Author: wjastore

Creator of Bracing Views. Contributor to TomDispatch, Truthout, HNN, Alternet, Huffington Post, Antiwar, and other sites. Retired AF lieutenant colonel and professor of history. Senior fellow, Eisenhower Media Network

More “War” in Gaza

It’s not an invasion, it’s a “forceful entry”

BILL ASTORE

MAY 06, 2025

It’s rather amazing how the New York Times covers ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza. Today’s NYT features an article (in my email newsfeed) that talks about the “war” on Hamas and identifies the key issue as the hostages and their return. From this article, you’d never know Gaza has been reduced to rubble in a bombing campaign equivalent to seven Hiroshima atomic bombs. You’d never know that more than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed, but that the likely number of killed is probably twice or three times that. You’d never know the Israeli government’s plan is to kill or push out all the Palestinians in Gaza, a “final solution” to the Gaza problem. You’d never know the main victims of Israel’s “war” have been innocent women and children in Gaza.

And while the NYT does mention starvation and the spread of diseases, it provides no estimate for the number of Palestinians killed as a result of Israel’s blockade.

Also, the NYT mentions that Israeli’s latest invasion may endanger the hostages. Nothing is said about endangering the lives of Palestinians in Gaza. Basically, all those who live in Gaza are treated as Hamas, as terrorists, who must either be killed or removed.

This is your “paper of record,” America, with all the news that’s fit to print.

Here’s what appeared in my news feed from the NYT. Judge for yourself:

WAR RETURNS TO GAZA

A plume of dark smoke rises over a Gaza neighborhood in ruins.

After an Israeli airstrike in Gaza on Saturday. Amir Cohen/Reuters

Over the weekend, Israel decided to call in military reservists and escalate the war in the Gaza Strip again.

The news reflects a sharp turn of events. Earlier this year, Israel and Hamas agreed to a cease-fire. That deal held for months, during which Israel halted operations in Gaza and Hamas handed over some Israeli hostages. But the cease-fire ended in March. Now, it seems the war is truly returning.

Why escalate now?

Israel has pressured Hamas to return all of the remaining hostages, especially the 24 who officials believe are still alive. Officials also say that Hamas must disarm as part of any future deal. But Hamas has refused. Before it makes further concessions, it wants the war over and Israel out of Gaza.

Israel hopes escalation will get Hamas to capitulate and return all of the hostages — while giving its troops a chance to destroy the group’s remaining infrastructure.

What is Israel’s plan?

The generals are calling up tens of thousands of reservists to expand operations in Gaza. They plan to occupy the region, forcibly relocate Palestinians in affected areas and oversee aid distribution.

Israel has blocked all aid, including food and medicine, from entering the territory for more than two months. (Some aid workers are accused of participating in the Oct. 7 attacks, The Times explained, and a lawsuit claims that Hamas skimmed $1 billion in U.N. aid. But the blockade has led to starvation and the spread of diseases, as The Times documented.) With direct control, Israel says, it will allow distribution to resume.

Will the plan work?

Israeli leaders say that military pressure secured the release of hostages before. They hope to replicate that success. Critics argue that Israel has by now exhausted its ability to pressure Hamas with force. They worry more fighting will put the surviving hostages at risk. — German Lopez

Related: Israel’s prime minister said the country was “on the eve of a forceful entry to Gaza.”

The Department of Empire

W.J. Astore

And Its Bloated Imperial War Budget

Language and repetition of the same is so important. We hear about the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Pentagon budget and we think little of it. The DoD, of course, used to be called the Department of War until 1947, a far more telling and accurate name, and there wasn’t a Pentagon until we built one during World War II. In the old days, the Army fought the Navy for which service would get more money in the War Budget, with the Navy usually winning as America sought to control the seas as a means of dominating trade and “intercourse” among nations.

