Monthly Archives: December 2023

Costly Support

Posted on by
Reply

A bunch of Republican Congressmen object to the increasing cost of the US’ support for Ukraine’s fight against the Russian barbarian, and barbaric, invasion.

From the WSJ‘s front page teaser to the article:

Some lawmakers and a growing share of the American public are skeptical about how much US taxpayers should continue to fund Ukraine’s defense.

It’s a valid concern, but those Republicans are missing the larger problem. The cost has been, to a very large extent, artificially inflated by the Biden administration’s conscious decision to slow-walk, and on too many occasions to outright bar, delivery of the weapons Ukraine needs at the time the Armed Forces of Ukraine needs them and in the amounts the AFU needs them so they could defeat the Russian invasion and drive the barbarian back out much more promptly.

Dragging the war out, the way Biden has done and continues to do, not only runs up the financial cost, it runs up the casualty count of Ukrainian soldiers and Ukrainian civilians.

And it’s been dragged out—those weapons deliveries hold-ups—for two reasons. One is Biden’s timidity: he’s terrified of provoking Putin.

Here is General Philip Breedlove, former SACEUR Commander, quoted by Edward Hunter Christie:

Modern manoeuvre warfare, just like we taught the Ukrainians, starts with battlefield air superiority. Have we given Ukraine what they need to establish battlefield air superiority? No. No, we have not. And so you can be critical all you want, you just sort of demonstrate your lack of understanding of what manoeuvre warfare is and how it begins, and so let me just add one other big example. Manoeuvre warfare, and I would tell you especially American commanders, counts on long-range precise fire. We fight to hold the the enemy at risk before [stresses], before he brings his force to bear on us. We use long range precision strikes to strike them and then if they still persist in attacking, to strike them in depth. In depth and to strike them all along their lines of communication and supply lines before they can actually meet us, even after they begin an attack. And then we use long range precise strike to hold all the transhipment points, airfields and everything else, at risk when the fight is going on. Have we given Ukraine the ability to do that? The answer is no, we have not, and worse yet we in the West have forbidden Ukraine from using any of the kit that we give them to strike deeply and to hit the enemy before the enemy can bring his forces to bear on Ukraine. We have built sanctuary all the way around Ukraine. On the map, from Belarus in the Northwest all the way around through the East into Russia, all the way into the South, into the Black Sea, we have forbidden Ukraine from using our kit to strike into Russia and so [it] amazes me that people expect them to do manoeuvre warfare under that. So here’s my answer that was all to set the stage for my answer: we should give Ukraine what we would take to the battlefield. We should give Ukraine what it needs to set conditions on the battlefield like we would set conditions on the battlefield. We’re expecting Ukraine to fight a world superpower shorthanded and certainly demonstratively short of the kind of kit that we would use to fight that superpower.

I think, though, that Christie is being generous: this administration failure isn’t so much do to any ivory tower theoriticals so much as it’s due to Biden’s terror of Putin’s harsh rhetoric.

The other is arrogantly stupid: DoD Know Betters insist they know what Ukraine needs better than the AFU does, even though the AFU is the force actually in field facing the barbarian. These Wonders of the Puzzle Palace, comfortable and safe in their summer and winter climate-controled offices, are so full of their precious theories–Christie is correct to this point–that they have no contact with the realities of the battlefield inflicted on the Ukrainians by the barbarian.

Ukraine might not survive another year of Biden’s timidity or of Republicans’ misapprehension of the problem.

That’s the true cost.

Search Warrants and Sect 702

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal editors are worried about a House Judiciary Committee proposal to reform Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s Section 702 (the proposal has subsequently been withdrawn for unrelated reasons). Their plaint centers on the Committee’s proposal to require search warrants to look at emails already lawfully collected.

The House Judiciary Committee…bill would require a warrant for queries of US persons, even though the information was already lawfully collected.

Contra the worthies at the WSJ, the Judiciary bill is well down the right track. The information about which the editors worry was, indeed, lawfully collected, but only as a side effect of the collection run against a foreign entity. To explicitly look at—to read—those accidentally collected emails, to make those emails explicit targets of a search, that absolutely should require 4th Amendment search warrants.

Further, those warrants should be issuable only by an Art III judge or a magistrate directly subordinate to an Art III judge, and the FISA court should be removed completely.

Stupid Idea by Stupid People

Posted on by
Reply

This is, to quote a certain Senator who was commenting on a different matter, “a bonehead idea…a terrible, terrible mistake.” The characterization applies here, too.

