President Biden's foreign policy and leadership legacies were cemented in American voters' minds back in the summer of 2021, just months into his term. He had promised an orderly and dignified US exit from Afghanistan after nearly two decades of post-9/11 war, in which all Americans and American allies who wished to leave the country would be guaranteed safe passage. It was "highly unlikely" at Afghanistan would fall to terrorists, he insisted. He delivered a bloody and chaotic withdrawal, in which thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of allies, were left behind -- as the country collapsed into total terrorist control. He declared these developments an "extraordinary success" in real time, even as Americans were killed in the melee, meting out no accountability. Biden's overall job approval rating fell underwater during this disgraceful episode, and has never recovered.
Biden campaigned on competency, restoring calm in the wake of Trump's turbulence, and reigniting supposedly waning global respect for the United States. After the Afghanistan debacle, adversaries viewed Biden as weak, incoherent and doddering. Allies viewed America with suspicion and concern about our commitment to promises. And enemies were emboldened. On several high-profile occasions, Biden and top officials in his administration have looked into the camera and issued a simple warning: "Don't." This failed spectacularly at the southern border, where policies and actions spoke much louder than empty words, resulting in ten million illegal crossings on Biden's watch. Prior to his disastrous invasion of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin received numerous warnings against launching the war. But Biden's 'don't' was undermined by another presidential comment:
The White House on Thursday sought to clarify remarks by President Biden about the consequences of a “minor incursion” by Russia into Ukraine that appeared to undermine weeks of intense U.S.-led diplomacy aimed at stopping an invasion of the former Soviet republic. Officials in Kyiv reacted angrily to Biden’s comments at a news conference Wednesday in which he appeared to wobble on backing Ukraine if it were attacked by its larger neighbor. An array of U.S. lawmakers and world leaders also expressed dismay at Biden’s comments, with some saying the president appeared to offer his Russian counterpart a green light to launch a limited invasion. The White House and Western leaders spent Thursday trying to clean up the damage, with Biden telling reporters he has been “absolutely clear with President Putin. He has no misunderstanding. If any — any — assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border, that is an invasion ... It would be met with severe and coordinated economic response.”
Recommended
Intentionally or not, Biden eqiuivocated in a key moment, perhaps helping to convince Putin that Western resolve against his revanchist designs would ultimatley crumble. Biden had apparently given Russia a preemptive opening, suggesting that a small invasion might not be the worst thing. About a month later, a full invasion arrived, exacting a terrible human toll:
The true toll of the war in Ukraine — and the odds faced by each side — can be measured in bodies. More than half a million people have been killed or seriously injured in two years of war in Ukraine, according to Western intelligence estimates — a human toll not seen in Europe since World War II. The question of who prevails is being increasingly shaped by which side can tolerate higher losses...Russia had 3.7 times more men of fighting age than Ukraine in 2022, according to World Bank data. That means that though Russia has sustained nearly twice as many casualties as Ukraine, according to Western intelligence estimates, on a per capita basis Russia’s losses remain lower than Ukraine’s.
Over recent months, Iran-backed terrorists had been launching dozens of attacks against US interests and personnel in the Middle East. Biden's message to them was, "don't." Undeterred, they kept doing. Americans got killed. Prior to Iran's unprecedented direct attack against Israel on Saturday, Biden issued another "don't" that was ignored, perhaps because he back-channeled another "minor incursion"-style asterisk to Tehran:
Iran informed Turkey in advance of its planned operation against Israel, a Turkish diplomatic source told Reuters on Sunday, adding that Washington had conveyed to Tehran via Ankara that any action it took had to be "within certain limits"...The Turkish source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan had spoken to both his U.S. and Iranian counterparts in the past week to discuss the planned Iranian operation, adding Ankara had been made aware of possible developments.
Did Biden explicitly green-light a 'limited' Iranian attack on Israel, ostensibly as a retaliation for Israel's recent and legitimate military strike against senior Iranian targets -- given Iran's material support for the terrorist groups on Israel's borders? And if so, would this qualify as "within certain limits"?
“A U.S. military official shared in stark terms the details of Iran’s assault and stated plainly that the attack — though successfully halted by the combined missile-defense capabilities of Israel and the U.S.— was designed to cause significant casualties” https://t.co/xXbsPqEJxT
— Josh Kraushaar (@JoshKraushaar) April 15, 2024
US officials say Iran sought mass casualties https://t.co/tda7aWWorL
— Ben Smith (@semaforben) April 15, 2024
NEW | The Iranian April 13 missile-drone attack on Israel was very likely intended to cause significant damage below the threshold that would trigger a massive Israeli response. The attack was designed to succeed, not to fail. 🧵(1/9) pic.twitter.com/EDFMFzw5M4
— Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) April 14, 2024
The Institute for the Study of War's analysis goes on:
The strike package was modeled on those the Russians have used repeatedly against Ukraine to great effect.The strike consisted of approximately 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 120 ballistic missiles...The drones were launched well before the ballistic missiles were fired, very likely in the expectation that they would arrive in Israel’s air defense window at about the same time as the cruise missiles and drones...The Iranians likely expected that Israeli [interception] rates would be higher than the Ukrainian rates but not above 90% against such a large ballistic missile salvo—the Russians, after all, have never fired close to that many large ballistic missiles in a single strike against Ukraine...Iran will learn additional lessons from the failed attack that it can leverage to launch more successful attacks in the future.
I cannot imagine Israel viewing this barrage as acceptably "minor" or "limited." As their leaders decide what to do next, President Biden is once again using a familiar word: Don't. If America's enemies don't listen to such warnings from him, why should America's allies? I'll leave you with this assessment from a pro-Biden partisan, articulating something quite dangerous about the impact -- or lack thereof -- of an American Presidents words:
Donna Brazile complains that people don't listen to Joe Biden.
— Jeff Charles, An Awful Pundit🏴 (@jeffcharlesjr) April 8, 2024
"Also we should cover what he’s saying because often when he speaks, nobody listens." pic.twitter.com/t6cjuKUZDj
Join the conversation as a VIP Member