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

Seven Reasons Why We Can’t Stop Making War (2010)

W.J. Astore

From Boots on the Ground to Robot Assassins in the Sky

I’m proud to say I’ve been writing for TomDispatch since 2007, posting more than 100 original articles at the site. Among the many features of that remarkable site, run by Tom Engelhardt, this generation’s I.F. Stone, is its reach across political spectrums, across America, and indeed across the globe. My most recent article, for example, was translated into Portuguese (for a Brazilian site) and Swedish. Tom and I usually aren’t contacted for permission; these translations and postings just happen.

Briefly in 2010, a few of my “tomgrams” broke through to the mainstream media, being reposted by CBS News. What follows is one of them, “Seven Reasons Why We Can’t Stop Making War,” in which I refer to a disaster of that day, the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Sadly, despite a little boost from CBS News, my critique went unheeded. Surprise! America is still making war (with certain entities profiting greatly from this), now with yet more robots even as U.S. boots on ground in direct combat are far fewer. It’s a formula for “low-cost” forever war that of course comes at a very high cost indeed, starting with a Pentagon budget soaring toward $900 billion a year, not including more than $120 billion already provided or promised to Ukraine for its war effort.

From CBS News in 2010, my article on why the U.S. can’t stop making war. The original title was “Operation Enduring War” at TomDispatch in July 2010.

If one quality characterizes our wars today, it’s their endurance.  They never seem to end. 

Though war itself may not be an American inevitability, these days many factors combine to make constant war an American near certainty.  Put metaphorically, our nation’s pursuit of war taps so many wellsprings of our behavior that a concerted effort to cap it would dwarf BP’s efforts in the Gulf of Mexico.

Our political leaders, the media, and the military interpret enduring war as a measure of our national fitness, our global power, our grit in the face of eternal danger, and our seriousness.  A desire to de-escalate and withdraw, on the other hand, is invariably seen as cut-and-run appeasement and discounted as weakness.  Withdrawal options are, in a pet phrase of Washington elites, invariably “off the table” when global policy is at stake, as was true during the Obama administration’s full-scale reconsideration of the Afghan war in the fall of 2009.  Viewed in this light, the president’s ultimate decision to surge in Afghanistan was not only predictable, but the only course considered suitable for an American war leader. Rather than the tough choice, it was the path of least resistance.

Why do our elites so readily and regularly give war, not peace, a chance?  What exactly are the wellsprings of Washington’s (and America’s) behavior when it comes to war and preparations for more of the same?

Consider these seven:

1.  We wage war because we think we’re good at it — and because, at a gut level, we’ve come to believe that American wars can bring good to others (hence our feel-good names for them, like Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom). Most Americans are not only convinced we have the best troops, the best training, and the most advanced weapons, but also the purest motives.  Unlike the bad guys and the barbarians out there in the global marketplace of death, our warriors and warfightersare seen as gift-givers and freedom-bringers, not as death-dealers and resource-exploiters.  Our illusions about the military we “support” serve as catalyst for, and apology for, the persistent war-making we condone.

2.  We wage war because we’ve already devoted so many of our resources to it.  It’s what we’re most prepared to do.  More than half of discretionary federal spending goes to fund our military and its war making or war preparations.  The military-industrial complex is a well-oiled, extremely profitable machine and the armed forces, our favorite child, the one we’ve lavished the most resources and praise upon.  It’s natural to give your favorite child free rein.

3.  We’ve managed to isolate war’s physical and emotional costs, leaving them on the shoulders of a tiny minority of Americans.  By eliminating the draft and relying ever more on for-profit private military contractors, we’ve made war a distant abstractionfor most Americans, who can choose to consume it as spectacle or simply tune it out as so much background noise.

4.  While war and its costs have, to date, been kept at arm’s length, American society has been militarizing fast.  Our media outlets, intelligence agencies, politicians, foreign policy establishment, and “homeland security” bureaucracy are so intertwined with military priorities and agendas as to be inseparable from them.  In militarized America, griping about soft-hearted tactics or the outspokenness of a certain general may be tolerated, but forceful criticism of our military or our wars is still treated as deviant and “un-American.”

5.  Our profligate, high-tech approach to war, including those Predator and Reaper drones armed with Hellfire missiles, has served to limit American casualties — and so has limited the anger over, and harsh questioning of, our wars that might go with them.  While the U.S. has had more than 1,000 troops killed in Afghanistan, over a similar period in Vietnam we lost more than 58,000 troops.  Improved medical evacuation and trauma care, greater reliance on standoff precision weaponry and similar “force multipliers,” stronger emphasis on “force protection” within American military units: all these and more have helped tamp down concern about the immeasurable and soaring costs of our wars.

It all seems so easy—even “clean”—from the sky. Not even a single U.S. pilot at risk.

6.  As we incessantly develop those force-multiplying weapons to give us our “edge” (though never an edge that leads to victory), it’s hardly surprising that the U.S. has come to dominate, if not quite monopolize, the global arms trade.  In these years, as American jobs were outsourced or simply disappeared in the Great Recession, armaments have been one of our few growth industries.  Endless war has proven endlessly profitable — not perhaps for all of us, but certainly for those in the business of war.

7.  And don’t forget the seductive power of beyond-worse-case, doomsday scenarios, of the prophecies of pundits and so-called experts, who regularly tell us that, bad as our wars may be, doing anything to end them would be far worse.  A typical scenario goes like this: If we withdraw from Afghanistan, the government of Hamid Karzai will collapse, the Taliban will surge to victory, al-Qaeda will pour into Afghan safe havens, and Pakistan will be further destabilized, its atomic bombs falling into the hands of terrorists out to destroy Peoria and Orlando.

Such fevered nightmares, impossible to disprove, may be conjured at any moment to scare critics into silence.  They are a convenient bogeyman, leaving us cowering as we send our superman military out to save us (and the world as well), while preserving our right to visit the mall and travel to Disney World without being nuked.

