I awoke to the news that Israel has bombed Iran, focusing on nuclear enrichment facilities and military targets. For the U.S. and Israel, war always finds a way.
The U.S. is claiming that Israel alone is bombing Iran, but of course Israel is using U.S. weaponry, intelligence and logistical support, and political cover at the United Nations. The planes may be Israeli, but the U.S. government is complicit in the attacks, just as the U.S. government is complicit in genocide in Gaza.
At Eunomia, Daniel Larison has an informative article on the “insanity” of the Israeli/U.S. attack on Iran. A few points come to mind here:
+ Israel is allowed to have 90-200 nuclear bombs, but no other country in the region is allowed to have any. I guess that’s because Israel is so clearly peace-loving?
+ Iran is the latest target of Israel’s quest for regional dominance. As far back as 2003, if not earlier, Israel (and U.S. neocon “warriors”) always wanted to go to Tehran. Baghdad was supposed to be both a cakewalk and a stepping-stone. Two decades and several disasters later, these “real men” finally achieved their dream of war with Iran.
+ The success of Israel in getting the U.S. government and military to do its bidding is nothing short of phenomenal. Iraq? Greatly weakened. Syria? Greatly weakened. The same with Libya. And now it’s Iran’s turn to be “greatly weakened,” i.e. bludgeoned with bombs made in the USA.
+ Iran will likely strike back. U.S. media will frame these attacks as “unprovoked” and “anti-semitic.” See this grimly amusing article by Caitlin Johnstone about future headlines at the New York Times.
+ One thing is certain: Israel, like the U.S., has an irrational belief in the efficacy of bombing, an efficacy largely disproven by military history.
+ One might recall how the U.S. conspired with Britain in 1953 to overthrow Iran’s democratically-elected leader, replacing him with the Shah, leading to 25 years of a repressive police state until the Shah was finally overthrown. I wonder how Americans would feel if Iran conspired in 1953 to overthrow Dwight D. Eisenhower as U.S. president, replacing him with a petty dictator who ruled through secret police?
Chickenhawk Graham says “Game on.”
Here are a few responses by prominent U.S. politicians to Israel’s attacks on Iran. I just love the “game on” reference by Senator Lindsey Graham. Has there ever been a more abject and delusional chickenhawk than him?
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, minutes after reports of the operation began, “Proud to stand with Israel.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) soon followed, saying, “Game on. Pray for Israel.”
Cotton later added that “We back Israel to the hilt, all the way,” adding that if “the ayatollahs harm a single American, that will be the end of the ayatollahs.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), said “Israel IS right—and has a right—to defend itself!”
Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said, “We stand with Israel tonight and pray for the safety of its people and the success of this unilateral, defensive action.”
“I am also praying for the brave U.S. service members in the Middle East who keep America safe — Iran would be foolish to attack the United States,” Risch continued.
U.S. members of Congress seem to think they swore an oath to Israel, not the U.S. Constitution. And, given all the money they receive from AIPAC and similar pro-Israel lobbying groups, maybe they have sold their souls to Israel.
Once again, all they are saying is give war a chance.
At her Substack, Lisa Savage asks whether the “Gaza Hunger Games” we’re witnessing—the concentration of Palestinians there accompanied by slaughter and mass starvation—was the plan all along for Israel and the United States. It got me to thinking, so I wrote a rather longwinded response to Lisa, which I’d like to share with all of you.
Whether it was the plan all along or whether it’s the result of ad hoc decisions over time, one thing is certain: the holocaust in Gaza must be stopped.
*****
Lisa, I’ve taught the Holocaust, and your question reminds me of a debate among historians: Did Hitler and the Nazis always plan to kill all the Jews, or was it the result of ad hoc decisions over time? Scholars still debate this.*
Perhaps the debate is somewhat artificial in the sense that Hitler and the Nazis vilified the Jews, demeaning them, attacking them, dehumanizing them, establishing the conditions for genocide, which were linked to the need to win a war (Jews as an existential enemy that had to be destroyed, even Jewish children, i.e. they were all “guilty”).
