Does anyone else recall a U.S. military intervention launched to feeding starving civilians that ended with dead American soldiers littering the streets of a distant city?  That would be Mogadishu in 1993‚ where U.S. forces landed to ensure that food reached needy civilians‚ but withdrew after a calamitoU.S. battle with Somali warlords.  Mission creep is an ever-present hazard to American policy makers.  The deployment of Marines to protect the U.S. airbase in Da Nang grew into over half a million U.S. soldiers fighting in Vietnam three years later. A special forces-led effort to run Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan became a decades-long effort to defend the country from a resurgent Taliban. Now our military will construct a pier to allow the delivery of food to the civilians of Gaza‚ which will of course require American soldiers to secure the facility and ensure that Hamas operatives do not pilfer aid when it comes ashore for their own purposes. Hamas could force the U.S. to pick its poison: protect them from the IDF‚ or face military humiliation in the streets of Gaza. Has the White HoU.S.e thought this through? Take a moment to game this out from the perspective of Hamas‚ currently fighting for its life against the IDF from its last enclaves in Rafah.  An American military presence on the ground in Gaza can serve some useful purposes for them.  Food aid must be delivered from this new pier‚ most likely by Hamas-adjacent operatives who will need U.S. protection and supervision if it is to get where it is needed. Exactly how is the U.S. military going to distinguish between distributions of aid to genuine Palestinian civilians and Hamas fighters? As Israel has learned‚ this is difficult if not impossible. U.S. forces ostensibly protecting food deliveries could become the ideal human shields against IDF attacks‚ allowing Hamas to reclaim their role as the intermediary distributing Western aid to Gaza civilians. This role will permit them to reestablish their political legitimacy with Gaza’s needy population‚ who do know Hamas operatives when they see them. (READ MORE from Karl Pfefferkorn: The Heartbreak of the Brideshead Republicans) A more malign aim might be to suck the U.S. into the ongoing war.  The U.S. military could become the de facto protector of Gazans from the IDF as the security operations needed to deliver aid from port to civilians spreads like a web to encompass much of the territory. U.S. soldiers accompanying critical aid deliveries will expand the safe zones for Hamas operations across Gaza. Do we wish to midwife a resurrected Hamas in Gaza behind the shield of U.S. troops?  If not‚ then a U.S. military presence becomes useful to Hamas in more incendiary ways. At a moment of Hamas’ choosing‚ U.S. forces in Gaza become targets for attack.  The U.S. will be faced with a choice: retaliate and allow Hamas to maneuver U.S. into open cooperation with the IDF against the entire Arab world‚ or skulk out of the place and abandon Gaza to whatever post-war plans the Netanyahu government imposes on the place. (READ MORE: Israel: Unifying Around the Center) Hamas could force the U.S. to pick its poison: protect them from the IDF‚ or face military humiliation in the streets of Gaza. Neither of these are attractive outcomes for the U.S.‚ which is already facing the task of shoring up its credibility in the wake of the disastrous withdrawal from Kabul.  This simple pier constructed for admirable humanitarian reasons could be the first step toward a Hamas revival under de facto U.S. protection‚ or another Mogadishu-type humiliation for the U.S. Have we considered how we can prevent mission creep after the arrival of U.S. forces in Gaza grants multiple dangerous options to Hamas? Not likely. The Biden White House has made a short-term calculation based on its wavering support in states it needs to win in November. The cost of this calculation could be immense: the revival of Hamas‚ armed with new powers to divide the U.S. from Israel‚ or defeat in another gruesome street battle against a well-armed and media-savvy Muslim population. Is this worth Michigan’s 15 electoral votes?     The post The US and Gaza Mission Creep appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