The truth is that no one really knows what would happen if the U.S. disengaged from Afghanistan.  But we do know what’s happening now, with us fully engaged: we’re pursuing a war that’s costing us nearly $7 billion a month that we’re not winning (and that’s arguably unwinnable), a war that may be increasing the chances of another 9/11, rather than decreasing them.

Capping the Wellsprings of War

Each one of these seven wellsprings feeding our enduring wars must be capped.  So here are seven suggestions for the sort of “caps” — hopefully more effective than BP’s flailing improvisations — we need to install:

1.  Let’s reject the idea that war is either admirable or good — and in the process, remind ourselves that others often see us as “the foreign fighters” and profligate war consumers who kill innocents (despite our efforts to apply deadly force in surgically precise ways reflecting “courageous restraint“).

2.  Let’s cut defense spending now, and reduce the global “mission” that goes with it.  Set a reasonable goal — a 6-8% reduction annually for the next 10 years, until levels of defense spending are at least back to where they were before 9/11 — and then stick to it.

3.  Let’s stop privatizing war.  Creating ever more profitable incentives for war was always a ludicrous idea.  It’s time to make war a non-profit, last-resort activity.  And let’s revive national service (including elective military service) for all young adults.  What we need is a revived civilian conservation corps, not a new civilian “expeditionary” force.

4. Let’s reverse the militarization of so many dimensions of our society.  To cite one example, it’s time to empower truly independent (non-embedded) journalists to cover our wars, and stop relying on retired generals and admirals who led our previous wars to be our media guides.  Men who are beholden to their former service branch or the current defense contractor who employs them can hardly be trusted to be critical and unbiased guides to future conflicts.

5.  Let’s recognize that expensive high-tech weapons systems are not war-winners.  They’ve kept us in the game without yielding decisive results — unless you measure “results” in terms of cost overruns and burgeoning federal budget deficits.

6.  Let’s retool our economy and reinvest our money, moving it out of the military-industrial complex and into strengthening our anemic system of mass transit, our crumbling infrastructure, and alternative energy technology.  We need high-speed rail, safer roads and bridges, and more wind turbines, not more overpriced jet fighters.

7.  Finally, let’s banish nightmare scenarios from our minds.  The world is scary enough without forever imagining smoking guns morphing into mushroom clouds.

There you have it: my seven “caps” to contain our gushing support for permanent war. 

No one said it would be easy.  Just ask BP how easy it is to cap one out-of-control gusher.

Nonetheless, if we as a society aren’t willing to work hard for actual change — indeed, to demand it — we’ll be on that military escalatory curve until we implode.  And that way madness lies.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

By William J. Astore (2010)

Bonus Lesson (2023): “Enduring war” is not consistent with “enduring freedom.” Who knew? And we do seem as a society to be closer to implosion, a prediction I very much hope I’m ultimately proven wrong about.

Biden/Harris Campaign Slogan: No, We Can’t

W.J. Astore

Tacking to starboard, stuck in place, the USS America under Joe Biden is groaning in protest

In America’s two-color political universe, by which I mean blue versus red, whenever I criticize the blue team, I get accused of supporting the red team. But I believe in a multi-color world, not a bicolor one. Even green is an acceptable color! So, as I critique Joe Biden today, rest assured I never have voted, and never will vote, for the red guy, Donald Trump. I’m going green in 2024 with Cornel West.

With that longwinded prologue, I’d like to announce the Biden/Harris unofficial campaign slogan for 2024: No, we can’t.

It may sound familiar. Fifteen years ago, Barack Obama embraced the energy and optimism of “Yes, we can.” He also promoted “hope” and “change.” After eight years of Bush/Cheney, those simple slogans resonated with Americans, and Obama/Biden rode to victory in 2008 exuding confidence and a can-do spirit. (Of course, the results in office were, shall I say, disappointing.)

The good old days that never quite were.

But that was then, this is now, and when you go to JoeBiden.com, you get a message that suggests we reelect Joe to “finish the job.” Which job needs to be finished is unspecified. Vague words about protecting freedom and democracy and feel-good imagery is about all you get. Add it up and you get a de facto message of little hope and no change—just more of the same.

The Democrats think that a bland message of normalcy will be enough to prevail against Trump, who seems to be indicted now almost daily. Again, I’m no fan of Trump and won’t be voting for him. But why should I vote for Biden? What compelling reason or even message is there to convince me?

I haven’t heard one other than “Trump is very bad.”

A friend tells me Biden’s record as president is respectable and that he’s tilted left of center. I’m baffled by this claim. Biden/Harris have told me we can’t get Medicare for All; indeed, we can’t even get a public option. We can’t get significant student debt relief. We can’t get a $15 federal minimum wage. We can’t reduce the Pentagon budget and spending on wars and weapons. We can’t stop building more nuclear weapons. We can’t stop drilling in sensitive areas such as pristine wildernesses and offshore waters.

You see where I’m going here. When it comes to progressive agendas, “No, we can’t” is the true motto of Biden/Harris. Corporate Joe and his VP sidekick appear to have little empathy for the working classes and the hurting. Imagine a president coming back from vacation, as Biden recently did, and being asked about deadly wildfires in Hawaii and declaring that he had “no comment.” How hard is it for a president to muster words of sympathy for the suffering people of Hawaii while promising speedy federal aid?

For some reason I’m in a nautical frame of mind (forgive me, my Navy brethren).* As the USS Trump takes on water from multiple torpedo hits (indictments), the USS Biden sits dead in the water, having run aground on the shoals of incompetence and indifference. There is no Bernie Sanders this time around to rally the youthful crew to rock and re-float the boat. Perhaps Americans should search for a new ship to board?

