Originally Posted by
Kalam
San, I really respect your insights and ability to think clearly on these types of topics, but I think this type of thinking is a real mistake. Pulling back and going the isolationist route would be a very large mistake right now IMO. I admit I dont see the path forward clearly, but if we pulled out and "left Israel on their own" it would create a huge power vacuum in the ME for Iran/China/Russia to exploit, and the chance of things escalating into something much more serious, that would draw us back in anyways, would increase dramatically.
At the end of the day, our relationship with Saudi and the petro dollar is the primary driver of our economic empire, and our support for Israel is tied into this, and it would be tremendously bad for us as a country, and for the stability of the whole world, to pull out now.
I think it would be a mistake to think there was some intricate plan on Israel's part here, when incompetence is a much more likely explanation. The Netanyahu administration was incompetent, was distracted with setters in the West Bank, and Hamas caught them unawares. And once 10/7 happened, I am not sure Israel really had another path. Anything less would make them appear too weak, and would enable Iran and its proxies too much. For good or bad, Israel showing that it is willing to go scorched Earth, and us moving the military hardware we have into the region, I think has really caused Iran/Hezbollah to think twice about joining the fray, and limited how bad this could escalate.
And any 1 or 2 state solution has always been a complete non starter to the point there was never any reason to sabotage it. At no point in recent history have the Palestinians shown any interest. Their position has always been they want all the land back and aren't going to compromise for anything less. This is the reality completely independent of what party is running Israel or what concessions/aggressions they are making.
Maybe there was some point in the past when the Palestinians really would have agreed to a peace, but I doubt it. But it certainly has been a complete non starter the last 20 years since Hamas gained formal power.
This is correct.
Netanyahu shit the bed and allowed this crude albeit effective attack to take place, despite all of Israel's technological and military capabilities. This bears some similarities to 9/11, which again was a simple-but-effective model to kill thousands of civilians, and also involved some incompetence/failures of a powerful country.
Basically, if you're caught napping, you can be punched very hard in the nose by a much smaller adversary, and then you look foolish and vulnerable despite your previously perceived strength.
In hindsight, it's amazing that the US didn't protect commercial jetliner cockpits (especially given all the previous hijackings), and never considered that these airliners could be used as makeshift missiles.
In hindsight, it's amazing that Israel never considered that heavy equipment and crude flying devices could be used to bring over 1000 terrorists past the fence, and that these terrorists could kill tons of people before being killed off.
Both 9/11 and 10/7 are full of dumb conspiracy theories regarding how each government "wanted' this to happen. It's all nonsense.
And in both cases, a strong response was important. The US overdid it by tying Iraq into the matter (which actually had some merit on its own, but had no 9/11 relevance like they sold it), but the response against the Taliban in Afghanistan was necessary, even if Biden ultimately fucked it up 20 years later.
Similarly, Israel needs to get their pound of flesh and demonstrate that they're not gonna take it. Otherwise, it sends a message to their other more powerful adversaries that they're not so tough after all.
Finally, the terrorists should be considered vicious animals who need to be put down in any manner possible. They deserve no compassion. If nerve gas is necessary to smoke them out of the tunnels, so be it. You cannot engage in fear when dealing with terrorists. The narrative of, "If we do X, the terrorists will be even angrier and strike back harder" is incorrect, and casts a Western line of thinking onto people who are driven by much different motivations. The terrorists already want Israel wiped off the map and all the Jews dead. There's no such thing as "making them angrier". Ideological terrorists are already as angry as possible, and they are quite willing to die for their cause. Their fear is of failure, not death. If they are all wiped out, they fail by default, and they know that. This is why individual foot soldiers are very expendable, but leadership goes through great lengths to protect themselves. If they are met with force, they both fear being completely wiped out and cannot effectively plan further attacks at the same time. The worst thing you can do with terrorists is act fearful of them, or expect honorable/rational behavior.
In fact, Clinton's handling of bin Laden and al Qaeda -- basically a non-response and hoping they'd go away if not provoked too much -- led to 9/11 being able to occur. They should have been wiped out in the '90s. This is also why Trump's order to kill Soleimani was correct, and the fear by Democrats that it would provoke a harsh response by Iran turned out incorrect. Once again, you kill terrorists when you can, and you never act fearful of them, or you've already lost.
Reply With Quote