Those were more honest times when retired generals like Smedley Butler wrote in the 1930s that he’d served as a “gangster” for capitalism. Butler was a Marine who was twice awarded the Medal of Honor, so it wasn’t easy for the imperialists to smear him, though they certainly tried (as they did to David M. Shoup, another Marine Corps general and Medal of Honor recipient who turned against the Vietnam War in the 1960s).

Anyhow, I just saw at Antiwar.com that President Trump is proposing a $1.01 trillion budget for the Pentagon for FY2026, a 13% increase in imperial spending. Trump, of course, is proud of reaching the Trillion Dollar threshold. Big numbers have always appealed to him.

It doesn’t seem to matter who is president, whether it’s Biden or Trump, Democrat or Republican, when it comes to the Department of Empire and its bloated imperial budget. For that is what it is, a budget that seeks to sustain and enlarge America’s imperial domain. If you add other costs related to imperial dominance, such as interest on the national debt due to war spending, VA costs, nuclear weapons, and the like, the true imperial budget soars toward $1.7 trillion yearly.

No matter. A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.

The Pentagon tries to disguise the enormous waste of this imperial budget by speaking of it as an “investment,” but imagine an “investment” that you’re involved in which fails seven audits in a row. How likely would you be to see this as anything other than theft?

Dwight D. Eisenhower had it right in 1953 when he spoke of military spending as a theft from those who hunger. Ike’s words are almost never heard today inside the Washington Beltway. It’s worth reflecting upon them again as America’s leaders boast of trillion-dollar war budgets:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children… This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

America, I can’t improve upon that.

Zuckerberg Tells a Truth

W.J. Astore

Ready for Your AI “Friends”?

I caught this snippet from Mark Zuckerberg, guru of Facebook:

There’s this stat that I always think is crazy. The average American, I think has, I think it’s fewer than three friends, three people that they’d consider friends and the average person has demand for meaningfully more. I think it’s like 15 friends or something.

If you’re familiar with Facebook, every personal contact you make on there is categorized as a “friend.” When you want to add someone to your Facebook page, you “friend” them. Alternatively, when you want to get rid of someone, you “unfriend” them.

Now, the typical Facebook user has roughly 200-300 “friends.” What Zuckerberg is unintentionally revealing in that snippet above is that Facebook “friends” aren’t real friends. They’re mostly acquaintances. People we’ve met once or twice, maybe even people we’ve never met. They’re not close friends, intimate friends, “real” friends. 

So why call them “friends,” Facebook? For obvious reasons. Just about anyone would like more friends, and indeed I know people with over 2000 “friends” on Facebook. But, again, how many close or intimate friends can you really have?

That’s where Zuckerberg comes in, yet again, riding to the rescue with AI “friends.” Yes, he’s suggesting that the solution to loneliness in America, our lack of intimacy, is AI programs that will be your “friend,” a little bit like the movie “Her” with Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson.

So, I suppose you’ll soon be able to buy AI “friends” from Mark Zuckerberg or someone like him. Or perhaps they’ll be offered for “free,” as Facebook is, with your most intimate data being sold to the highest bidder.

I really don’t want AI “friends.” I have a few real friends, people I’ve known for decades, people I do feel close to, and I’m lucky to have them. Two quick lessons come to mind. First, of course, friends aren’t perfect. They can be annoying, frustrating, maddening. (Guess what? I can be too.) Part of being a friend and keeping one is tolerance, acceptance, patience. The second lesson: To have a friend you have to be a friend. If you want people to be there when you need them, it’s a good idea to be there when they need you.

Sorry, Zuckerberg: I don’t think AI “friends” are the answer here. But thanks for debunking the whole idea of “friends” on Facebook.

U.S. Elites Learned Much from the Vietnam Defeat

W.J. Astore

To them, the right lessons; to everyone else, the wrong ones

We just marked the 50th anniversary of the Fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975. Did American officials learn anything from the disastrous Vietnam War?

Saigon, April 1975

Of course they did. Just not the lessons you’d have wished they’d learned.

So, what did they learn?

