Here are some excerpts from recent articles dealing with Trump’s growing disconnection from reality and the expansion of war in the Middle East for and by Israel:
The president responds to the rising economic and political costs of his criminal war with more unhinged threats:
If Iran does anything that stops the flow of Oil within the Strait of Hormuz, they will be hit by the United States of America TWENTY TIMES HARDER than they have been hit thus far.
Additionally, we will take out easily destroyable targets that will make it virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again — Death, Fire, and Fury will reign upon them — But I hope, and pray, that it does not happen!
The president started this disaster by making reckless threats, and he keeps digging himself and the rest of us into a deeper hole by making more of them. Many analysts like to predict that Trump will eventually back down and “chicken out,” but this misses that he frequently responds to adversity with more escalation. He caused the crisis with Iran, and when the Iranians refused to give in to his absurd demands he started a major war. Coercion and threats are his only tools, and when those inevitably fail him he tries to use them more aggressively than before.
*****
What is it with these “Death, Fire, and Fury” threats? What kind of a person boasts of raining death down on a people? A totally immoral one, a sociopathic one, a bully with no empathy. A murderous one.
America, this is murderous madness.
*****
At Zeteo, there’s a telling article that “King” Trump’s brain is dead, using his own words as proof. The article also covers Israel’s expansion of the war into Lebanon. More madness, but I suppose Israeli madness has a method to it and a goal: more land for a “greater Israel.” Here’s that article:
Donald Trump delivered remarks in Doral, Florida, last night, to House Republicans during their retreat, and then as part of a press conference. It might not seem like an appropriate time to be off the job, but, dear reader, based on Trump’s remarks, maybe it’s better if he steps away from the steering wheel. Let’s discuss, debunk, annotate, and report on his insanity – quote by quote:
Voters strongly disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy – to a record degree, according to a new Quinnipiac poll. Prices are only getting higher as a result of Trump’s illegal war in Iran.
Once again, there was no proof that Iran posed any “imminent threat” to the US, and, in fact, the country was negotiating a new nuclear deal with the Trump administration before the president decided to attack.
Trump has continued to suggest that Iran was responsible for the horrific bombing of an Iranian girls’ school, killing some 175 people, mostly children. Repeated independent reporting has found that the US was likely the culprit. Footage shows that it was a Tomahawk missile that rained down on the school – a US munition that Iran does not possess.
Now onto the really absurd, brain-addled, and racist moments:
This is one of Trump’s latest ongoing hits: using “Palestinian” as a slur – no less to suggest Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (who himself has said one of his jobs is to keep the left pro-Israel!) is actually too sympathetic to the people Trump and Joe Biden (and Schumer) have co-signed the genocide of. It’s the kind of behavior that, if any other ethnic group were used in such a way, would lead to congressional hearings and breathless media coverage.
And – “the Iranian people who are quite nasty”? The same people Trump and the pro-war establishment are supposedly “freeing”? Instead of liberatory language, even euphemistically, the so-called peace president is speaking in the same vicious register his friends in the Israeli government have spoken in to describe Palestinians – and we see what that’s resulted in.
Trump’s nonsensical riffs like this feel worse when you remember that one of the ships the US sank was an Iranian naval ship not in combat position, and was in the middle of traveling back from an exercise at the invitation of India. The US torpedoed it anyway, with no regard for survivors, leaving Sri Lanka to carry out a rescue mission. If that shocking breach of the Geneva Conventions only targeted one of the ships Trump was referring to, what are the others?
That was literally Trump’s response to a reporter who asked how he could say the war is “very complete” while his defense secretary says “this is just the beginning.” Well, apparently, it’s both! It’s complete, and it’s beginning. Genius!
Nearly 200 children killed: An Iranian official said US-Israeli strikes have killed at least 193 children, including an 8-month-old girl.
A third of 2026 offline: Internet access advocacy group Netblocks said today that at 240 hours, Iran’s near-total internet blackout is “now among the most severe government-imposed nationwide internet shutdowns on record globally, and the second longest registered in Iran after the January protests.” That means Iranians have spent a third of this year offline.
Hospitals hit: US-Israeli strikes have hit a number of civilian buildings, including hospitals and health clinics, per Iranian officials. At least nine hospitals are no longer operational, Al Jazeera quoted Mohammad Jamalian, a member of Iran’s parliamentary health committee, as saying.
