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

The Global War on Terrorism

W.J. Astore 

“Global” includes the “homeland” here in America

There’s an important point about America’s Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) that people often miss.

When the Bush/Cheney administration announced the GWOT after 9/11, I think nearly all Americans assumed that “global” meant everywhere but the “good” countries.  That global meant the axis of evil (Iraq, Iran, North Korea) and similar so-called bad actors, but that it didn’t mean countries like Canada — and certainly not the U.S. homeland.

But global really did mean everywhere on earth as we’ve watched the war on terror escalate domestically.  The U.S. government/security state has built the foundation and superstructure for a permanent war on terror, and it simply isn’t going to go away. The Iraq and Afghan wars are essentially over (both lost), and fears of North Korea have subsided as the military-industrial-congressional complex focuses on Ukraine, Russia, and China, but the GWOT continues. It’s now turned inwards, within and along our own borders, and those techniques that were practiced (if not perfected) in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere are now being used and inflicted upon ordinary Americans who are attempting to resist state-corporate authoritarianism.

The GWOT has come home — but perhaps it’s always been here.  What’s changed is how state-corporate entities can define almost any form of determined protest—even civil and nonviolent ones—as “terror.” Labeling someone a “domestic terrorist” gives state-corporate actors a whole host of powerful ways to punish activists, notes by Michael Gould-Wartofsky at TomDispatch.com.

At the same time, America has witnessed the “rise of the warrior-cop,” as Radley Balko noted in his book by that title. 

Three years ago, I wrote about the militarization of police forces at TomDispatch. This is what I wrote then:

America’s violent overseas wars, thriving for almost two decades despite their emptiness, their lack of meaning, have finally and truly come home. An impoverished empire, in which violence and disease are endemic, is collapsing before our eyes. “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” America’s self-styled wartime president [Donald Trump] promised, channeling a racist Miami police chief from 1967. It was a declaration meant to turn any American who happened to be near a protest into a potential victim 

As such demonstrations proliferate, Americans now face a grim prospect: the chance to be wounded or killed, then dismissed as “collateral damage.” In these years, that tried-and-false military euphemism has been applied so thoughtlessly to innumerable innocents who have suffered grievously from our unending foreign wars and now it’s coming home.

A few days ago, The Onion, a satirical news site, compared America’s obedience and passivity to power to the current situation in France. Here’s how they put it:

In an ongoing struggle against ruling-class oppression, the people of France again protested in a way that Americans are welcome to at any time, sources confirmed Thursday. According to reports, French citizens across the country were spotted hitting the streets en masse as a unified front against the institutional bondage that seeks to subjugate them while never failing to apply forceful pressure every time injustice strikes, which Americans can and should feel free to do whenever they so choose.

Yes, but are Americans truly “welcome” to protest “whenever they so choose”? We’d like to think so, especially as July 4th approaches (America! Land of the Free!), but who wants to be detained and thrown in jail for domestic terrorism? Anyone in America hankering to be labeled as a terrorist by the state, whether on the right or left of the political spectrum, even if the charge is eventually dismissed?

Searing photo of state violence at Kent State in 1970. The dead student’s name was Jeffrey Miller. The young woman crouched in shock and horror was Mary Ann Vecchio. Richard Nixon called the protesters “bums.” What would the state call them today—domestic terrorists?

Remember those innocent days of the 1960s when for some the police were “pigs” and the protesters were “bums” (Richard Nixon’s word for the students killed at Kent State)? Now those protesters could be charged with domestic terrorism even as various heavily armed enforcers of the law would likely be celebrated (consider all those “blue lives matter” flags, for example).

Remember when “defund the police” was briefly a thing? By which people meant less funding for militarized police forces and more for mental health services and the like. President Joe Biden and the Democrats realized any serious effort to restrain police power would leave them open to charges of being soft on crime, so Biden and the party simply declared: Fund the police. (Republicans concur, of course, even as they still accuse Biden and the Dems of being soft on crime.)

