Tag Archives: politics

Abandoning Proportional Retaliation

Posted on by
Reply

Israel hit a Houthi leadership conference and succeeded in killing a dozen or more of the Houthis’ top leaders, including their “prime minister” and “foreign minister” while injuring several other attendees. In the Wall Street Journal article describing the attack and its implications, the news writers noted that

Until Thursday’s strike, Israeli retaliation for Houthi attacks had largely been limited to infrastructure like ports and power stations.

Then they quoted Oded Ailam, ex-Mossad official and currently of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs:

Israel has abandoned the old formulas of proportional retaliation[.]

As it should. The old formulas had nothing to do with proportionality, for all that their users insisted so. Those old formulas centered on tit-for-tat responses, which did nothing to deter future attacks, but did succeed, very effectively, at running up casualties, especially civilian, on both sides as a result of repeated and escalating tit-for-tat exchanges of retaliations.

There’s nothing at all proportional in a strategy that increases casualty rates rather than reduces them.

True proportionality is much more than retaliating in the moment after an in-the-moment attack. Proportionality done correctly, which includes serious consideration of the morality of the response, takes a longer view and considers how a current retaliation would impact future attacks by an enemy and so impact the civilian casualties associated with those future attacks as aggregated to the damage done—civilian as well as military—by a proximate retaliation. A truly proportional retaliation would mitigate, if not preempt, those future attacks by being sufficiently heavy and not immorally tit-for-tat.

Ya Think?

Posted on by
Reply

The Just the News headline says it:

UN-backed Gaza City famine determination may be flawed by reliance on incomplete data

This fleshing out:

While the world is bombarded with heart-wrenching images—many of them fake or staged—of starving children, a review of the data shows that the IPC appears to have relied on incomplete survey results for the month of July to make its claim [of famine].

It also turns out that the UN’s IPC (Integrated Food Security Phase Classification) used carefully selected “sample” data from Gaza with which to manufacture its claim.

The IPC relied on a sample of 7,519 subjects in the Gaza Governorate to calculate the malnutrition rates.

However:

Nutrition Cluster published the full health data from the Gaza Governorate in July, which showed a sample size of 15,749 subjects.

This dishonesty was exacerbated by the intrinsically dishonest press’ bruiting about those inaccurate, incomplete, and openly falsified “data” as though they were factual and told the whole story.

Israel and its IDF is fighting a three-front war, not just the terrorists in Gaza.

The Core of the Progressive-Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

It’s moving ever closer to Party’s grass roots. The face of that core is Progressive-Democratic Party New York City Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and his parallel membership in Democratic Socialists of America. DSA’s core position is

“dismantle and move beyond” America’s capitalist society and create a “wholesale socialist transformation of our national and global economy.”

DSA’s platform is specific, too, including such nakedly socialist things as these:

  • city-run grocery stores
  • free bus rides
  • increased public funding for hormone therapy and surgery for transgender people
  • rent freeze, not just rent control
  • ending “all misdemeanor offenses”

It’s not just Mamdani, either. The Progressive-Democratic Party selected its own socialist candidate for mayor of Minneapolis, Omar Fateh, who is a carbon copy of Mamdani. It’s true enough that Party then unendorsed (leaving him on the ballot) Fateh, but only on a technicality regarding their convention nominating process and only in response to some opprobrium. But here, Party spoke their truth in selecting Fateh and now only is covering its political behind.

In the end, the two, these most public two, are simply concretizing prior Party commitments: then-Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s brag just prior to his first election that he was just “days away from fundamentally transforming” our nation, and then-Progressive-Democratic Party President Joe Biden in his State of the Union address saying that he intended to “fundamentally change” our nation’s economy.

This is Party initially acting at the national level and now trying to move down into our cities.

A Weakness in Good People

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in Thursday’s Letters section of The Wall Street Journal is deeply along the right track.

The most reliable way to understand dictators’ thoughts is to read their own writing…. From Lenin’s “What Is to Be Done?” (1902) to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” (1925) and Mao’s “On New Democracy” (1940), the blueprints for conquest are there in black and white. So it is with Vladimir Putin’s essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” (2021).

Add Stalin to that, and there are a host of others in recent and distant history. A weakness that good people have, though, is that having read those dictators’ words, as many of us (most of us, at least of some of them?) have, too many of us don’t believe they really mean it—they’re just exaggerating for effect, or they’re too mad to be taken seriously, or…any excuse to dismiss avert our eyes will do.

It is a serious weakness: good people have an extremely difficult—often fatal—time believing the depth of evil and depravity that exists in dictators and especially of their willingness and intent on acting on their written intensions.

It’s necessary to take them at their word. And then to take the necessary next step: hold them to their word and move sternly to preempt them. And where preemption fails, to counter them decisively and totally, as we finally did in eradicating Nazi Germany and fascist Japan and Italy, remaking those nations as friendly to and respective of their neighbors.

Bureaucrats Leaving

Posted on by
Reply

This time from the CDC. Following Susan Monarez’ removal as CDC Director (which she was contesting as I wrote this, but my point remains the same), several top CDC officials resigned. This isn’t the chaotic mess that some pundits want us to believe, though.

Monarez is on her way out, one way or another, because she repeatedly

clashed with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy, Jr, and members of his staff….

Kennedy is her boss, and her insubordination was actively cheered by the Progressive-Democrats in Congress. Senator Patty Murray (D, WA):

I had serious doubts about CDC Director Monarez’s willingness to stand up against RFK Jr’s personal mission to destroy public health in America—I’m glad that I was wrong[.]

I’ll elide comment on the Progressive-Democrat’s cynically conclusory characterization of Kennedy’s “mission.” There are a couple of reasons why government bureaucrats these days leave beside wanting to move on after having been in such high pressure jobs for some time. One is that they’re disgruntled that they’re no longer in control of government policy (viz., Fiona Hill’s infamous “quite cross” testimony during Trump I’s first impeachment) and are instead relegated to their proper role of carrying out the directives of their bosses and of their bosses’ boss, the President. In frustration, they quit or are fired.

Another reason is that they disagree with those policies and they believe that they cannot in good conscience support them, so they resign. Of the latter two departure reasons, this is the honorable one.

In either case, the disagreements are good things to argue during the discussions at the heart of any decision process. Those discussions should necessarily be private, and once the boss has made his decision, the only honest thing to do is to carry them out, the bureaucrats’ disagreements no longer being relevant, or to resign. Continuing to resist, especially leaking their disagreements to the press, exposes such individuals for what they are: self-important bureaucrats who happen to have, in the present cases, medical or science degrees. They are, on net, no loss when they go.

In the end, a net benefit: the President—whomever he might be from administration to administration—gets a crop of bureaucrats who are on board with his policies rather than being saddled with self-important Know Betters believing themselves the government’s policy makers.

And then We the People can then make a more informed decision about whom to hire into the White House, more confident—or at least less unconfident—in the premise that the policies we’re voting up or down have been his and not those of that crop of bureaucrats.