  • They learned that wars can indeed last forever, but that Vietnam wasn’t the best “forever war” for the military-industrial complex because it became deeply unpopular and was disrupting cohesion within the military itself. The best forever wars are open-ended “wars” like the global war on terror. And perhaps a “new Cold War” with Russia and/or China. Wars that don’t involve the deployment of over half a million men (unless that “new” Cold War turns hot).
  • They learned to control the narrative. No more journalists traveling freely in war zones as in the 1960s in Vietnam. Journalists are now most often embedded in U.S. military units. Embedded reporters, dependent on the military for access and protection, know what they can and can’t say, even as they tend to sympathize with the troops they’re with.
  • They learned that forced conscription via a draft doesn’t work well for unpopular wars. So they transformed the military into an “all-volunteer” force. Draftees may well be resentful, rightly so, but volunteers? Too bad—they volunteered for this.
  • Along with “volunteers,” they learned to indoctrinate U.S. troops to be “warriors” and “warfighters” rather than citizen-soldiers. Warriors exist to fight wars, so shut up and blast away.
  • They learned to keep the American people isolated from war and its deadly effects. Recall that under Bush/Cheney, Americans weren’t even allowed to see flag-draped caskets. During Vietnam, war was in America’s living rooms during dinner, complete with body counts. Coverage of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere was sanitized, almost bloodlessly so.
  • They learned never to talk of sacrifice (except by those volunteer warriors) by the American people. Taxes aren’t raised in the name of war. There are no war bond drives. America’s leaders tell the rest of us to enjoy life, to visit Disney and to go shopping, while “our” warriors fight overseas.

Together with those “lessons,” they continue to preach “peace through strength,” attacking those who truly seek peace as misguided (at best) and treasonous (at worst). As ever, they tend to attack those who’d dare criticize the U.S. military as ungrateful backstabbers. And of course they consistently obscure the truth of how poorly wars like Iraq and Afghanistan were going while holding no one in the upper echelons responsible and accountable for rampant corruption and disastrous endings.

All these “lessons” ensured that Vietnam wouldn’t be the last example of hubris, folly, and atrocity, and indeed it hasn’t been. Until the right lessons are learned, expect future repeats, tragic variations on a theme of Vietnam.

Wars As Money-Laundering Operations

W.J. Astore

Even in Losing Wars, Somebody Always Wins …

“Fighting a war to fix something works about as good as going to a whorehouse to get rid of a clap.” — Norman Mailer, The Naked and the Dead

I read Norman Mailer’s fine book about World War II, “The Naked and the Dead,” several years ago, though I’d forgotten the quote above until I ran across it again in an article by Andrew Bacevich at Harper’s in 2009.

Bacevich’s article was titled “The War We Can’t Win,” in which he critiqued and rejected President Barack Obama’s decision to “surge” in Afghanistan. As Bacevich wrote back in 2009:

What is it about Afghanistan, possessing next to nothing, that the United States requires, that justified such lavish attention? In Washington, this question goes not only unanswered but unasked. Among Democrats and Republicans alike, with few exceptions, Afghanistan’s importance is simply assumed—much the way fifty years ago otherwise intelligent people simply assumed that the United States had a vital interest in ensuring the survival of South Vietnam. Today, as then, the assumption does not stand up to even casual scrutiny.

Bacevich was right, of course. And once America pulled out of Afghanistan in 2021, we were encouraged to forget about it, just as we were encouraged to forget about Vietnam after the fall of Saigon in 1975.

If it doesn’t matter much to the U.S. when we lose wars, doesn’t that suggest the wars meant little to begin with? That there never truly were vital matters of national interest at stake?

The same was true of the Iraq War, as Bacevich describes it in the same article for Harper’s. This war, Bacevich writes, was “utterly needless” as “no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction [were] found, no ties between Saddam Hussein and the [9/11] jihadists established, no democratic transformation of the Islamic world set into motion, no road to peace in Jerusalem discovered in downtown Baghdad,” yet the U.S. was nevertheless hyping the success of the “surge” there from 2007 and how it should be applied to Afghanistan, an example of obtuseness and self-delusion that Bacevich said “is nothing short of obscene.”