And there you have it. Fund the police at all levels, local, state, and federal, and grant them the kind of powers given to America’s “warriors” in the GWOT. Set them loose on all of America’s domestic “terrorists.” After all, the GWOT went so well in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere. Surely it will go equally well in the Homeland. Right?

Addendum: In writing this, I came across a superb article by Patricia McCormick at the Washington Post on Mary Ann Vecchio, “the girl in the Kent State photo.” She was just 14 when the above photo was taken. She paid a high price, as the article recounts. Letters to her family accused her of being a “drug addict,” a “tramp,” or a “communist.” The then-governor of Florida suggested she was a “professional agitator” and therefore responsible for the students’ deaths. A Gallup poll back then, cited by McCormick, said that 58% of Americans blamed the students at Kent State and only 11% blamed the National Guardsmen who opened fire and killed the four students.

“Professional agitator” sounds much like today’s domestic terrorist. And let’s reflect on those 58% of Americans who believed the students at Kent State were responsible for their own deaths. How dare they block the free flight of “Made in USA” bullets with their young bodies? The “bums”! (“Domestic terrorists.”)

Embrace the “Nuance” of Nuclear Weapons

W.J. Astore

We must not allow a missing rung on America’s nuclear escalation ladder!

I get email notices for Aether, a professional journal for “strategic airpower & spacepower,” and the lead article on the cover caught my eye:

A Tactical Nuclear Mindset: Deterring with Conventional Apples and Nuclear Oranges

James R. McCue, Adam Lowther, and James Davis

Comparing and contrasting low-yield theater nuclear weapons with conventional precision strike weapons leads to a nuanced conclusion that both contribute to deterrence.

Imagine that! Both nuclear and conventional weapons “contribute to deterrence.” Even though they’re apparently apples and oranges. Well, there’s “nuance” for you.

Anybody want a tasty nuclear “orange”? Fresh and juicy, and with a low yield. It may very well deter you from eating citrus fruit for, well, forever.

Potential delivery system for low-yield nukes. Think of them as juicy oranges

I’m not familiar with the authors of the piece. McCue is an Air Force lieutenant colonel with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. I don’t know about you, but suggesting that low-yield nukes can be used in nuanced ways heightens my sense of threat. Lowther directs strategic deterrence programs at the National Strategic Research Institute, which makes me think anew about the meaning of “deterrence.” In this case, it seems to mean the willingness to use nuclear weapons against “bad actors” like China but especially Putin and Russia. And Davis is an Army major assigned to U.S. Central Command. It’s nice to know the Army, just like the Air Force, has a strange love for nukes.

In essence, the article’s argument is this: Russia, China, and North Korea are “investing” in low-yield nukes while the U.S. and other NATO allies have generally been reducing their arsenals of the same. To deter those three adversaries, the U.S. must make new “investments” in low-yield nukes, because you never know what those foreigners are up to.

Here’s how the authors put it in their conclusion: “In the right circumstances conventional weapons offer greater certainty of destruction than tactical nuclear weapons. The West must examine what this means for warfighting, as well as what adversaries are signaling by investing in low-yield nuclear weapons. The best solution may be the development of a state-of-the-art nuclear capability that ensures certain, prompt, proportionate, and in-kind response options. The perception of a missing rung on the American escalation ladder could prove alluring to Russia or China in a conflict.”

Mr. President, we must not allow a missing rung on America’s escalation ladder!

Even if that “missing rung” is only a “perception.”

Let’s keep that in mind if nuclear weapons start flying in Europe or Asia. We can console ourselves that at least we weren’t missing a rung in our escalatory ladder as millions get blasted, burnt, and irradiated.

If Biden Loses, I’m to Blame

W.J. Astore

Here we go again

A friend of mine is calling out his progressive friends for saying they’ll vote third party in the 2024 presidential election. Basically, his argument is this. We know Biden isn’t perfect. He leaves much to be desired, notably in obvious signs of his mental and physical decline. But we also know Trump is a monster. And, since Trump and Biden are currently running neck and neck, at least in the polls, your only real “choice” is to vote for Joe against the monster.