A favorite book is “The Caine Mutiny” (please read it if you haven’t; it’s thrilling as well as hilarious in spots). The Caine was a tired old ship headed for the scrap heap after World War II and its commander, Queeg, was addled and (much worse) cowardly. The ship nearly sinks during a powerful storm that paralyzes Queeg; only a mutiny by its crew prevents disaster. America, our ship of state, faces storms of its own. Do we have confidence in captains like Trump or Biden to lead us through the tempest to calmer waters? Maybe it’s time we mutiny?

My friend believes Biden is a competent captain who’s making good headway even as he tacks to port. I see an increasingly tired and confused commander who’s furiously tacking to starboard even as the ship of state groans, making no progress as it’s battered on those aforementioned shoals.

*Feel free, Navy brethren, to offer your own nautical metaphors, which I’m betting will be better than mine.

The Rich Have No Sympathy or Use for the Poor

W.J. Astore

Oliver Anthony Strikes A Chord with “Rich Men North of Richmond”

A working-class song has gone viral. Oliver Anthony’s “Rich Men North of Richmond” is a lament for the state of the working classes in America: long hours, low pay, dead-end jobs, even as “the rich men north of Richmond” make the real money on the backs of the working poor.

Here’s a link to the video, which just screams sincerity:

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/sqSA-SY5Hro?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

Naturally, his song is drawing attention—and criticism. NBC News calls it a “conservative anthem” because I guess there are no liberals or progressives or even moderates who are working class and who can relate to the song. Also, NBC is at pains to criticize Anthony for making a quick reference to obese welfare moochers, which is fair enough, I suppose, though it’s not the point of his song.

This is what Anthony had to say (also at NBC News): In an introduction videouploaded to his YouTube channel a day before the song’s release, Anthony said that his political views tend to be “pretty dead center” and that both sides “serve the same master.”

He said he used to work 12-hour shifts six days a week and today continues to meet laborers struggling to make ends meet. 

“People are just sick and tired of being sick and tired,” he said. “So yeah, I want to be a voice for those people.”

Amen to that, Mr. Anthony. My father knew his pain. Before he became a firefighter, my dad worked in factories doing hard physical work. He told me the harder the work, generally the lower the pay you earn in America. So-called “shit” jobs like cleaning motel rooms, being a waiter or waitress, digging ditches and working as a “common” laborer, are looked down upon despite how tough and necessary they are.

As I said, my dad knew the score, as he recounted in a journal he left me about his life. One time, he organized with a few other men for a pay raise at the factory. Here’s what my dad had to say about that experience:

A five cent an hour pay raise

It seems that Mike Calabrese on his own asked Harry Gilson for a pay raise and he was refused.  Mike decided to organize the men members and go down in a group.  In our group he got ten men to approach Harry G. for a raise.  But when it was time to “bell the cat” only three fellows went to see Harry.  Well Mike said he couldn’t join the group because he had already tried to get a raise.  I knew I was being used but I was entitled to a raise.  Well Harry said to me, “What can I do for you men?”  So I said to Harry: 1) Living costs were going up; 2) We deserved a raise.  So Harry said, “How much?”  and I said ten cents an hour would be a fair raise.  So he said I’ll give you a nickel an hour raise and later you’ll get the other nickel.  We agreed.  So, I asked Harry will everyone get a raise and he replied, “Only the ones that I think deserve it.”

Well a month later I was drinking water at the bubbler [water fountain] and Harry saw me and said what a hard job they had to get the money to pay our raises.  Well, Willie, Harry Gilson and his brother Sam and their two other Italian brother partners all died millionaires.  No other truer saying than, “That the rich have no sympathy or use for the poor.”

My dad’s experience was roughly 80 years ago, but his sentiment is echoed by Oliver Anthony’s song today. This has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with giving workers a fair shake in America. It’s not a left-right, Democrat-Republican, issue: it’s a class issue, a moral issue, and a matter of life and death for so many people struggling across America.

We need more people to raise their voices, whether in song like Oliver Anthony or for pay raises like my dad.

The False Comfort of Illusions

W.J. Astore

In the Russia-Ukraine War, what is the truth?

When others asked the truth of me, I was convinced it was not the truth they wanted, but an illusion they could bear to live with. — Anaïs Nin

War, among other things, is a place of illusion. With the Russia-Ukraine War, the illusions are many. For the mainstream media in America, the illusion promoted is this: Ukraine, a quasi-democratic country, is enduring an unprovoked invasion by authoritarian Russia, now in its 18th month. The freedom-fighters of Ukraine have been greatly assisted by benevolent military and economic aid freely offered and given by the Biden administration and NATO countries. Ukraine fights for a noble cause that the U.S. should and must support, since allowing Russia to prevail would lead to further unprovoked Russian invasions of other freedom-loving peoples in Europe.

It’s an illusion that’s comforting for Americans to live with, since it flatters us while vilifying an old enemy, the former Soviet Union and now Russia. It’s flattering to the Biden administration, which can pose as a stalwart defender of Ukraine, and certainly flattering to U.S. weapons makers, who can pose collectively as the new arsenal of democracy. It’s an illusion, moreover, that elides or disguises any economic motives the U.S. might have in supporting Ukraine so generously since the war began.

Even something as simple as smoke contains great complexity, as I recall from my fluid dynamics classes

The best illusions, the most seductive ones, have elements of truth to them. Yes, Russia did invade Ukraine; yes, Russia is authoritarian; yes, Ukraine has defied the odds and stymied Vladimir Putin’s designs; yes, NATO and U.S. weaponry has been important to Ukraine’s endurance. But partial facts are generally not impartial.

