Category Archives: defense policy

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.

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.

Distinctions

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s 4 December Letters section drew a distinction between Israel’s treatment of civilians during Hamas’ war on Israel and Hamas’ treatment of civilians.

Just like Israel warned Gaza City residents to leave before its airstrikes, Hamas tried repeatedly to get Israelis to avoid the concert near the border and leave the nearby kibbutzim, right? Wrong, of course, and therein lies a fundamental distinction. Israel would have been glad to see Gazan civilians evacuated to safety to avoid its airstrikes, but Hamas would have been bitterly disappointed if those Israeli civilians hadn’t been around to be slaughtered.

That brings to mind a broader distinction between civilized nations (especially those of the West) on the one hand and terrorist entities on the other.

In WWII, the Allies deliberately and indiscriminately attacked the enemies’ population centers and infrastructure in an attempt to cow those populations into surrender. It didn’t work, and in the aftermath, those western nations recognized the both the politico-military ineffectiveness of the strategy and especially its immorality. Ever since, western civilized nations have been at pains to minimize collateral damage—especially including accidental deaths to civilians, from both direct and indirect causes—and they have set high standards regarding the definition of “unavoidable” and “accidental” civilian deaths. These nations have set similarly high standards regarding collateral damage to or destruction of infrastructure unrelated to an enemy’s war effort.

Terrorists, on the other hand—of which Hamas (and its junior partner, Palestinian Islamic Jihad) and Russia are current exemplars—deliberately target population centers and civilian infrastructure in the prosecution of their wars. Their targeting has nothing to do with any attempt to cow the targeted population into surrender; it is a core part of terrorists’ war aims: the extermination of those populations and the erasure of those populations’ nations from the world.

Oil Buyback

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden now plans to buy 2.7 million barrels of oil to put back into our oil strategic reserve.

Couple things about that.

We had 630 million barrels of oil in our strategic reserve before Biden took office and started selling it to the People’s Republic of China while claiming he was doing it to slow the gasoline price inflation his spending was causing. As recently as 24 November last, our reserve was down to 351 million barrels. According to my second grade arithmetic, that means Biden had reduced our reserve by 279 million barrels in just those two years and 10 months. My third grade arithmetic tells me that those 27 million barrels he’s buying for the reserve is just 1% of what he’s taken out of it. Which makes buying that oil an insulting effort to distract us with his pretense of refilling our reserve after his dangerous reduction.

The other thing is that he’s buying that oil at $79/barrel, which means he’s spending $213.3 million to buy that 1%. To replace all 279 million barrels, he’ll have to pay more than $22 billion at those $79 per. When the prior administration (the Trump administration for those following along at home) refilled the reserve after the Obama admin draw-down, Trump’s buyers paid $30-$55 per barrel. Call it, for this back of the envelope estimate, an average of $42.5 per barrel. At that price, Biden could replace the oil he removed for a total cost of $11.8 billion dollars. Bidenomics is going to cost us ordinary American taxpayers more than $10 billion at today’s actual price. That is, if Biden follows through on refilling our strategic oil reserve.

Update: third grade arithmetic tells me that those 27 million barrels should have been third grade arithmetic tells me that those 2.7 million barrels. Fershlugginer keyboard….

It Needs Disrupting

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that the US Navy’s USS Gabrielle Giffords, a littoral combat ship, sailed too close to Second Thomas Shoal to suit the People’s Republic of China, and the PLA’s Southern Theater objected.

The US deliberately disrupted the situation in the South China Sea, seriously violated China’s sovereignty and security, seriously undermined regional peace and stability, and seriously violated international law and basic norms governing international relations, fully demonstrating that the US is the biggest threat to peace and stability in the South China Sea[.]

This is plainly untrue; no PRC sovereignty was violated since the shoal is owned by the Republic of the Philippines. Nevertheless, the PRC continued its provocations and tacit threats by having its naval force “mobilize” and track the Giffords.

In response to this latest PRC attempt at intimidation, the US Navy—and Australia, India, and Japan, the other members of the Quad—should send groups of combat ships (not just onesies and twosies) into the same area, conduct combat and surveillance aircraft flyovers, and engage in tracking PLAN shipping in the area.

The situation in the South China Sea badly wants disruption and the situation restored to its condition prior to the PRC’s invasion of the Sea and its occupation of all those islands owned by the other nations rimming the Sea.