Generally speaking I have appreciated Mr. Jim de Bree’s contributions to The Signal. They have often been thoughtful and enlightening. However, in reading today’s column (April 29), I am left wondering how he has made certain unsupported claims.
First, I agree with Mr. de Bree’s assessment that China’s militarization is expanding rapidly. I, too, feel that there is likely to be a show of force between our two nations over Taiwan. China has taken the long view in their desire to absorb Taiwan into their control. It took over 50 years to reclaim Hong Kong. They can be patient, and very persistent to take control of Taiwan.
I also agree that China taken an “inscrutable” observation of our military’s operations. Undoubtedly, they have learned a lot. In the broader view, elimination of Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons — both ballistic missiles or smuggled “dirty bombs,” crippling their ability to sponsor terrorist organizations around the world — has enormous value. Preventing their ability to threaten Israel, America and other Western nations for at least a generation has tremendous value.
I would disagree with the assumption that we would be better off tolerating a nuclear Iran in order to keep our weapons secret for a potential conflict in the future with China. Iran could not be deterred from using a nuclear weapon. We have several options to avoid conflict with China.
I also agree that getting out of Iran is much more difficult than the first week of Epic Fury. The Islamic fervor of whatever mullahs are in control has not been eradicated. If left in country, then despite the elimination of their military and nuclear ambitions, they have outlasted the U.S. military — therefore they have won. For them survival is victory. Until the general population can take to the streets to overturn the Revolutionary Guard and oust the mullahs, our military action may not have the success we hoped for.
However, Mr. de Bree makes several comments and assertions in his column that make me wonder, “How does he know?”
1) China was able to “beta test” their defense systems. Have there been any announcements or information released that indicated any countermeasures or defense systems had any effectiveness against our attack? So, we should have not attacked so we could preserve their failed systems? Do we think that our military has not gained any knowledge about the Chinese and Soviet systems that Iran has used?
2) Yes, we have consumed a large portion of our armaments. It will be expensive to replace that inventory. However, compared to replacing a large American city due to a nuclear explosion, it is cheap insurance.
3) So far, the only economic pain we have felt has been at the gas pump and that has stabilized and dropping. I suspect that next year’s increase in military spending will be about the same as California’s budget deficit.
4) Mr. de Bree says, “Politically, under President Trump, America has promoted its self-interests rather than being a group leader.” U.S. citizens elect our president to serve our interests — what “group” is he talking about?
5) Mr. de Bree states that Iran has strained the supply of oil. Is that true? Is there really a lack of oil? Or, has the convenient, most economical transportation of oil been temporarily disturbed? If the Strait of Hormuz were to be permanently closed, will the world go dark and cars stall on the highways? No. The world will simply seek and develop other locations and methods to satisfy needs.
6) He also attributes China with gaining control of solar and wind power generation. But where are those products going? Not China. They are selling them to Western democracies whose political policies subsidize alternative energy. China has an increasing appetite for more oil. Perhaps keeping Hormuz closed could be a strategic advantage for the U.S. by cutting off OPEC from supplying China.
7) But how does he know clearing Hormuz will take months? What does he base that on? What has military history shown? It appears that delays are politically negotiable rather than actual logistics.
Much of what Mr. de Bree shares is correct, but I suspect that his logic and rationale is an upscale, sophisticated version of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Jim Scott
Saugus