In sum, a vote for a third-party candidate of deep integrity and strong character like Cornel West is really a vote for Monster Trump.

A vote for Cornel West is a vote for Trump?

As I told my friend, telling people they’re making a big mistake by voting for a candidate like Cornel West is not the most effective way to win their hearts and minds. Telling them they’re throwing away their vote or that they’re really voting for Trump is hardly persuasive. In fact, it’s alienating and insulting.

If Joe Biden and the DNC want to win my vote, I want to see promises kept, progressive policies enacted, and corruption stymied and reversed. I want to see concrete results. I want changes in policy. I don’t want what Biden promised CEOs when he decided to run in 2020: that “nothing will fundamentally change.”

On so many issues, Biden has reneged on promises or otherwise failed to deliver for the working classes. He’s not a pro-union president. He hasn’t raised the federal minimum wage. He’s failed to deliver on student debt relief. There is no public optionfor health care. He’s approved oil and gas drilling in the most sensitive areas. Meanwhile, military budgets continue to soar as the Biden administration postures for a new Cold War with Russia and China. And I’m simply supposed to ignore this woeful record and vote for Joe because Trump is allegedly worse.

My friends tell me I expect too much from Biden and the Democrats. That they’re hamstrung by the Republicans. That Joe is doing the best he can. That I need to give Joe more chances. And so on.

But Joe Biden and the Democrats couldn’t even protect abortion rights. Barack Obama promised to codify Roe vs. Wade into law as his “top priority” but then abandoned his promise once he took office in 2009. Biden, of course, was his VP and has a long record of being critical of abortion rights. Again, however, we are told that Biden is the best hope for restoring rights that he’s never been keen on supporting, let alone protecting and extending.

If Biden loses in 2024, let’s be clear. It won’t be because some progressives voted third party. And it won’t be because of Putin or Russia or rigged voting machines or what-have-you. It will be because Biden simply couldn’t win enough votes in the right places. Because not enough voters believed in him. That’s not on people like me. That’s on Biden and the DNC.

Turmoil in Russia!

W.J. Astore

Is Putin’s Grip Weakening?

News of the rebellion of the Wagner mercenary group in Russia and the exile of its leader have led to confident announcements of Vladimir Putin’s weakening grip on power. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the rebellion was “the latest failure” in Putin’s war against Ukraine, and NBC News declared “Putin’s rule is now more uncertain than ever.”

Vladimir Putin and the leader of the Wagner group, Yevgeny Prigozhin

Perhaps so. Wars often act as an accelerant to change, generating political chaos in their wake. The results of chaos, obviously, don’t lend themselves to predictability. Who knew in 1914, when the guns of August sounded, that four years later four empires would have collapsed under the strain of war (the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the German Second Reich).

President Joe Biden was unusually frank in March of 2022 when he declared that Putin “cannot remain in power” due to his decision to invade Ukraine. Be careful what you wish for, Mr. President. Is overthrowing Putin truly a wise goal for global stability?

I honestly don’t know. A weaker, possibly fragmented Russia could increase the chances of nuclear war. A struggle for power within Russia could lead to the emergence of hardline leader who might make the West nostalgic for the relative predictability of Putin.

Most of us have heard the saying: better the devil you know than the one you don’t know. (This isn’t to suggest Putin is diabolical, of course.) In World War I, many of the allies professed to hate the Kaiser; his eventual successor as leader of the German people was Adolf Hitler. Again, wars may unleash elemental and fundamental changes, and change isn’t always for the better.

So, my position on the Russia-Ukraine War remains unchanged. Negotiate a truce. Use diplomacy to put a permanent end to this war. If Putin is truly weakened, this might be the best of times to seek a diplomatic settlement. After all, if Putin is truly worried about his grip on power within Russia, he might be open to ending the war largely on Ukraine’s terms so he can redirect his attention to consolidating his power base.

