Gaza, not Hamas, Attacked Israel

QUORA: ‘Does anyone really believe Hamas attacked Israel?

I posted this answer:

I don’t. That’s too simplistic. The truth is much broader than that.

Analysis of the Gaza conflict grossly misses the point. I think that to say Hamas attacked Israel way understates the full truth and understanding needed to fully grasp the magnitude of what actually happened on October 7. Hamas was not merely some criminal enterprise operating in an underworld of a nation governed more or less under the rule of law, like the Mexican Drug Cartels.

The fact is, Hamas was the GOVERNMENT of Gaza. Therefore, it was Gaza, not merely Hamas the terrorist group, that attacked Israel, just as it was the Empire of Japan that attacked the USA in 1941. And just as Japan got what it deserved because of its Imperial Government’s attack on Pearl Harbor, so it is that Gaza is getting what IT deserves in attacking Israel. All of the suffering and destruction and death Gaza residents are enduring is what THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT, not Israel, brought down on them.

It's morally black and white. And it’s not merely about terrorism or anti-Semitism. Israel was the victim of an unimaginably vicious, unprovoked aggression directed at civilian targets (which was arguably morally worse even than Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan at least chose a military target). Israel is now defending itself. Who has the moral high ground? By any rational moral judgment, the defender, Israel—100%.

Israel shouldn't be called on to “cease fire” (i.e. surrender). The world should demand that Hamas unconditionally surrender, just as Japan did. And the world should commit to tracking down and forcing Hama members to answer for their war crimes, along with Hama’s state sponsors, just as the Nazis and Japanese war mongers did. The Gazan War would end immediately, just as WWII did.

[Supplemental, posted 5/15/24]

Some of the comments indicate the need for some clarification of my position. Apparently, I left the impression on some that anything Israel does in response to Oct. 7 is justified. That’s certainly not the case.

Israel is not seeking, and should never seek, revenge. For Israel to become like Hamas would surrender its moral high ground. Israel is fighting a war of self defense, not revenge. It does not target civilians. Its goal is military. When Japan attacked America, President FDR set the goal of his defensive military strategy—Japan’s (and the other Axis Powers’) unconditional surrender. It took Truman’s atomic bombs to reach that goal regarding Japan. Israel has set a goal to destroy Hamas. Just as America’s goal was not to kill civilians but to force Japan’s surrender, so it is Israel’s goal to eliminate the Gazan Hamas threat. As long as Israel sticks to that goal, and its military operations are in service to that legitimate goal, all consequences, including civilian deaths, are not the moral responsibility of Israel, but of Gaza’s Hamas dictatorship.

One commenter states that “Every conflict has to have a limit and a line not crossed?” Why? For what it’s worth, that is the “standard analysis.” But it’s not mine. There is no line that Israel must adhere to that stands in the way of achieving its strategic goal of eliminating the threat to its people, which is any government’s first responsibility. Israel is the victim! Any line prior to securing the safety of its people amounts to the victory of the aggressor, a moral abomination. I do not believe in Just War Theory. The only line that should not be crossed is for any country to attack another unprovoked, a line which Gaza crossed. 

Related Reading:

"Who is morally responsible for the deaths of innocents in Gaza?"

The Morals of the Israel/Hamas War—and the Vindication of Leonard Piekoff

On “War with Iran” After 3 U.S. Soldiers Killed

On “War with Iran” After 3 U.S. Soldiers Killed

The recent un-provoked killing of three U.S. soldiers in Jordan by Iraqi-based Iranian terrorist proxies led to an exchange on Facebook. Without mentioning names, I republish part of the exchange [sic]. The owner of the Facebook page posted:

I don’t understand how anyone can vote for Biden in this upcoming election.   I understand that our choices for President will…most likely…not be good ones.  But…Iran has attacked US installations over 160 times recently. The most recent attack on one in Jordan killed three of our servicemen and injured many others.  And the administration doesn’t want to escalate anything with Iran!  Iran has been at war with the US for decades and the escalation is obvious.  WTH is this president waiting for to protect our troops.

I commented:

The delusion at the White House is astounding. We keep hearing fears of "a wider war," an "escalation of tensions," and such buzzwords. That's the talk of appeasement, and it's leading us in the direction of World War III. I don't think it will get that far. But that's the road our current policies are pointing to.