The “logic” of genocide sees even children as enemies who must be eliminated (Image of the “Warsaw Ghetto Boy” during World War II)
Something similar is happening with Palestinians in Gaza. I don’t think Israel and the U.S. had a plan all along to concentrate them in Gaza and kill them. But all that’s gone before this has created the preconditions for a final solution to the Gaza question.
When you vilify Palestinians, demean them, attack them, incarcerate them, dehumanize them, you establish the conditions for a genocide. Then you use the excuse of a “war” to drive the most radical solution–elimination–just as the Nazis used the excuse of World War II to eliminate the Jews (who, of course, posed no existential threat to Germany).
Within the Nazi government (and now within the Israeli government), extremists always come to the forefront. Many officials in Nazi Germany wanted to relocate the Jews, not kill them all, or they wanted to exploit them as slave labor before killing them. But the extremists–the ones who just wanted to kill them all–tended to win the argument. They were the most committed, most sure of themselves, the most radical.
So, what’s happening in Gaza has been the result of long-term dehumanization and propaganda coupled with ad hoc decisions that have run to extremes, because those who are most radical tend to win these “arguments.”
What is truly unconscionable is the eagerness of the U.S. government to provide Israel with all the weapons and diplomatic cover it needs to implement its final solution in Gaza. Whether the president is Biden or Trump, whether Congress is controlled by the Democratic or Republican parties, the policy and result is the same: a blank check to Israel to kill as many Palestinians as they want, justified falsely in “defending” Israel from Hamas.
The Nazis thought or said the Jews were out to destroy them (obviously the Jews were totally incapable of threatening the German war machine) so they tried to destroy the Jews.
The Israeli government says Hamas is out to destroy them (obviously Hamas is totally incapable of threatening the IDF war machine) so they’re trying to destroy the Palestinians.
Genocide is sold as “defensive” and “necessary.”
The parallels are there, yet few people want to see them.
*****
*Addendum: Among Holocaust historians it’s known as the “intentionalist” versus “functionalist” debate, i.e. was it always the Nazis’ intent to kill the Jews, or did it emerge slowly as a function of specific events and decisions?
Some might say, who cares? Dead is dead. Stop the killing!
Over at Foreign Exchanges, there’s an informative article by Alex Thurston on the devaluation of foreign area expertise by the U.S. government.
I witnessed this myself after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. The Army has FAOs, or foreign area officers, who specialize in specific regions and countries, learning the language and culture while being stationed overseas in Spain, Germany, South Korea, or wherever. What I discovered in talking to FAOs, however, is that they weren’t on the fast-track to promotion in the Army. So-called Big Army didn’t look with favor on FAOs. You were more competitive for promotion if you served and specialized in a specific combat branch, like infantry or armor, and if you also had some special forces training (a Ranger Tab or the like).
Hooah!
After 9/11, the U.S. government in general, and the U.S. military specifically, lacked foreign area expertise with respect to the Middle East. FAOs who could speak Arabic and had some knowledge of Iraq, Iran, and so on were especially in short supply. Thus what the Army did was to deploy FAOs to the Middle East whose specialty was Latin America or Asia or whatever. Makes sense, right? Who cares if they spoke Spanish or Mandarin and knew nothing about Arab culture: they were FAOs, dammit! They could learn!
The U.S. military has occasionally pushed for its senior officers to become less parochial, perhaps by learning a foreign language, but to my knowledge proposals to that effect have never gained much traction. The U.S. military says it values education, but education often becomes a box-checking exercise. To be promoted to field grade (major or above; the Navy equivalent is lieutenant commander or above), you generally need a master’s degree in, well, something. Anything. In my day (roughly 25-30 years ago), many officers got an MBA or similar degree, often from an online university that catered to military and government personnel. (An MBA was desirable for future possibilities after one separated or retired from the military.)
