Hagel’s $160 Billion 'West Bank' US Troops Deathtrap

Started by pr126, February 25, 2013, 02:21:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


Hagel's $160 Billion 'West Bank' US Troops Deathtrap
QuoteHagel, at Obama's bidding, plans to send troops to Judea andSamaria (the "West Bank") where they would soon be victims of Hamas terror. It's in writing. An investigative report.

There is only one reason that Chuck Hagel was picked by President Obama to be US Defense Secretary, and why Obama will go nuclear to get him confirmed:

Hagel is the only person alive now dumb enough to deploy US "peacekeeping" troops to what is surely a "West Bank" deathtrap. Don't believe me??! Well, in early 2009, two years after Hamas violently took over Gaza, Hagel along with a ragged has-been crew of "Israel Lasters" had some strong "recommendations" for the incoming President Obama.

I will let Hagel's 2009 "recommendations" speak for themselves. But to lend a note of rationality, Florence Gaub, a NATO researcher, in 2010 published a NATO Research paper outlining some of the problems of such a deployment. (I.e. it would need about 60,000 US/Nato troops and about 160 billion Dollars over 10 years) I and I will excerpt her report as well.

Obama's determination in confirming Hagel is based on Obama's belief that Hagel will cripple Israel at any price: including the deaths of  thousands of US soldiers at the hands of Hamas suicide bombs in the Palestinian Authority.
Anyone thinks this is a good idea?


Well, no.  It's a no-win proposition, and an exit-strategy will be incredibly difficult to design, given the age-old hatred between the two sides.

Furthermore, we should cease all aid to Israel.  We currently give them about $3 billion annually, and that aid should stop.  It doesn't buy us the leverage it ought to buy us, but it still buys us the enmity of many Muslims and Arabs.  The aid is  a lose-lose proposition for us.
<insert witty aphorism here>


Ah, yes, Arutz Sheva, the fox news of Israel.
???  ??


While anything that begins with "lets send our highly armed guys abroad" is a bad idea, the language in this article suggest a not-so-objective look at things that should be taken with a grain of salt.


hmmmm really. I thought the whole reason the republicans were down on him being sec of def was he wasn't pro Israel enough. I myself would like to see the end of unqualified US support of Israel.