WHO sounds the alarm: World Health Organization (WHO) head Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned that Israeli attacks on Iranian oil facilities could have negative effects on public health and “risks contaminating food, water and air.”
Oil prices drop: After reaching four-year highs yesterday, oil prices fell back down to $98.96 per barrel following Trump’s temporary claim that the war on Iran could end soon.
But the war isn’t over: Trump posted on Truth Social on Monday night: “If Iran does anything that stops the flow of Oil within the Strait of Hormuz, they will be hit by the United States of America TWENTY TIMES HARDER than they have been hit thus far.”
‘We will decide’: For Iran’s part, the country’s deputy foreign minister insistedTehran has “the upper hand,” and it will “decide when the war will end.”
Don’t Look Away: Israel Is Invading Lebanon
Smoke rises after an Israeli attack targeted the southern suburbs on March 9, 2026, in Beirut, Lebanon. Photo by Daniel Carde/Getty Images.
While the US and Israeli war on Iran rages on, and millions of Palestinians continue to face dismal conditions and persistent attacks in Gaza, Israel is alsoterrorizing Lebanon. Israeli forces have killed more than 450 people, including 83 children, in Lebanon just in the past week
Amid their reckless violence, Israeli forces have attacked United Nations peacekeepers and residential buildings. They killed 41 people, including children, while dressed up as Lebanese troops and searching for four-decade-old remains of an Israeli military pilot. Israel’s attacks have, according to Human Rights Watch, included the illegal use of white phosphorus, which ignites when exposed to oxygen and can light homes, farmland, and other buildings and infrastructure on fire. Some of the victims of Israel’s attacks on Lebanon include a Catholic priest and three paramedics.
All told, nearly 700,000 people in Lebanon have been forcibly displaced from their homes, including 200,000 children.
Imagine the entire population of Nashville, or Washington DC, being forced out of their homes. That is the scale of displacement Israel is inflicting, just in Lebanon alone.
*****
Trump also announced that America’s war on Iran won’t end until Bibi Netanyahu says it’s over. (He actually said it would be a joint U.S./Israeli decision, but it’s obvious who’s giving the orders here.)
For America, the U.S. Congress doesn’t declare war, Bibi Netanyahu does.
I saw this quip in a YouTube comments section: No matter who you vote for, you get Bibi Netanyahu as president. It makes sense. Recall Bibi’s visits to Congress and the rapturous (even stormy!) applause he always received.
Well, at least we know who’s controlling this war, and for all their posturing, it’s not bully boy Trump or punch’em when they’re down Hegseth.
Brian McGinnis, a U.S. Marine Corp veteran, was wounded in action protesting the Iran War in the U.S. Senate. Thrown down, his arm broken, McGinnis was a victim of friendly fire from the Capitol police and Senator Tim Sheehy, who decided he’d join the police in wrestling McGinnis out of the hearing room.
McGinnis’s “crime”? Using his freedom of speech to declare that no one wants to die in a war for Israel.
You can watch it all here. (You can hear the bone crack in his arm.)
This is what happens in America when you stand up and speak truth to power. The powerful already know the truth. Their response is either to ignore truth-tellers or to silence them, sometimes with extreme prejudice.
This Marine, this patriot, exercising his Constitutional right of free speech before the Senate, became yet another casualty of the U.S./Israeli War on Iran, a victim of a deliberate and unconscionable act of friendly fire. All he wanted was to have his voice heard; all he got in return was a broken arm and a most violent silencing, even as U.S. senior leaders in uniform steadfastly ignored him.
Again, this Marine was wounded in action; his action was to speak truth before the powerful, but they don’t traffic in hard or noble truths, only in easy and convenient lies.
Shame on the U.S. Senate, shame on the military’s senior leaders, and shame on the Trump administration for waging an illegitimate, unconstitutional, and illegal war against Iran and against legitimate and courageous dissent in America.
Reading NBC News this morning, I saw where the U.S. “is winning decisively, devastatingly and without mercy,” so claimed self-styled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. “We are only four days in,” he added, and the U.S. “will take all the time we need” to prevail. He further added “We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be.” (There’s nothing more honorable than punching someone when they’re down, right?)
“They [the Iranians] are toast, and they know it, or at least, soon enough, they will know it. And we have only just begun, to hunt, dismantle, demoralize, destroy and defeat their capabilities,” Hegseth boasted. As far as how long the war will last, he equivocated. Three weeks? Eight weeks? Who knows? Hegseth doesn’t.
Hegseth also doesn’t know something fundamental: You can’t do a wrong thing the right way.
The Iran War is wrong. It’s illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and also extremely dangerous. There’s no way to prevail in a war fought for the wrong reasons, a war fought without clear goals, a war that is already beginning to spiral out of control. But Hegseth thinks if the U.S. launches enough missiles, drops enough bombs, and torpedoes enough ships, somehow the U.S. will “win.”
Congratulations, U.S. and Israel: You made him a martyr
In so many ways, the U.S. has already lost. The Ayatollah Khamenei is now a martyr. Iran is now more likely to pursue a nuclear weapon. Even more so than usual, Israel is now in the driver’s seat, calling America’s shots in the Middle East. This has all the makings of a major catastrophe for U.S. forces, but all Hegseth can see is the promise of punching a man when he’s down.
Clearly, Hegseth is intoxicated with winning “without mercy.” Think about that for a moment—war without mercy. Only the most barbaric or fanatical person would boast about waging war without mercy.
With the Iran War, the Trump administration is marching down the most perilous of paths, blinded by illusions of total victory.
A warning: More than anything, America must not allow this to become a religious war, a crusade, between a Judeo-Christian force and a Shia-Islamic force. We’re already seeing a lot of talk within the U.S. military of a God-driven mission against Iran, with (positive!) references to Armageddon. Such rhetoric is incredibly dangerous and inflammatory. (In this context, that crusader cross tattoo on Hegseth’s chest is more than alarming.)
If anything, the best outcome for the U.S. would be an immediate ceasefire before more U.S. troops are killed and wounded. But how is such a ceasefire to be negotiated? U.S. diplomacy has no credibility. None.
Among the worst outcomes would be the commitment of U.S. troops to Iran, so-called boots on the ground, which would likely create a massive Bay of Pigs-style fiasco. America can ill afford yet another land war quagmire in the Middle East. There is already talk, however, of committing U.S. Special Forces to Iran, perhaps to organize Kurdish and Iranian dissidents against the legitimate Iranian government. Such folly must be prevented.
Any commitment of U.S. troops to Iran would further accelerate escalation. If you begin to hear rumblings about Selective Service and a return to a military draft, you’ll know the Trump administration has become completely unhinged (if it isn’t already).
In just a few days of “major combat operations,” the Trump administration already has more than enough innocent Iranian blood on its hands. That toll in blood is only going to increase, as will the risk of blowback on the “homeland.”
The smartest course for America at this moment is to declare “victory” and leave. Since it’s unlikely Trump and Hegseth will see the light, Congress should immediately cut war funding. Sadly, a weak-willed Congress seems far more likely to pass supplemental funding bills to give Trump and Hegseth a blank check to wage a Judeo-Christian crusade.
We don’t live in interesting times: we live in unhinged times. Perilous times. We must find a way to seek a merciful peace. The alternative just might be World War III.
Here are some macro ideas and thoughts about America’s latest war of choice with Iran:
1. It’s a war so call it that. It’s not “strikes” or “major combat operations.”
2. It’s an unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, and potentially escalatory war.
3. The war has no clear objective other than decapitation of the Iranian leadership (achieved?) and installation of a new regime that will play ball with USA/Israel. That latter outcome is extremely unlikely.
4. It’s a war for Israel to advance its regional hegemony.
5. In the main, the war is neither supported nor understood by the American people. That fact doesn’t seem to matter to the Trump administration.
6. For all those involved, the war will prove increasingly expensive in blood and treasure.
7. Recklessly begun, the war is utterly unpredictable in its final outcomes.
8. The war does not serve the national defense interests of the U.S., as Iran posed no imminent threat to U.S. national security.
9. With no clear Congressional mandate, the war lacks the critical support of the American people. Again, the Trump administration remains unconcerned here.
10. For these reasons, among others, there should be an immediate ceasefire followed by negotiations, leading to discussion of war reparations to be paid by the aggressors. (This scenario, I realize, is unlikely in the extreme.)
Yesterday, I went on “Judging Freedom” with Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss the Iran War.