When Donald Trump called our NATO allies “delinquent” and mused on how he might encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” with allies that don’t spend the required 2 percent of GDP on defense‚ the foreign policy blob pilloried him. Shouts of “strategically illiterate‚” came pouring in from diverse swaths of the political spectrum. Certainly‚ the portion about encouraging Russian attacks on the West was over-the-top‚ if only perhaps meant to scare the allies (namely Germany‚ Italy‚ Canada‚ Spain‚ and the Low Countries) into taking their obligations seriously. But Trump’s basic point on feeble allies — that a failure to contribute to the alliance justifies its abandonment by the dominant nation if it is that nation’s interest — finds historical support. The British decision to seek separate peace proved deft. During the 1702-1713 War of Spanish Succession‚ Britain‚ Holland‚ Prussia‚ and the Austrian Empire formed a Grand Alliance against France to prevent Philip V‚ the grandson of French king Louis XIV‚ from taking the Spanish throne. A united French/Spanish super-state with vast combined colonial possessions would dramatically alter the balance of power in Europe‚ an outcome the allies found worth preventing with arms. England’s Duke of Marlborough and the Austrian Empire’s Eugene of Savoy defeated France’s land forces in multiple campaigns. But these victories came at such a cost in lives and treasure that‚ by 1710‚ the English public clamored for peace and a resumption of normal commerce. After Louis XIV had withdrawn from Spain‚ England’s main strategic aim — to keep France and Spain separate kingdoms — looked achievable in negotiations. (READ MORE: NATO’s Bleak Future) So‚ England began secret deliberations to reach a separate peace with France‚ in violation of Britain’s obligation to fight alongside its allies (particularly Holland‚ a state which shared a long border with France and had a formidable navy but weak land forces). When an informal truce in 1712 removed the English troops from the battlefields of Europe‚ Holland especially howled in protest of the treachery. According to Alfred Mahan’s classic The Influence of Sea Power Upon History‚ “The remonstrances of Holland were met by the reply that since 1707‚ the Dutch had not furnished more than one third their quota of ships‚ and taking the war through‚ not over one half.” Further‚ the British Parliament complained that Holland “has been greatly deficient every year in proportion to what your Majesty hath furnished … Hence your Majesty hath been obliged to supply those deficiencies with additional reinforcements of your own ships” (emphasis mine). To again quote Mahan’s classic Influence of Sea Power: “To these complaints‚ the Dutch envoy to England could only reply that Holland was not in a condition to fulfill her compacts.” The Dutch‚ having borne the brunt of the French land assault on her border towns and harbors for years‚ had a point. The war impoverished Holland and deprived her of the shipping trade on which she previously enjoyed a near-monopoly. Today‚ Germany and Western Europe have no such excuse. The post-recession era has been one long peacetime economic expansion‚ largely due to the American security umbrella. Nations much poorer than Germany or Canada‚ such as Poland‚ Lithuania‚ Latvia‚ Romania‚ and Hungary (in other words‚ the NATO member states closest to Russia) manage to hit or even radically exceed the 2 percent threshold (Poland spends the most at 3.9 percent of GDP‚ exceeding America’s 3.5 percent). If our allies are this unserious about their own defense‚ it should be expected that America will care only in proportion to its own strategic interest‚ rather than treating Article V of the NATO treaty‚ which obliges all parties to mutual defense if one ally is attacked‚ as ironclad. The British justified their abandonment of the alliance and the negotiation of a separate peace amenable to its own strategic interests by the fact that Holland was deficient‚ or in Trumpian language‚ “delinquent” on its furnishment of weapons to the alliance. The Dutch retort that they were unable did not nullify the deficiency. The British decision to seek separate peace proved deft. The 1713 Treaty of Utrecht‚ on which Britain’s diplomats had a three-year head start‚ granted Britain both Gibraltar and Port Mahon in the Mediterranean‚ a monopoly on trade with Spain’s New World colonies‚ and a guarantee that France and Spain would remain separate kingdoms. This despite the fact that France (an absolutist Catholic monarchy) and Britain (an emerging Protestant parliamentary democracy)‚ by 1713‚ had generations of archrivalry and represented diametrically opposed worldviews. (READ MORE: Trump: The New Eisenhower on NATO) Whether America would benefit from a similar “separate peace” with Russia‚ diametrically opposed to American values though it is‚ or any other NATO foe is debatable. I remain skeptical of such claims‚ especially with more easterly allies meeting their obligations. However‚ the principle is important to recognize regardless of the current strategic situation: for unserious allies‚ as for unserious romantic liaisons‚ the United States reserves the right to go Dutch.   