Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “President Biden”

Biden’s Act of Political Suicide Is No Surprise

Biden has always been a weak-minded party man or apparatchik, who does what the party and its vocal special interests want or order him to do.

Democrats are hailing President Biden’s decision to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race as an heroic act of statesmanship befitting a man who puts country over self.

“Joe Biden will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents. This last act of sacrifice for his country guarantees it,” tweeted Stanford University Professor Michael McFaul.

McFaul is an otherwise sober-minded Democrat who served as President Obama’s ambassador to Russia. McFaul got a lot right about Russia and Ukraine, but he’s wrong about Biden.

In truth, Biden’s decision to quit the race reflects the fact that he has never been his own man; he has always been a weak-minded party man or apparatchik, who does what the party and its vocal special interests want or order him to do.

This was true in the 1970s, when, National Review reports, Biden embraced segregationist Democratic Senators like “James Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia, both of whom steadfastly opposed racial integration and federal civil-rights protections for African Americans.”

It was true in the 1980s, when Biden supported the Democrats’ nuclear freeze, which would have given the Soviet Union a decisive advantage in its cold war against the United States and Europe.

It was true in the 1990s, when Biden tried to “Bork” or torpedo the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Borking or torpedoing Thomas was demanded by the the legal and feminist left.

It was true in the aughts, when, like most Democrats, Biden opposed The Surge in Iraq.

It was true in the 2010’s when, as Vice President, Biden carried water for Democratic President Barack Obama: by advocating for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq.

Never mind the fact that Obama would later have to send U.S. troops back into Iraq to destroy ISIS or the Islamic State. The party’s “anti-war” demands had to be met and so Biden met them.

And it is true in this decade as president. Biden may have campaigned as a moderate, but he has governed as a leftist or “progressive,” in accordance with the demands of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and the Squad. Thus Biden’s misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act” is really a downpayment on the far left’s Green New Deal.

So it should come as no surprise that now, when confronted with Democratic Party demands that he withdraw from the presidential race because polls show he can’t win, Biden is doing as ordered.

Biden is doing as he has always done: acting in accordance with the demands of the party and the clamoring of its special interests. We should have expected nothing less. At 81 years old Biden was not about to act differently.

Biden can’t be his own man because he has never been his own man. He’s a wholly-owned tool of the Democratic Party and whatever special interests are guiding and directing the party.

Good riddance

Feature photo credit: Biden and Hollywood megastar/Democratic Party big-money fundraiser George Clooney, courtesy of Josh Telles/Getty, published in Deadline.

The Presidential Politics of Biden’s Aversion to Winning in Ukraine and Gaza

George H. W. Bush lost the White House in 1992. Biden’s foreign policy failures are setting him up for a similar election day defeat.

At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, then-Georgia Governor Zell Miller derided President George H.W. Bush as a man who “talks like Dirty Harry but acts like Barney Fife.”

It was a cheap shot and an unfair characterization of President Bush, who had masterfully orchestrated the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union, the liberation of Eastern Europe, and the destruction of the Iraqi Army in Kuwait.

Nonetheless, this colorful charge had political resonance and it helped to sink Bush in the 1992 presidential election, which he lost to Bill Clinton.

But while the charge was unwarranted when leveled against Bush in 1992, it is justified when leveled against Joe Biden in 2024. Biden talks a good game, but lacks policy follow-through. He talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk.

Biden’s policy toward Ukraine and Israel are illustrative examples. Biden talks about the importance of “standing with Ukraine” and “supporting Israel.” He champions the transatlantic alliance.

While commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Normandy invasion, for instance, Biden warned:

Democracy is more at risk across the world than at any point since the end of the World War Two—since these beaches were stormed in 1944.

Now, we have to ask ourselves: Will we stand against tyranny, against evil, against crushing brutality of the iron fist?”

Will we stand for freedom? Will we defend democracy? Will we stand together?

Unfortunately, Biden’s actions don’t match his rhetoric. During World War II, what distinguished the transatlantic alliance was its commitment to winning the war and defeating the Axis powers.

Standing with our allies for freedom was a means to an end, not an end in itself. Yet for Biden, the means (standing with our allies) appears to be the end that he seeks, and winning is never mentioned or really pursued.