As I said to the Judge, I am still confused about America’s true rationale, its intent, and its goals, and I have no clear idea of how this war is going to proceed, let alone end. War is inherently unpredictable, much like fire. Trying to predict its path of destruction, what it will burn and what it will leave behind, and when it will end, is nearly impossible. We must work to contain and extinguish this new fire in the Middle East before it becomes an inferno that engulfs even wider areas, leading to yet more innocents dead.
I woke to the news that Israel/USA is launching attacks (New York Times) and strikes (NBC News) against Iran. The BBC used “joint attack” for the Israeli/U.S. war plan. Three sources, and all three avoiding that useful descriptive word, war.
I suppose Mr. Trump doesn’t have to ask Congress for a declaration of war since it’s not a war—it’s just attacks or strikes or “major combat operations,” as Trump said today.
“All I want is freedom for the [Iranian] people,” Trump also said. Once again, “freedom” is synonymous with war and death.
So perhaps Orwell had it wrong. It’s not war is peace; it’s war is freedom.
It’s funny: I’m listening to ABC News and they keep using the words “strike” or “joint strike” or “preemptive strike.” Or even “larger-scale strike.” Trump sees it as a “noble mission,” but not apparently a Nobel Peace Prize one.
So many lies, so much dishonesty, so much illegality.
Grim times.
If you can stand it, here’s Trump talking about Iran’s terror. Iran has “soaked the earth with blood and guts,” so he claims. I’m glad the USA is innocent of death and violence. No blood and guts from our military “strikes.”
It’s not a war. It’s just “strikes” or “attacks” or something
So remember America: Don’t speak of war. You have no say anyway. Just sit back and watch the strikes and attacks ordered by two paragons of virtue, Bibi Netanyahu and Donald Trump.
Update (2/28, Noonish)
The words of James Madison resonate here:
Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debt and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals, engendered in both. No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare …
Allegedly, we’re bombing for freedom in Iran, even as freedom in America vanishes. Is it time to drop “freedom” bombs on ourselves?
Ask Americans (or any other people) being bombed if they think it’s conducive to greater freedom.
If you’re looking to “your” military to resist wrongful wars, you’re looking in the wrong place.
I should know. I was still on active duty in 2003 during the run-up to the disastrous Iraq War. What I remember was a sense of inevitability. The Bush/Cheney administration obviously wanted a settling of accounts with Saddam Hussein, and the war was going to happen irrespective of diplomatic efforts. One clear sign was that the good-faith efforts of weapons inspectors were discarded in a rush to war.
I did not speak out against the Iraq War until 2007 (I retired in 2005). Some profile in courage!
As I’ve commented here, “It’s not easy for us military lifers to get a grip on organizational betrayal because we’re part of the organization–our identities and ideals are linked to it. We are too close–we are reluctant to believe we’re being misled by lies spread from the very top of the pyramid.”
I submit this as a partial explanation, not as an excuse. Within the military, there’s a strong emphasis on staying in your lane. Do your job. Leave the decisions to the higher-ups. They have the intelligence, not you. Yours not to reason why … yours but to do and die.
History indicates that dissent within any military will be tightly constrained. And of course the U.S. military, if necessary, will use the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) to imprison and otherwise to silence those who represent a threat to “good order and discipline.”
A separate question is this: How does a rebellious military even work? Alternatively, if a military is a hotbed of dissent and rebellion, it suggests a dishonest war and poor leadership as well. Are we headed in that direction now with respect to Iran? Are we already there? Perhaps this is one reason why there’s so much talk of “warriors” today in the U.S. military–the idea our soldiers fight as mercenaries for the thrill of it, not because they’re citizen-soldiers upholding the Constitution.
*****
Let’s be blunt: We are not supposed to go to war based on presidential whims, pressure from foreign powers like Israel, corporate profits, imperial dominance, and similar imperatives. Only Congress has the power to declare war in the name of the American people. But ever since World War II, Congress has been shunted aside by the National Security State. A few members of Congress may protest, but Congress writ large has abdicated its responsibility over war. This is perhaps the leading reason why we fight wrongful wars.
Another reason is our poor choice of leaders. Donald Trump spoke plainly early in 2016 that he believed the military should and would follow his orders irrespective of their legality. Trump believes he is not constrained by the U.S. Constitution, that his orders are the law. He should have been disqualified from running for office when he admitted he saw himself as being above the law; instead, he was elected and reelected.