Another box military officers had to check was PME, or professional military education. This could be done by correspondence (online), by seminar, or “in residence” at specific military schools. (For me as a major in the Air Force, this was ACSC, or Air Command and Staff College). Doing your PME “in residence” was seen as more desirable than doing it other ways, but ultimately what mattered was that you did it. It was a sign of your commitment—and your conformity. I did ACSC by correspondence, a necessary box to check on my way to being promoted to lieutenant colonel.
All this is to say that FAOs, who worked hard to develop specific expertise in areas of alleged vital interest to America, were in a way often punished by the system, or at the very least misused by it. I don’t know what it’s like in the U.S. military today, in 2025, but something tells me FAOs are still not valued for the knowledge they’ve gained. What matters is being a “warrior” and focusing on “kinetic action” and getting a CIB (combat infantryman badge). I assume officers on the career track are still getting master’s degrees in, well, something and also completing PME while learning very little. (PME tends to promote the party line. You won’t hear meaningful and sustained critiques of the military-industrial complex here: surprise!)
But perhaps it really doesn’t matter, as the article by Alex Thurston cited above suggests. America’s senior leaders seem most concerned about exercising power for power’s sake; the subtleties and nuances that FAOs and other foreign area experts bring to the table are typically ignored or disregarded. Who needs language skills and deep knowledge of local culture and customs when you can just shock and awe them? As President Trump recently said at West Point, America spreads democracy at the point of a gun. Again, who needs language skills or deep knowledge for that?
America, this is how you spread democracy! (USMC photo at Wikipedia)
It remains amazing to me that a man known for overselling himself, of stiffing others, a man who became notorious for saying, “You’re fired!” to a lot of ordinary people and a few celebrities as well, is somehow seen as a champion of little guys and gals. Of course, it’s not like the Democrats offered much of an alternative (Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris as working-class champions? I don’t think so). Nevertheless, Donald Trump is about the furthest thing from a public servant to America that I can imagine. When he’s not playing golf or stirring the pot or posing and preening, he’s finding new ways to cash in as president.
Well, as Richard Nixon famously argued, if the president does it, that means it isn’t illegal. Right?
Trump is a creature of Pottersville, the nightmarish alternative to Bedford Falls if George Bailey (played by Jimmy Stewart) had decided to jump off the bridge rather than serving the humble people of his community. Lurid Pottersville, shiny and decadent and shallow, where everyone’s on the make or on the take: that’s Trump’s kind of place. It’s a wonderful life—for Trump!
Which brings me to a fine article by Juan Cole at TomDispatch, Trump of Arabia, in which Cole recounts Trump’s grasping and greedy trip to the Middle East. You gotta hand it to Trump: he knows how to party down with the sheikhs, with all the hair-flipping and exotic dancing.
One thing is certain: Trump isn’t lecturing them about democracy and human rights. It’s just gimme-gimme-gimme. Trump puts the naked back in naked capitalism. The emperor who hath no clothes.
Well, at least America got a big beautiful jet out of the deal: a “free” luxury 747 from Qatar, the new Air Force One if Trump has his way. How sad is it that the new Air Force One that America was supposed to have is years behind schedule and billions over budget? Thanks a lot, Boeing!
Maybe on his next trip to the Middle East, Trump can convince the sheikhs to help fund Medicaid and SNAP for the poor. For struggling Americans, it sure would beat luxury jets and hair-flipping.
So much of what we’ve been told about Israel and Zionism has been a lie, as this video reveals.
My mother-in-law had a saying: “Have a heart if you’ve got a heart.” So many “leaders” in the U.S. and Israel, including Joe Biden and Donald Trump and of course Bibi Netanyahu, haven’t got hearts, at least when it comes to Palestinians and Gaza.
Israel bombed the home of two married doctors in Gaza on Friday, killing nine of their children and critically injuring their sole surviving son. The father of the children was also severely injured in the attack, while their mother, while still working at the nearby hospital, received the charred bodies of her children. They were too badly burned to be recognized.
This one incident, just by itself, is vastly more newsworthy and deserving of attention than two Israeli embassy staff members being killed in Washington. But news coverage hasn’t reflected this, because Palestinians aren’t regarded as human beings in the mainstream western press.
