“I live, you…meh”

That’s the deal Hamas’ MFWIC Yayha Sinwar is demanding before he’ll agree to a cease fire with Israel. Never mind that all the players but Hamas—Sinwar—have agreed to the latest set of ceasefire terms.

Sinwar emphasizes that the security of his life and well-being must be ensured, according to Egyptian officials.

Sinwar’s life matters; the lives of Palestinians, for whom he pretends to be fighting, don’t in the slightest. Sinwar and the terrorists he leads will go on killing Palestinians or arranging their deaths by using them as shields, using their schools, residences, hospitals, mosques and churches as weapons caches, weapon launch sites, control centers.

This is what Israel is fighting; this is what the Biden-Harris administration is so desperate to protect with its incessant demands for cease fires, withholding weapons from Israel, anti-Israel rhetoric.

“Foreign Invasion”

Much is being made of Ukraine’s incursion into a piece of Russia’s Kursk Oblast as being the first foreign invasion of Russian territory since World War II. That is, indeed, one interpretation.

Here’s another. Russian President Vladimir Putin has predicated his invasion of Ukraine on his premise that Ukrainians are Russian, and all he’s doing is reuniting the people. Given that, the Ukrainian move into Kursk isn’t at all an invasion.

It’s just a bunch of Russians going home.

Preemption or Not?

Michael Oren, former Israeli ambassador to the US, has a piece in The Free Press in which he asks that question regarding Israel’s current situation against the backdrop of Israel’s decision to preempt at the outset of Israel’s 1967 defensive war vs Israel’s 1973 war for survival when it decided to let its enemies strike first.

I suggest the question has a broader historical scope than that. The question of preemption goes at least as far back as St Augustine’s early 5th century assertion that preemption was ipso facto immoral and so unjustified and unjustifiable. The pace of combat and the level of technology of those days gave practical support to the claim: an attacked nation could absorb the first blow and still have the wherewithal to respond and successfully defend itself.

Today is nothing like those days. Combat pacing and the technology in arms, mobility, and cyber make it very nearly suicidal for a nation under irrefutable threat of imminent attack to sit quietly and accept the enemy’s opening set of blows before responding. That opening set may well be fatal, with the attacked nation unable to respond at all. This is especially the case with nuclear weapons, which for instance, Iran is on the verge of achieving.

That makes sitting by today and accepting the enemy’s first strike, whether conventional, possibly coupled with cyber attacks, or nuclear the immoral move, as suicidal as sitting by may well prove to be.

Preemptive war does require strong evidence that the enemy intends to attack and that the enemy is about to do so. In Israel’s case, Hamas leadership has openly announced he intends to continue Hamas’ war of extermination—already underway. Iran’s leadership has announced that it intends to strike massive blows against Israel in response to the killing of a Hamas leader in Tehran. Hezbollah’s leadership is prosecuting its own lower-key war of extermination from the north.

In 1967, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol agonized for three weeks before deciding to preempt, and when he did, Israel settled that war in six days with far fewer casualties—friendly and enemy—than would have been the case had he decided Israel should absorb that first blow. This is demonstrated by Prime Minister Golda Meier’s decision to do exactly that in 1973’s war and that war’s costs.

Certainly preemption is more difficult when striking an amorphous network entity like the terrorist entities of Hamas and Hezbollah than it is against formal nation states like Iran. It’s no less important to be done for that, and “more difficult” means “possible.”

Preemption has become the moral imperative for the nation about to be attacked. That applies today for Israel, especially in the case of Iran, where preemption is not only necessary, it may well limit Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s abilities to continue.

Endless War Retreat

There are endless wars, and there are endless wars. Our nation’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seemed endless because of mission drift by a sequence of American administrations. Our goals in Iraq were, initially, limited and specific; although with hindsight, President Bush the Elder’s goals might have been too limited, a condition which led to the second phase of that war, the move to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime. That goal, though, was nebulously defined, then it “evolved” across successive administrations, leading to continued combat involvement over too many years in Iraq.