He was right, of course, as both surges proved as fragile and reversible as weasel-worded General David Petraeus hinted they would be. Petraeus might be America’s best example of Grima Wormtongue from “The Lord of the Rings,” though of course there’s a lot of competition for that honor.

Bacevich, a retired Army colonel, political scientist, and Vietnam War veteran, criticizes U.S. leaders for their “failure of imagination,” for their crusading zeal, for their hubris, and for their tendency to substitute technique for sound strategy. He is right about all this, but someone always profits from war. Somebody always wins. And so perhaps the best way to understand these wars is to focus on the winners.

So, who won these wars? Certainly, the military-industrial complex won them. Every war, winning or losing, wise or unwise, strengthens the MIC by expanding its budgetary authority and scope of action. Military contractors, the merchants of death, especially profit from war, notably long “stalemated” ones like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. 

In a short video clip, Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange explained the purpose of the Afghan War which, as Bacevich mentions above, is inexplicable in terms of U.S. national interest:

A vast money-laundering operation that enriches oligarchs who profit from war, death, and mayhem: it makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? Note too how Assange explains that the ultimate purpose here is to make war permanent, to make it normal, to make it unremarkable, even to make it the height of sanity.

This has happened and is happening. Today, Iraq and Afghanistan are largely forgotten in the U.S. and Europe. New fears are focused on bigger fish: Russia and/or China, even as the U.S. pummels Yemen. Few Western leaders are talking about peace; Europe is fixated on Russia even as America is more concerned with pivoting to Asia and doing the bidding of Israel in the Middle East.

And so the money-laundering continues.

A lesson here is to follow the money, especially when wars seem strategically stupid, because the people and forces in charge aren’t stupid—their priorities are just far different from our priorities.

And this is something Bacevich catches in a different context as he explains that the costs of war are not borne “by the people who inhabit the leafy neighborhoods of northwest Washington, who lunch at the Palm or the Metropolitan Club and school their kids at Sidwell Friends.” Indeed not. The costs are borne by the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and so on, as well as those U.S. troops who get caught waging these wars, and who likely come from small towns in Alabama and Texas and similar rural areas.

What Does AI Say About My Writing?

W.J. Astore

Insights from My Computer Friends 

I recently checked in with HAL 9000, actually ChatGPT and DeepSeek, to see what AI says about my writing on military policy. I’ll let ChatGPT go first:

William Astore, a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel and historian, has emerged as a prominent voice critiquing America’s militaristic culture and its pervasive influence on domestic and foreign policy. Through his essays on platforms like TomDispatch and Truthdig, Astore offers a candid examination of how militarism has become deeply embedded in American society, often to its detriment.​

The Militarization of American Society

Astore argues that the United States has transitioned from a nation with a military to a militarized nation. He contends that this shift is not marked by overt displays of military power but by a subtle, pervasive presence of militaristic values in everyday life. This includes the normalization of war, the glorification of military service, and the integration of military imagery into civilian spaces. He warns that such normalization desensitizes the public to the realities of war and erodes democratic values. ​

The Business of War

In his critique of the military-industrial complex, Astore highlights how war has become a profitable enterprise for a select few. He references General Smedley Butler’s assertion that “war is a racket,” emphasizing that the true beneficiaries of war are often corporations and political elites, rather than the general populace. Astore suggests that this profit-driven approach to war leads to prolonged conflicts with little regard for their human or financial costs. 