Briefly put, NATO expansion eastwards since the collapse of the Soviet Union is seen by Russia as provocative, constricting, and aggressive. Ukraine itself is very much an imperfect democracy, rating “high” on government corruption indices. U.S. meddling in Ukraine, especially in 2014, is most certainly problematic. The destruction of the Nordstream pipelines and subsequent profits by U.S.-based energy companies can’t be ignored. And, not surprisingly, U.S. weapons manufacturers are enjoying boom times. Not only does Ukraine need weaponry and ammunition, but U.S. and NATO stocks of the same must be replenished as arms and ammo are gifted to Ukrainian fighters. Nor is Ukraine completely free of neo-Nazi influences, which is to say that the situation is muddier and more complex than the comfortable illusion that’s so often sold by the mainstream media. 

Which brings me to CNN’s report today, that showed up in my morning email: 

President Joe Biden is asking Congress for more than $24 billion in aid for Ukraine and other international needs as he works to sustain support for the war amid signs of softening support among Americans. The request — which includes more than $13 billion in security assistance and $7 billion for economic and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine — sets up a potential battle with Republicans in Congress. Biden has promised support will last “as long as it takes,” but an increasingly skeptical Republican Party has cast doubt on US involvement going forward. This comes after a CNN poll released last week found 55% of Americans believe Congress should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine. 

As the Russia-Ukraine War drags on with neither side apparently having a quick victory in sight, questions accelerate. How much are Americans prepared to pay to Ukraine? Is an open-ended, “as long as it takes” commitment truly wise? What happens if the war escalates even further? And, perish the thought: What happens if someone uses a nuclear weapon or another form of WMD?

Many Americans today are in dire straits. Credit card debt for Americans recently exceeded $1 trillion and rising. The Biden administration has failed to provide promised and significant student debt relief; a public option for health care; a $15 federal minimum wage; while acting to break a railroad strike and promoting more fossil fuel drilling on fragile federal lands as well as offshore.

Americans are not stupid to wonder about the priorities of the Biden administration and why Ukraine gets a blank check as Americans continue to suffer. Illusions may be comfortable, but they don’t put food on the table or pay health care bills. And the price they come at may be high indeed, which is one reason, I think, a majority of Americans are none too comfortable with this illusion.

“The Greatest Fighting Force in Human History”

W.J. Astore

Militarized Hype Obscures Deep Rot in the American Empire

Also at TomDispatch.com.

In his message to the troops prior to the July 4th weekend, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin offered high praise indeed. “We have the greatest fighting force in human history,” he tweeted, connecting that claim to the U.S. having patriots of all colors, creeds, and backgrounds “who bravely volunteer to defend our country and our values.”

As a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel from a working-class background who volunteered to serve more than four decades ago, who am I to argue with Austin? Shouldn’t I just bask in the glow of his praise for today’s troops, reflecting on my own honorable service near the end of what now must be thought of as the First Cold War?

Yet I confess to having doubts. I’ve heard it all before. The hype. The hyperbole. I still remember how, soon after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush boasted that this country had “the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known.” I also remember how, in a pep talk given to U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2010, President Barack Obama declared them “the finest fighting force that the world has ever known.” And yet, 15 years ago at TomDispatch, I was already wondering when Americans had first become so proud of, and insistent upon, declaring our military the world’s absolute best, a force beyond compare, and what that meant for a republic that once had viewed large standing armies and constant warfare as anathemas to freedom.

In retrospect, the answer is all too straightforward: we need something to boast about, don’t we? In the once-upon-a-time “exceptional nation,” what else is there to praise to the skies or consider our pride and joy these days except our heroes? After all, this country can no longer boast of having anything like the world’s best educational outcomes, or healthcare system, or the most advanced and safest infrastructure, or the best democratic politics, so we better damn well be able to boast about having “the greatest fighting force” ever.

Leaving that boast aside, Americans could certainly brag about one thing this country has beyond compare: the most expensive military around and possibly ever. No country even comes close to our commitment of funds to wars, weapons (including nuclear ones at the Department of Energy), and global dominance. Indeed, the Pentagon’s budget for “defense” in 2023 exceeds that of the next 10 countries (mostly allies!) combined.

And from all of this, it seems to me, two questions arise: Are we truly getting what we pay so dearly for — the bestest, finest, most exceptional military ever? And even if we are, should a self-proclaimed democracy really want such a thing?

The answer to both those questions is, of course, no. After all, America hasn’t won a war in a convincing fashion since 1945. If this country keeps losing wars routinely and often enough catastrophically, as it has in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, how can we honestly say that we possess the world’s greatest fighting force? And if we nevertheless persist in such a boast, doesn’t that echo the rhetoric of militaristic empires of the past? (Remember when we used to think that only unhinged dictators like Adolf Hitler boasted of having peerless warriors in a megalomaniacal pursuit of global domination?)

Actually, I do believe the United States has the most exceptional military, just not in the way its boosters and cheerleaders like Austin, Bush, and Obama claimed. How is the U.S. military truly “exceptional”? Let me count the ways.

Yes, the Pentagon budget, enormous and still growing, is as large as the next ten countries in the world combined. We’re #1 in wars and weapons!

The Pentagon as a Budgetary Black Hole

In so many ways, the U.S. military is indeed exceptional. Let’s begin with its budget. At this very moment, Congress is debating a colossal “defense” budget of $886 billion for FY2024 (and all the debate is about issues that have little to do with the military). That defense spending bill, you may recall, was “only” $740 billion when President Joe Biden took office three years ago. In 2021, Biden withdrew U.S. forces from the disastrous war in Afghanistan, theoretically saving the taxpayer nearly $50 billion a year. Yet, in place of any sort of peace dividend, American taxpayers simply got an even higher bill as the Pentagon budget continued to soar.

Recall that, in his four years in office, Donald Trump increased military spending by 20%. Biden is now poised to achieve a similar 20% increase in just three years in office. And that increase largely doesn’t even include the cost of supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia — so far, somewhere between $120 billion and $200 billion and still rising.