Another correspondent chimed in:

A war with Iran is not the way to hold them accountable….. another war??? Seriously no. Not the answer and I hope congress sees that as well

The owner replied:

Then what? Continue to let them bomb and kill our soldiers with no recourse?

The commenter reiterated:

there must be other ways to hold them accountable…… to which you and I rest assured know nothing about. But war with them is not the answer here

I replied:

Our policies since WW II of fighting long, dragged-out, no-win wars, capped by Bush’s failed “nation-building” fiascos in Afghanistan and Iraq, have so corrupted our thinking about war that we are reduced to what you are essentially saying—the pathetic belief that the most powerful and moral country in the history of the planet cannot defend itself against a pipsqueak terrorist theocracy that incessantly wages war against us.

You are partly right. Another NO-WIN war is not the answer. Appeasement led to WW II, and an uncompromising Allied policy of unconditional surrender or utter destruction led to lasting peace and prosperity. The crushing of Italy, Germany, and Japan resulted in those nations becoming our allies, friends, and trading partners. They learned their lessons. I’m not a military expert. But I do know that Iran is no Italy, Germany, or Japan. The U.S. can cripple Iran’s economy in hours or days, and neutralize its military, with air power alone. It can be supplemented with massive economic sanctions, enforced by naval blockades and the like. No need for “forward strategy for freedom” or “democracy” campaigns. No need for troops on the ground. Whatever we do, we should make it clear that we will continue to do what’s necessary until the current murderers and criminals ruling Iran are replaced with better political leaders and policies. 

It must be said: The idea that “war with them is not the answer” is a dangerous evasion that leads to a PRO-WAR POLICY OF CONTINUING APPEASEMENT. We ARE at war with Iran—and have been since 1979. They know it. It’s time for us to acknowledge it as well, and act accordingly. Imagine a peaceful, civilized Iran that deals with the West through the shared prosperity of commerce rather than war-through-terrorism.

Related Reading:

The Morals of the Israel/Hamas War—and the Vindication of Leonard Piekoff

"Who is morally responsible for the deaths of innocents in Gaza?"

Craig Biddle on Israel vs. Hamas for The Objective Standard: Why You and I and Everyone Should Support Israel Against the Barbarians

The Morals of the Israel/Hamas War—and the Vindication of Leonard Piekoff

The moral standing of the latest Israel/Hamas war is as bright a line as you’ll ever see. The aggressor is Hamas. The defender is Israel. From the moment Hamas launched its barbaric attack on Israel, every casualty on either side became the moral responsibility of Hamas, the aggressor. Every brick in the Gazan rubble resulting from the Israeli military retaliation; every drop of blood and every tear shed by Gazans, civilians, foreign nationals, or others, is the moral responsibility of Hamas. 

To be clear, let’s consider the alleged destruction of that hospital that was first reported to have resulted in hundreds of deaths. Hamas immediately blamed an Israeli air strike. It has since become clear that it was an errant missile fired by a Hamas ally. And the death total and damage to the hospital turned out to have been greatly exaggerated. But all of that is morally beside the point. Even if the original reports were accurate, and a strategically targeted Israeli air strike destroyed the hospital and killed many hundreds, the responsibility would be on Hamas. Hamas is the aggressor. Israel is the defender. That strike would not have happened but for Hamas’s attack on Israel.

From here on out, whatever death and destruction results from Israel’s avowed strategy to eradicate Hamas once and for all—including the use of nuclear weapons, if God forbid it comes to that, will be laid at the feet of Hamas and its master, the Islamic theocracy of Iran.

Which brings us to the next point. In 2001, right after the 9/11 attacks, Ayn Rand Institute founder Leonard Piekoff went on the Bill O’Reilly show to advocate for the response to the Islamic attack on America that he considered proper. In a contentious interview in which O’Reilly treated Piekoff at times less than respectful, Piekoff argued that the Taliban in Afghanistan was the wrong target. The right target, said Piekoff, was Iran, the spiritual and political head of the entire anti-civilization Islamic Totalitarian movement. Have a listen, think about where we are now, and then dare to tell me that Piekoff was wrong. 

Imagine where we’d be today had America followed Leonard Peikoff’s advice.

