Meanwhile on the International front....

If Israel doesn’t stop right now, how long before Hamas or some Hamas-like group try another attack like Oct. 7?

 

Again, what is Israel's alternative? Qatar accuses them of genocide while providing safe refuge for Hamas leaders. Hamas refuses to keep its end of the deal in a cease-fire while making no secret of its plans to launch more terrorist attacks on Israel as soon as it is able. Read the accounts of what those monsters did on Oct. 7. They didn't just slaughter people. They raped and tortured them and bragged about it while they did it.

 

You didn't answer my question, but I'll answer yours. That is coming either way, but putting the pressure on makes it harder to pull off an attack like that.

Seriously, read the accounts of what Hamas did on Oct. 7. Really read the way they raped and tortured civilians. The way they murdered and mutilated children. Then after you read it, answer this question: If it was your family, your people, would you ever stop? Now try again and do it honestly this time.

 

SecDef Lloyd Austin was a U.S. Army officer who commanded units in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. He was the commander in the fighting in Basra and Sadr City, block to block urban fighting similar to what the IDF is doing now. He eventually became our overall commander in Iraq during the occupation. He has long and hard won experience in exactly the sort of conflict that is happening now. He made a speech a couple of days ago that got a lot of publicity, because he thinks that Israel is going to win at the tactical level but lose badly at the strategic level.

The speech is here: 'A Time for American Leadership': Remarks by Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III at the Reagan National Defense Forum (As Delivered) > U.S. Department of Defense > Speech

What has gotten the most publicity are the middle two paragraphs I'm about to quote, but they are better understood in the context of the paragraph that preceded and followed them.


"So the lesson is not that you can win in urban warfare by protecting civilians. The lesson is that you can only win in urban warfare by protecting civilians.

You see, in this kind of a fight, the center of gravity is the civilian population. And if you drive them into the arms of the enemy, you replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat.

So I have repeatedly made clear to Israel’s leaders that protecting Palestinian civilians in Gaza is both a moral responsibility and a strategic imperative.

And so I have personally pushed Israeli leaders to avoid civilian casualties, and to shun irresponsible rhetoric, and to prevent violence by settlers in the West Bank, and to dramatically expand access to humanitarian aid."

This is textbook doctrine. The Pentagon has a book on almost every aspect of war, the how to and how not to, learned and proven with the blood and pain of our forces. Austin is preaching that doctrine, and the Israelis are ignoring it. We ignored it in Iraq and bogged ourselves down to our cost and regret. He lived it, saw it unfold, saw the results unfold over time, our accomplishments and losses and the outcome. He knows what he's talking about.

This country was consumed by a desire for vengeance after 9/11, and we went and killed a lot of people and broke things while expressing that anger. We were able to kill a number of very bad people, but we did it at the cost of many lives and much blood and treasure, and we broke three countries which are still suffering the effects. Looking back, many of us believe that GWB's war was a huge mistake, costly and misdirected. I think Israel is making a similar mistake, except that they won't be able to pull out and go home and avoid the aftermath of their actions.

 

In that case, they went after the wrong country with the notion of finding weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Israel is hunting for terrorists who do exist. In that way, your comparison does not hold up.

Israel should absolutely do a better job trying to protect civilians, but Hamas is doing whatever it can to make that impossible. That is where the concept of a human shield comes into play. You are right about the violence by settlers in the West Bank. Israel should be stopping that. That is absolutely a failure by Netanyahu.

All I'm saying is that stopping right now is not an option for Israel and not because they need revenge. It is to stop an enemy that has bragged that they will strike again as soon as they are able.

 

Israel has an infinite range of alternatives. What it chooses depends entirely on the outcome Israel seeks.

But as stated above, after 9/11 the US demonstrated pretty conclusively that revenge alone is not a strategy.

 

They're using a meataxe instead of a scalpel and it will come back to bite them. Austin is saying out loud and in public what they've been telling the Israelis since before the push started. The diplomats have been ignored and have become so frustrated that they have begun making public statements the rest of the world can see, which is very unusual.

Some of this is meant to deflect criticism from around the world which says that we are aiding and abetting what is happening to the Palestinian people, I understand that, but some of it is a shot across Israel's bow. There comes a point that the U.S. will decide to be far less supportive of a course of action that the entire world sees differently from the way Israel does, and our diplomats are warning them about it.

At the recent climate summit in Dubai, VP Harris gave a speech on the war in Israel which very publicly laid out the shifting in the U.S. position and warns Israel:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...ris-on-the-conflict-between-israel-and-hamas/

"As Israel pursues its military objectives in Gaza, we believe Israel must do more to protect innocent civilians.

So, we all want this conflict to end as soon as possible. And to ensure Israel’s security and ensure security for the Palestinian people, we must accelerate efforts to build an enduring peace. And that begins with planning for what happens the day after the fighting ends."

"Five principles guide our approach for post-conflict Gaza: no forcible displacement, no reoccupation, no siege or blockade, no reduction in territory, and no use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism."

 

To put this in other, perhaps less emotionally loaded terms, Russia's tactical aim was to take Ukraine. Their strategic aim was to keep it and integrate it into Russia. At this point it is obvious that even if Russia was somehow able to actually take most of Ukraine, holding it in the face of the resulting partisan guerrilla war will be another thing entirely. On a strategic level they have already lost, even as the war continues. Ukraine will become another Afghanistan war for Russia if they stayed, Putin simply refuses to admit it and cannot find a graceful way to extricate himself.

 

No, it wasn't.

They entered Ukraine with 118,000 soldiers.

To put THAT in perspective, Hitler invaded Poland with 1.5 million soldiers. A country half the size of Ukraine with (at the time) 14 million fewer people

Russia wants eight oblasts. It might have to settle for four. It might have to settle for zero. But four seems like the most likely outcome.

 

Like what? Give an example. Give a real answer about what they could do differently, one that protects Israeli citizens, which is their primary goal.

 

How do they ensure the last principle if they stick to the first four? I'm seeing a lot of complaints about what they are doing, but I'm not seeing viable suggestions for what they could do instead.

 

I proposed this a month and a half ago: