Trump weighing several options for U.S. troops inside Iran
Discussions about possible ground troops have focused on missions aimed at escalating the war in attempt to end it, sources say, but no decisions have been made.
*****
Somebody please explain to me how committing ground troops to Iran and escalating the war is in any way a sane method of deescalating the war.
The Trump administration is out-Orwelling George Orwell. Rather than a sobering warning, Orwell’s “1984” has become a user’s manual for autocrats like Trump and Hegseth, where war is waged in the name of peace and escalation is deescalation.
Meanwhile, Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, told us that it’s not America’s 18 (!) intelligence agencies that determine whether we face an “imminent threat.” No—only the president can make that determination.
Can somebody please tell me why we have 18 intelligence agencies that we spend scores of billions on? All we really need is the president’s gut. I suggest we eliminate America’s entire intelligence “community” and replace it with Trump’s intestines.
If Trump has any sense left in his gut, he should declare victory and end this colossal mistake of a war.
Residential building in Iran. Just imagine if Iran was raining bombs and missiles on the USA. (Majid Saeedi, Getty Images)
Joe Kent’s principled resignation letter, in which he calls out the influence of Israel and AIPAC on President Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran, illustrates the nature of power and dissent in government circles.
The main response is denunciation. Leading the way was Trump, whose response to the news was basically good riddance even as he claimed that Kent, a former Green Beret with extensive combat experience, was “weak on security.” Organizations like the Jewish Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC suggested that Kent was trafficking in age-old anti-semitic tropes (apparently it’s “anti-semitic” to suggest that Israel and AIPAC have influence over the President and Congress).
In the age of social media, denunciation is nearly instantaneous — and often unhinged. I’ve even seen calls to have Kent investigated under the espionage act!
The method to the madness is obvious: discredit Kent by smears, attack him as disloyal, even as such efforts are designed to intimidate others from airing their legitimate concerns.
Kent deserves a lot of credit for going on the record because he surely knew he’d be denounced.
Not quite denouncing him, but showing (so far) conformity that’s more than disappointing is Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and Kent’s former boss. Previously, Tulsi was on the record as being strongly against regime-change wars and especially against war with Iran. She’s often made speeches in the name of her “brothers and sisters in uniform.” Yet so far she has quietly abetted Trump’s policies and actions in his foolish and illegal war against Iran.
I fear Tulsi’s “brothers and sisters” will pay a high price for her complicity.
Here’s her message posted yesterday at X/Twitter:
Donald Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the American people to be our President and Commander in Chief. As our Commander in Chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat, and whether or not to take action he deems necessary to protect the safety and security of our troops, the American people and our country.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is responsible for helping coordinate and integrate all intelligence to provide the President and Commander in Chief with the best information available to inform his decisions.
After carefully reviewing all the information before him, President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat and he took action based on that conclusion.
This is carefully-worded nonsense, designed to satisfy Trump and his handlers. I bolded a few obvious BS phrases. First, Trump wasn’t “overwhelmingly” elected president, though Trump loves to think he was. Second, anyone who knows how Trump operates can’t imagine him “carefully reviewing” all the intelligence, but perhaps Tulsi is being cute here, since she adds the intel “before him.” (I truly wonder how much of the DNI’s intel actually reached Trump, how much he truly read and reviewed; not much, I’d wager.)
Finally, there’s the notion of an “imminent threat,” which Iran truly didn’t pose to U.S. national security, not before the Israeli/U.S. attacks. And the usual dismissal of Iran as “terrorist Islamist,” i.e. “bad people” we don’t like.
I’ve been a Tulsi supporter for many years and I wrote that she’d make a fine DNI. Recent events are proving me wrong. Her message on X in response to Kent’s resignation was more than disappointing. I’m hoping she also resigns for cause, but perhaps she thinks she can do more as an insider to restrain the worst impulses of Trump, his toadies, and those who have always spoiled for a war against Iran. Her resignation, I think, would be more powerful than her restraining influence (assuming she has any influence).
