{"id":99763,"date":"2024-02-02T21:21:31","date_gmt":"2024-02-03T03:21:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=99763"},"modified":"2024-02-02T21:21:31","modified_gmt":"2024-02-03T03:21:31","slug":"99763","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=99763","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

A Lack of Deterrence Leads to More American Deaths.<\/a><\/p>\n

President Biden, and his Secretary of Defense have announced a major change in US policy: As a result of the Iranian attack on Tower 22 that killed three U.S. soldiers and wounded scores more,\u00a0they are going to begin protecting US troops<\/strong>! Don\u2019t believe me? Here it is from the horse\u2019s mouth at Secretary Austin\u2019s February 1 press conference: \u201cThe President will not tolerate attacks on American troops, and neither will I.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

Well, that\u2019s a relief, isn\u2019t it? After tolerating attacks on American troops since . . . oh, about January 20, 2021, we now have a dramatic change in policy. We have gone from \u201cDon\u2019t, don\u2019t, don\u2019t<\/em>!\u201d to \u201cWe are not going to tolerate this anymore, but we don\u2019t want a wider war.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

But, do they mean it, or is it more pablum to placate the masses? Read on and judge for yourself.<\/p>\n

BIDEN\u2019S PRIOR POLICY OF TOLERATION, WEAKNESS AND APPEASEMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

Biden true believers may claim that this is not a change in policy, that his administration really has\u00a0not<\/strong>\u00a0been tolerating attacks on our troops. To test that, we should do as Richard Nixon\u2019s Attorney General, John Mitchell, advised: Look at what they have done, not what they say. What they have done is tolerate the more than 200 attacks on our troops that have occurred on Biden watch without any kind of meaningful response. And don\u2019t fall into the trap of accepting just the lowball statistics by counting only the 160+ attacks since October 7, 2023,\u00a0as the press has been doing<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In fact, there have been far more attacks on our troops than the press is now reporting. Between the time of Biden\u2019s inauguration and up to October 7, attacks on our troops in Iraq and Syria were commonplace. General Jack Keane\u00a0pegs it at 80<\/a>\u00a0from published reports.\u00a0 But that figure is low because during this administration, attacks on our forces became so commonplace that all of them were not reported in the press. They have included attacks by fire using 107 mm and 122 mm rockets, as well as UAV (drone)-delivered munitions. And although it is not widely known or reported, our forces also have been targeted with\u00a0cluster munitions<\/a>. Disgracefully, our troops on the ground enduring these attacks have not been allowed to engage in any meaningful response.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Moreover, the January 28 casualties were not the first Americans killed in these attacks. A military contractor was killed, and another was wounded, along with five service members in a March 2023 attack on a US base in Syria. Many of the wounded have suffered traumatic brain injuries, which can leave them totally debilitated.<\/p>\n

So, is it fair to say that Biden tolerated these attacks? The best evidence that they have been tolerated is that, in the absence of a strong response by the U.S., they have continued. Further, judge for yourself from Biden\u2019s actions, not his words: Billions of dollars to Iran; loosened and unenforced economic sanctions, a series of sporadic, periodic pinprick attacks on warehouses, storage depots, and the like; and more talk, talk, talk.<\/p>\n

However the administration might attempt to characterize its retaliatory strikes, no sane or knowledgeable person would describe them as \u201coverwhelming force.\u201d That is, in itself, a demonstration of tolerance for the attacks. That is because it is a military axiom that if you have the capability to respond to an attack \u2013 and we do \u2013 you do so with overwhelming force. This administration is afraid to do so.<\/p>\n

The Biden administration actually bragged about its refusal to use overwhelming force in response to attacks on our troops. They repeatedly emphasized that the counterstrikes were \u201cfocused\u201d and \u201cproportional.\u201d They did not and cannot point to the use of any decisive or overwhelming force sufficient to deter further attacks.<\/p>\n

