Tag Archives: defense policy

“Backlash”

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal opened one of its Friday editorials with this immoral bit of misapprehension:

President Biden has been stalwart in backing Israel’s right to destroy Hamas after the October 7 massacre. But a political backlash is growing, in the Democratic Party and abroad, to rein in Israel before it can achieve its military objectives.

No, it’s not a political backlash that’s growing in the Progressive-Democratic Party and “abroad.” It’s overt political support for Hamas and the terrorist mayhem this terrorist gang is, and has been for decades, committing.

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s hand-picked Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, is shamefully uncertain about the terrorism of Hamas. As paraphrased by WSJ:

Mr Blinken presented “humanitarian pauses” as critical to protecting Gazans, getting them aid, and freeing Israeli and US hostages.

On the contrary, Gazans are best protected by Hamas stopping their use of Gazans as shields in the fighting and their use of Gazans’ residences, schools, and hospitals as weapons storage caches and as rocket launching facilities.

When the Hamas terrorists (excuse the redundancy, but the emphasis is too badly needed) stop stealing the aid that is coming in, then Gazans will start getting it.

Israel already has offered to discuss a ceasefire—for which Blinken’s humanitarian pauses are just a disingenuous euphemism—after the Hamas terrorists release all of those hostages. Hamas has refused the offer.

On the flip side, all any ceasefire—regardless of duration or geographic scope or label—will do is give Hamas time to regroup and refit along with space to relocate and re-hide the hostages. It’s disgusting that anyone in the Biden administration supports such succor for the terrorists, much less that our President and SecState so overtly do.

“The humanitarian situation…is dire”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly’s “clarification” after Canada so timidly refused to take a stand on a UN resolution calling for a “humanitarian” ceasefire truce in Gaza.

She added,

What is unfolding in Gaza is also a human tragedy.

It certainly is. But any sort of ceasefire would only give the Hamas terrorist gang time to reset its defenses, move it terrorists and weapons and ammunition around, and relocate the hostages the terrorists have seized. Any ceasefire now, of any duration, would only tell the terrorists and their Iranian overlords that what they’re doing works, and the terrorists will continue, if not presently, then some time in the future. Thinking any sort of agreement with terrorists can have civilized results is dangerously naïve.

No.

The optimal way—the only long-term way—to protect and recover those hostages that the terrorists haven’t already murdered is for Israel’s allies—us and Great Britain—to step up arms and ammunition aid to Israel, and for Israel’s pretend allies—e.g., Canada, and France, which actually voted for the UN “ceasefire”—to remain where they are now, in their safety on the sidelines, but do so quietly.

Israel must be able to completely destroy Hamas and its ability to commit further terrorism. When that’s done, terrorist hostage-taking in the future will be greatly reduced, as well as those current hostages still alive rescued.

We Will Respond

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden said through his National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and his NSC spokesman John Kirby regarding Iran’s attacks, through its terrorist surrogates, on our military facilities in the Middle East. “Boy, oh boy, when I get you,” goes the 2nd grade recess playground taunt.

Then, after 14 such attacks, Biden ordered a couple of bombs lobbed at a couple of trivial terrorist sites in Syria.

That “response” was so powerful, so message-sending, that Iran’s proxies have continued—and apparently increased—their attacks on our facilities.

Biden is so desperate to get back into a nuclear weapons development deal with Iran that, far from deterring Iran, the mullahs are successfully deterring Biden.

“What New Catastrophe?”

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors wrote about the lack of Iran sanction enforcement, with particular regard to Iran’s ballistic missile development program. The editors wrote of a number of failures to enforce despite Iran’s repeated violations.

They closed their editorial with this question:

What new catastrophe would cause President Biden to rethink his Iran policy?

Here is what that catastrophe will look like, but Biden’s “rethinking” will be too late.

If one day, he [Rafsanjani] said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel’s possession [meaning nuclear weapons]—on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.

Biden’s current “thinking” has him desperate to reenter the agreement with Iran whereby Iran is allowed (even were it to honor such an agreement) to finish its nuclear weapons development after some small period of time.

Ready to Get Involved?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the claim of Secretary of State Antony Blinken regarding the current Hamas assault on Israel and Hezbollah’s and the latter’s parent, Iran’s, threats to attack Israel should Israel press its response to Hamas’ barbarism, Hamas’ rape and butchery of Israeli women, Hamas’ butchery and beheading of Israeli babies.

This is not what we want, not what we’re looking for. We don’t want escalation. We don’t want to see our forces or our personnel come under fire. But if that happens, we’re ready for it.

And do what, exactly, with this “readiness?”

SecDef Lloyd Austin was a bit more loquacious, if no more specific.

What we’re seeing is a prospect of a significant escalation of attacks on our troops and our people throughout the region. We’re going to do what’s necessary to make sure that our troops are in that position and they were protected and that we have the ability to respond. We won’t hesitate to take the appropriate action.

What is that appropriate action, exactly? Regardless, what Blinken and Austin might do in the way of acting on their claimed readiness is governed by Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden. Actually, we know what Blinken would do regarding acting, were he left to his own devices. This is what he said on X in the immediate aftermath of Hamas’ 7 October butchery inside Israel:

Turkish Foreign Minister @HakanFidan and I spoke further on Hamas’ terrorist attacks on Israel. I encouraged Türkiye’s advocacy for a cease-fire and the release of all hostages held by Hamas immediately[.]

Immediate cease-fire. Hesitate. Don’t respond. True enough, Blinken deleted that post quickly, but only under the pressure of the opprobrium he was getting from…mainstream America. And the deletion itself is a demonstration of Blinken’s level of integrity, as by his deletion, he rewrote that history and is trying to pretend it never happened.

However, trumping Blinken and Austin, the Hesitator-in-Chief, Joe Biden himself, has long demonstrated what he’ll “do” in these sorts of situations. Just a few years ago, the then-Vice Hesitator to an only slightly less timid President advised that President not to go after bin Laden when we had that terrorist in our sights in Pakistan. Then, as Hesitator-in-Chief, he cut and run from Afghanistan, abandoning Americans and American allies to the Taliban terrorists, along with tens of billions of dollars worth of modern weapons—many of which, oddly enough, are finding themselves in the hands of Hamas terrorists and Russian barbarians.

And just a few days ago, our forces or our personnel [have] come under fire. We’ve had a significant escalation of attacks on our troops and our people. And our Hesitator-in-Chief not only has hesitate[d] to take the appropriate action, he’s carefully decided to do nothing at all.

Biden’s empty chit-chat, whether directly from him or through his Secretaries, is the antithesis of deterrence.