In short, Biden lacks the courage of his supposed (rhetorical) convictions. The policy result: self-deterrence and half-measures that undermine our allies, weaken our alliances, and embolden our enemies.

In Ukraine, for instance, Biden has steadfastly refused to allow Ukraine to use American long-range weapon systems, the Army Tactical Missile System (ATAMS), to strike Russian targets within Russia. This has given Russia a coveted sanctuary, or safe base of operations, from which they have repeatedly struck Ukraine civilian and military targets.

Recently, Biden finally and belatedly relented, somewhat. He has allowed Ukraine to strike a very limited number of Russian military sanctuaries within Russia. However, he did this only after the Ukrainian military risked being overrun and forced to cede significant territory, cities and population centers to Russia.

Even today, the Institute for the Study of War notes that Biden’s policy change “has reduced the size of Russia’s ground sanctuary by only 16 percent at maximum.” In other words, 84 percent of Russian sanctuaries remain off limits to the Ukrainian military.

Israel, too, has seen its hands tied by Biden, who has threatened to withhold military assistance if Israel pushes too far too fast in its effort to destroy Hamas. Biden has sought a diplomatic solution to the conflict that will appease both Israel and Hamas.

But as Matthew Continetti points out:

The war in Gaza won’t end with another ceasefire or food package or humanitarian pier. The war will end when Israel completes its task of destroying Hamas as a military force… America’s role in this task is to help our ally Israel by supplying military aid and assistance…

The problem with Biden’s aversion to winning in Ukraine and Gaza is that it is prolonging these horrific conflicts and giving America’s enemies, Russia and Hamas, reason to think they can win by outlasting us.

China and Iran, meanwhile, are watching and taking note. Does the United States lack the will to win? Will it tire of the fight? Is it a dependable ally? How committed is it, really, to the so-called rules based international order? Can it be forced to back down if bloodied?

Unfortunately, because of Biden’s weak and tepid foreign policy—because of his reluctance to articulate and implement a winning strategy in both Ukraine and Gaza—the answers to these questions are not reassuring. Deterrence is failing and Biden is courting further war and conflict as a result.

The president needs to take a page from his hero, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who committed himself to the “unconditional surrender” of Germany and Japan during World War II.

Only by winning in Ukraine and Gaza can Biden win reelection in 2024. Otherwise, like President Bush in 1992, he’s going down.

Feature photo credit: Presidents George H. W. Bush and Joe Biden, courtesy of the White House and PBS, respectively.

What the Korean War Can Teach Us about Ending Russia’s War on Ukraine

In Ukraine, President Biden is drawing exactly the wrong lessons from President Truman’s mishandling of the Korean War in 1951.

Opponents of American aid to Ukraine often tout the Korean War as a model for ending the war in Ukraine. The United States, it is argued, wisely refrained from “escalating” in Korea, instead signing an armistice that ended the conflict, thus allowing for a cold but endurable peace.

The Communists retained control of North Korea, but failed to achieve their objective of conquering all of Korea.

In the same way, argue the opponents of American aid to Ukraine, Russia should be allowed to retain control of Crimea, the Donbas, and other parts of southeastern Ukraine nominally or firmly in its control.

This will allow a free, sovereign, and independent Ukraine to coexist alongside Russian-occupied Ukraine—just as free, sovereign, and independent South Korea has coexisted for decades alongside Communist North Korea.

Then and only then, they insist, can the war end and peace be realized or achieved.

In fact, the Korean War is instructive to American policymakers, but not in the ways that opponents of American aid to Ukraine think.

The Korean War is an example of American self-deterrence that needlessly prolonged the war and the horrific human cost of that war. The United States eschewed a relatively quick victory for a bloody and prolonged stalemate or tie.

For this reason, the Korean War is a cautionary tale of what America should not do when aiding and abetting a country fighting for its survival against a tyrannical foe.

For starters, the war dragged on for three long, inconclusive, and interminable years in which American casualties mounted. Why? Because U.S. President Harry Truman refused to pursue victory out of a misguided fear of “escalation” and “World War III.”

