No alternative to complete and total victory

In my opinion, there are two ways to approach a war: diplomatically and militarily.

Also in my opinion, wars are the result of failed diplomacy.  There is no alternative to victory.

We all know that Henry Kissinger was a brilliant secretary of state and diplomat.  My problem is that he also was under the powerful sway and influence  of the Rockefeller family.  They were his main sponsor.

Therefore, my problem with Kissinger is that he was German, and Germans are familiar with losing wars.  Kissinger, in my opinion, did not understand that Americans are not used to losing.  We were always a “wining” society until Kissinger came upon the scene.

Tragically, Kissinger and lawyers were allowed to slowly seep into the diplomatic management of wars.  Consequently, America no longer seeks to end wars.  We have become willing to walk off the battlefield as “losers.”  I submit the Vietnam debacle as my evidence.  We succumbed to the commentary of an influential news broadcaster the war was unwinnable when, in fact, we were near victory.  This was subsequently verified by the leader of the Viet Cong military.

I find the management of the Vietnam War unacceptable.

Diplomats do not have a flicker of knowledge that is militarily oriented.  They are trained in debating, in verbal solutions, and there is a place for debate.  Yes, talk first — and then, if the results are undesirable, resort to military power.

To make matters even worse, when you have a president, like Obama or Biden, who is incompetent in both areas, you have where we are today.  Telegraph weakness, and you most likely will inspire and receive what you wish to avoid.  

Biden’s broadcast of weakness has allowed Iran to operate through surrogates.  Why?  Because  he allowed Iran to be in a position to finance them.  His weakness has also allowed Iran to become more bellicose, to develop their nuclear program and place the world on the brink of what he professes he wanted to avoid: a nuclear confrontation and an existential threat to Israel.

Now Biden has allowed himself a single-word retort: “don’t.”  Apparently, based on reports, Iran may not be listening, and other reports suggest that Iran may be within three days of making a bomb in its underground Fordor facility, from which U.N. investigators have been barred.

Meanwhile, Biden has allowed Hamas to play Israel and Bibi as a yo-yo while Biden plays the violin.

Israel’s response to the Gaza War has evolved into two narrowed approaches.  On the one hand, Ehud Olmert, Israel’s previous P.M., believes that the hostage rescue takes precedence.  Any continuance of Bibi’s desire to take out remaining Hamas divisions and their leader, Sinwar, will result in needless Palestinian and IDF deaths, turning the world, even more, against Israel and causing a widening rift between America and Israel.

Bibi’s position is a willingness to make a hostage swap along disproportionate lines and cease the war, for a reasonable period, but he wants to finish the elimination of Hamas’s ability as a terrorist functioning military establishment.

My view is that that Hamas cannot deliver the 40 Israeli hostages supposedly being swapped, and the cessation of the war has already caused tremendous repercussions, and a restart is emotionally, mentally, and physically difficult.

Furthermore, Olmert disregards the impact of allowing Hamas to claim a military victory over Israel and how that claim might impact the Abraham Accord signatories — who, so far, have remained loyal and hung tough — along with the Saudis’ desire to ultimately enlist.  Why?  Because dependence upon Israel’s status, as the region’s military Goliath, is what unites them, along with potential commercial and scientific advances and interests that initiated their willingness to sign the agreement.

Stay tuned, as Iran’s threat remains a disruptive potential “black swan.”  Yesterday’s capture of a ship by Iranians just occurred.

Pxfuel.

” captext=”

Image via Pxfuel.