Colossal budgets for weapons and war enjoy broad bipartisan support in Washington. It’s almost as if there were a military-industrial-congressional complex at work here! Where, in fact, did I ever hear a president warning us about that? Oh, perhaps I’m thinking of a certain farewell address by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961.

In all seriousness, there’s now a huge pentagonal-shaped black hole on the Potomac that’s devouring more than half of the federal discretionary budget annually. Even when Congress and the Pentagon allegedly try to enforce fiscal discipline, if not austerity elsewhere, the crushing gravitational pull of that hole just continues to suck in more money. Bet on that continuing as the Pentagon issues ever more warnings about a new cold war with China and Russia.

Given its money-sucking nature, perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that the Pentagon is remarkably exceptional when it comes to failing fiscal audits — five of them in a row (the fifth failure being a “teachable moment,” according to its chief financial officer) — as its budget only continued to soar. Whether you’re talking about lost wars or failed audits, the Pentagon is eternally rewarded for its failures. Try running a “Mom and Pop” store on that basis and see how long you last.

Speaking of all those failed wars, perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that they haven’t come cheaply. According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University, roughly 937,000 people have died since 9/11/2001 thanks to direct violence in this country’s “Global War on Terror” in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere. (And the deaths of another 3.6 to 3.7 million people may be indirectly attributable to those same post-9/11 conflicts.) The financial cost to the American taxpayer has been roughly $8 trillion and rising even as the U.S. military continues its counterterror preparations and activities in 85 countries.

No other nation in the world sees its military as (to borrow from a short-lived Navy slogan) “a global force for good.” No other nation divides the whole world into military commands like AFRICOM for Africa and CENTCOM for the Middle East and parts of Central and South Asia, headed up by four-star generals and admirals. No other nation has a network of 750 foreign bases scattered across the globe. No other nation strives for full-spectrum dominance through “all-domain operations,” meaning not only the control of traditional “domains” of combat — the land, sea, and air — but also of space and cyberspace. While other countries are focused mainly on national defense (or regional aggressions of one sort or another), the U.S. military strives for total global and spatial dominance. Truly exceptional!

Strangely, in this never-ending, unbounded pursuit of dominance, results simply don’t matter. The Afghan War? Bungled, botched, and lost. The Iraq War? Built on lies and lost. Libya? We came, we saw, Libya’s leader (and so many innocents) died. Yet no one at the Pentagon was punished for any of those failures. In fact, to this day, it remains an accountability-free zone, exempt from meaningful oversight. If you’re a “modern major general,” why not pursue wars when you know you’ll never be punished for losing them?

Indeed, the few “exceptions” within the military-industrial-congressional complex who stood up for accountability, people of principle like Daniel Hale, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden, were imprisoned or exiled. In fact, the U.S. government has even conspired to imprison a foreign publisher and transparency activist, Julian Assange, who published the truth about the American war on terror, by using a World War I-era espionage clause that only applies to American citizens.

And the record is even grimmer than that. In our post-9/11 years at war, as President Barack Obama admitted, “We tortured some folks” — and the only person punished for that was another whistleblower, John Kiriakou, who did his best to bring those war crimes to our attention.

And speaking of war crimes, isn’t it “exceptional” that the U.S. military plans to spend upwards of $2 trillion in the coming decades on a new generation of genocidal nuclear weapons? Those include new stealth bombers and new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) for the Air Force, as well as new nuclear-missile-firing submarines for the Navy. Worse yet, the U.S. continues to reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first, presumably in the name of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And of course, despite the countries — nine! — that now possess nukes, the U.S. remains the only one to have used them in wartime, in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Finally, it turns out that the military is even immune from Supreme Court decisions! When SCOTUS recently overturned affirmative action for college admission, it carved out an exception for the military academies. Schools like West Point and Annapolis can still consider the race of their applicants, presumably to promote unit cohesionthrough proportional representation of minorities within the officer ranks, but our society at large apparently does not require racial equity for its cohesion.

A Most Exceptional Military Makes Its Wars and Their Ugliness Disappear

Here’s one of my favorite lines from the movie The Usual Suspects: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.” The greatest trick the U.S. military ever pulled was essentially convincing us that its wars never existed. As Norman Solomon notes in his revealing book, War Made Invisible, the military-industrial-congressional complex has excelled at camouflaging the atrocious realitiesof war, rendering them almost entirely invisible to the American people. Call it the new American isolationism, only this time we’re isolated from the harrowing and horrific costs of war itself.

America is a nation perpetually at war, yet most of us live our lives with little or no perception of this. There is no longer a military draft. There are no war bond drives. You aren’t asked to make direct and personal sacrifices. You aren’t even asked to pay attention, let alone pay (except for those nearly trillion-dollar-a-year budgets and interest payments on a ballooning national debt, of course). You certainly aren’t asked for your permission for this country to fight its wars, as the Constitution demands. As President George W. Bush suggested after the 9/11 attacks, go visit Disneyworld! Enjoy life! Let America’s “best and brightest” handle the brutality, the degradation, and the ugliness of war, bright minds like former Vice President Dick (“So?”) Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Donald (“I don’t do quagmires”) Rumsfeld.

Did you hear something about the U.S. military being in Syria? In Somalia? Did you hear about the U.S. military supporting the Saudis in a brutal war of repression in Yemen? Did you notice how this country’s military interventions around the world kill, wound, and displace so many people of color, so much so that observers speak of the systemic racism of America’s wars? Is it truly progress that a more diverse military in terms of “color, creed, and background,” to use Secretary of Defense Austin’s words, has killed and is killing so many non-white peoples around the globe?

Praising the all-female-crewed flyover at the last Super Bowl or painting rainbow flags of inclusivity (or even blue and yellow flags for Ukraine) on cluster munitionswon’t soften the blows or quiet the screams. As one reader of my blog Bracing Viewsso aptly put it: “The diversity the war parties [Democrats and Republicans] will not tolerate is diversity of thought.”