War has been given plenty of chances. Why not give peace a chance?

Does Russia Have Legitimate Security Concerns?

W.J. Astore

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Echoes JFK’s Peace Speech of June 1963

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running against the Democratic establishment’s position on the Russia-Ukraine War and for the presidential nomination of the party in 2024. He recently gave a peace speech in New Hampshire that echoed the sentiments of the peace speech given by his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, in 1963.

In New Hampshire, RFK Jr. speaks for the possibility of peace and against the MICC and its forever war

In his speech, RFK Jr. stated that Russia has legitimate security concerns, that NATO expansion to Russia’s border was a betrayal of promises made to leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev, and that America’s military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC) is enabling forever war rather than actively seeking an end to war. He was also careful to say he abhorred Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine.

I’ve already heard RFK Jr. being called a “Putin enabler,” if not a Putin puppet, for suggesting that Russian concerns about Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO are in any sense legitimate. Doesn’t he know, one reader asked, that Putin rejects Ukrainian identity as a country and a people? Doesn’t he know Russia is killing civilians in terror bombings? Why is he acting as an apologist for Putin’s many war crimes?

Obviously I can’t speak for RFK Jr., but I think his message is plain: a state of permanent war is causing deep harm to American democracy, what’s left of it, and any sustainable U.S. recovery must start with a rejection of war and massive military spending, including the more than $100 billion already devoted to what has become a proxy war in Ukraine. That war has greatly contributed to the rhetoric, and increasingly the reality, of a new Cold War with Russia (and China too), strengthening the MICC’s call for even vaster sums for wars and weapons in the cause of maintaining U.S. full-spectrum dominance around the globe.

Like his uncle, President Kennedy, RFK Jr. fears a world-ending nuclear cataclysm, an event that becomes more imaginable as the Russia-Ukraine War continues to escalate. Again, at no time did I hear RFK Jr. express support of the Russian invasion or its brutal methods; what he did express support for is diplomacy as a way of ending the bloodshed while reducing the risk of nuclear Armageddon.

Any reasonable diplomatic effort would have to recognize the legitimate security concerns of Russia, just as that same effort would have to recognize those of Ukraine as well.

Those who advocate for peace often face the charge of being puppets, enablers, or apologists for enemies who are usually presented as monstrous. All credit to RFK Jr. for departing from standard neocon rhetoric and practices and for extending an olive branch to Russia.

Arguing for more war is easy. It even wins salutes (and money) within today’s Democratic establishment. Striving for peace is far harder, and like his uncle, RFK Jr. has decided to take the harder path. More of us should join him.

The Ukraine Counteroffensive and the Costs of War

W.J. Astore

“Magical” weapons aren’t enough

Ukraine’s counteroffensive against Russia appears to be stalling, (See this frank article by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas Davies.) This isn’t surprising.

War is inherently unpredictable, but there are certain ingredients that contribute to the success of counteroffensives. Here are a few:

  1. The element of surprise: Catching the enemy off-guard is always helpful. But everyone knew Ukraine was counterattacking, including roughly where and when.
  2. Superiority at the point of attack: As a rough rule, an attacker needs at least a 3-to-1 superiority in force to prevail against a determined defender, along with a willingness and ability to accept casualties. It’s unclear to me that Ukraine had a clear superiority at their points of attack. Whether Ukraine can continue to sustain high numbers of killed and wounded is also unclear.
  3. The synergy of combined arms: Everything in war is difficult, most especially orchestrating and conducting an offensive. “Combined arms” includes infantry, artillery, and tanks, moving with machine-like precision, supported by airpower, enhanced by intelligence, and kept supplied by adequate logistical chains. Ukrainian forces did well on the defensive in resisting often poorly coordinated Russian attacks, but now the combat boot is on the other foot, and it’s Ukraine that’s having trouble breaking through well-prepared Russian positions.
  4. The importance of training and experience: While Ukrainian troops have gained experience over the last year or so, they have primarily been on the defensive while also assimilating new weapons and related equipment. They arguably lack the experience to launch coordinated offensives against determined resistance.
  5. Effective leadership: It was said the presence of Napoleon Bonaparte on the battlefield was equivalent to the French having an extra army corps, i.e. roughly 30,000 men. Offensives go better when they’re led by skilled generals backed up by effective officers and experienced NCOs. I’m not aware of any Napoleon-types on either side of the Russia/Ukraine War, and I fear Ukraine has suffered too many losses to have a solid core of experienced officers and NCOs.