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden wants to put the Palestinian Authority in charge of Gaza once Israel has finished Hamas and the Hamas-inflicted war.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu disagrees.

After the great sacrifice of our civilians and our soldiers, I will not allow the entry into Gaza of those who educate for terrorism, support terrorism, and finance terrorism[.]

Aside from that, the Palestinian Authority does not have the respect of the Gazan residents, and it would be unable to govern effectively.

In addition to the foregoing, moving the PA into Gaza would tend to push forward a two-state proposition unifying Gaza and the West Bank. Netanyahu has the right of it here, too.

Netanyahu again:

I will not allow Israel to repeat the mistake of Oslo.

Beyond that, it’s an idea that the Palestinians, themselves, in general have long since rejected completely.

And

Gaza will neither be Hamastan nor Fatahstan[.]

Of course, Netanyahu rejected this idiocy. Biden should be embarrassed at having floated the idea in the first place.

Put a coalition of governors from the Abraham Accords nations, less Israel, plus Egypt and Jordan in charge. Invite the Saudis in, too, if and when they join the Abraham Accords.

Some Bigotry is Acceptable, Apparently

Posted on by
Reply

Here is Harvard President Claudine Gay when she was Harvard’s Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences on the matter of the then-contemporaneous George Floyd murder [emphasis added]:

I have watched in pain and horror the events unfolding across the nation this week, triggered by the callous and depraved actions of a white police officer in Minneapolis.
…
I write this knowing that for some in our community, and I count myself among them, the events in Minneapolis, Brunswick, Louisville and beyond, feel anything but abstract; to the contrary, the headlines stir an acute sense of vulnerability. We are reminded, again, how even our most mundane activities, like running, which is something I am passionate about, can carry inordinate risk. … It shouldn’t be this way. Our presence and our voices make these experiences visible—and that, too, is part of the change. Together with the many who know these fears only vicariously, we must actively work to build a more just society, where no one is above the law and where each of us is treated with the dignity that is our birthright.

Here is now-Harvard President Claudine Gay, in her testimony before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce over a week ago (Tuesday, 5 December), answering the question of whether calling for genocide of the Jews is a violation of Harvard’s codes of conduct:

It can be, depending on the context.

Apparently, bigotry against some is bad, and each of us should be treated with dignity, except when Jews are involved. Antisemitic bigotry is fine, and Jews don’t need? deserve to be? mustn’t be? treated with dignity.

That Harvard’s governing body, Harvard Corporation, hasn’t yet—nine days later!—fired Gay for cause over her overt antisemitism and her selective bigotry is clear demonstration of the rank bigotry of the members of the Harvard Corporation, as their studied inaction condones Gay’s bigotry.

H/t Niall Ferguson writing for The Free Press.

Occurring after I wrote the above: in the event, the Harvard Corporation, which is the governing body for this school, has decided to retain–enthusiastically–Gay as President.

“Our extensive deliberations affirm our confidence that President Gay is the right leader to help our community heal and to address the very serious societal issues we are facing,” the board said in a message to the Harvard community Tuesday morning.

With judgment like that–affirming Gay’s testimony that genocide against Jews sometimes is a permissible threat–it’s clear that the Federal government must cut off all Federal funding to the school unless and until Gay is fired for cause and the Harvard Corporation’s own governing body–the President and Fellows of Harvard College–undergoes a 100% replacement.

Taxpayer money should not be going to institutions that so overtly support selective bigotry, or any bigotry at all.

Indicative, but also Misleading

Posted on by
Reply

A Wall Street Poll found strong support for Israel in the war Hamas has inflicted on it, but the question the paper chose to illustrate the matter also is misleading.

Overall support for Israelis is solid, although there is considerable support for both Palestinians and Israelis “equally” in the Hamas war.

Unsurprisingly, given the strong antisemitic streak running through the Progressive-Democratic Party, those worthies especially strongly sympathize with both Palestinians and Israelis rather than with Israelis alone.

What’s misleading about the question, though, is the tacit inclusion of the terrorist Hamas gang under the rubric “Palestinian people.” The question needs to be asked concerning sympathizing with Israelis, whose civilians are explicitly targeted by Hamas, vs sympathizing with Gazans, whose civilians are equally targeted by Hamas in the form of shields and Gazan residences and facilities used by the terrorists for weapons storage and launch sites and command centers.

Sympathizing with both Israelis and Gazans (not generic Palestinians) would have more legitimacy given Hamas’ assaults on both sets of civilians more or less equally, albeit one with deliberate targeting and the other with deliberate abandon.