Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has ordered a limited number of U.S. troops to prepare for deployment in support of Israel, as reported by multiple sources.
Approximately 2,000 troops have been selected to be on standby for advisory and medical assistance.
The troops will be drawn from various branches of the U.S. military, including those already stationed in the Middle East and nearby Europe.
While their specific units and deployment locations have not been disclosed, it has been emphasized that they will not have a combat role.
The U.S. is extending support to Israel, which is engaged in a conflict with Hamas, primarily focusing on intelligence and planning assistance for potential hostage rescue operations.
Yesterday: Biden warns Israel that occupying the Gaza strip is a big mistake (strategically)
Today: US puts troops on standby in Israel.
Well, I guess we now know what the US thinks is a better plan. And it appears to be basically the standard US plan of placing military units all across the map.
Sometimes I wonder if the US will ever have a Roman-style “we extended our borders too far to adequately defend the empire” tipping point.
I get where you’re coming from but they’re sending a limited numbers in non-combatant roles only (for now). Providing existing allies with that sort of thing isn’t extending borders
Consultancy roles are a shield for providing strategic support and direction without visibly endangering your own troops and engaging in unambiguously direct acts of war. Providing existing allies with resources is not a free service either, even if it only costs “you owe us one” future diplomatic and economic pressure. The US did not get to where it is through altruism.
This very much seems the tail wagging the dog.
Whatever anyone says about the historical context aside, in the plainest of terms this war began with an enormous assault by Hamas against Israel, and so the US is bound by treaty to assist - whether they like it or not.
I doubt the pentagon made this decision ignoring the wider context and long-term motivations of all parties involved, and I think it would be a mistake to reduce any conflict in the world to such a simple equation.
Also, does Israel have a defence treaty with the US? This is a genuine question. I was under the impression there was only a tax treaty, and Israel isn’t a member of NATO either, which I thought would exclude that.
I don’t know if you’re asking because you’re trying to get conversation going here for the benefit of all of us here, or are too lazy/dumb to do a search, but here you go either way: U.S. & Israel defense treaty..
It was because I used the search term “us israel treaty” and it came up with tax treaty results, when apparently it’s called a “bilateral defense cooperation agreement” or “Strategic Partnership Joint Declaration”. I apologise for not being fully informed on the differences between those concepts beforehand, and not knowing that the word ‘treaty’ would not be applicable in a situation where the word ‘treaty’ was being used to describe it.
Thanks for also reminding me that I shouldn’t ask questions unless 100% healthy.
No, you’re good; no need to apologize. I’m more dumb than you so it balances out. Please do not mind me.