..and in other news

[Uncoach]

Liz, your game is up.

 

[Uncoach]

 

[Uncoach]

 

[Uncoach]

 

[Uncoach]

 

[Uncoach]

 

[Uncoach]

 

[djpc]

I think he’s brainstorming how to help the area get back to normal in a better way. Do I think it’s a good idea or not? I would say no, but I don’t know the details. Unless I missed it, the war activities between Israel and Hamxs would have to be finished before the US would get involved. Isn’t stopping the fighting what the people want? Why are we jumping at every little thing Trump says? That’s what people like Glen want. They hate Trump so badly, they have to be right and they couldn’t wait 2 weeks before trying to post gotchas. What wars did Trump get the US involved in last time? All Presidents prior to Trump were afraid of moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem fearing it would set off WW3. When Trump moved it, well, we’re still here. The negotiations in the mid-east done by the SIL Kirschner in 45 admin was nothing short of very good.

That's fair. My intent in the post you quoted wasn't to be critical of (nor laud) the statements. Like you said, we really don't know what this is going to look like. Just spitballing:

Reasons to get directly involved in some way might be that there's a long standing human tragedy going on there and ending it would be objectively good (and iirc part of the agenda discussed in the campaign), and peace in the Middle East is in our long-term best interests. Another is to ensure whatever aid does get sent there is actually deployed to the benefit of the people there and isn't skimmed off by Hamas or other bad actors. Reasons not to get involved are mainly that interventions are a tricky thing and similar activities in the region have been very expensive in terms of blood and treasure and generally have not achieved the goals stated publicly to the American people.

If the administration is going to make our direct involvement conditional on hostilities terminating, it's still tricky, but decidedly preferable to going over there to win a war first, then rebuild something. We'll just have to see how it plays out. If both sides are agreeable to a postwar US presence it could easily be a good thing. If we just become a target of terrorism, not so good.

I don't know if it as a conscious strategy, but the administration is moving aggressively on many fronts which makes it difficult for the bureaucratic deep state/uniparty/(D)s to marshal their forces to defy POTUS and the administration.