Related Reading:

The Jihad Against America and How to End It, by Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard blog

Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism, by Elan Journo

The War Between Enlightenment and Fundamentalist Political Islam—and the Choice All Muslims Must Make

Bush's Collapsing "War on Terror"

The "Forward Strategy" for Failure by Yaron Brook and Elan Journo

Related: Democracy in Action in Egypt

Ralph Peters: "Mesmerized by Elections, We Forgot Freedom"

Iraqi Democracy vs. Freedom

Mesmerized by Elections, the NJ Star-Ledger Forgot that Tyranny is Tyranny

As We Endure Through COVID-19 Lockdowns, Dems Gear Up for ‘Climate Crisis’ Authoritarianism

If you think I overreacted in calling Donald Trump’s invocation of the Defense Production Act a dangerous precedent, consider Barack Obama’s comments regarding Trump’s rollback of Obama’s auto mileage regulation. 

In Obama Compares Climate Change To Coronavirus, Rips Trump Rule Change, the Daily Caller’s William Davis reports:

Former President Barack Obama compared climate change to the coronavirus pandemic and criticized President Donald Trump for rolling back one of his administration’s key climate initiatives.

“We’ve seen all too terribly the consequences of those who denied warnings of a pandemic,” Obama tweeted Tuesday. “We can’t afford any more consequences of climate denial. All of us, especially young people, have to demand better of our government at every level and vote this fall.”

On April 8, 2020, the New Jersey Star-Ledger editorialized:

President Donald Trump on Sunday again pushed an unproven therapy for COVID-19, defying the advice of Dr. Anthony Fauci. It came two days after he said he will not wear a mask, defying the advice of the CDC. Science doesn’t much impress the man.

His response to the crisis has left America lagging behind the rest of the world.

When he’s criticized on this, he attacks.

Do you notice a pattern? It’s exactly his response to the climate crisis. Ignore the science. Ignore any wisdom from outside our borders. Attack the critics.

My emphasis.

Criticism of Trump is certainly within reasonable opining. But, there it is again; tying the COVID-19 crisis to the “climate crisis.” The two are not analogous. The first is a genuine emergency. The second is a political tactic of the criminal socialist Left. Expect the drumbeat to grow ever more intense. 

On March 31, I wrote:

The Democrats’ Green New Deal already envisions a World War II-like central mobilization of the nation. The chance of them getting away with the authoritarian scheme has now gone from slim to likely, in my view. Who could stand in the Democrats' way, and on what grounds, after a Republican president sets the precedent of stretching the DPA to the point of virtually unlimited usage? Under cover of a health crisis, Trump declared himself “a wartime president,” and justified his invoking of the DPA as "essential to the national defense"!!! If the Defense Production Act can be invoked in response to a health emergency, then why not in a climate emergency, or any event that any future president decides to attach the emergency label too? 

It appears the Democrats have gotten the message loud and clear. If ever a lawsuit to challenge the constitutional validity of a federal action were warranted, Trump’s invocation of the Defense Production Act to fight the health emergency without first getting congressional authorization, this is it. 

Mirriam-Webster defines emergency as “an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action." COVID-19 is a true emergency. Climate, on the other hand, is “the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation.” [My emphasis]

However the actions taken by our public officials is ultimately judged, clearly some immediate governmental action to the pandemic was warranted. But the severe restrictions on our social freedoms due to COVID-19 is an immediate action that will be short-lived. Nobody likes the current emergency restrictions on our freedoms. But the unfolding of the pandemic, its progress, and its inevitable end can be tracked by all on a day-to-day observation. The restrictions are sufferable because the current pandemic is a true emergency with an observable beginning, peak, and diminution. In theory, anyway.

But “climate emergency”, on the other hand, is a dangerous and disingenuous contradiction-in-terms. Climate change takes years, even decades, to ascertain. Taking immediate, freedom-crushing action on the erroneous basis of a climate “emergency” (or “crisis”) would last for years and years. As we wait indefinitely for climate results, an entrenched dictatorship will take hold. It would be the end of freedom. And it would be a huge hit to our prosperity. As Alex Epstein put it bluntly in a recent interview, "Just as we're seeing [many of us] be [temporarily] poor by the COVID-19 lockdown, we would see [all of us] become permanently poor with the Green New Deal." It would be the end of America in all but name. The stakes are enormous.

