Greg Hewitt’s Post

Scott Ritter (former Marine Intelligence Officer and U.N. WMD Inspector) offers his insights on the Israel-Hamas War: 1.) Israel lost the political war narrative due to huge collateral damage in Gaza. - Many Jews and Israelis were critical of Netanyahu's policies not only inside Israel but also towards the Palestinians prior to October 7th. - Israeli bombings in Gaza and its apartheid-like policies in the West Bank and Gaza has changed worldwide perception of Israel including audiences in Europe and the United States. 2.) Neither Hizballah nor Iran want this conflict to escalate but if Israel carries out a full-invasion of Gaza, they may intervene. 3.) Turkey expressed the same thing; and they are the largest Army in NATO second only to the U.S. Armed Forces. 4.) Hizballah will overwhelm the IDF's Iron Dome and will saturate Israel's big cities and military bases with rockets and missiles. 5.) If Iran intervenes, it has missiles that can reach Israel; and has hypersonic missiles that could threaten U.S. military assets including aircraft carriers. 6.) If Israel attacks Iran, Russia may intervene on Iran's side. 7.) If Israel use "The Samson Option" (nuclear weapons), Pakistan agreed to support Iran by launching nuclear missiles into Israel or providing Turkey with nukes to use against Israel. https://lnkd.in/dDQfH9Bs

What Could National Defense Costs Mean for Your Investments? The deployment of naval assets in the Middle East, Mediterranean, and East Asia during an election cycle could influence voters this November as defense costs rise and political parties continue to debate America's global role. Tune in to the 2024 Concord Halftime Report on Tuesday, July 16th at 6PM ET to hear from Concord's CEO Wade Lopez and CIO Gary Aiken as they break down the latest trends, insights, and opportunities shaping today's economic landscape. Register now for exclusive access and receive a complimentary copy of the report after the event: https://bit.ly/3RhOFvN #Investing #FinancialReport #EconomicAnalysis #WealthManagement #AssetManagement #Livestream #ElectionYear

I am a reluctant endorser of modern cluster munitions. There are places and situations where their use is lawful and expedient in defeating and removing an entrenched enemy. But modern U.S. cluster munitions still run a risk of malfunctions and resulting unexploded ordinance. It is considerably better than order U.S. cluster munitions and are exceedingly better than the cluster munitions being used by the Russians with very high failure rates leaving high numbers of unexploded ordinance across the battle fields for Ukrainian civilians or later stumble across. If we are going to provide Ukraine with cluster munitions to use in its own country, then we need to acknowledge up front our commitment to help Ukraine clean up and unexploded ordinance from these weapons still on the battlefields at the end of the war.   

We need to embrace a new mind-set. We need politicians who dare to tell the truth—including that defense and military-equipment investments are an essential element in the defense of freedom and peace. We need business and labor leaders prepared to take responsibility beyond the interests of their individual companies. Ultimately, we need a new William S. Knudsen.

The idea that we have an imperial presidency, with a dictator micromanaging the empire, is absurd as well as evil. We have a dedicated civil service which follows the leadership and direction of the Executive. President Biden can be elderly as long as he surrounds himself with good appointments of talented and principled appointees. He has done so. His staff is solid. His Cabinet is solid. His policies are solid. There are no outrageous statements. There are no outrageous declarations about being a “stable genius.” There are no threats to haul his critics before military tribunals. Biden doesn’t frighten our allies, encourage our adversaries and promise the instability which will make the world a much more dangerous place. Look at what Trump offers:

New Zealand: - US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has extended an invitation to New Zealand to join the AUKUS trilateral defense deal, and the response from Prime Minister Chris Hipkins is in! 🤝 - "The door's very much open," said Blinken, highlighting the potential for New Zealand to collaborate with Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States on crucial defense matters. 🌐 - However, there's a twist! 🔄 New Zealand's longstanding nuclear-free policy means that it won't be participating in the nuclear-powered submarine component of AUKUS. 🚫💥 Nevertheless, Hipkins has stated that he's "open to conversations," signaling a willingness to explore other avenues of collaboration within the defense deal. Let's keep an eye on how this unfolds! 🕵️♀️ Share your thoughts below. Should New Zealand join AUKUS in some capacity? Drop your opinions! ⬇️ #NewZealand #AUKUS #DefenseDeal #GlobalPartnerships #riskanalyst

Money talks. The US is responsible for how it spends its money. The $500+ billion per year trade surplus China receives from the US is the foundation of the problem. Perhaps China should name their new aircraft carriers the SS WalMart and SS Amazon. The idea of free trade caries responsibility. Reciprocity is a fundamental requirement of international relations and trade. Trade is about much more than money and mutual prosperity. Trade is a national security issue when it empowers enemies or potential enemies. The fact that trade is now being weaponised through sanctions and restricted access to markets is the reaction to the misguided WTO concept of unrestricted trade. A middle ground that balances economic, political and national security considerations based on reciprocity of interests must be established and communicated. China must understand the conditions the US requires for the prosperity it receives. The US. Insisting on a strict trade balance is a viable way forward. Unrestricted trade that exports US jobs and prosperity to China is dangerous. There is no such thing as free trade. Trade must be balanced. The US must seriously consider how much it wants to help the world and how much it wants to help itself.

Barry R. Posen, the Ford international professor of political science of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology writes that military history suggests Ukraine’s current campaign is far more daunting than the public understands. https://bit.ly/3QtgOQP What is surprising about this is that this was the case when the war started in 2022. However………. because the west wanted to see a miracle, it disregarded all the credible reports that it was going to be daunting task from the start. There is also a failure to learn from military history. Barry R. Posen weaves this history going back to World War I, II, and the Cold war but it seems that on both sides of the Atlantic, leaders have simply failed to see the obvious and ignore how wars are actually fought and won—and what resources need to be deployed for victory to be achieved. From the start, there was an understanding that there would be no immediate military victory. The way forward will require a political settlement that addresses the grievances of ALL the parties (conflict resolution 101). Instead, the west settled (since there is no strategic autonomy in Europe) for a war of attrition with no end in sight, with millions of displaced people, and untold suffering.

Barry R. Posen, the Ford international professor of political science of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology writes that military history suggests Ukraine’s current campaign is far more daunting than the public understands. https://bit.ly/3QtgOQP What is surprising about this is that this was the case when the war started in 2022. However………. because the west wanted to see a miracle, it disregarded all the credible reports that it was going to be daunting task from the start. There is also a failure to learn from military history. Barry R. Posen weaves this history going back to World War I, II, and the Cold war but it seems that on both sides of the Atlantic, leaders have simply failed to see the obvious and ignore how wars are actually fought and won—and what resources need to be deployed for victory to be achieved. From the start, there was an understanding that there would be no immediate military victory. The way forward will require a political settlement that addresses the grievances of ALL the parties (conflict resolution 101). Instead, the west settled (since there is no strategic autonomy in Europe) for a war of attrition with no end in sight, with millions of displaced people, and untold suffering.