Truman and Biden. Most historians today laud Truman’s caution and restraint in Korea—just as most observers today laud Biden’s caution and restraint in Ukraine. But Truman was wrong then and Biden is wrong today.

Truman is seen as wise because he is juxtaposed against U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who failed to anticipate the Chinese intervention in Korea, and whose insubordination and bellicosity subsequently resulted in his dismissal by Truman.

Biden, likewise, is seen as wise because he is juxtaposed against Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Putin and his henchmen often intimate that he might use nuclear weapons. Zelensky, meanwhile, is constantly beseeching Biden to send Ukraine more and more advanced weapons.

For this reason, Biden is often seen as wiser and more sober-minded than Putin and Zelensky. Truman, too, is typically remembered as more rational and level-headed than MacArthur.

Limited or Total War? But the choice between a prolonged war of indecision on the one hand and a global nuclear conflagration on the other hand is a silly and fallacious choice that did not exist then and does not exist now.

“Between the extremes of Truman’s restraint and the possibility of global war,” write Rep. Michael Gallagher (R-Wisconsin) and Aaron MacLean, “numerous options existed.

Truman’s decision to renounce nuclear threats and to restrict combat operations to Korea and its airspace prolonged the war and, paradoxically, extended the period in which it could have escalated.

In truth, shortly after MacArthur had been relieved of his command by Truman on Apr. 11, 1951, the United States was well on its way to routing the Chinese and North Koreans, reuniting the Korean peninsula, and ending the war with Korea wholly free and intact.

However, Truman and his military appointees on the Joint Chiefs of Staff put the kibosh on Lieutenant General James Van Fleet’s May 28, 1951, request “for a major offensive into North Korea to complete the destruction of the Chinese Armies,” reports Robert B. Bruce in Army History magazine (Winter 2012).

Instead of military victory, the United States pursued a negotiated solution in Korea and thus gave Communist forces a sanctuary in North Korea. As a result, the war dragged on for two more long years and at a horrific human cost.

In Ukraine, Biden, too, has called for a negotiated solution, while deliberately withholding from Ukraine advanced weapons—including, for instance, long-range precision artillery, tanks, jets, and aircraft, which would allow the Ukrainians to more quickly and aggressively attack Russian positions and drive Russian forces out of Ukraine.

Biden also has refused to use U.S. air and naval forces to safeguard the shipment of Ukrainian grain through the Black Sea. The reason: he fears “escalation” and “World War III.”

But in truth, Russia is exhausted militarily and is in no position to “escalate” its war on Ukraine.

Sure, Russia has nuclear weapons, but the use of tactical or battlefield nukes serves no military purpose and gives Russia no battlefield edge other than shock value.

Korea 1951. And the same was true of Chinese and North Korean forces in June 1951. They were exhausted, militarily, and did not even possess nuclear weapons. Russia, a North Korean ally and supporter, did have nuclear weapons, but in numbers dwarfed by the United States.

Moreover, although Russian leader Joseph Stalin conceived of the Korean War as a way to expand Communist influence and control, internationally, Russia was not directly involved in the Korean War and had no intention of becoming involved, as its focus was on Europe.

Ironically, as Gallagher and MacLean note, the Korean War ended only when former World War II Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected president (in 1952) and “contemplated and discussed the possibility of escalation, even approving the development of war plans that involved the use of nuclear weapons.”

Then, too, Stalin died on Mar. 5, 1953. This was significant because Stalin was the foremost obstacle to peace in Korea. He had “insisted that the war continue despite the misgivings of Chinese and North Korean leaders,” writes Mark Kramer.

Putin, likewise, is the foremost obstacle to peace in Ukraine. Thus his death, resulting in regime change in Russia, certainly would greatly enhance the prospects of a peace agreement.

The bottom line: President Truman’s mismanagement of the Korean War 72 years ago does, indeed, hold lessons for President Biden as he manages the war in Ukraine today. But those lessons teach Biden what not to do.

Unfortunately, our president is drawing the exact opposite conclusion and the result is a needlessly prolonged war of indecision at a horrific human cost to innocent Ukrainians.