Our war in Afghanistan began as a move to punish and destroy the al Qaeda that had executed the terror attacks in 11 September 2001. That mission was largely accomplished promptly, although it took a few more years to track down bin Laden and deal with him with finality. That tracking didn’t benefit overmuch by our continued warring in Afghanistan, though; instead that mission continually “evolved,” also, and we stayed in that fighting for some twenty years.

Those were two unnecessarily endless wars.

There is another war, though, that truly is endless, and the Biden-Harris administration is rapidly retreating from it, making that war increasingly dangerous to us and to our friends and allies. That’s the war terrorists—especially the rump al Qaeda and a rapidly regrowing Daesh—are fighting against us.

…Islamic State poses a growing threat to the US and its interests. You wouldn’t know it based on the Biden administration’s withdrawal from terrorist hot spots across South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

And [emphasis added]

Over the past year alone, Islamic State has been linked to terrorist attacks and plots in Afghanistan, Austria, Belgium, Germany, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Serbia, Switzerland, and Turkey, among others. On July 25, the day before the opening ceremony of the Paris Summer Olympics, Belgian authorities arrested suspected members of ISIS-K for planning a terrorist attack. And in June, US law enforcement arrested eight suspects with possible Islamic State ties who had crossed the border from Mexico.
Yet the US has cut and run from terrorist sanctuaries. This month the US military turned over control of its final base in the African country of Niger even though the Islamic State and al Qaeda are on the rise in the region.

The latest example of this endless war, which is a direct outcome of our administration’s retreat, was the terror threat against a popular singer and her audience at a concert in Vienna.

Thanks to intelligence the US collected, Austrian law enforcement arrested three suspects for their involvement in an alleged plot to explode bombs and use knives against concertgoers at the Ernst Happel Stadium [where Taylor Swift had intended to hold an Eras Tour concert].
The alleged plotters had both the intention and capabilities to conduct a major attack. One of them, a 19-year-old Austrian, had recently pledged loyalty to ISIS. According to the head of Austria’s Directorate of State Security and Intelligence, he was aiming to kill “as many civilians as possible” in a suicide attack. He and one of his alleged accomplices, a 17-year-old man, had apparently radicalized online.

Maybe it’s time for the Biden-Harris administration, and for subsequent administrations, to learn the difference between endless wars and endless wars, stop running away from all of them without discrimination, and get after the terrorists who are fighting their otherwise endless war against us and against our friends and allies.

Yes and No

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors opened one of their Friday editorials with this:

On taxes and spending, he [Minnesota Progressive-Democrat Governor and Progressive-Democratic Party Vice President nominee-in-waiting Tim Walz] has sought to outdo California progressives and is making Illinois look like a model of fiscal discipline.
Ms Harris is slipstreaming behind the Biden Administration policies and refusing to lay out her own policy agenda. This makes Mr Walz’s record as Governor over the last six years all the more revealing as a window on the duo’s plans for the country.

It’s certainly true that Walz’s behavior as governor is demonstrative. It is, though, not entirely “all the more revealing” of a Harris-Walz profligate tax and more profligate spend policy, should they get elected. The editors make that clear in their own words, for all that they seem not to recognize that: Ms Harris is slipstreaming behind the Biden Administration policies.

Harris is not at all “refusing to lay out her own policy agenda.” The Biden-Harris policies are precisely the policies she’s intent on continuing, and that extends far beyond economics. Harris, and Walz beside her, are intent on continuing the Biden-Harris open borders policy, and they’re intent on continuing the Biden-Harris policy of speaking loudly while carrying no stick at all regarding our nation’s most dangerous enemies, Russia, the People’s Republic of China, and Iran.

Harris’ slipstreaming is her statement, if not in so many words, of the policies she intends to pursue in a Harris-Walz administration.