The Disconnect Between Military and Society

Astore points out the growing divide between the military and civilian sectors. He notes that the all-volunteer force, while composed of individuals who choose to serve, often does so out of limited economic opportunities rather than a deep-seated desire to fight. This creates a situation where the broader public remains detached from the consequences of war, leading to a lack of accountability and understanding. ​

A Call for Reflection and Change

Throughout his writings, Astore advocates for a return to a more restrained and reflective approach to military engagement. He urges Americans to critically assess the true costs of war and to reconsider the glorification of militarism in public life. By fostering a more informed and engaged citizenry, Astore believes the U.S. can move towards a foreign policy that prioritizes diplomacy and peace over conflict.​

Astore’s insights challenge readers to confront the complexities of American militarism and its implications for both domestic society and international relations. His work serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining a vigilant and informed public to ensure that the nation’s military endeavors align with its democratic ideals.​

*****

That’s a fair assessment, I’d say. I do believe America is too war- and profit-driven, too adulatory toward the military, and also too disconnected from the grim realities of war. And I have called for a recommitment to and renewal of diplomacy. A “vigilant and informed public” is exactly what Ike called for in 1961 when he said that only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry could keep the military-industrial-congressional complex in check. I suppose that’s why the MICC works to keep Americans isolated from and ignorant about war. The last thing the MICC wants is alert and knowledgeable citizens who challenge it.

HAL 9000 (from the movie “2001”)

Let’s turn to DeepSeek and its summary, which isn’t quite as comprehensive as ChatGPT:

William Astore, a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel and historian, is a vocal critic of U.S. military policy and militarism. His key arguments include:

  1. Excessive Militarization. Astore argues that the U.S. has become overly reliant on military solutions to geopolitical problems, leading to endless wars and bloated defense budgets. He critiques the “military-industrial complex” (a term popularized by Eisenhower) for perpetuating this cycle.
  2. Militarism in Society. He highlights how militarism has seeped into American culture, with the glorification of the military. pervasive defense contracting, and the influence of retired generals in media and politics.
  3. Failed Wars & Lack of Accountability. Astore condemns U.S. interventions (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan) as costly failures, driven by hubris and flawed assumptions, with little accountability for policymakers.
  4. Erosion of Democracy. He warns that unchecked militarism undermines democratic values, as vast resources are diverted to the military while domestic needs (education, healthcare, infrastructure) are neglected.
  5. Need for Reform. Astore advocates for a more restrained foreign policy, reduced defense spending, and greater public skepticism toward military leaders and war propaganda.

*****

Again, I think that’s a fair summary. I like the emphasis on lack of accountability. So-called experts are never called to account for advocating for disastrous wars; indeed, they’re usually promoted to higher positions. You can never go wrong by going “strong,” at least rhetorically. The worst thing in America is to argue for diplomacy and peace and being proven right, for you were right “for the wrong reasons,” i.e. sure, Iraq and Afghanistan were disastrous wars that killed, wounded, and displaced millions, but it would have been pusillanimous and “weak” of America not to slap around a few countries in the aftermath of 9/11. So put on your “big boy” warrior fatigues and start kicking ass, because that’s what real Americans do.

It’s interesting that AI programs probably wouldn’t write that last sentence but they can “write” sober and rational prose rather effectively.

ChatGPT and DeepSeek can be useful tools, I think, if used judiciously. I worry, however, about AI programs being used for decision-making, especially decisions related to life and death in war. So, for example, I’ve read about AI programs being used for target selection in places like Gaza. Just what we need—ever-more automated death.

The NFL Draft Is Back!

W.J. Astore

Bigger and Badder than Ever

The NFL draft started last night, in prime time. I’m fascinated, flabbergasted, and horrified by all the ink spilled and money spent on the draft–what a spectacle it’s become! Even before the draft, there are literally thousands of “mock” drafts, including those that attempt to predict all seven rounds of the draft, like this example. It’s insane! Why go through these exercises when you can simply wait for the draft results? I guess articles like this get clicks, but still …

After the obligatory national anthem and a military flyover featuring four helicopters (A flyover? For the draft?), the commissioner got down to business, Somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 people were in attendance outside of Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Wisconsin. There’s one tradition I do like: lusty boos for the commish (the commissioner). It’s all in good fun.

