Harris' position on the Middle East problems

[hntnhole]

22 hours ago, NEDenver said:

“Hey guys, we can embargo Israel and stop giving them weapons,

Well, it's possible, but not without re-negotiating multiple Mutual Defense Treaties we have with Israel, as well as deal with outraged American citizens who would vehemently disagree with that "divorce". 

The Biden Administration would never entertain such a notion, the next Administration is 6 months away, and I doubt a Harris Administration would entertain such an act either.  The region could be reduced to an enormous, smoldering cinder by then.  I doubt many Americans would consider that a very "stand-up" thing to do, considering all the many other MDT's we have around the world.  The US might consider reducing our footprint in other countries in the Middle East, where we have a number garrisons (with US troops) stationed.

For instance, the countries in the Far East we have MDT's with would wet their pants if America did that to Israel; Taiwan and S. Korea first and foremost.  Imagine the European nations response, if we did that.  The American Government would immediately be considered feckless at the very least, and around the world.  

I very, very much doubt that notion would even be entertained by the American Government.  

[NEDenver]

Like, the difference between Israel and SK or Taiwan is that the latter two aren’t indiscriminately killing North Koreans or mainland Chinese people.  I think they can grasp the nuance.  The larger problem is we can satisfy the treaty with boots on the ground instead of weapons.  The US has fewer options than most of my single-issue Palestine voter friends think.

[hntnhole]

On 8/15/2024 at 6:59 AM, NEDenver said:

the latter two aren’t indiscriminately killing North Koreans or mainland Chinese people

That's true.  There isn't a "hot" war in either of those countries either.  

The US has only a handful (about 70) active-service military in Taiwan.  There are around 30,000 US troops stationed in South Korea, and around 30,000 stationed in various garrisons in a number of countries in the Middle East. 

I'm assuming that since Taiwan is separated from China by a decent chunk of the Pacific Ocean, they feel relatively safe, but they still maintain around 170,000 active military, with around 1.5 million in reserve. 

It could be assumed that with those kinds of numbers, the Defense Dept has assumed that Taiwan is more "secure" than S. Korea, and the 30K in the Middle East are enough to at least make Israel's enemies think twice before a substantial attack on Israel.  That figure (30K) is now, of course, supplemented by the recent deployment of US aircraft carriers, troop-transports, etc, so at present there's an expanded US presence in the area.  Whether it does much good or not is yet to be determined.  But, last Thursday came and went - so maybe mass death can be avoided.  I think the US would much rather risk losing ordinance than US lives.  

x = crossed fingers.  

We'll see, I guess.  

Edited August 16 by hntnhole

[topblkmale]

 

Yesterday pagers blew up.

Today its walkie-talkies exploding.

I would caution those guys perhaps in the Middle East or elsewhere cruising truck drivers using CB radios.

 

[hntnhole]

To the OP, I think Harris has been fairly muted in her discussion of the Israel/Hamas issue because she's still the sitting Vice President, and if she has other ideas than what the President has, she's keeping her statements somewhat muted.  That, of course, is entirely appropriate, since she's not President yet - and won't be for a few more months (x=crossed fingers).  

The sitting VP can't be seen/heard to be at substantial variance with the President's policies.  If she's our next President, I'm guessing that she'll announce some very different policies for the area, and relatively quickly, which hopefully won't include Netanyahu. 

I see him as just another trumpette - concerned only with saving his own skin, to the detriment of whoever disagrees with his policies. 

Interestingly. while Israeli elections can be called whenever it's appropriate, they can't be called when the "War Cabinet" is in session.  The War Cabinet is a handful of hardnosed generals, politicians, that are aligned in their views with the PM.  This contrivance is what's protecting him presently, and it's been months since Bennie Ganz quit the W.C. in disgust.  When the day comes though, I think Ganz has a great chance to become PM - if he'll accept it.  

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

The sitting VP can't be seen/heard to be at substantial variance with the President's policies.  

Particularly for foreign affairs. It's one thing to put out a domestic policy agenda that will differ from, or go beyond, what Biden has put in place - that's internal to the US. But as a nation we need to speak with one voice (Trump's constant interference with foreign affairs not withstanding). 

[hntnhole]

On 9/19/2024 at 8:07 PM, BootmanLA said:

as a nation we need to speak with one voice

Of course.  

As I see it though, the crux of the issue is yet another two-faced pol mouthing one thing, but doing something quite different.  These past few days, Israel has advanced the chances of general war exponentially (the radios, walkie-talkies), to the point that there's a distinct possibility we could see a repeat of 1978.  With no noticeable progress in the negotiations, and overt aggression on both sides, Israel's main, most important ally should indeed speak with only one voice.  

With the looming elections in the US however, I don't see how both sides in the current trouble can be equally handled.  We have substantial populations of both sides residing/voting in a few weeks, and apparently the margins are razor thin (with Harris rising and SH receding).  While there are roughly twice as many Jewish folks than Palestinian, both are important to each candidate.  Stupidmouth does himself no favors with his inane spewings, and Harris simply can't be seen to stray too far from the President's policy. 

It's possible though, that as the situation deteriorates, someone close to her campaign could make "surrogate" statements without her actually doing it.  Not the best by any stretch, but it might work to make her positions less hazy.  

The anniversary of the initial rampage is close upon us, and I anticipate something deleterious soon.  Somehow, these two groups of folks have to want this shit to end, and in some equitable way.  At present, I think the only hope of degrading the war fever resides in Tehran, in the fear that if a general war breaks out, Iran would get nuked.  

One thing I wonder is, where on Earth are they going to put all that junk - the destroyed buildings, infrastructure, mega-tons of it - before they can start to rebuild.  Maybe divide the junk in two - make one tower of it in Israel and one in Palestine - so coming generations of residents can see what happens when hard-headed politicians exercise their hatreds of each other, and maybe learn to support each other, rather than murder each other forever.

For all our troubles in the US, at least we're trying to deal with our issues without open battles in the streets.  That's at least something - at least for the moment, anyway.