Friday, May 20, 2011

Something You May Have Missed - Obama Tells Israel Not To Count On The US In Wartime

Ed Morrissey caught something in Obama's speech you may have missed. Along with everything else, Obama essentially said yesterday that the US would not be coming to Israel’s aid if they have to defend themselves as we have before..that they were on their own as far as he's concerned.

"As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat."

Remember, this speech was broadcast all over the world in English, Arabic and Farsi, and every word was scrutinized and tweezed in advance by the president and his speechwriters. President Barack Hussein Obama just informed Israel's enemies that America no longer has Israel's back.

please helps me write more gooder!


B.Poster said...

While it may be true that America has come to Israel's aid in the past, it is also true that America has acted to restrain Israel when it could have delivered its enemies a crushing blow. The best way for Israel to defend itself by itself would be for America to get out of the way!!

If this means the US will no longer be meddling in Israel's affairs this will be a good thing. Unfortunately with Obama and the American government this is probably not what is meant by this statement.

With all of this in mind we would have to go back to some time prior to WWII to come to a time when America was weaker relative to its adversaries and potential adversaries than it is right now. As such, America's words don't mean as much or carry the clout that they once did.

Frankly, if America will get out of the way, this would be the best case scenario for Israel. As it is right now, there is very little in the way of material assistance we would be able to offer Israel any way. Given the nature of this conflict and the state of our military we would be just be in the way.

We have plenty of problems of our own especially along our borders and with our economy right now. Involving ourselves in the Isreli/Arab conflict is counterproductive right now.

In the Holy Scriptures, God promises to bless those who would bless the descendants of Abraham and to curse those who curse his descendents. The best way we can "bless" the Jews who are the descendants of Abraham would be to get out of their way!!

Anonymous said...

Sorry, my memory must be failing me. When did the US ever cover Israel's back? I seem to have forgotten US troops coming to help Israel against enemy attack? Was it 1948? 1956? 1967? Lebanon? Gaza? Intifada?

Freedom Fighter said...

The US was not an ally of Israel and supplied no major arms to them until Richard Nixon became president, but try 1973, Anonymous.

During the Yom Kippur War, Israel was caught by surprise and desperately needed to replenish their armaments.

The US JCS were dithering because our European allies refused to let US planes with supplies for Israel land or use their airspace.

President Nixon found out about it and personally demanded that Israel get the supplies it needed immediately, so Operation Nickelgrass was put together which involved a risky and difficult amount of mid-air refueling. The supplies got through.

Not only that,but when the Soviets threatened to become openly involved, Nixon and Kissinger told them in no uncertain terms that we would respond with our own troops if necessary.

The US, up until this administration, has had Israel's back in the UN and has always supplied it with the armaments it needs. GW Bush gave Olmert all kinds of JDAMs and other supplies for the Lebanon War, and the change in the Bush Administration towards Israel in Bush's second term dates from Olmert's farcical conduct of that war and his failure to take out Hezbollah.

Obama, of course, is an entirely different case.


B.Poster said...

"Not only that but when the Soviets threatened to become openly involved, Nixon and Kissenger told them in no uncertain terms that we would respond with our own troops if necessary." Back in 1973 the Soviets would have easily won any conventional war with the United States. If I know this, then Nixon, Kissenger, and all of the generals knew this as well. Perhaps the US threatend to go nuclear in this instance. Maybe the Soviets decided it wasn't that important to them.

Today with US conventional forces weaker relative to adversaries and potential adversaries than it was in 1973 the lopsided conventional Russian edge that existed in 1973 is even bigger today. Also, the US has allowed its nuclear deterent to erode. The Russians and others have increased their nuclear weapons capabilities. As such, America's nuclear deterent is problematic at best right now.

The US did supply Israel with some weapons during the Lebanon war. Unfortunately with America's military further depleted now than it was then those types of weapons are not available to be supplied to Israel or anyone else for that matter. Furthermore the ability to manufacture them in the needed quantities within the needed time frame is not possible right now. This is partly why Israel will have to defend itself by itself. The US is barely capable of even defending its own homeland right now.

How exactly was Olmert's conduct of the Lebanon war "farcical?" At the moment the Lebanon war began, I pointed out, correctly, that Israel would need a minimum of six months to properly take out Hezbollah and that would be if EVERRY THING went perfectly. Most likely Israel would need at least nine months and possibly as long as a year to properly do the job.

As a permanent member of the UNSC a proper role for the US would have been to run interference in this entity for the duration of time it took Israel to do the job. As I point out above, under the most rosy scenario that would take six months and at least one year should have been planned for. Alas, Isreal only got a month to do a job that was going to probably take at least a year to do!! The "farcical" thing was the US agreeing to the UN brokered "cease fire."

As for something "farcical", how about invading Iraq with only 140,000 or so troops? The US should stop meddling in things it doesn't understand and is not capable of solving. This is especaily of paramount importance when we consider the massive problems of its own the US has.

"During the Yom Kippur war Israel was caught by surprise and desparetly needed to replinish their armaments." While the US did help Israel here, at the end didn't the US act to prevent Israel form achieving a complete victroy? Israel likely would have won without our help but it might have taken longer and been more costly, at least in the short to mid term. The benefits of being free of our meddling would have more than offset any benefits received from Operation Nickel Grass.

Also, the US military in its current state does not have the available planes, weapons, weapons systems, the trained pilots, and other skilled personnel to be able to carry out something like Operation Nickel Grass today. If Israel were to actually need something like that today we don't have the capability to do it nor could we acquire such capabilities within the time frame that would be needed for such an operation ot have a positive benefit.

These are differnt times than in 1973. As such, the solutions to these problems for both America and Israel will likely be different than the ones that were used in 1973.

Freedom Fighter said...

Respectfully, I'm afraid as always you have an assessment of Soviet/Russian military capability then and now that isn't supported by reality.


B.Poster said...


My assessments of the strenght of Russia, other adversaries, and potenial adversaries of America may be slightly off, however, you and some others are making two critical mistakes. 1.) You are overestimating the strength of America. 2.) You are underestimating the strength of Russia, other American and adveraries, and potential adversaries.

These errors lead to errors in proposed policies for our national security interests and our economic interests. Since my assessments while possibly not "supported by reality" are much closer to reality than yours are, the solutions I've proposed elsewhere on this site and in many other places have a much better chance of actually working than what you propose.

While what I've proposed is not guaranteed to work, at least it gives us a fighting chance to defend our country and to grow our economy. The current policies our government is perusing and what you porpose can only lead to disaster.

That is UNLESS God should choose to intervene on our behalf. That could happen. I'm pretty sure its happened before in American history. Hopefully we still have enough people who are dilegently seeking him for this to happen.