Of course, the U.S. military isn’t solely to blame here. Senior officers will claim their duty is not to make policy at all but to salute smartly as the president and Congress order them about. The reality, however, is different. The military is, in fact, at the core of America’s shadow government with enormous influence over policymaking. It’s not merely an instrument of power; it is power — and exceptionally powerful at that. And that form of power simply isn’t conducive to liberty and freedom, whether inside America’s borders or beyond them.

Wait! What am I saying? Stop thinking about all that! America is, after all, the exceptional nation and its military, a band of freedom fighters. In Iraq, where war and sanctions killed untold numbers of Iraqi children in the 1990s, the sacrifice was “worth it,” as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once reassured Americans on 60 Minutes.

Even when government actions kill children, lots of children, it’s for the greater good. If this troubles you, go to Disney and take your kids with you. You don’t like Disney? Then, hark back to that old marching song of World War I and “pack up your troubles in your old kit-bag, and smile, smile, smile.” Remember, America’s troops are freedom-delivering heroes and your job is to smile and support them without question.

Have I made my point? I hope so. And yes, the U.S. military is indeed exceptional and being so, being #1 (or claiming you are anyway) means never having to say you’re sorry, no matter how many innocents you kill or maim, how many lives you disrupt and destroy, how many lies you tell.

I must admit, though, that, despite the endless celebration of our military’s exceptionalism and “greatness,” a fragment of scripture from my Catholic upbringing haunts me still: Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Copyright 2023 William J. Astore

Silencing Voices for Peace

W.J. Astore

The U.S. Mainstream Media Is Almost Always Pro-War

In the “liberal” New York Times today, I saw an article on “Putin’s forever war” that has the following short synopsis: “Vladimir Putin wants to lead Russians into a civilizational conflict with the West far larger than Ukraine. Will they follow him?”

Is this true?  Does Putin truly seek a “civilizational conflict” with the West?  One that’s “far larger” than the Ukraine war?  It doesn’t seem likely.  Russian forces have struggled in Ukraine.  Already embroiled in a destructive regional war that’s become somewhat of a quagmire, why would Putin seek to widen it?  Is Putin always the aggressor, the bad guy, and the West always the aggrieved party, the good guys, holding back a “red storm rising”?  I thought the West won the Cold War more than 30 years ago.

It’s remarkable how easy it is to get alarmist articles about Russia or China published in the U.S. mainstream media (MSM).  Wars and rumors of war dominate.  The West is always portrayed as the defender of democracy; other countries such as China and Russia are portrayed as threats to civilization and its “rules-based order.”  Strictly speaking, this is simplistic, one-sided, propaganda.

Back in 2017, I wrote about how difficult it is in the MSM to read honest accounts of war.  In the runup to the Iraq War in 2003, critical voices were actively suppressed and punished.  Back then, I focused my article on MSNBC, which like the New York Times is allegedly “liberal.”  At “liberal” newspapers and networks, shouldn’t America expect at least a few critical critiques of war narratives?  The answer here is “no,” as I wrote here:

Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota (1999-2003), was a hot media commodity as the Bush/Cheney administration was preparing for its invasion of Iraq in 2003. Ventura, a U.S. Navy veteran who gained notoriety as a professional wrestler before he entered politics, was both popular and outspoken. MSNBC won the bidding war for his services in 2003, signing him to a lucrative three-year contract to create his own show – until, that is, the network learned he was against the Iraq war. Ventura’s show quickly went away, even as the network paid him for three years to do nothing.

I heard this revealing story from a new podcast, the TARFU Report, hosted by Matt Taibbi and Alex Pareene. By his own account, Jesse Ventura was bought off by the network, which back then was owned by General Electric, a major defense contractor that was due to make billions of dollars off the war.

Of course, Ventura was hardly the only war critic to run afoul of GE/NBC. Phil Donahue, the famous talk show host, saw his highly rated show cancelled when he gave dissenters and anti-war voices a fair hearing. Ashleigh Banfield, a reporter who covered the Iraq war, gave a speech in late April 2003 that criticized the antiseptic coverage of the war (extracts to follow below). For her perceptiveness and her honesty, she was reassigned and marginalized, demoted and silenced.

So much for freedom of speech, as well as the press.

As Phil Donahue said, his show “wasn’t good for business.” NBC didn’t want to lose ratings by being associated with “unpatriotic” elements when the other networks were waving the flag in support of the Iraq war. In sidelining Ventura and Donahue, NBC acted to squelch any serious dissent from the push for war, and punished Ashleigh Banfield in the immediate aftermath of the war for her honesty in criticizing the coverage shown (and constructed) by the mainstream media, coverage that was facilitated by the U.S. military and rubber-stamped by corporate ownership.

Speaking of Banfield’s critique, here are some excerpts from her speech on Iraq war coverage in April 2003. Note that her critique remains telling for all U.S. media war coverage since then:

That said, what didn’t you see [in U.S. media coverage of the Iraq war]? You didn’t see where those bullets landed. You didn’t see what happened when the mortar landed. A puff of smoke is not what a mortar looks like when it explodes, believe me. There are horrors that were completely left out of this war. So was this journalism or was this coverage? There is a grand difference between journalism and coverage, and getting access does not mean you’re getting the story, it just means you’re getting one more arm or leg of the story. And that’s what we got, and it was a glorious, wonderful picture that had a lot of people watching and a lot of advertisers excited about cable news. But it wasn’t journalism, because I’m not so sure that we in America are hesitant to do this again, to fight another war, because it looked like a glorious and courageous and so successful terrific endeavor, and we got rid of a horrible leader: We got rid of a dictator, we got rid of a monster, but we didn’t see what it took to do that.