THE RESPONSE TO THE ATTACKS AFTER OCTOBER 7 \u2013 MORE TOLERATION<\/strong><\/p>\n

Even after our three soldiers\u2019 lives were abruptly taken while they were sleeping on January 28, Biden\u2019s and his entire administration\u2019s initial response reinforced their prior signals of weakness. \u00a0Reuters reported<\/a>, \u201cBut officials across the Biden administration said they did not want the situation to escalate<\/em>.\u201d It quoted Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh as saying, \u201cWe certainly don’t seek a war and frankly we don’t see Iran wanting to seek a war with the United States.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

According to\u00a0CNN<\/a>, \u201cStriking Iran is one of the least likely options at this point, officials said. Biden officials said repeatedly on Monday that the US does not want to go to war with Iran, which would be the likely outcome of a US strike within Iran\u2019s borders<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

NSC Communications Coordinator John Kirby\u2019s first reaction was to fly the weakness flag. He parroted the Biden theme when he\u00a0said<\/a>, \u201cWe do not seek another war. We do not seek to escalate.\u201d “We are not seeking a conflict with the regime in a military way<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

The President and his most senior advisors\u2019 projection of weakness tells our enemies that they can press on.\u00a0 No one wants a wider war. No one wants a war with Iran (or anyone else). But when Biden repeatedly puts his emphasis on avoiding any possibility of escalation or a war with Iran, what the Mullahs hear is: \u2018This man is weak and lacks the will to fight.\u2019 It is a prescription for more attacks and more U.S. deaths.<\/p>\n

In short, Biden\u2019s and his handlers\u2019 constant refrain that, \u201cWe don\u2019t want a wider war<\/em>\u201d and \u201cWe are not looking for conflict with Iran,\u201d\u00a0<\/em>is a clear projection of weakness, not power. Contrast, if you will, their displays of fear with the warning that Marine General Jim Mattis famously gave a gathering of sheikhs when he first arrived in Al-Anbar province: \u201cI come in peace. I didn\u2019t bring artillery. But I\u2019m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes:<\/em>\u00a0If you f**k with me, I will kill you all<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

A reminder of President Trump\u2019s\u00a02018 warning to Iran<\/a>\u00a0in the wake of Iran\u2019s threat that a war with it would be the \u201cmother of all wars\u201d is also useful:<\/p>\n

\u201cNEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!\u201d<\/p>\n

These were not the words of a weak man who was afraid of Iran.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n
THE WIDER WAR IS HERE AND IT IS WITH IRAN.<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/form>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

No one wants a wider war. But guess what \u2013 The enemy gets a vote, and we\u00a0already<\/em>\u00a0are in a wider war.\u00a0 It currently is blazing from southern Lebanon, down throughout Israel, into Gaza, to the Gulf of Aden, and now to Jordan.<\/p>\n

And we don\u2019t want a war with Iran? News flash, Joe.\u00a0 We have been in an on-and-off low grade war with Iran since 1979 when it seized our embassy diplomats and staff and held them prisoner for 444 days. Iran then swiftly became a terrorist state. The war heated up in 2004, when our troops in Iraq were getting killed daily by sophisticated shaped-charge explosive devices manufactured by Iran and supplied to their allies who were attacking us. And it has been going on continuously while Obama and now Biden have tried to cozy up to the Mullahs and Ayatollah Ali Komeini, whom they dutifully call the \u201cSupreme Leader.\u201d<\/p>\n

This latest attack and these deaths were entirely foreseeable. Given the administration\u2019s policy, Biden, Blinken, Austin, and every other person with two brain cells in the administration\u00a0knew<\/em>\u00a0that American service members were going to die. It was only a question of who, when and how many. These deaths are not a surprise to anyone. They are the 100% foreseeable result of a policy of abject appeasement and weakness.<\/p>\n

WHAT DOES DETERRENCE LOOK LIKE?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is beyond the scope of this short article to analyze the best options if the President is serious about deterring future attacks.\u00a0 In the opinion of this author, only regime change will effectively accomplish that. But Obama squandered the best opening to support the internal Iranian desire for regime change in 2009, when he\u00a0refused to support the popular uprisings<\/a>\u00a0and demonstrations against the regime in what was termed the \u201cGreen Movement.<\/p>\n

Two examples of prior U.S. responses that acted as effective deterrents are particularly germane today to illustrate the kind of action that is necessary:<\/p>\n

\n