Category Archives: defense policy

The ICC and its Sham Concern for Civilians

Posted on by
Reply

The editors of The Wall Street Journal correctly point out the failure of the ICC to differentiate between legitimacy and terrorism vis-à-vis the war Hamas terrorists have inflicted on Israel, a war the terrorists intend to prosecute to the destruction of Israel, no matter the cost to Gazan civilians. It is a failure, I claim, borne of the ICC’s cynically constructed false equivalence between the terrorists and Israel. It’s an equivalence, I claim further, that’s borne of the ICC’s intrinsic antisemitic bigotry.

The worthies of the ICC are, after all, among the most talented and highly educated of us.

There’s one point, though, that badly wants an emphasis that’s sadly lacking otherwise.

The ICC claims Israel is “intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population….”

If, however, we take the terrorists’ claims of 35,000 undifferentiated Gazan casualties at face value, and the IDF’s claims that 10,000-12,000 of those were Hamas terrorists (the IDF uses the gentler term “combatants”), that’s a civilian to combatant casualty ratio of around 3 to 1. That’s an historic low ratio for urban warfare.

If the Israelis are deliberately directing attacks against the civilian population, they are truly atrociously bad shots.

Why Should It Take So Long?

Posted on by
Reply

Ukraine has asked NATO leadership to have member nations, including the US, send military trainers to Ukraine to help train 150,000 new recruits into the Ukrainian armed forces. The US is exceedingly reluctant.

So far the United States has said no, but General Charles Q Brown Jr, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Thursday that a NATO deployment of trainers appeared inevitable. “We’ll get there eventually, over time,” he said.

To paraphrase John Maynard Keynes from another venue: over time, Ukrainians are all enslaved.

Worse,

For now, he [Brown] said, an effort inside Ukraine would put “a bunch of NATO trainers at risk” and would most likely mean deciding whether to use precious air defenses to protect the trainers instead of critical Ukrainian infrastructure near the battlefield.

Imagine that—soldiers in a war zone might be in harm’s way. But we’ll only protect selected ones. Brown also is ignoring the simple fact that critical Ukrainian infrastructure extends throughout Ukraine. And so does the battlefield, as the barbarian’s targeting by missiles, rockets, drones, even glide bombs, all launched from the Biden-created Sanctuary Russia, make clear.

Is this another example of Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden cynically slow-walking aid to Ukraine? Or is this Biden and his too-woke military advisors being deeply chicken…t?

Who’s the One Favoring Russia?

Posted on by
Reply

Former President Donald Trump (R) has been repeatedly and over the long term caviled for his praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling him brilliant, an effective leader, more. Even as he was extolling the skills (not the virtues, as the intrinsically mendacious press wants you to believe), though, Trump was busily arming Ukraine with lethal weapons after the prior administration, that of Progressive-Democrat President Barack Obama had withheld lethal weapons, telling the Ukrainians they should be happy to make do with blankets and MREs.

A subset of the Trump-delivered lethal weapons, antitank Javelins, proved decisive in the Ukrainian defeat of the barbarian’s original onslaught out of Belorussia toward Kyiv and out of Russia into Kharkiv and Donetsk Oblasts, ultimately pushing the barbarian back out of Ukraine’s Kyiv Oblast altogether and most of Kharkiv Oblast.

Now we have Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden. He insists that no weapon the US transfers are permitted to be used against Russian territory. As The Wall Street Journal put it in its Thursday editorial,

President Biden’s strategy, even after a cash infusion from Congress, looks like a plan for Ukraine to lose as slowly as possible.

After all, the outcome of Biden’s limits (I haven’t approached Biden’s cynical slow-walking the delivery of those weapons he will permit be transferred to Ukraine) is succinctly described by the WSJ‘s editors.

The President has precluded Ukraine from using American weapons to hit sovereign Russian territory. The practical effect of this is to offer the Russian military a safe haven. The Russians can build up troops, supplies and weapons near Ukraine. Mr. Putin can then deploy scarce defensive systems elsewhere, confident anything inside Russia is safe, courtesy of Mr Biden’s preconditions.

Even as Biden excoriates Putin, trying to show his own bona fides, he has actively created the invader barbarian as a sanctuary nation within which no attacks will be permitted.

Who was the one willing to confront the barbarian, and took concrete steps to do so, and who is the one actively protecting the barbarian, and taking concrete steps to further that protection?

Orbiting Nuclear Weapons

Posted on by
Reply

Russia is working on antisatellite weapon systems that would use nuclear explosions in orbit to destroy satellites in large numbers rather than conventional weapons that would attack satellites individually. A Wall Street Journal article centered on a Russian two-year-old launch of a satellite intended to conduct research into such a weapon had this, which is concerning for other reasons, also.

The eventual weapon, if and when deployed in orbit, could wipe out satellites in a part of space dominated by American government and commercial assets, they said, including SpaceX’s Starlink constellation….

An at least as large concern is that such a detonation or detonations would create EMP pulses that would be extremely damaging to our electric grid and the computer networks controlling that grid; to our oil, natural gas, and water distribution grids; and to the data centers handling our communications and financial systems.

Deliberate Insult?

Posted on by
Reply

Amid the hoo-raw over Hamas claiming to agree to a sham deal for a cease fire and Israel sending tanks into Rafah to secure the Gaza side of the border crossing there despite Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s order not to and his already withholding weapons shipments to Israel, there’s this tidbit:

An Israeli delegation, Hamas officials, mediators from Qatar, and the head of the Central Intelligence Agency arrived in Cairo for discussions on a cease-fire proposal from the militant group. CIA Director William Burns arrived there from Qatar….

Leave aside the WSJ‘s dishonesty in claiming Hamas terrorists are a militant group. Biden sent an underling from an agency that has no authority to conclude any sort of international agreement, nor any sort of agreement between nations and a terrorist network entity. The CIA has no such capacity in its portfolio, not even the Director. Biden has sent his SecState to prior such discussions, and he’s sent his SecDef to prior such discussions. These two do have authority to conclude diplomatic or military agreements. Biden chose, this time though, to send his head spy instead.

So: a calculated insult by Biden aimed at the man for whom he has such blatant and public disdain—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—or just another example of Biden’s oblivious incompetence?

(Aside: one outcome of the IDF’s seizing the Gaza side of the border crossing could be one of making safer and easier the entry into the Gaza Strip of humanitarian aid, done by isolating the terrorists from the entry point. Of course, the press and the Biden administration don’t want to mention that part.)