots on the ground and more Americans dead and wounded. But if we welcome a relatively small number of those who risked everything to serve our common interests, we can earn back trust internationally and inspire millions to believe in the moral authority of the United States.

Supporting these Afghan partners is a strategic win for the nation. And it’s the right thing to do.

It’s hard to describe the situation in Afghanistan as anything less than an unmitigated disaster. After 20 years of war, trillions of dollars, and more than 20,000 American casualties, things are more or less as they stood in summer 2001. It took only weeks for the Taliban to sweep through the entirety of Afghanistan, enter Kabul, and force the flight of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.

The Taliban is less a political movement than a large terrorist group back to brutalizing the Afghan people in the absence of American power. But the reaction in the U.S. seems to fall mainly into three categories: pity for the Afghan people, embarrassment at the failed mission, and good, old-fashioned finger-pointing.

There are far more important reasons why Americans should care about what is going on in Afghanistan.

First and foremost, ungoverned and misgoverned lands are incubators for terrorism…