Very sesquipedalian.
Back on topic. If I get this right, the US wants to support Israel and its right to defend itself and provide “guns and money” to do so while simultaneously trying to save innocent lives by letting refugees cross into Egypt. This is noble, but Egypt can hardly take care of itself without external funding. It seems like a great way to get Egyptians to hate us too. Half of Europe already does as they have to deal with various refugee crises.
I think this is what go us into this mess - funding wars in other countries and not wanting to deal with the consequences (I.e refugees). The typical American doesn’t want to take refugees and doesn’t want to send money while pretending there will not be consequences down the road. Seems like a classic no-win brought about by lack of foresight.
Ps- Daines is on it. Here comes the GAZA Act.
The US seems to stumble into conflicts with self-initiated narratives more than geopolitical import.
There was no need to care about Tawain in the 50s, but by building up its semiconductor industry, now we have a near-term existential crisis if they are lost and the flood of chips cut off. But we can disarm this if we want. We can turn our huge economy towards chip leadership again and in a decade let Bejing have it. But of course, we won't and we have a potential W3 starter of our own making.
The domino theory created a flawed narrative that got us into Vietnam - another location of dubious geopolitical import.
How about Iraq - out of whole cloth we made two huge errors - presuming advanced WMDs and presuming they were ripe for a US-style democracy if Sadam was removed. Another unforced error, and at a time where we were becoming energy independent - so oil wasn't a good reason.
Afghanistan - a short-term front to punish Taliban for hosting bin Laden et al maybe, a decades-long attempt to build a western-style democracy that had no chance from the beginning and in a location posing little threat to the US.
Isreal - Understandable guilt over slow action in Europe to protect jews from genocide gave initial approach a reasonable basis. But over the last 20 years to give Isreal carte blanche in resolving the long lasting palestinian question while funding them and pledging American troops if needed has not worked out well. If we are the protector, then the protectee has to act in a manner to reduce the need for such protection -- that has not worked out. Again, if you set aside religious undertones to justify our involvement, there is no over arching geopolitical need to go to war for the preservation of Isreal. That being said, if Isreal takes direction better I still support. But another WW3 starter in the making.
S Korea - Not too critical of initial involvement, but not a big fan of making it a permanent protectorate. At some point there needs to be a North/South reality moment and I don't see a compelling reason to send US troops other than we said we would. WW3 kindling yet again.
Iran - frankly, if not for Isreal policy by both countries this would have been diffused years ago.
So, while I tend to be "hawkish" on foreign affairs, I am frustrated that we have created a huge pile of tinder right next to open flame for several decades with no natural endpoint. If we are still alive in 20 years we will still be having this discussion, as our "umbrella of protection" relieves folks on the ground from ever finding their own solution.
As for Ukraine - I do think this is the one geopolitical tangle that makes sense from a geopolitical perspective given its proximity to NATO - although lack of international support for economic consequences has made it less effective than folks had hoped. On the flip side, the Ukrainians have held up their end with courage.
I have no idea which mess is the next ArchDuke moment, but it just seems like one is inevitable and I am not convinced most were necessary to keep precarious for 50 years from a US interests perspective.