The post Trump ‘Goes Dutch’ on NATO Allies appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The world is starved for virtuous‚ courageous leaders and problem solvers. For those perplexed by the current state of politics‚ Groucho Marx had the answer. Groucho said‚ “Politics is the art of looking for trouble‚ finding it everywhere‚ diagnosing it incorrectly‚ and applying the wrong remedies.” Today‚ amidst modernity‚ leadership has been replaced with consensus‚ collaboration‚ and cowardice. Most individuals succumb to the status quo‚ even if they are miserable because it is easier or more comfortable. Great leaders are different. Great leaders are thinkers who create opportunities for thousands and millions of individuals. But they also face obstacles. (READ MORE from Bob Luddy: Calvin Coolidge: Freedom Works Best) Leaders with ideas will immediately be met by blockers. The blockers will do everything possible to kill your ideas. Nonetheless‚ leaders are force multipliers. That means that leaders bring energy and ideas‚ which increase outcomes and purpose. Napoleon stated‚ “Freedom is nothing without opportunity.” Virtuous leaders are truth seekers that create opportunities. Ronald Reagan was one such leader. He is universally loved today but was opposed by many in his lifetime. In 1987‚ Reagan uttered this famous line at the Brandenburg gate in Germany‚ “Mr. Gorbachev‚ tear down this wall.” These powerful words inspired the unthinkable — the wall came down two years later. That was leadership. Reagan’s Cold War partner‚ Margaret Thatcher‚ had crucial words about leadership. She spoke of consensus‚ which she described this way: “Consensus: The process of abandoning of all beliefs‚ principles‚ values‚ and policies in search of something in which no one believes.” Today‚ amidst modernity‚ leadership has been replaced with consensus‚ collaboration‚ and cowardice.  That is to say‚ the Crowd‚ or the Mob. The mob attacks individual free speech and has seized education. Almost 30 years ago‚ Timur Kuran published Private Truths‚ Public Lies. Our freedom of speech is under siege. The problem is far worse now because we have an all-powerful government that controls public universities‚ medicine‚ K-12‚ news media‚ and continuously propagandizes the public. In public‚ many individuals stay silent or lie about their beliefs to avoid criticism. The truth is only shared behind closed doors with trusted friends and relatives. (READ MORE: Accreditation Is a Means of Government Control in Education) My friend Adrian Bejan‚ a Duke University professor and physicist‚ was told by his dad‚ who lived under Romanian communism‚ don’t walk away from the crowd‚ but RUN. In a white paper‚ Soren Kierkegaard states‚ “The Crowd is Untruth.” Anthony Rizzi‚ a physicist‚ and founder of the Institute for Advanced Physics‚ stated‚ the mob must be taught by logical thinkers. It must be countered‚ taught‚ by virtuous leaders. Alexandre Havard‚ author of Virtuous Leadership‚ wrote that bad leaders are not leaders at all; they are manipulators. “Leaders never resort to manipulation … Those who lack genuine authority and succumb to the temptation to exercise unalloyed power are leaders in name only. In fact‚ they are non-leaders (xix).” Jesus is our leader‚ who paid the ultimate price to change the world. Jesus taught us that the only great society is based in Christianity‚ which secular society is trying to destroy. Religious and economic freedom are under assault‚ but there is a cure. The cure is to have “Leading Citizens” — citizens who truly lead — as demonstrated by the likes of Saint Thomas More. That included men like our founders: Jefferson‚ Adams‚ Washington‚ and Franklin. They led as courageous and virtuous leaders and recognized and sought to protect God’s freedom. What we need are true leaders to once again counter the mob.       The post Wanted: Virtuous Leaders‚ Not the Mob appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

America Is Going To Be Targeted For A Massive Terrorist Attack … Will You be Ready?

Arizona Voters Deserve Opportunity to Stop Orwellian Vehicle Miles Tax

States Are Waking Up to the Medicaid Expansion Trap

The Vanishing of the House GOP Majority

The Unconstitutional Undermining of our Constitutional Republic

from The Salty Cracker:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

NEW – MSNBC bans former RNC chair Ronna McDaniel from appearing on the channel — Daily Mail pic.twitter.com/CIyAMGt9Mj — Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 24‚ 2024