Follow us on social

gaza pier project

US Gaza pier op was more than a flop, it was a gigantic hazard

New inspector general report proves this was more or less a massive diversion by the Biden admin gone wrong

Analysis | QiOSK

When President Joe Biden announced that the United States military would be building a pier off the shore of Gaza to inject much needed aid to the Palestinians there, he attempted to marshal the old feelings undergirding the "indispensable nation" — we would use our might, know-how, and ability to crack into action to make things right.

Turns out that our might and know-how was desperately lacking and, as time would tell (and skeptics at the time would have told you), making things "right" would have been using the leverage Washington had to tell the Israelis to open up the aid flood gates, not try to build a land bridge to get it in through the back door.

A new Pentagon Inspector General report finds that the pier operation, which took place for several months in the spring of 2024, was a bigger failure than earlier reported. It was also a gigantic hazard. According to the Washington Post, which reported about this today, some 62 military personnel were injured (exact causes still unknown), and one Army soldier, Sgt. Quandarias Stanley, was killed in a forklift accident, dying from his injuries five months later.

The operation cost U.S. taxpayers $320 million (yes, a fraction of the money spent on U.S. weapons to Israel during this time), but barely any assistance if any actually got to the Gazans at the heart of the mission. Meanwhile, according to the IG, more than two dozen U.S. watercraft and other equipment were damaged in a three month time period, causing $31 million in repairs.

The operation, which engaged the Army's Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore, or JLOTS, as written about in these pages, was supposed to deploy both a floating pier to receive international aid from Cyprus and an extended one connected to the shore. Once built, the one on the shore was shut down at least twice because of the waves and weather conditions. Workers on the shore came under mortar fire, presumably by militants. The food actually got to the beach but it rotted away in warehouses because the Israelis did not offer a workable pathway to get it through the security checkpoints to Gazans inside.

The IG report takes aim at the military for missing the mark, according to the Post:

The Army and Navy did not meet standards for equipment and unit readiness, the report said, “nor did they organize, train, and equip their forces to meet common joint standards.” Transportation Command, which oversees coordination of military assets, also fell short of standards in planning and exercises, the report found....

Crucially, Army and Navy equipment — including watercraft, piers, causeways and communication systems — were not designed to work together, which led to damage in the Gaza operation. Planners also did not think through mission-specific needs, such as beach conditions and sea states, that should have informed how commanders executed the operation.

The mission seemed ill-fated from the beginning as it was born out of the desperation of an administration that, falling short of using the power of the White House to force the Israelis to stop its collective punishment or face a cutoff of Washington's generous support, decided to stage a spectacle to divert the world's attention from its failures. We know now that Biden pushed the military to move forward despite warnings that logistically, it wouldn't work.

It only made things worse, reflecting the impotence of the world's "superpower" and the emptiness of Biden's words and commitment to leadership. A year later, Gaza is facing outright destruction and its people are literally starving to death. The Gaza pier is but an IG report now, a footnote to American folly in this intractable conflict.








Top photo credit: US military releases photos of pier to deliver aid to Gaza (Reuters)
US military releases photos of pier to deliver aid to Gaza (Reuters)
Analysis | QiOSK
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.