And, let’s face it, “our” government treats we the people like mushrooms, keeping us in the dark while feeding us bullshit. Along with being actively misled, warmongers like Dick Cheney simply don’t care what the people think. As Cheney infamously replied when he was told the American people were losing faith in the Iraq War: “So?” Who cares? America’s leaders don’t care what you think. They don’t require your approval—only your obedience.
Finally, we the people, writ large, have acquiesced in the construction of a U.S. military machine based on global reach, global power, and full-spectrum dominance. We’ve “invested” gargantuan sums to create a military machine of great enormity. A military machine that we hold in high esteem. There will always be a temptation to use that machine, to see every problem as a Gordian knot that can be easily cut by our well-honed military saber.
To come back to the U.S. military: First, troops are trained to obey, not so much educated to think, and they certainly aren’t encouraged to disobey. Pilots want to be the best pilots they can be; maintainers want to be skilled maintainers; and so on. Sergeants and lieutenants leave bigger questions to their COs, their commanding officers. This is how militaries have worked for millennia.
The harsh realities of war
*****
Again, I write this as a partial explanation about why we wage wrongful wars. It’s not meant as an excuse.
Ten years ago, I wrote an article for TomDispatch on why it’s so difficult for military members to speak out, even against illegal wars. (And who’s to say what is illegal?) Here’s an excerpt from that article:
Leaving military insularity, unit loyalty, and the pressure of combat aside, however, here are seven other factors I’ve witnessed, which combine to inhibit dissent within military circles.
1. Careerism and ambition: The U.S. military no longer has potentially recalcitrant draftees — it has “volunteers.” Yesteryear’s draftees were sometimes skeptics; many just wanted to endure their years in the military and get out. Today’s volunteers are usually believers; most want to excel. Getting a reputation for critical comments or other forms of outspokenness generally means not being rewarded with fast promotions and plum assignments. Career-oriented troops quickly learn that it’s better to fail upwards quietly than to impale yourself on your sword while expressing honest opinions. If you don’t believe me, ask all those overly decorated generals of our failed wars you see on TV.
2. Future careerism and ambition: What to do when you leave the military? Civilian job options are often quite limited. Many troops realize that they will be able to double or triple their pay, however, if they go to work for a defense contractor, serving as a military consultant or adviser overseas. Why endanger lucrative prospects (or even your security clearance, which could be worth tens of thousands of dollars to you and firms looking to hire you) by earning a reputation for being “difficult”?
3. Lack of diversity: The U.S. military is not blue and red and purple America writ small; it’s a selective sampling of the country that has already winnowed out most of the doubters and rebels. This is, of course, by design. After Vietnam, the high command was determinednever to have such a wave of dissent within the ranks again and in this (unlike so much else) they succeeded. Think about it: between “warriors” and citizen-soldiers, who is more likely to be tractable and remain silent?
4. A belief that you can effect change by working quietly from within the system: Call it the Harold K. Johnson effect. Johnson was an Army general during the Vietnam War who considered resigning in protest over what he saw as a lost cause. He decided against it, wagering that he could better effect change while still wearing four stars, a decision he later came deeply to regret. The truth is that the system has time-tested ways of neutralizing internal dissent, burying it, or channeling it and so rendering it harmless.
5. The constant valorization of the military: Ever since 9/11, the gushing pro-military rhetoric of presidents and other politicians has undoubtedly served to quiet honest doubts within the military. If the president and Congress think you’re the best military ever, a force for human liberation, America’s greatest national treasure, who are you to disagree, Private Schmuckatelli?
America used to think differently. Our founders considered a standing army to be a pernicious threat to democracy. Until World War II, they generally preferred isolationism to imperialism, though of course many were eager to take land from Native Americans and Mexicans while double-crossing Cubans, Filipinos, and other peoples when it came to their independence. If you doubt that, just read War is a Racket by Smedley Butler, a Marine general in the early decades of the last century and two-time recipient of the Medal of Honor. In the present context, think of it this way: democracies should see a standing military as a necessary evil, and military spending as a regressive tax on civilization — as President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously did when he compared such spending to humanity being crucified on a cross of iron.
Chanting constant hosannas to the troops and telling them they’re the greatest ever— remember the outcry against Muhammad Ali when, with significantly more cause, he boasted that he was the greatest? — may make our military feel good, but it won’t help them see their flaws, nor us as a nation see ours.