With admirable honesty, Banfield spoke of the horrific face of war at Kansas State Univ. in 2003. Soon after her speech, she was demoted (Image courtesy of KSU)

I can’t tell you how bad the civilian casualties were. I saw a couple of pictures. I saw French television pictures, I saw a few things here and there, but to truly understand what war is all about you’ve got to be on both sides…

Some of the soldiers, according to our embeds had never seen a dead body throughout the entire three-week campaign. It was like Game Boy. I think that’s amazing in two different ways. It makes you a far more successful warrior because you can just barrel right along but it takes away a lot of what war is all about, which is what I mentioned earlier. The TV technology took that away too. We couldn’t see where the bullets landed. Nobody could see the horrors of this so that we seriously revisit the concept of warfare the next time we have to deal with it.

I think there were a lot of dissenting voices before this war about the horrors of war, but I’m very concerned about this three-week TV show and how it may have changed people’s opinions. It was very sanitized.

This TV show [Iraq invasion coverage] that we just gave you was extraordinarily entertaining, and I really hope that the legacy that it leaves behind is not one that shows war as glorious, because there’s nothing more dangerous than a democracy that thinks this is a glorious thing to do.

War is ugly and it’s dangerous, and in this world the way we are discussed on the Arab street, it feeds and fuels their hatred and their desire to kill themselves to take out Americans. It’s a dangerous thing to propagate…

I’m hoping that I will have a future in news in cable, but not the way some cable news operators wrap themselves in the American flag and patriotism and go after a certain target demographic, which is very lucrative. You can already see the effects, you can already see the big hires on other networks, right wing hires to chase after this effect, and you can already see that flag waving in the corners of those cable news stations where they have exciting American music to go along with their war coverage.

Nothing has changed since Banfield’s powerful critique. Indeed, the networks have only hired more retired generals and admirals to give “unbiased” coverage of America’s military actions. And reporters and “journalists” like Brian Williams have learned too. Recall how Williams cheered the “beautiful” U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles as they were launched against Syria earlier this year [2017].

It’s not just that U.S. media coverage actively suppresses dissent of America’s wars: it passively does so as well, which is arguably more insidious. Any young journalist with smarts recognizes the way to get ahead is to be a cheerleader for U.S. military action, a stenographer to the powerful. Being a critic leads to getting fired (like Donahue); demoted and exiled (like Banfield); and, in Ventura’s case, if you can’t be fired or demoted or otherwise punished, you can simply be denied air time.

When you consider that billions and billions of dollars are at stake, whether in weapons sales or in advertising revenue tied to ratings, none of this is that surprising. What’s surprising is that so few Americans know about how pro-authority and uncritical U.S. media coverage of war and its makers is. If anything, the narrative is often that the U.S. media is too critical of the military to the detriment of the generals. Talk about false narratives and alternative facts!

America’s greed-wars persist for many reasons, but certainly a big one is the lack of critical voices in the mainstream media. Today’s journalists, thinking about their career prospects and their salaries (and who is ultimately their boss at corporate HQ), learn to censor themselves, assuming they have any radical thoughts to begin with. Some, like Brian Williams, even learn how to stop worrying and love the beautiful bombs.

[After I wrote this in 2017, I added this comment at the site.]

One thing that troubles me is the mindset that criticism of America’s wars undermines the troops. That it could even be a form of betrayal. This mindset is very dangerous. It not only protects the decisions and actions of those at the highest levels of the military and government. It acts to prolong wars and to endanger the lives of the troops (and of their “enemies” as well).

During the Iraq war, I recall instances of U.S. troops speaking clearly and frankly against the war. Their voices were heard, yet their advice was not taken. Instead, generals like David Petraeus were trotted out to assure the American people that the war was being won, even if the gains were characterized by weasel words like “fragile” and “reversible.” And so those gains have proved — even so, Petraeus remains in demand, and is still trotted out, now in mufti, to explain how we must stay the course and continue to defer to the military.

There’s a powerful book to be written here, and it should focus in part on the silencing or marginalization of anti-war voices (even those that wear or wore the uniform), even as pro-war elements are given the main stage as the voices of probity and sanity.

Trump and Death by 1000 Indictments

W.J. Astore

If you can’t beat him at the polls, beat him in court

If you’re like me, you’ve lost track of the number of charges against former President Donald Trump. He’s facing at least 78 criminal charges stemming from three indictments: the Stormy Daniels case, the classified documents one, and now the January 6th riots/”insurrection.”

Readers of Bracing Views know I’m not a Trump supporter. In fact, in March of 2016, I wrote an article stating unequivocally that Trump had disqualified himself from running as president (he’d stated troops should follow his orders even if those orders were unconstitutional). That article was the most popular one I’ve ever written in terms of “hits,” but of course Trump prevailed as many Americans concluded that Hillary Clinton would be even worse of a president than a narcissistic and clueless con man.

Interesting image from CNN that superimposes Trump on the charges against him stemming from the classified docs case He sure looks guilty, right?

Democrats seem to think the way to “kill” Trump is death by a thousand paper cuts inflicted by all these legal charges and indictments. I don’t think so. I think most Americans know what Trump is. They know he’s a rogue and a scoundrel. They know he paid off Stormy Daniels in a dodgy, probably illegal, way; they know he shouldn’t have had all those classified documents around; they know he’s a sore loser who lashed out in petulant and dangerous ways on January 6th; but they also know Democrats aren’t offering much of an alternative except four more years of Biden/Harris. Their motto might be: More of the same, only more!

The way to beat Trump is to offer real changes of substance that will help Americans who are struggling across our country. But we’re not going to get that from Biden/Harris. Just look back to all those campaign promises, vintage 2020, that haven’t come through, such as a $15 federal minimum wage, substantial student debt relief, a single-payer option for health care, and a ban on oil and gas drilling on federal lands.