One of the chief lessons of the Korean War is that the fear of “escalation” against a weak and exhausted military enemy is a catastrophic mistake. In truth, the risk of “escalation” rises if the war is allowed to drag on and the enemy is permitted to regroup.

Ditto “World War III”. That was not a realistic concern in 1951 and it is not a realistic concern today, in 2023. However, by allowing the North Korean regime to survive, Truman increased the risk of World War III significantly in the intervening decades.

Likewise, in Ukraine. If Russia is not clearly and explicitly defeated, militarily, and expelled from all of Ukraine, it will regroup and resume its fight in Ukraine at a later date when it is better prepared. “World War III” then becomes more likely.

In short, there is no substitute for victory and there is no reason not to pursue victory. That was true in Korea 1951 and it is true in Ukraine 2023.

Feature photo credit: President Biden (L), courtesy of the Associated Press and President Harry S. Truman (R), courtesy of Harry S. Truman Library and Museum, published in NPR.

No Reason to Delay Providing Ukraine with Patriot Missile Defense

Send American soldiers into Ukraine to standup and operate the Patriot missile defense system.

The Biden administration’s pending decision to send Ukraine a Patriot missile defense system encapsulates everything that is right and wrong about its policy vis-à-vis Ukraine.

The Biden administration is doing the right thing, but belatedly, reactively, and inadequately—and with catastrophic consequences because of its dithering and delay.

Providing Ukraine with a Patriot missile defense system is obviously the right thing to do. The Patriot is a defensive weapons system that will protect innocent Ukrainians against horrific Russian war crimes.

Russia is deliberately targeting Ukrainian residential building and civilian infrastructure.

The Patriot will enable Ukraine to intercept Russian missiles while they are airborne, well before they can slaughter innocent, men, women and children—and well before they can cripple Ukraine’s electrical grids and power supply.

Delay. The problem is: it will be months before the Patriot arrives in country. In the meantime, Russia continues to wage war against innocent civilians.

Why the delay? Because it will take months to train Ukrainians to operate the system, and the Biden administration won’t send American troops into Ukraine to operate the Patriot. That would risk “provoking Putin” don’t you know, and we can’t have that.

This is ludicrous and makes no sense. Protecting innocent Ukrainian civilians is hardly a provocation; it is humanitarian mission and clearly the right thing to do.

Putin can protest all he wants; but he knows, and the world knows, that shooting missiles out of the sky to save lives is not at all analogous to targeting Russian soldiers.

Conflict Deescalation. In fact, deploying the Patriot to Ukraine is a deescalatory measure, not an escalatory measure.

The Patriot is designed to contain and minimize the horrific costs of war. President Biden needs to recognize this and overcome his timid approach to aiding Ukraine.

His timidity is needlessly prolonging the war and worsening the horrific costs of war for those who can least bear it: innocent Ukrainian civilians.

Moreover, the need for a missile defense system in Ukraine was obvious within the first few months of the war. Russian military attacks on civilian targets have occurred habitually throughout the conflict. Yet only now is the Biden administration thinking about providing Ukraine with a Patriot missile defense system.

Predictably and sadly, this administration’s approach all along has been the proverbial day late and a dollar short. The truth is, this administration never expected Ukraine to succeed and has been forced to play catchup every single step of the way.

Act Now. Now is the time for Team Biden to get ahead of the curve for once. The administration should overcome its fear and timidity and immediately send an American military team into Ukraine to standup and operate a Patriot missile defense system.

The risk to our soldiers would be minimal, and relatively few soldiers would be required to standup and operate the system. We’re talking hundreds, not thousands, of soldiers.

Within several months, after Ukrainians have been fully trained on how to operate the system, the U.S. team can leave.

There is no reason to dither and delay. Do the right thing and do it now.

Feature photo credit. Another civilian target destroyed by a planned Russian military attack, courtesy of Ukrainska Pravda.

Biden Is Getting Undeserved Credit for Ukraine

By needlessly withholding from Ukraine crucial and much-needed weapon systems, Biden is prolonging the war and perpetuating the suffering of innocent Ukrainian civilians targeted by the Russian war machine.

