No, you’re very mistaken. Let me explain.
In the past, the US has stationed supporting troops off of Israel, in battleships far away. It’s meant to provide support while keeping things calm.
The reason that putting any soldiers IN Israel is significant is that it means that if Iran tries to kill any Israeli soldiers, they can’t do it without risking killing Americans. And if they kill an American, it is understood that we will retaliate and they will be at war with the United States of America.
That’s the point of sending 100 troops to offer “tech support”. It’s to deliberately create conditions that could start a war. If you ask a general, they’ll claim that it’s just shrewd tactics, because letting Iran know all this means that good judgment will prevent them from attacking Israel. But every war in history is preceded by people making those claims (even when they don’t believe them) before going to war.
This is foreplay. This is how you flirt when you’re a NatSec pervert thinking of going to war against someone.
This is essentially what I was going to say (though more poetic).
I’m of two minds. I admit that i cringe a bit that he would even call this “good trouble”. John Lewis’ “good trouble” was nearly getting beaten to death. How Booker can apply such a label to an act of protest that didn’t even meaningfully delay any noteworthy business is frankly amazing to me.
But also, he did fucking do something. He specifically articulated that we should all be alarmed, and he declared that he intends to not cooperate with or normalize what is happening. Low bar? Yes. But we all have to start somewhere.
I actually like Cory Booker. He was my third or fourth pick among the 20-something candidates that ran in 2020.
I’ll say this: this act is not enough to convince me that elected Democrats are going to do anything meaningful in the next two years. But the absence of it would’ve made me far less likely to expect it. Good for him.