6. Loss of the respect of peers: Dissent is lonely. It’s been more than a decade since my retirement and I still hesitate to write articles like this. (It’s never fun getting hate mail from people who think you’re un-American for daring to criticize any aspect of the military.) Small wonder that critics choose to keep their own counsel while they’re in the service.
7. Even when you leave the military, you never truly leave: I haven’t been on a military base in years. I haven’t donned a uniform since my retirement ceremony in 2005. Yet occasionally someone will call me “colonel.” It’s always a reminder that I’m still “in.” I may have left the military behind, but it never left me behind. I can still snap to attention, render a proper salute, recite my officer’s oath from memory.
In short, I’m not a former but a retired officer. My uniform may be gathering dust in the basement, but I haven’t forgotten how it made me feel when I wore it. I don’t think any of us who have served ever do. That strong sense of belonging, that emotional bond, makes you think twice before speaking out. Or at least that’s been my experience. Even as I call for more honesty within our military, more bracing dissent, I have to admit that I still feel a residual sense of hesitation. Make of that what you will.
Bonus Reason: Troops are sometimes reluctant to speak out because they doubt Americans will listen, or if they do, empathize and understand. It’s one thing to vent your frustrations in private among friends on your military base or at the local VFW hall among other veterans. It’s quite another to talk to outsiders. War’s sacrifices and horrors are especially difficult to convey and often traumatic to relive. Nevertheless, as a country, we need to find ways to encourage veterans to speak out and we also need to teach ourselves how to listen — truly listen — no matter the harshness of what they describe or how disturbed what they actually have to say may make us feel.
My fellow Americans, it’s nice to think we have a semblance of a constitutional republic, but that warship has sailed. This time, to Iran.
*****
This AM, I read an interesting story on the Supreme Court’s repeal of Trump’s tariffs. Justice Neil Gorsuch made the point that his fellow justices’ interpretation of the law often changes based on whether the president is a Republican or Democrat. This, to state the obvious, is not how the law is supposed to work.
*****
Years ago, I spied a bumper sticker that read: “I’m already against the next war.” It’s on my mind again.
******
I’ll support a war when Hollywood celebrities and sports stars willingly enlist. And when the sons and daughters of presidents and senators and CEOs happily join them in the ranks.
*****
Do you think it’s a coincidence that Bibi Netanyahu keeps visiting the White House even as the Trump administration prepares for yet another war in the Middle East?
*****
A great book for this moment is “Deadly Betrayal: The Truth About Why the United States Invaded Iraq” (2024) by Dennis Fritz. Fritz, a retired AF command chief master sergeant, was in the halls of power when the Bush/Cheney administration decided to invade Iraq in 2003. He identifies three main reasons for the Iraq War fiasco: U.S. leaders’ concerns about “credibility” and the perpetual fear of being perceived as “weak”; serving the security needs of Israel, especially by weakening Hamas and Hezbollah together with Iraq; and neocon fever dreams of imperial dominance in the Middle East connected to the control of oil.
In his conclusion, Fritz is scathingly blunt:
More than 4,500 [U.S. troops] made the ultimate sacrifice, and 100,000 have been wounded for life. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Saddam Hussein posed no threat to our national security. The Iraq War wasn’t an honest mistake. It was a calculated lie—a deadly betrayal. Our service members were used as pawns by the government to fulfill an imperialist ideology. Their sacrifice had no basis in national defense. All Americans should be outraged, and we should never let this happen again. The troops didn’t even know why they were going to war.
It saddens me to think that Fritz may soon need to write “Deadly Betrayal II” about the forthcoming war with Iran.
In Israel, the two defense officials said that significant preparations were underway for the possibility of a joint strike with the United States, even though no decision has been made about whether to carry out such an attack. They said the planning envisions delivering a severe blow over a number of days with the goal of forcing Iran into concessions at the negotiating table that it has so far been unwilling to make.
The U.S. buildup suggests an array of possible Iranian targets, including short and medium range missiles, missile storage depots, nuclear sites and other military targets, such as headquarters of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The ultimate decision on scope of targets is largely up to Mr. Trump, U.S. officials said.
Strangely, nowhere in this article is it mentioned that U.S. military attacks on Iran legally require a Congressional declaration of war. Apparently, it’s all up to Mr. Trump and Israel whether Iran gets hammered soon.