President Biden is getting unwarranted credit for navigating between two dangerous and alternate policy options in Ukraine: diplomatic appeasement or military escalation, betray Ukraine or risk a wider-scale war with Russia, accommodate Putin or give in to Zelensky.

“The Biden administration has tried to strike a balance between strong military support for Ukraine and avoiding anything that might trigger a direct Russian-American conflict,” reports Washington Post foreign policy columnist David Ignatius.

But this is attempt to strike a balance is utterly misguided because there is no reason to think that more robust U.S. military aid would somehow “provoke Putin” into a suicidal attack on the United States or NATO.

In the meantime, the absence of critical weapon systems in the hands of the Ukrainians serves only to prolong the war and the suffering.

Nuclear Weapons. In truth, it is Vladimir Putin and Russia that have every reason to fear a wider-scale war with the West, given that they are vastly outmatched, militarily and economically, by the United States and NATO.

And Russian nuclear weapons do not change or alter this overwhelming, one-sided imbalance.

Nuclear weapons obviously can inflict horrific civilian and collateral damage, but they are not a military game-changer in Ukraine; far from it. And, diplomatically, Putin’s use of nukes would be the ultimate act of self-sabotage.

“He would lose his Chinese patrons; he would terrify his own population; and he would plunge his country into economic isolation of cryogenic ferocity,” explains former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

For these reasons, the risk of nuclear war, or “World War III,” has been vastly exaggerated by the president and his media cheerleaders to make Biden administration policy choices seem better and wiser than they actually are.

As Johnson points out: a nuclear war “isn’t going to happen. We should stop talking about it,” because it serves only to promote Russian fear-mongering.

Russia’s “constant, repetitive nuclear signaling, which long predates the current war,” writes Anne Applebaum, “has a purpose: to make NATO countries afraid to defend Poland, afraid to defend Ukraine, and afraid to provoke or anger Russia in any way at all.”

“The off-and-on talk coming out of Moscow about using nuclear weapons is largely just that—talk,” add Eric S. Edelman and David J. Kramer. “It is consistent with long-standing Russian ideas of ‘reflexive control’ and is meant to deter the West from providing further assistance to Ukraine.”

America Deterred. Unfortunately, loose Russian talk about “nuclear war” has succeeded in deterring the Biden administration from providing Ukraine with more advanced weapon systems that would hasten the end of the war and relieve the suffering of innocent Ukrainian civilians.

The United States, for instance, refuses to provide Ukraine with ATACMS, the Army Tactical Missile System, that would allow Ukraine to strike much deeper into Russian tactical formations, but at a safer standoff distance.

“The Ukrainians need longer-range weapons,” notes Max Boot. The High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) that they now have has a range of about 45 miles versus 190 miles for ATACMS.

“Why no airplanes?  Why no advanced tanks?” asks Applebaum. “Because the White House, the German government, and other governments are afraid that one of these weapons would cross an invisible red line and inspire a nuclear retaliation by Russia.”

Misplaced Western fear, she adds, “also shapes tactics.

Why don’t the Ukrainians more often target the military bases or infrastructure on Russian territory that are being used to attack them? Because Ukraine’s Western partners have asked its leaders not to do so, for fear, again, of escalation.

But again, this fear is misplaced given the correlation of forces between Russia and NATO.

What the president should fear is that if the war drags on because of his reticence to fully arm Ukraine, popular support in the West will dissipate and more innocent Ukrainians will be killed as a result.

“I’ve just spent a fascinating few days in Ukraine,” tweets Luke Coffey.

The Ukrainians will win. How long this victory takes will be decided by USA. The sooner we give Ukraine long-range fires, more 155mm rounds, main battle tanks and F-16s, the faster the war will be over.

The bottom line: President Biden deserves credit for supporting Ukraine militarily, but not for withholding crucial weapon systems because he fears “provoking Putin” and starting “World War III.”

These fears never made any sense and they are needlessly prolonging the war and the suffering of innocent Ukrainians. The sooner Ukraine wins the war by reclaiming all of its lost territory, including Crimea, the better off all nations will be.

President Biden can ensure that this happens by fully arming Ukraine. Now.

Feature photo credit: Presidents Biden and Zelensky, courtesy of Maldives News Network.