And another worthy snippet from Caitlin Johnstone:
This is a particularly glaring example of the way the western press have been discussing the Gaza holocaust as some kind of unfortunate tragedy that is just passively happening to the Palestinian people, as though it’s a natural disaster or something. It’s like bombs and siege warfare are just the weather over there. Like “Oh it’s a bit bomby and faminy in Gaza today, and it makes me feel sad!”
This genocide is exposing the mass media like nothing else in my lifetime.
Finally, consider this article by Lisa Savage as she ponders the misuse of Memorial Day as a celebration of militarism in the United States.
Here’s an excerpt:
The U.S. as a whole seems to be suffering from moral injury as we destroy country after country in our lust for imperial spoils. Watching the U.S.-Israel genocide in Gaza starving thousands to death while bombing them drives me to despair. There are now plans for U.S. soldiers to distribute food aid because Israel won’t allow UNRWA to do it as they have for decades. Food has been weaponized and politicized, and the largest shipments being allowed in at the moment don’t even contain calories or medical supplies. They contain shrouds.
I will hold my kids tonight, and shake with anger. Dr. Alaa Elnajjar left her home this morning in Gaza to save other kids lives. 9 of her 10 kids arrived to her charred in body bags, and her 1 surviving child barely alive. May Gods mercy be upon her and her family, and may His… pic.twitter.com/hqvvSnu4kD
It was quickly obvious to me, as it was to so many people, that Bibi Netanyahu and the Israeli government was engaged in a genocide in slow motion, using the October 7th Hamas attack to justify the most ruthless reprisals against more than two million Palestinians in Gaza.
Caitlin Johnstone’s new piece, “Israeli Officials Explain Balancing Act Between Overt Genocide And Maintaining Western Support,” cites the words of Israel’s own government to prove this. Israeli officials are open about it. They make no apologies. They would like to starve and kill more quickly, but they need to go slow so as to maintain support in the U.S. Senate.
I wrote the article below in early December 2023. It was obvious then, as it is today, what Israel’s goal is. Gaza (and the West Bank) is to be ethnically cleansed. Full stop. The main challenge for Israel is to do it in a way that’s palatable to politicians and supporters in the United States.
A palatable genocide. Just think of that idea for a moment.
Anyhow, here’s my article from December 2023, unchanged.
Biden to Israel: Don’t Ethnically Cleanse Too Fast
Have you ever heard parents tell their unruly children: Don’t run in the store too fast. Don’t slug your friend too hard. Don’t eat all the candy. Instead of telling them to stop running in the store, to stop slugging their friend, to stop hogging all the candy.
I feel like that’s the Biden and Blinken approach to Israel: Don’t ethnically cleanse Gaza too fast. Just slow down a bit. Don’t make it too obvious. Don’t be too ruthless.
Biden and Blinken are those permissive parents who are dominated by an unruly child. Let’s call the child “Bibi.” They don’t dare tell Bibi to stop. They don’t dare punish him. They don’t dare make a scene, because Bibi will throw a tantrum and make their lives hell. So they allow Bibi to do whatever the hell he wants to do, except just a bit quieter, or slower, or less violent. They enable the child, in short, and indeed Biden and Blinken give Bibi more “clubs” (as in 2000-pound bombs and Hellfire missiles) so he can keep slugging other kids with even more relish.
Don’t kill too many children, Bibi. Good boy!
Speaking of enabling, I got my daily report today from the New York Times on what’s happening in the “Israel-Hamas War.” Note the framing here: the idea this is a war between equals, when Israel is an overwhelmingly powerful nation-state and Hamas consists of maybe 20,000 lightly-armed fighters. Anyhow, here’s the summary:
Israel-Hamas War
Israel said it had launched 200 strikes into Gaza since fighting resumed yesterday. Air-raid sirens in Israel warned of possible incoming rockets.
Gazan officials accused Israel of striking southern Gaza, where many displaced Palestinians are sheltering.