Related Reading:

Did Trump’s Defense Production Act Invocation Clear the Way for the Democrats’ ‘Climate Crisis’ Authoritarianism?

‘Climate Crisis’: The Dem’s Path to Totalitarian Socialism

Related Viewing:

Obama Draws Exactly the Wrong Lesson on Pandemic Preparedness--Alex Epstein

No, Fossil Fuels are not ‘the Cause of Wars’

Marc Rauch posted this comment on my blog article In his Book ‘The Moral Case,’ Is Epstein Attacking a Straw Man?

: 

I recently published a rebuttal to Alex Epstein's book titled "The Immorality of Arguing That There's a Moral Case for Fossil Fuels." At the same time it also rebuts a book by Kathleen Hartnett White of a similar title and proposition. 

It is preposterous to claim that there is anything moral about fossil fuels, and to claim that we owe any debt of gratitude to gasoline/diesel/coal for enhancing our lives. If a debt of gratitude is owed, it is owed to the inventions that utilize various fuels...regardless of what those fuels are. The inventions were all created without consideration to any specific fossil fuel. Internal combustion engines, for example, were created before the invention of either gasoline or diesel petroleum fuel. The steam engine was not created because coal was available.

The fact is that fossil fuels have been the cause of wars, disease, and ecological and environmental disasters. Every significant war in the past 104 years has been caused by petroleum oil. Tens of millions of people; no, make that hundreds of millions of people have been killed in these wars. To the war dead-toll we have to add the people who have died as a result of the illnesses caused by the use of petroleum oil fuels. Then there's the life-long injuries and disabilities suffered by untold millions more. There's nothing moral about any of this.

Previous attempts to rebuke Mr. Epstein and Ms. White, such as the one written by Jody Freeman, have failed because the writers have as little understanding of history, fuels, energy, and real solutions as Epstein and White do.

You can read my complete rebuttal at https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/02/19/511177-immorality-arguing-that-there-s-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels.html.

Marc J. Rauch

Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher

THE AUTO CHANNEL

I replied:

Marc: 

Thanks. I read your piece. 

Right off the bat, I can confidently reject the idea that oil causes wars. True, wars have been fought over control of oil reserves. But that’s only because governments have attempted to seize economic control. In all instances of “wars over oil”—or anything else, for that matter—the problem is not oil or some other commodity, but statism. The solution is individual rights-protecting, constitutionally limited republican government and its economic corollary, free market capitalism. You don’t see conflict between the relatively free market nations of the world, which protect free global commerce, including in oil. Within the United States, you don’t see conflict between oil producing and non-oil producing states.

Even if the use of fossil fuels could be shown to cause more human and environmental harm than good, it does not follow that petroleum oil, any more than any other economic factor, can in and of itself cause wars. As long as the rights of individuals to produce and trade wherever they reside is not seriously restricted by political boundaries, how exactly could a war over oil begin? If people could gain access to oil energy by peaceful means (trade), why on Earth would they pick up arms?

RELATED: https://fee.org/articles/the-roots-of-war/ [The Roots of War by Ayn Rand]

Thanks.

As to Rauch’s other charges, that “The fact is that fossil fuels have been the cause of wars, disease, and ecological and environmental disasters,” Epstein does not deny that fossil fuel use  has negative side effects. But he thoroughly exposes the biased “sloppy thinking” of fossil fuel enemies, who routinely minimize the benefits and vastly exaggerate the negatives of fossil fuels. In that regard, I’ll defer to Epstein in his book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels* and to his October 2019 debate with Robert F. Kennedy.

* [An updated version of this book is in the works.] 

Related Reading:

The Environmentalists’ War on People—Ari Armstrong for The Objective Standard

A Welcome Recognition of the Islamist Threat from a ‘Mainstream’ Source

After the 9/11 Islamist attacks, President GW Bush and the Congress created The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 Commission. It’s final report was issued on July 22, 2004 (PDF Version). It’s mandate, according to the preface, was to answer the question “How did the happen, and how can we avoid such tragedy again?” The report “provides a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. It also includes recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.”