We the people have absolutely no say. The U.S. Constitution simply doesn’t matter.
Iran poses no direct threat to U.S. national security. There is no clear and present danger; no defensible reason to launch yet another attack on Iran. Yet it seems those attacks will soon be coming, as long as Israel has something to say about this (and that country most certainly does).
Why war with Iran? Apparently for “regime change,” apparently for the oil, and apparently for Israel.
A diplomatic settlement appears to be a long shot here. Perhaps more like a “Hail Mary” pass.
No matter how unconstitutional, no matter how unnecessary to national defense, war always seems to find a way. I sure hope I’m wrong here.
The Pentagon has failed eight consecutive financial audits. For decades it has been unable to account for trillions of dollars. It has not won a major war since World War II. That is not a record of excellence. It is a record of entrenched failure.
Naturally, President Trump’s answer is to give it another $500 billion in next year’s budget.
If enacted, that would drive annual U.S. military spending north of $1.5 trillion. The math is almost too neat: U.S. GDP hovers around $30 trillion; five percent of that is $1.5 trillion. Somewhere along the way, the arbitrary idea that “defense” spending should equal 5 percent of GDP hardened into dogma. A considered strategy no longer informs budgets. Arbitrary numerology does.
Did the Pentagon request an extra half-trillion dollars? No. Has the administration identified a new existential threat that requires it? No. There is no grand strategy unveiled to justify this “surge.” Just a number — large, round, politically expedient.
An institution that cannot pass an audit is not prepared to manage another half-trillion dollars. Pouring money into a system riddled with cost overruns, duplicated programs, and strategic confusion does not produce security. It produces contractors’ profits and future disasters.
Let’s be honest about what this really is. The national security state — the blob, the military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academia-think tank complex — is already the most powerful force in Washington. When you add “defense,” nuclear weapons, intelligence, veterans’ programs, and homeland security, it consumes well over half of federal discretionary spending. It is the unofficial fourth branch of government, and arguably the first in power.
Few presidents confront it. Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex — and even he presided over huge Cold War budgets. John F. Kennedy spoke of peace while deepening involvement in Vietnam. Lyndon B. Johnson escalated that war catastrophically. Barack Obama accepted a Nobel Peace Prize and then defended the necessity of permanent American war. Presidents learn quickly: you appease the Pentagon or you risk political ruin.
And so Trump does what presidents do. Even as he talks of peace, he feeds the war machine.
We are told this is about safety. That peace comes only through overwhelming force. That America must dominate every domain — land, sea, air, space, cyberspace — indefinitely. That garrisoning the globe is synonymous with freedom. That “exceptional” nations do not generate blowback.
Yet two decades in Iraq and Afghanistan ended not in triumph but exhaustion and retreat. Each failure somehow justifies a larger budget. Nothing succeeds like failure.
In a functioning democracy, military spending would be tied to actual defense. It would be scrutinized, debated, constrained. Instead, military failure yields medals and ribbons. Audit failure yields budget growth. Strategic stalemate yields expansion. The larger the disappointment, the louder the demand for more money and authority.
When an institution grows more powerful no matter how poorly it performs, accountability has died. When elected officials dare not meaningfully challenge it, civilian control becomes theater. Call it what you will, but a republic that cannot rein in its military establishment is drifting toward a system where the sword outweighs the ballot and proves mightier than the pen.
As Joe Biden once said, “Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.” A $1.5 trillion military budget tells us that war — or at least preparation for it — sits at the center of national life.
Perhaps not so happy
On Presidents’ Day, it is worth recalling that George Washington surrendered military power to constitutional authority. That was the founding act of the republic. The test of any president is whether he sees himself as bound by law — or as a ruler who commands legions.
Empires require Caesars. Republics require restraint. The colossal size of Trump’s proposed war budget suggests which path he (and America) is choosing.
Hello Everyone: here’s an interview I did with Dick Price and Sharon Kyle at LA Progressive about why we can’t seem to heed Ike’s warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex in 1961.
Other topics covered include sports and the military, Hollywood and the Pentagon, first-person shooter games, and toxic masculinity.
We also discuss what it would take to change America—to redirect energies dedicated to imperialism and war to democracy and peace. I say something here about idealism, a sign perhaps of my own naïveté.
You can have my ideals when you pry them from my cold dead brain.
Bracing Views 