The Western solution to all this appears to be more promises of “magical” weapons like German Leopard tanks and American F-16 fighter jets. But weapons alone are insufficient to provide war-winning advantages. Military history teaches us that the side with superior weapons often loses to the side with superior skill and motivation. Think here of the U.S. experience in Vietnam, for example.

Poland delivers Leopard II tanks to Ukraine. But tanks are not enough.

As I’ve said before, what I fear is that neither side can win this war decisively even as Ukraine suffers most grievously because the war is being fought in their country.

People like Senator Lindsey Graham talk tough about Ukrainians fighting to the last man with U.S. and NATO weaponry. Easy for him to say, since he’s not the one who’s fighting and possibly dying at the front. Meanwhile, U.S. companies profit from the sale of weapons, hence that apt descriptor from the 1930s, “the merchants of death.”

For the sake of argument, let’s say Ukraine is able to make modest territorial gains at high cost. This would be an excellent time to call for a truce and diplomacy. Ukraine can claim a face-saving “victory” (those modest gains) even as the Russians can boast of containing the much-hyped NATO-supported counteroffensive. Let both sides declare victory as they hash out a compromise that ends the killing and destruction.

What’s the real definition of “victory” here? For me, it’s a rapid end to a wasteful war before that war is allowed to escalate in ways that could spark a much wider and potentially catastrophic conflict involving nuclear powers.

God Save the Queen, Man

W.J. Astore

Joe Biden goes off script and off the rails

Recently, Joe Biden went off script at a gun safety event in Connecticut, concluding his speech by saying, “God save the queen, man.” He also recently boasted of building a railroad from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean, among other verbal slips.

JFK said we could put a man on the Moon, and we did. Biden says we can build a railroad from the Pacific across the Indian Ocean—a noble goal!

I’m not making fun of Joe Biden. I just want to restate what the consensus used to be: that being President of the United States is extremely demanding. It requires physical stamina and, even more importantly, mental acuity and clarity.

Biden is 80 years old. In the words of my dad, who lived to be 86, “It’s tough to grow old.” In the words of a blisteringly honest friend: “You know how they call them ‘the golden years’? Well, they suck.” Clearly, Biden is showing signs of his advanced age. Especially troubling is the apparent decline in his mental acuity. He occasionally looks confused and lost on stage. He tries his best to cover for this, even breaking into a hop or trot to try to show his vigor, but, honestly, he shouldn’t be running for president and another four-year term.

“Whose finger do you want on the nuclear button?” is a question that comes up during presidential elections. I can’t say I trust Joe Biden. Neither do I trust Donald Trump. (Trump’s personal problems are an entirely different story.)

The “choice” of Biden versus Trump is no choice at all. Both are untrustworthy. And if, yet again, those are America’s two leading candidates, we should all recognize how far mighty America has truly fallen.

The “Campaign Cash Dash” of Biden/Harris

W.J. Astore

Seeing the True Face of U.S. Politics

At NBC News is a straightforward story, presented in a gushingly positive way, of the “campaign cash dash” of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. It’s all about Biden and Harris “hitting the trail—and donors’ wallets”—for money. It’s presented as perfectly normal, almost as laudable, an admirable example of democracy at work in America. Biden and Harris need money—what better way to get it than to beg for it from big donors, who of course want nothing in return for their “contributions,” better known as bribes.

