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).