Antony Blinken, the U.S. secretary of state, blamed Hamas for the cease-fire’s end and said he had seen signs that Israel had begun to take new steps to protect Palestinian civilians.
The resumption of fighting left dozens of hostages still in Gazaand reduced the amount of aid entering the enclave, which had increased during the truce.
Let’s take a look at those bulleted points.
The powerful Israeli military has launched 200 strikes against Gaza, killing hundreds of innocent Palestinians, which goes unmentioned, even as small rockets from Hamas may (or may not) have been launched against Israel.
Gazan officials “accused” Israel of striking southern Gaza: Is there any doubt here? Where “many” displaced Palestinians are sheltering: How many? What type of shelter is available to them? Hasn’t Israeli military action “displaced” more than a million Palestinians, most of whom have no real shelter to speak of?
Blinken blames Hamas: What a surprise! And how is Israel protecting civilians in Gaza when they’re launching 200 “strikes” against them?
Apparently, the only hostages that matter are the ones held in Gaza. Israel’s mass incarceration of Palestinians, including children, goes unmentioned.
Again, Israel is held blameless; Hamas is responsible for everything bad that has happened, is happening, and will happen in Gaza. Because our child Bibi can do no wrong.
Don’t bomb too much, Bibi. Don’t kill too many other children. Don’t ethnically cleanse too fast. There: that’s my good boy. That’s my little angel.
Yesterday, I talked to Dick Price, a Vietnam War veteran, at the LA Progressive about the U.S. military, the Vietnam War, the all-volunteer military, media coverage, and why America just can’t stop making war.
When no one is held accountable for failure, when lies are used as the basis for killing, when war produces colossal profits for a select few, when Congress refuses to take responsibility for oversight, when war budgets keep climbing to the trillion dollar mark, it isn’t all that surprising that wars prove essentially endless as democracy withers.
As a teenager in the late 1970s, I read about Israel’s “Six-Day War” in 1967. The account I read was sympathetic toward Israel, respecting the audacity of its sneak attack on the Egyptian and Syrian air forces and its Blitzkrieg in the Sinai. But it also mentioned the Israeli attack on a U.S. Navy ship, the USS Liberty, a signals intelligence ship that was monitoring the war in international waters. The Israeli air and sea attack killed 34 crew members aboard the Liberty and wounded another 173. The ship, heavily damaged, never sailed again and was later sold as scrap.
The USS Liberty, post-attack
The Israeli government claimed the attack was unintentional and a mistake. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest the story is far more complicated. Yet I was thinking this morning about how the Trump administrations’s strenuous attempt to criminalize critical speech vis-à-vis Israel is yet another assault on liberty. Once again, the ship of liberty is endangered in the U.S., yet the U.S. government is content to look the other way, or even to collaborate with the attackers.
Let me be clear: Those Americans who criticize Israel for its actions in Gaza are exercising their liberty. We are free to speak, and indeed we should speak freely on crimes against humanity, for that is what ethnic cleansing in Gaza is: a crime against humanity.
Yet the U.S. government, which essentially agreed to look the other way in response to Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, is now looking the other way as free speech in America is suppressed, or even twisting denunciations of Israel’s war crimes in Gaza as anti-Semitic hate speech.
Liberty is something precious, and we as Americans are supposed to admire and applaud Patrick Henry and his sentiment from 250 years ago: “Give me liberty or give me death!”
If we as Americans have the right to criticize our own government, which we do, we certainly have the right to criticize foreign governments, including, of course, Israel. Yet, judging by U.S. mainstream media coverage and the words of government spokespeople, American citizens actually have less scope to criticize Israel than any other country, including their own.
Liberty attacked and abridged is liberty denied. How long before liberty itself in America, rocketed and strafed and torpedoed, is decommissioned and sold for scrap, just as the USS Liberty was?