I realize I’m stating the obvious here. The U.S. political system is throughly corrupted. What amazes me is how it’s presented in the mainstream media not only as normal but as desirable, even commendable. Here I recall watching a documentary that explained that the first duty of a newly elected member of Congress is fundraising for the next election cycle. Very quickly, you realize the donors are largely running the show, buying access and bribing officials to make or change policy as the donors see fit.

Off they go, begging for money (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds / AFP via Getty Images)

Again, this is hardly a shock; I suppose I just remain somewhat amazed how this is reported in almost gushing terms by outlets like NBC News.

A necessary part of the solution to restoring the republic is getting big money out of politics, which the Supreme Court made even more difficult to achieve with its Citizens United decision. Where corporations are citizens and money is speech, you necessarily have an oligarchy or a plutocracy. And that’s what America is.

Anyhow, here are a few excerpts from the NBC News article:

President Joe Biden is raising money again.

The commander in chief plans to accelerate his campaign cash dash after the White House paused overt political activity during debt-limit negotiations with Congress… Biden will be hitting the hustings — and donors’ wallets — harder over the next couple of weeks … The Biden re-election calendar has 20 fundraisers planned in the last half of June, most of which will be headlined by Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris …

The still-skeletal Biden campaign apparatus has a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC and all of the state parties that are allowed to tap donors for more than the $3,300 contribution limit that governs the president’s principal campaign committee.

On June 26, for example, top donors will be asked to pay $100,000 to sponsor the Harris-headlined DNC LGBTQ gala on Park Avenue in New York — a price that brings with it two “platinum” tables, passes to a VIP reception and an invitation to the photo line. A single seat at the dinner costs $1,500, and there are several giving thresholds between the top and bottom levels that are accompanied by various levels of access.

The ramp up is certain to haul in millions of dollars to support Biden and fellow Democrats, but it may not entirely put to bed the concerns of allies who worry that the debt-limit freeze on political events caused harm and that too much emphasis has been put on filling the DNC’s coffers … [O]ne longtime Democratic donor said he was “surprised” Biden has not put together a finance committee of heavyweight money-bundlers.

This donor pointed out that contributors can give hundreds of thousands of dollars to the DNC and its state affiliates while just $3,300 per donor per election — primary and general — can go to Biden under federal campaign finance limits. That is, big-dollar joint fundraising events benefiting the DNC and Biden’s campaign are orders of magnitude more lucrative for the party than the candidate.

As an aside, I’m not sure why Biden is identified as “the commander in chief.” There’s no military content to this article. “Beggar in chief” is far more accurate here. Also, I just love the way the mainstream media suggests this is like a sport, a “cash dash,” and to the victors go the spoils. Which, I suppose, is true.

It’s nice to know the DNC will profit greatly from those fundraising efforts. Small wonder the DNC still supports the Biden/Harris gravy train. Of course, there’s no suggestion in this NBC article that there’s anything wrong with this process. Indeed, Biden is being criticized for his laxness in not putting together “a finance committee of heavyweight money-bundlers.” C’mon, Joe. Show us the money!

Well, dear reader, it’s time for me to take my $100K to Park Avenue in New York. Look for me in the photo line with Kamala Harris.

Hype and Hope in Ukraine’s Counteroffensive

W.J. Astore

“Certain Gains” in an Uncertain War

Ukraine’s counteroffensive is in motion; results so far appear to be mixed.  Today’s CNN summary had this to say: Ukrainian forces are claiming some success in their offensives in the south and east. Kyiv’s top general said this week that his troops have seen “certain gains.”

“Certain gains.”  Not only is the U.S. government sending Ukraine weapons and aid; it also is providing lessons in rhetorical BS.  How long before Ukraine speaks of “corners turned” and “the light at the end of the tunnel” in this dreadful war?

