Tag Archives: foreign policy

Tommy Tuberville is Right—and He’s Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Tommy Tuberville (R, AL) says that

the war in Ukraine is “costing American taxpayers an arm and a leg[]”

And

We have to get this conflict over with.

He’s right, so far. But then he said

Right now would be a great time to negotiate over in Ukraine and Moscow to get this thing stopped, because they pretty much have a stalemate as we speak[.]

This would be a terrible mistake. Aside from the fact that there’s no stalemate in Ukraine—they are making slow, grinding progress against the barbarian—now is a terrible time to negotiate. Forcing Ukraine to a negotiating table with the barbarian would be as big a betrayal, if not bigger, as was our betrayal of Ukraine regarding the Budapest Memorandum. It would reward the barbarian for his invasion by giving him a path to retain Ukrainian territory. On top of that, it would tell the barbarian in unequivocal terms that the rest of the prior Russian—Soviet—empire, Poland, the Baltic States, etc, are fair game for his conquering.

No. Contra Tuberville, the way to stop our own financial bleeding and to get this conflict over with, is for the Biden administration to stop its own timidity in the face of barbarian bluster and get Ukraine the arms, ammunition, and logistics support it needs, in the amounts it needs them, and at the pace it needs them so it can decisively defeat the barbarian and drive him back out of Ukraine. Out of all of Ukraine. As a side note, that complete expulsion is the clearly stated, by Ukraine, pre-negotiating position.

“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.