Ending the War Will Require Force | Shield of the Republic

Nick Kristoff's New York Times article on alleged Israeli sexual war crimes is heavily criticized for relying on a source (Eurommed Human Rights Monitor) whose chairman is designated as a Hamas operative and for unsubstantiated claims, such as Israelis training dogs to rape Palestinians. This type of reporting, even when legitimate abuses exist, makes it easier for those who wish to whitewash all misconduct to dismiss credible allegations.

Kristoff's article cites Eurommed Human Rights Monitor, whose chairman, Ramy Abdu, posted pro-Hamas rhetoric after October 7th. The claim about 'rape dogs' was sourced to medical journals on bestiality, not actual military practices.

The Department of Defense, particularly the US Army, is experiencing severe financial and operational mismanagement. This includes wasted funds on National Guard deployments and border operations, and an inability to secure critical munitions contracts. This disarray is exacerbated by political attacks on competent officials, hindering efforts to remedy the problems.

The US Army is about to run out of money due to wasted funds on National Guard deployments and border troops. NBC reported the department's inability to secure needed munitions. Trump's attack on Robert Karem, a senior aid to Mitch McConnell, for trying to fix defense funding issues, is cited as symptomatic.

When confronted with intelligence leaks, a critical approach is necessary. The hosts propose four questions: 1) 'Quibono?' (Who benefits from the leak?), 2) What is the source's reliability? (Did the reporter see the full document or rely on hearsay?), 3) Does it pass the 'common sense' test? (Does the interpretation align with logical outcomes, e.g., 27,000 strikes doing 'nothing'?), and 4) How are the words parsed? (e.g., 'access to sites' doesn't mean operational capability).

Applied to a leaked report suggesting Iran could access 30 of 33 missile sites, the hosts question the leak's motive, the reporter's access to raw intelligence, the common sense of minimal impact after extensive strikes, and the precise meaning of 'access' versus 'operational'.

Addressing the Iranian threat necessitates a long-term strategy focused on undermining the current regime and a willingness to use force to secure vital international interests. This involves aiding Iranian civilians with communication tools and supporting politically active groups to foster internal change, while also being prepared to militarily ensure the free passage through the Strait of Hormuz, accepting potential losses.

Eric Edelman advises a future president to initiate a long-term campaign to undermine the regime by aiding Iranian civilians with secure communication (Starlink, cell phones) and supporting trade unions. He also states the US must be prepared to open the Strait of Hormuz by force, acknowledging potential ship and life losses.

The Trump-Xi summit yielded divergent readouts, with the US emphasizing Chinese 'agreement' on issues like open straits and nuclear non-proliferation, while China's statement was laconic. This indicates China's likely lip service to US concerns, while strategically benefiting from US military engagement and resource drain in the Middle East, without genuine intent to help.

The US readout claimed Xi agreed on open straits and no Iranian nuclear weapon, which are traditional Chinese positions, not concessions. Trump's claim that Xi promised not to sell military equipment to Iran is contrasted with Xi's past broken promises (e.g., South China Sea militarization) and intelligence reports of China using third-party cutouts to supply Iran.