RFK Jr’s National Defense Plan

Third party Presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy, Jr, now is promising to cut our national defense spending by 50% if he’s elected.

I will push for [a] 50% reduction in military expenditures in my first four years in office, with more cuts to come thereafter. A way to keep the dollar strong is to keep the country strong. We can do that by redirecting our bloated military budget toward infrastructure, education, and health, and building our economy and building small business.

Kennedy insists, instead, that the United States should

project strength through moral leadership and strong economics.

What would this Kennedy have us do, though, when our arming-up enemies—Russia, People’s Republic of China, Iran, among others—come with actual guns and bullets and destruction and killing. Does he expect our remaining armed forces to defend our nation by throwing copies of Aristotle’s Nicomachean or Eudemian Ethics at them? Or perhaps Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations? Maybe Summa Theologiae, the compendium of St Thomas Acquinas’ writings? All nine volumes—there’s some heavy artillery. Or something both older and more current, the Christian Bible, which contains—rapid fire, now—Judaism’s Torah.

How strong does Kennedy think our economy would be when moralizing in the face of bullets fails to persuade?

Does he really think our infrastructure, education, and health really will matter when they’re controlled by our conquerors? That our economy and small businesses will be for our benefit when they’re controlled by our conquerors? That our dollar will matter when the currency in effect is that of our conquerors?

Kennedy badly misunderstands the parable of the mouse and the owl: the mouse thinks the owl’s ways are wrong, while the owl thinks the mouse is lunch.

“How an Iranian-Backed Militia Ties Down US Naval Forces in the Red Sea”

So read The Wall Street Journal‘s headline. The article went into it:

Since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, Iran-backed Houthi rebels have lobbed missiles, drones, and other weapons at commercial vessels and warships nearly every day. Although most of the weapons have been shot down, at least 77 cargo ships have been hit, and one British-owned ship carrying 20,000 tons of fertilizer aboard was sunk.
Though largely ineffective, the Houthi attacks have been able to disrupt shipping and keep the US and its allies tied down, frustrating the Navy’s decades-old mission of keeping open the region’s critical sea lanes.

And this:

Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence, said in congressional testimony last month that the US-led effort has been insufficient to deter the militant group’s targeting of ships and that the threat will “remain active for some time.”

Yes, it has, but while the article’s news writers mentioned the cause, they don’t seem to understand that they have. They centered the article on the frustrations of the Navy’s continuing inability to reopen those shipping lanes.

The root cause:

The Biden administration has limited its military response to the Houthi attacks, hoping to avoid being drawn into a wider Middle East conflict. But that has meant the flotilla of US and allied warships has spent weeks and even months patrolling the Red Sea on alert—and the attacks have kept coming.

It’s as simple and straightforward as this: Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden is too timid to take serious action. He’s more interested in appeasement of the Houthis’ boss, Iran, and in a failed Vietnam-esque “measured response” tit-for-tat procedure.

What’s actually needed is a concerted effort to destroy Houthi bases, whether or not they’re launching facilities and whether or not any launching facilities are “preparing to launch.” What’s further needed is active interception or sinking, if interception isn’t feasible, of Iranian shipping bringing arms and ammunition—not limited to ballistic or cruise missiles or drones—to the Houthis. What’s further needed is recognition of the central role Saudi Arabia plays in Middle East security, along with (if not alongside) Israel and the US, and from that recognition active support of the Saudis in their attempts to restore legitimate government in Yemen and destruction of the Houthis.

None of that will happen, though, while Biden is in office, at the continued expense of shipping disruption, cost of lives lost by allowing the Houthis to continue their operations, and unpredictable (in detail, anyway) ripple effects of that continued timidity.

A Two State Solution

The Biden administration is looking to offer a “security alliance” to Saudi Arabia that would commit the US to “help defend” it in return for Saudi normalization of relations with Israel. Israel’s end in this deal centers on a quick end to the Hamas-inflicted war in the Gaza Strip and Israel’s commitment to a credible path to a two-state solution with the Palestinians. It’s well enough known that Israel’s current government, and more than a few predecessor governments, don’t like the idea of a Palestinian state on Israel’s border.

I have an idea on the matter, because in my awesomeness (and hubris) of course I do.

I’ve written before about what to do about governing the Gaza Strip once Hamas is destroyed (assuming that’s the outcome of Hamas’ war (which Israel is trying to achieve as quickly as possible despite the roadblocks the Biden administration keeps throwing up)). A Palestinian state next door to Israel might become more palatable to Israel (I obviously don’t speak for them) if more nations than just Israel had some skin in that outcome.

Thus: the defense/two-state commitment might become a serious thing for Israeli consideration if Saudi Arabia, the Abraham Accord nations other than Israel, and Egypt were as deeply involved in that pathway to a Palestinian state as Biden and those other nations want Israel to be.

Let Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Abraham Accord nations, less Israel, be the governing body of a nascent Palestinian state until there is a strong consensus among Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Abraham Accord nations, less Israel, that the Palestinian state is ready for self rule, and Israel agrees with that consensus.

Of course, I’m eliding the reliability of any Biden agreement with a nation that Progressive-Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden promised to treat like a pariah, but we’re already dealing in hopes and dreams; what’s one more in the mix?

One More Excuse

Politico is claiming that the Biden administration (and a couple of other nations, but it’s primarily the Biden administration) is being slow to train Ukrainian pilots in the F-16, which aircraft has been pledged by a variety of nations to Ukraine “soon.”

[T]he Biden administration has told Kyiv it lacks the school seats in its Arizona-based program to accept more than 12 pilot trainees at a time, according to three people with direct knowledge of the request.

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s rationalization rationale?

[T]he US has told the Ukrainian military that in addition to limited space, other countries are in line for F-16 training at the base and that it cannot break its commitments to those nations.

Because the convenience of peacetime training must take precedence over training pilots from a nation in a war for its own national survival.

If true, this is just one more disgusting Biden excuse to slow-walk aid to Ukraine.

The IAEA Grows Some…Independence

Even after the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Iran had, in violation of its own claims as well as actual agreements, had enough enriched uranium to produce one bomb within a week and enough to produce nearly eight over a month, Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden pushed the Agency to look the other way and do nothing.

The IAEA did not look the other way.

The International Atomic Energy Agency passed a formal censure of Iran on Wednesday[.]

It’s good that this organization has stopped taking our unserious President seriously. Our nation’s enemies already don’t.