Democrats always have excuses here, someone else to blame, like Joe Manchin or the Senate parliamentarian or the conservative Supreme Court. But what matters to voters is results, and Biden/Harris haven’t succeeded in producing results consistently. Truth is, Biden is an aging president, a stumbling figurehead rather than a strong leader, and Harris is deeply unpopular. It’s not exactly the “dream team” the Democrats are running in 2024.

In these increasingly Dickensian times, the Democrats keep shoveling billions of dollars to the Pentagon and to Ukraine while offering a new Cold War with Russia and China. Main Street USA may wish to declare war on those two countries, if only to get money from Congress.

Alternatives exist for the Democrats, of course, such as Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Yet the Democratic establishment is too busy mocking or smearing them to listen to their ideas for substantive changes.

The Democratic establishment, it seems, is content to roll the dice in 2024 with Biden/Harris, preferring even to lose to Trump than to win with more progressive and dynamic candidates. Perhaps they truly believe they can “kill” Trump through all those indictments and charges, the equivalent to death by 1000 cuts.

It’s a strategy, I guess—just not a winning one.

Putting Warheads on Foreheads

W.J. Astore

How “Your” Military Thinks About War

I was reading an article from 2007 by an Air Force master sergeant, “We are called Airmen,” only to stumble on these lines:

You have to be able to understand what part you play in America’s defense. You have to be disciplined and willing to maintain your readiness to go wherever our enemy confronts us and to live up to the ideals of the core values of integrity, service and excellence. 

As an Airman, you have to bring airpower to the battlespace effectively and ensure it is properly applied. 

Your charge as an Airman of the 4th Fighter Wing is to deliver “combat airpower, on target, on time for America, or more simply, “put warheads on foreheads.”

Now, this article is featured on the Air Force’s official website, so I assume it captures important truths the AF wants its airmen to know. But are these “truths” really true? Is that all there is, my friend? Then let’s keep bombing.

Who is “our enemy”? What are the reasons why this enemy “confronts us”? Is America’s “defense” really safeguarded if the mission is everywhere and anywhere and “wherever” U.S. forces are “confronted”?

And how do you apply airpower “properly” in the “battlespace”? The author has the answer to that one: by putting “warheads on foreheads.” Or, as we said in my day, by putting bombs on target.

Put those warheads on foreheads!

Of course, this is rah-rah stuff, military cheerleading, if you will. The article was posted during the Iraq War, when the Air Force was at pains to stress its relevance in what was largely a ground war. Which explains this passage:

We are doing so well [in the war on terror], we make it look too easy. Our weapons systems are so precise; we can deliver ordnance anywhere, any time. If [sic] fact, if ground troops chase the enemy into a house, our aircraft can drop a bomb that eradicates one mud hut, while leaving all the others in the neighborhood standing.

Now that’s what I call precision! The Air Force made it look too easy! We dropped warheads on the foreheads of evil-doers without any innocents being killed and wounded. It’s almost as if our bombs and warheads sang “Amazing Grace” as they slammed into the enemy (and only the enemy, whoever that might be and wherever they might live).

Mosul, Iraq. Sure looks like “precision” attacks to me

Naturally, this article also makes reference to the “Airman’s warrior ethos.” That old idea (and ideal) of the citizen-airman who serves to support and defend the U.S. Constitution isn’t even mentioned. We’re all “warriors” and “warfighters” now.

Ours not to reason why; ours but to drop warheads on foreheads; theirs but to scream and die.

What is it, exactly, that the U.S. military is making it look “too easy” to do? Having lost the Iraq and Afghan wars despite enormous amounts of munitions used, it seems “losing” is the answer here. That, and killing, of course. And not just the bad guys.

Back on Podcast by George

W.J. Astore

Today, I had a great conversation with George A. Clark on his show, “Podcast by George.” We talked about a lot of themes in my recent articles for this site.

Check it out if you have some time. George and I thank you!

Back on Podcast by George, talking about themes from recent articles:

A Famine of Peace

W.J. Astore

Pope Francis wants to stop the killing in Ukraine

There is a famine of peace in the world today. I came across that phrase, “famine of peace,” in an article in the New Yorker that reported on a papal envoy sent to advocate for a truce and diplomacy to President Joe Biden. Biden, a practicing Catholic, gave the envoy a hearing, but as yet I’ve heard no change from the White House with respect to sending more weapons to Ukraine and maximum support for the war effort.

Pope Francis, working for peace, is exactly what I’d expect from Christ’s representative here on earth. Indeed, it is what I’d expect from all Christians everywhere. Yet we continue to have a glut of war in the world, with plenty of war pigs feeding at the trough.

Cardinal Matteo Maria Zuppi brought a message of peace to President Biden.

I’m a lapsed Catholic, but I have nothing but respect when the Church does its best to embody, obey, and manifest Christ’s two commandments: love God, love thy neighbor. Being faithful to these commandments is everything for Christians.

War is a terrible sin that enables and empowers so many other sins. Meanwhile, a famine of peace and a glut of war means terrible suffering for the world’s most vulnerable. War is thus to be avoided or averted under nearly all circumstances; indeed, Christ implored us to turn the other cheek when we are struck.

I’ve read enough “just war” theory to see how almost any war can be twisted as “defensive” and “necessary.” And I believe in rare circumstances the evil of war may be necessary to stop or prevent even worse evils, e.g. World War II put a stop to Nazi domination and the enslavement and massacre of millions of people, most especially Jews and gypsies, among other “undesirables” and “lesser humans” according to Nazi ideology.

The Pope in those days, Pius XII, did not speak forcibly enough to condemn the crimes of the Nazis. In Francis it is good to have a pope who’s willing to speak of today’s famine of peace. All Christians everywhere should look within to consider why peace is dying and war is thriving. Under these conditions, if we fail to act, do we dare even call ourselves “Christian”?