The 2004 report was widely anticipated, publicized, and debated, and most of its practical recommendations have been wholly or partially implemented, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC). What has not gotten much coverage is a new BPC report authored by the original 9/11 Commission members.

John Farmer Jr summarizes the new study in a guest column published in the New Jersey Star-Ledger on September 11, 2017. Regarding the BPC report, “Defeating Terrorists, Not Terrorism: An Assessment of U.S. Counterterrorism Policy From 9/11 to ISIS,” Farmer observes that although . . .

the capacity of terrorist organizations to conduct far-flung, sophisticated operations like the 9/11 attacks has been disrupted if not totally degraded, [the BPC report observes that] "the threat of terrorism has metastasized. Last year, terrorists launched five times as many attacks as in 2001 . . . For each threat defused, another soon takes its place; for each terrorist group disrupted, another soon arises; for each terrorist killed, more eager recruits appear."

The BPC reports that “It is impossible to conclude that the enemy has been defeated,” and attempts to answer the question, “Why?” Hearteningly, the BPC report reads like a breath of fresh air—and truth. As Farmer writes in these excerpts:

Our successes have been significant, therefore, but largely tactical.  "For all of its battlefield and intelligence successes," the BPC Report notes, "the United States has demonstrated little ability to degrade support for the ideology underlying jihadist terrorism."

That ideology rejects the idea of a nation state as a western creation foisted upon Islam by colonial powers. It advocates a world as a unified caliphate under a single Islamist banner, and rejects utterly the notion of the separation of church and state, believing that "the Koran is our constitution" and that religious law should inform all aspects of daily life. It offers the disaffected a simple answer to every grievance, a simple solution to the world's complexities: violent jihad.

Its allure has proven extremely powerful as Islamic State has emerged from al-Qaeda.

Just as only Muslims can be effective in countering the Islamist version of Islam, only America and the west can be effective in countering the Islamist totalitarian rejection of our freedoms and way of life.

As a culture -- not just as a government -- we must expose the Islamist sloganeering of "Democracy hypocrisy! Democracy go to hell! Freedom go to hell!" for the prelude to tyranny that it represents. [My emphasis]

If this analysis sounds familiar, it’s because is mirrors what some voices have been saying since 9/11. And Elan Journo, co-author of Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism: From George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Beyond, wrote in 2016:

The problem goes way beyond ignorance. Ignorance is where everyone starts out. But the jihadists have never made their cause secret. Our enemy is defined, not primarily by their use of terrorist means, but by their ideological ends. They fight to create a society wherein Islamic religious law, or sharia, dominates every last detail of every individual’s life, a cause inspired and funded by patrons such as Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and above all, Iran. In our book, we call this political-ideological movement Islamic totalitarianism. [My emphasis]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali also comes to mind with her book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now, in which she calls on Muslims “to bring their religion out of the seventh century and into the twenty-first.” Is their message finally breaking through to the “mainstream?”

What’s particularly noteworthy about the report Farmer summarizes is that the BPC group that authored it was co-chaired by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, who headed the original 9/11 Commission Report. John Farmer Jr. himself has impressive credentials. He was New Jersey's attorney general on Sept. 11, 2001, a former senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, and is currently a university professor and special counsel to the president of Rutgers University. Farmer also contributed to this latest report. While I have not read the entire BPC report, I think that, given Farmer’s credentials and ties to the Commission, we can trust that he accurately summarizes the essentials of the report.

We can debate the recommendations of the BPC report. The main value of the report is that it identifies the true nature of the enemy as fundamentally rooted in Islamic text, rather than whitewashing this fact by trivializing the terrorists as “hijackers of a peaceful religion” or some such nonsense. The question is, what effect will the report have on the policies of our political leaders? Unfortunately, the BPC report hasn’t, to my knowledge, gotten much coverage. This is surprising, given the wide attention given to the findings and recommendations of the 2004 9/11 Commission Report. We can only speculate. But perhaps too many people don’t want to go where this report leads, for fear of “offending” rank-and-file Muslims. Just a few weeks after Farmer’s column, there appeared in the Star-Ledger a guest column by Muslim-American Fakhruddin Ahmed titled Trump's unwelcoming message to Muslim Americans like me, in which Ahmad criticized President Trump’s use of the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism” because it “conflate[s] Islam itself with terrorism and offend[s] the world's 1.6 billion Muslims who do not see a link between the two.” If Muslims themselves won’t acknowledge the obvious connection between aspects of their religion and terrorism, how will Muslims ever “be effective in countering the Islamist version of Islam,” as the BPC report urges?