Anyhow, many people have noted the spectacle of mostly Black players being “selected” by mostly white owners. Echoes of the slave auctions of the past? I don’t go there, since the players selected in the 1st round become instant millionaires — they’re not slaves, obviously — but there’s something to the comparison.

When a player is selected, networks like ABC, ESPN, and the NFL Network show instant video highlights, over which “experts” intone whether the pick was wise or unwise, an overpay or a steal, and so on. Each player has a “tale of the tape” with all the player’s stats, including height, weight, arm length, speed in the 40-yard dash, even wrist size! The coverage is exhaustive—and exhausting, especially if you’re not a fan.

If only America took its wars as seriously as it took NFL football. If only events in Gaza were covered with the same objectivity and attention to detail as the draft. Given the media resources expended on it, you’d think the NFL draft was the lifeblood of America, the linchpin of our democracy. Perhaps it is?

With legalized betting, you can now bet on when a player will be drafted. Again, those odds are carefully calculated and supported with reams of data. NFL owners love all this legal betting—it puts a ton of money in their pockets. Just don’t read all the fine print about how America has more gambling addicts than ever.

Football remains #1 in America (along with the Pentagon, I suppose). At so many colleges and universities, the most richly compensated and often most powerful person is the football coach. A fortunate professor with tenure might make $100,000 a year as the football coach takes home several million dollars. Who says America’s students aren’t learning the right lessons at college?

Everything about major American sports like the NFL has been corporatized and monetized. Despite that, I still enjoy following “my” team, don’t ask me why, even as I marvel at the excess of America’s new national pastime of football. Call it a guilty pleasure, something that gets my mind off atrocities and all the other violent excesses of America. I’m just another member of the hoi polloi in the Colosseum, waiting for my bread and circuses. Next up: the Lions take on the Bears as the Eagles fight the Seahawks. Let the games begin!

Bears against the Lions—Bring it on! (AI-generated image)

A Grim Reminder About Gaza

W.J. Astore

100 Kilotons Is Roughly Seven Hiroshimas

The annihilation of Gaza is staggering.

Israel has dropped more than 100,000 tons of bombs on Gaza. That’s 100+ kilotons. The Hiroshima bomb was roughly 15 kilotons. That means the small area of Gaza has been punished by bombing that is the equivalent in explosive force to seven Hiroshimas.

More than 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza are confirmed dead; the actual number of dead may be twice or three times that number. The number of wounded is likely more than 100,000. (Who can say, exactly, given the level of destruction and disruption in Gaza?)

How is this level of destruction in any way justifiable or defensible?

Gaza is already almost destroyed. The Israeli government’s intent is clear: after rendering Gaza uninhabitable, the Palestinians remaining there will be pushed out, displaced, removed. Or they will die, in place, from more bombing as well as starvation and disease.

The U.S. government has enabled this by supplying Israel all the bombs it needs to pulverize Gaza. The U.S. government has also provided diplomatic cover as well as military protection as Israel implements its final solution to the Gaza question.

Some claim this isn’t genocide because Israel isn’t marching Palestinians to gas chambers. But there are many forms of genocide, many ways to kill massive numbers of people.

In The History and Sociology on Genocide (1990), Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn define genocide as “a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator.”

One-sided mass killing: yes.

Intent to destroy a group: yes.

Gaza and its people are being destroyed before our very eyes. A large part of the effort is being funded directly or indirectly by U.S. taxpayers. Yet we are told it is all the fault of Hamas. That Hamas is making the Israeli government kill and wound hundreds of thousands of people.

One thing is certain: The Israeli government couldn’t perpetrate this genocide without massive military support from the United States.

Perhaps one day, as Omar El Akkad wrote, “everyone will have always been against this” [the ongoing genocide in Gaza]. The question remains: Why now are so many, especially in the Israeli and U.S. governments, still eagerly perpetrating and defending this?