Addendum: There are many books and videos about Israel’s attack on the USS Libertyand what was *really* behind it. I’m not an expert on the subject, but the official story of a regrettable “mistake” is decidedly fishy. Wikipedia does a decent job of summarizing a complex subject. Here’s an excerpt to ponder:
Some intelligence and military officials dispute Israel’s explanation.[79]Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State at the time of the incident, wrote:
I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.[80]
Below is my latest article for TomDispatch.com. Why do I write these articles? I started in 2007, this is 2025, and after 112 articles, nearly all of them calling for America to walk a far less militaristic path, militarism and authoritarianism continue to sink their roots deeper into our culture. Talk about fighting a losing war!
I suppose I write them to preserve my sanity—they’re my effort to make sense of what’s happening around me. But I also write them in the hope that my words might matter, that they might, just might, make a small difference, shifting America away from incessant warfare and colossal military spending. I haven’t given up hope, even as military budgets soar to a trillion dollars and above.
Speaking of which: Here’s an eye-opening chart from Stephen Semler on Trump’s FY2026 budget for America. Sure seems like we’re the Empire in “Star Wars,” doesn’t it?
Anyway, here’s my latest article for TomDispatch:
Forty years ago this month, I was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force. I would be part of America’s all-volunteer force (AVF) for 20 years, hitting my marks and retiring as a lieutenant colonel in 2005. In my two decades of service, I met a lot of fine and dedicated officers, enlisted members, and civilians. I worked with the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps as well, and met officers and cadets from countries like Great Britain, Germany, Pakistan, Poland, and Saudi Arabia. I managed not to get shot at or kill anyone. Strangely enough, in other words, my military service was peaceful.
Don’t get me wrong: I was a card-carrying member of America’s military-industrial complex. I’m under no illusions about what a military exists for, nor should you be. As an historian, having read military history for 50 years of my life and having taught it as well at the Air Force Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School, I know something of what war is all about, even if I haven’t experienced the chaos, the mayhem, the violence, or the atrocity of war directly.
Military service is about being prepared to kill. I was neither a trigger-puller nor a bomb-dropper. Nonetheless, I was part of a service that paradoxically preaches peace through superior firepower. The U.S. military and, of course, our government leaders, have had a misplaced — indeed, irrational — faith in the power of bullets and bombs to solve or resolve the most intractable of problems. Vietnam is going communist in 1965? Bomb it to hell and back. Afghanistan supports terrorism in 2001? Bomb it wildly. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction in 2003? Bomb it, too (even though it had no WMD). The Houthis in Yemen have the temerity to protest and strike out in relation to Israel’s atrocities in Gaza in 2025? Bomb them to hell and back.
Sadly, “bomb it” is this country’s go-to option, the one that’s always on the table, the one our leaders often reach for first. America’s “best and brightest,” whether in the Vietnam era or now, have a powerful yen for destruction or, as the saying went in that long-gone era, “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” Judging them by their acts, our leaders indeed have long appeared to believe that all too many villages, towns, cities, and countries needed to be destroyed in order to save them.
My own Orwellian turn of phrase for such mania is: destruction is construction. In this country, an all-too-offensive military is sold as a defensive one, hence, of course, the rebranding of the Department of War as the Department of Defense. An imperial military is sold as so many freedom-fighters and -bringers. We have the mega-weapons and the urge to dominate of Darth Vader and yet, miraculously enough, we continue to believe that we’re Luke Skywalker.
This is just one of the many paradoxes and contradictions contained within the U.S. military and indeed my own life. Perhaps they’re worth teasing out and exploring, as I reminisce about being commissioned at the ripe old age of 22 in 1985 — a long time ago in a country far, far away.
The Evil Empire
When I went on active duty in 1985, the country that constituted the Evil Empire on this planet wasn’t in doubt. As President Ronald Reagan said then, it was the Soviet Union — authoritarian, militaristic, domineering, and decidedly untrustworthy. Forty years later, who, exactly, is the evil empire? Is it Vladimir Putin’s Russia with its invasion of Ukraine three years ago? The Biden administration surely thought so; the Trump administration isn’t so sure. Speaking of Trump (and how can I not?), isn’t it correct to say that the U.S. is increasingly authoritarian, domineering, militaristic, and decidedly untrustworthy? Which country has roughly 800 military bases globally? Which country’s leader openly boasts of trillion-dollar war budgets and dreams of the annexation of Canada and Greenland? It’s not Russia, of course, nor is it China.