Still, the report has been written and published. Have we reached a cultural and political turning point, where we can toss the “War on Terror” into the dustbin of history and finally acknowledge the much broader scope of the fight? Or will Kean, Hamilton, and Farmer be brushed off as another group of “Islamophobes”, or simply ignored for running afoul of political correctness?

That would be a shame. This report deserves the same wide exposure as the original report. We better hope this report is a cultural wakeup call, because right now the Islamic totalitarians are militarily weak—which is why they rely on terrorism against civilians. The fundamental battle is ideological, as Farmer observes. What will happen if our leaders continue to evade the real nature of the enemy until the Islamists acquire the military capacity, including nuclear weapons, to back up their ideology?

Only time will tell. But Defeating Terrorists, Not Terrorism: An Assessment of U.S. Counterterrorism Policy From 9/11 to ISIS is a hopeful sign. Farmer’s column is titled N.J.'s attorney general on 9/11: How to defeat Islamist terrorism, and is an interesting, worthwhile, and encouraging read.  

Thoughts on Trump’s U.N. Speech and North Korea

Following President Donald Trump’s much-anticipated speech to the United Nations in September 2017, the New Jersey Star-Ledger weighed in with The Trump policy toward North Korea is largely irrational.

Let me start by saying Trump’s speech contained some refreshing perspectives, such as defending America’s right to its own self-interest, and calling out socialism for what it is. On socialism, Trump said:

The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented. From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.

Of course, identifying the philosophical roots of socialism—that is, altruism and collectivism—is paramount to backing up that statement. But Trump’s statement is true, nonetheless, and good to hear.

That said, Trump’s vow to “completely destroy North Korea” (as opposed to destroying its military capability or its regime) was bizarre. That rhetoric is what the Star-Ledger focussed on. I zeroed in on this segment of the editorial:

Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and former Bush administration stalwart, called his book "The Reluctant Sheriff" to describe America's best role in the world a one that leads a posse of states that can help police the globe, making our expansive power easier to support in the international community in circumstances such as these.

And its conclusion:

To fully understand where this is headed, consult your worst nightmare.

I left these comments, edited for clarity:

I largely agree with the logic expressed here. Who actually believes that, short of an initial strike against the United States, Trump would “totally destroy” North Korea? Uncredible threats are hollow, and worse than saying nothing.

But let’s be honest. Trump has been following Richard Haass’s “posse of states” strategy, even urging the U.N to step up. He’s even gotten sanctions through the Security Council. The difference between Trump’s approach and previous approaches is that he at least understands that diplomacy with war-mongering regimes must be backed up by a credible potential of military strength.

Which leads to the most glaring omission in this editorial. “To fully understand where this is headed, consult your worst nightmare,” the Star-Ledger concludes. According to that link, the “Nuclear threat [is] at [the] highest level since [the] Cold War.” Fair enough. But we must therefore ask, how did we get here? The answer: Since the fall of the Soviet Union that ended the Cold War, we have seen a quarter Century of failed diplomacy by three successive Administrations to buy off North Korea in exchange for it giving up its nuclear program. Each time, the North Koreans took the economic goodies and went right ahead with its program. It may be true that “The need to consistently use military deterrence without diplomacy only leads to escalation.” But when dealing with war-mongering dictatorships, diplomacy without credible military deterrence—which means the willingness to use it—only appeases aggressive tyrants and leads to the brink of war.

Trump may be a loose cannon. He may not be the most thoughtful or polished leader. Those are not good qualities. But give him his due: He inherited the North Korean problem.

Related Reading:

DIPLOMACY ONLY ENCOURAGES NORTH KOREA’S BELLIGERENCE—Elan Journo for ARI Blog [This article was written in 2006.]

OUR NORTH KOREA POLICY: APPEASE, EMBOLDEN. REPEAT.—Carl Svanberg for ARI Blog

My Favorite (and Least Favorite) Lines from President Trump’s U.N. Address—Dr. Michael Hurd