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?

Well, primary season is picking up here in Nebraska (and elsewhere) and campaign rhetoric is full swing. As usual, the most common refrain is some variation of “I will fight for you!” And, I must admit, that seems to be pretty effective messaging.

But can we insist that candidates explain what they’re fighting for? I know, I know… they will something like “America” and “the Constitution” but don’t let them get away with vague platitudes. What precisely are you fighting for? Who are you fighting for? Who are you fighting against? I think a lot of our representatives fail to realize that fighting for fighting’s sake gets us exactly nowhere (and more often than not takes us backwards). “Winning” the vote or the argument doesn’t matter if you’re not actually achieving something...

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)…