Back when I first put on a uniform, there was thankfully no Department of Homeland Security, even as the Reagan administration began to trust (but verify!) the Soviets in negotiations to reduce our mutual nuclear stockpiles. Interestingly, 1985 witnessed an aging Republican president, Reagan, working with his Soviet peer, even as he dreamed of creating a “space shield” (SDI, the strategic defense initiative) to protect America from nuclear attack. In 2025, we have an aging Republican president, Donald Trump, negotiating with Putin even as he floats the idea of a “Golden Dome” to shield America from nukes. (Republicans in Congress already seek $27 billion for that “dome,” so that “golden” moniker is weirdly appropriate and, given the history of cost overruns on American weaponry, you know that would be just the starting point of its soaring projected cost.)
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, fears of a third world war that would lead to a nuclear exchange (as caught in books of the time like Tom Clancy’s popular novel Red Storm Rising) abated. And for a brief shining moment, the U.S. military reigned supreme globally, pulverizing the junior varsity mirror image of the Soviet military in Iraq with Desert Storm in 1991. We had kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all, President George H.W. Bush exulted. It was high time for some genuine peace dividends, or so it seemed.
The real problem was that that seemingly instantaneous success against Saddam Hussein’s much-overrated Iraqi military reignited the real Vietnam Syndrome, which was Washington’s overconfidence in military force as the way to secure dominance, while allegedly strengthening democracy not just here in America but globally. Hubris led to the expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders; hubris led to unipolar dreams of total dominance everywhere; hubris meant that America could somehow have the most moral as well as lethal military in the world; hubris meant that one need never concern oneself about potential blowback from allying with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan or the risk of provoking Russian aggression as NATO floated Ukraine and Georgia as future members of an alliance designed to keep Russia down.
It was the end of history (so it was said) and American-style democracy had prevailed.
Even so, militarily, this country did anything but demobilize. Under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, there was some budgetary trimming, but military Keynesianism remained a thing, as did the military-industrial-congressional complex. Clinton managed a rare balanced budget due to domestic spending cuts and welfare reform; his cuts to military spending, however, were modest indeed. Tragically, under him, America would not become “a normal country in normal times,” as former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick once dreamed. It would remain an empire — and an increasingly hungry one at that.
In that vein, senior civilians like Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began to wonder why this country had such a superb military if we weren’t prepared to use it to boss others around. Never mind concerns about the constitutionality of employing U.S. troops in conflicts without a congressional declaration of war. (How unnecessary! How old-fashioned!) It was time to unapologetically rule the world.
The calamitous events of 9/11 changed nothing except the impetus to punish those who’d challenged our illusions. Those same events also changed everything as America’s leaders decided it was then the moment to double down on empire, to become even more authoritarian (the Patriot Act, torture, and the like), to go openly to “the dark side,” to lash out in the only way they knew how — more bombing (Afghanistan, Iraq), followed by invasions and “surges” — then, wash, rinse, repeat.
So, had we really beaten the Vietnam Syndrome in the triumphant year of 1991? Of course not. A decade later, after 9/11, we met the enemy, and once again it was our unrepresentative government spoiling for war, no matter how ill-conceived and ill-advised — because war pays, because war is “presidential,” because America’s leaders believe that the true “power of its example” is example after example of its power, especially bombs bursting in air.
The “All-Volunteer” Force Isn’t What It Seems
Speaking as a veteran and a military historian, I believe America’s all-volunteer force has lost its way. Today’s military members — unlike those of the “greatest generation” of World War II fame — are no longer citizen-soldiers. Today’s “volunteers” have surrendered to the rhetoric of being “warriors” and “warfighters.” They take their identity from fighting wars or preparing for the same, putting aside their oath to support and defend the Constitution. They forget (or were never taught) that they must be citizens first, soldiers second. They have, in truth, come to embrace a warrior mystique that is far more consistent with authoritarian regimes. They’ve come to think of themselves — proudly so — as a breed apart.