Pope Francis and His Legacy

W.J. Astore

Reforming the Catholic Church

I woke to the news that Pope Francis had died at the age of 88. Francis had qualities that I admired, including his lack of pomp and his support of the disadvantaged. As Caitlin Johnstone notes, Francis was an advocate for the Palestinians. He was known as a “liberal” pope, so my guess is that we’ll soon see an old-school conservative elected as the new pope.

Pope Francis (Tiziana Fabi/AFP/Getty Images)

I was raised Catholic, getting confirmed back in 1979, but I’m very much a lapsed one today. I think the Church should allow female priests and should not persist in upholding chastity for the hierarchy. I think the Church should speak out far more strongly against genocidal nuclear weapons and warfare in general. I think the Church should use its great wealth and power to ease the suffering of people around the world. And I know all this is not going to happen in an institution dedicated to its own survival.

There are, of course, many “good” priests, “good” sisters, committed to charity and guided by the teachings of Christ, but those who are bumped upstairs, who become the bishops and cardinals of the Church, are often those who are most committed to the trappings of power. They are the most political, the most worldly, the most vulnerable to vainglory and sin, especially the sin of pride and the lust for power.

Perhaps a new pope will carry on the legacy of Francis, but something tells me that the College of Cardinals is going to coalesce behind a traditionalist, a symbol of orthodoxy. There will be no Vatican III, no fresh opening of the Church, no revolutionary spirit. 

After Francis I see regression, not reformation, and it makes me sad to type that.

The DOGE Is All Wrong

W.J. Astore

You can’t do a wrong thing the right way

During World War II, the Nazi system of extermination camps was fairly efficient. Relatively small death camps like Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka killed an astonishing number of people, more than 1.6 million and nearly all Jews, quickly and efficiently. If there were a Nazi DOGE, I suppose these death camps may have won “efficiency” awards from it. They stripped the incoming victims of all their valuables and then killed virtually all of them. The loot stolen by the SS was then distributed, again fairly efficiently.

Yet, conducting a genocide, a mass murder, a horrendous atrocity, efficiently is nothing to praise. Right?

Today, America doesn’t need a government that wages wars more efficiently around the globe. We don’t need more efficient genocidal nuclear ICBMs. We don’t need more efficient weapons delivery to Israel so that Gaza can be leveled and its people murdered or displaced from their land.

What we need is an effective government that does the right thing. 

The DOGE associated with Elon Musk can’t seem to recognize that you can’t do a wrong thing the right way. If you’re doing a wrong thing, you must stop doing it. Period.

Genocidal nuclear missiles are wrong. Stop building them.

Genocide in Gaza is wrong. Stop supplying Israel with weapons.

Waging war for peace is wrong. Stop doing it.

That said, efficiency does have some relevance. Consider the Pentagon. It has failed seven audits in a row. It is grossly inefficient even as it continues to be ineffective. How do you rein in a vast government bureaucracy that lacks both efficiency and effectiveness?

You don’t do it by rewarding it with more money. But that’s exactly what President Trump, Elon Musk, and Congress are doing. They all seek a trillion dollar war budget. They all want the Pentagon to grow and then grow some more.

If a sprawling bureaucracy is out of control, you must cut its budget in a big way, forcing it to confront its own waste, fraud, abuse, and related forms of corruption. That said, efficiency is again less important than effectiveness. Is the Pentagon effectively defending America? If not, how do you make it more effective?

Pentagon misadventures around the world are making Americans less safe. Incessant warfare is strengthening authoritarianism and militarism in America while weakening democracy and hollowing out infrastructure and finances.

A more effective Pentagon is one that would focus strictly on defending America proper while upholding the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. After achieving that, one could then focus on efficiency. A Pentagon budget cut roughly in half would lead to a more effective defense of America. A much smaller Pentagon budget could then be more easily audited, leading to greater efficiency.

Committing murderous wrongs in an efficient way is nothing to celebrate. Didn’t the Nazis already provide us with the most horrifying example of this?