“Certain gains”: One thing that is certain is that maps like this are a sterile depiction of the dreadful and ghastly costs of war (Source: War Mapper)

Five days ago, the New York Times provided this short summary of Ukraine’s counteroffensive: As Ukraine Launches Counteroffensive, Definitions of ‘Success’ Vary. Privately, U.S. and European officials concede that pushing all of Russia’s forces out of occupied Ukrainian land is highly unlikely.

What is the definition of “success”? It sounds like a metaphysical puzzle.

Back on May 31st, I spoke with defense journalist Brad Dress at The Hill.  This is what I had to say then: “Sometimes, war is sold like a consumer product, where there’s a lot of hype and a lot of hope. That is contrary to the reality we often see.”

In our conversation, I reminded Dress of counteroffensives from military history that went dreadfully wrong.  Think of the first day of the Somme in July 1916 during World War I, when the British Army lost 20,000 dead and another 40,000 wounded.  Think of the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944 in World War II, when the German Army threw away its strategic reserve in a last gasp counteroffensive that ultimately made it easier for the Allies to defeat them in 1945.  History is replete with examples of failed counteroffensives, especially when the opponent is prepared and entrenched.

War is inherently unpredictable (as well as being hellish and horrific), but it does appear that Ukraine’s counteroffensive won’t be decisive.  It’s not going to defeat Russia in one fell swoop.  Battle lines may move a bit, but the war will continue.  And so will the killing—and the profiteering. Is that “success”?

Mostly unseen and unwritten about are all the dead soldiers on both sides, all the environmental destruction.  Which likely will produce cries for yet more violence in the cause of vengeance. “Success”?

So far, the Biden administration has used all its influence, indeed all means at its disposal, to continue the war.  The only way out, apparently, is over the bodies of dead Ukrainians and Russians.  Not surprisingly, then, the U.S. is providing even more deadly weaponry to Ukraine, including depleted uranium ammunition and (eventually) M-1 Abrams tanks and F-16 fighter jets.  Escalation, in sum, is America’s sole solution to ending the war.

I implore the U.S. government to pursue diplomacy as a means to ending this awful war.  No one is talking about surrendering to Putin.  No one wants to abandon Ukraine.  Indeed, I’m at a loss when people accuse me of not caring for the people of Ukraine when my goal is to end the killing on both sides.

All wars end.  Ukraine and Russia aren’t going anywhere.  They share a long border, a longer history, and now a lengthening war.  Shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to shorten it?

U.S. Foreign Policy in One Image

W.J. Astore

Woke Bombs Are No Better than MAGA Ones

This image stays with me:

The people on the receiving end of American bombs don’t care if those bombs are from a “woke” B-52 or a MAGA one, or whether the crews of those planes are diverse. Is it better to be bombed by female or gay or Black air crews?

The comedian Jimmy Dore did a recent segment on the CIA’s celebration of Gay Pride Month. Am I supposed to trust the CIA when they wrap themselves in a rainbow flag?

Regardless of who’s been president and which party he’s been from, U.S. military spending has continued to soar. And while Joe Biden finally ended the disastrous Afghan War, the military-industrial-congressional complex is profiting wildly from the new Cold War with China and Russia.

Americans should be deeply concerned with the increasing likelihood of nuclear war, together with the government’s great affection for building even more nuclear weapons. Yet we are actively discouraged by our government from thinking about the unthinkable, i.e. genocidal nuclear weapons and war. “Trust the experts” is the implicit message, along with “pay no attention” to the trillions being spent on new nuclear bombers, ICBMs, and submarines. After all, they’re job-creators!

Reelecting Trump or Biden, or electing younger tools like Ron DeSantis or Pete Buttigieg, isn’t going to change America’s imperial, militaristic, and rapacious foreign policy. I’d like to elect a president who prefers not to drop bombs, a leader who knows that bombs remain bombs whether they’re “woke” or “MAGA” or decorated with rainbow or “blue lives matter” flags.

Is that too much to ask?