Far too often in this America, an affinitive patriotism has been replaced by a rabid nationalism. Consider that Christocentric “America First” ideals are now openly promoted by the civilian commander-in-chief, no matter that they remain antithetical to the Constitution and corrosive to democracy. The new “affirmative action” openly affirms faith in Christ and trust in Trump (leavened with lots of bombs and missiles against nonbelievers).
Citizen-soldiers of my father’s generation, by way of contrast, thought for themselves. They chafed against military authority, confronting it when it seemed foolish, wasteful, or unlawful. They largely demobilized themselves in the aftermath of World War II. But warriors don’t think. They follow orders. They drop bombs on target. They make the war machine run on time.
Americans, when they’re not overwhelmed by their efforts to simply make ends meet, have largely washed their hands of whatever that warrior-military does in their name. They know little about wars fought supposedly to protect them and care even less. Why should they care? They’re not asked to weigh in. They’re not even asked to sacrifice (other than to pay taxes and keep their mouths shut).
Too many people in America, it seems to me, are now playing a perilous game of make-believe. We make-believe that America’s wars are authorized when they clearly are not. For example, who, other than Donald Trump (and Joe Biden before him), gave the U.S. military the right to bomb Yemen?
We make-believe all our troops are volunteers. We make-believe we care about those “volunteers.” Sometimes, some of us even make-believe we care about those wars being waged in places and countries most Americans would be hard-pressed to find on a map. How confident are you that all too many Americans could even point to the right hemisphere to find Syria or Yemen or past war zones like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq?
War isn’t even that good at teaching Americans geography anymore!
What Is To Be Done?
If you accept that there’s a kernel of truth to what I’ve written so far, and that there’s definitely something wrong that should be fixed, the question remains: What is to be done?
Some concrete actions immediately demand our attention.
*Any ongoing wars, including “overseas contingency operations” and the like, must be stopped immediately unless Congress formally issues a declaration of war as required by the Constitution. No more nonsense about MOOTW, or “military operations other than war.” There is war or there is peace. Period. Want to bomb Yemen? First, declare war on Yemen through Congress.
*Wars, assuming they are supported by Congressional declarations, must be paid for with taxes raised above all from those Americans who benefit most handsomely from fighting them. There shall be no deficit spending for war.
*Americans are used to “sin” taxes for purchases like tobacco and alcohol. So, isn’t it time for a new “sin” tax related to profiteering from war, especially by the corporations that make the distinctly overpriced weaponry without which such wars couldn’t be waged?
To end wars and weaken militarism in America, we must render it unprofitable. As long as powerful forces continue to profit so handsomely from going to war — even as “volunteer” troops are told to aspire to be “warriors,” born and trained to kill — this violent madness in America will persist, if not expand.
Look, the 22-year-old version of me thought he knew who the evil empire was. He thought he was one of the good guys. He thought his country and his military stood for something worthy, even for “greatness” of a sort. Sure, he was naïve. Perhaps he was just another wet-behind-the-ears factotum of empire. But he took his oath to the Constitution seriously and looked to a brighter day when that military would serve only as a deterrent in a world largely at peace.
The soon-to-be-62-year-old me is no longer so naïve and, these days, none too sure who’s evil and who isn’t. He knows his country is on the wrong path, that the bloody path of bullets and bombs (and profiting from the same) is always perilous for any freedom-loving people to travel on.
Somehow, America needs to be put back on the freedom trail that inspires and empowers citizens rather than wannabe warriors brandishing weapons galore. Somehow, we need to aspire again to be a nation of laws. (Can we agree that due process is better than no process?) Somehow, we need to dream of being a nation where right makes might, one that knows that destruction is not construction, one that exchanges bullets and bombs for ballots and beauty.
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
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