Of course, if she does resign for cause, she will be smeared and denounced, and not for the first time.
Readers, what do you make of all this?
Addendum: Perhaps I should add that I don’t agree with everything in Kent’s resignation letter, nor would I be likely to vote for him, assuming he runs for office again. His resignation letter is useful exactly because he was a strong Trump loyalist whose military record earns him respect among those who are otherwise unlikely to question Trump and the official narrative. In short, for me this isn’t about Kent and his character, It’s about his recognition that there wasn’t an imminent threat from Iran and his willingness to highlight the roles played by Israel and AIPAC in U.S. politics and foreign policy. As a Trump insider, his words carry persuasive weight. They could also indicate a fracturing of support for Trump’s disastrous war with Iran.
Back in 2008, I wrote an article for Neiman Watchdog calling for war salesmen and cheerleaders on the mainstream media to be replaced. Of course, nothing of the sort happened, and today I saw a new article by Ken Klippenstein: “The TV Generals Have Something to Sell You About Iran,” and that something is war and more war (and weapons too).
You can trust him — he’s a general!
In the article, Klippenstein has a great line about retired general David Petraeus: “Can anyone fit more stars up their asses?” Clearly not.
Anyhow, here’s my article from 2008, unchanged because the dynamic of TV and cable networks using retired senior military officers to sell wars and weapons also remains unchanged.
Networks should replace Pentagon cheerleaders with independent military analysts
COMMENTARY| December 04, 2008
Even without special Pentagon briefings and corrupting financial relationships, former top military brass simply are too conflicted to be relied upon for tough-minded analysis, writes a former Air Force officer.
By William J. Astore
Media outlets must develop their own, independent, military analysts, ones not beholden to the military-industrial complex, ones whose very sense of self is not defined, nourished, and sustained by the U.S. military.
In separate exposés in The New York Times (April 20 and November 30), David Barstow showed how major media outlets came to rely on retired generals like Barry McCaffrey for analysis. Predictably, many of these men (they were all men) continued as paid advisors to defense contractors even as they appeared on TV. They also often accepted favors from the Pentagon, to include special, often classified, briefings; overseas junkets; and, most valuable of all, access to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
But such influence-peddling and collusion are hardly surprising. Relying on high-ranking, retired military officers to serve as frank and disinterested critics is a bit like inviting Paul von Hindenburg, ex-Field Marshal of the German Army, to testify in 1919 on why his army lost World War I. You’ll get some interesting testimony — just don’t expect it to be critical or for that matter even true.
So why did the networks hire so many retired colonels and generals? Perhaps they followed a rationale analogous to that used in hiring retired professional athletes to cover sports — to provide hard-earned, technical commentary, leavened with occasional anecdotes.
But in the “forever war” in which we became engaged, these retired military officers soon provided not just the color commentary but the play-by-play. And network anchors, lacking first-hand military experience, were reduced to bobble-heads, nodding in respectful agreement.
But war is not a sport. Nor should we cover it as such. We need tough-minded military analysts, not “Team America” boosters and Pentagon spin-meisters.
Why Relying on Senior Military Officers Is Wrongheaded
Our media’s concept of relying on retired senior colonels and generals for frank and unbiased analysis was deeply flawed from the beginning. Let’s consider five facets to the problem:
Despite their civilian coat-and-tie camouflage, these officers are not ex-generals and ex-colonels: they are retired generals and colonels. They still carry their rank; they still wear the uniform at military functions; they’re still deferentially called “sir” by the rank-and-file. They enjoy constant reminders of their privileged military status. It’s not that these men over-identify with the U.S. military — they are the military.
The senior colonels and generals I’ve known despise Monday-morning quarterbacks. Loath to criticize commanders in the field, they tend to defer to the commander-in-chief. Putting on mufti doesn’t change this mindset. Rather than airing their most critical thoughts, they tend to keep them private, especially in cases where service loyalty is perceived to be involved.
Military officers are especially averse to airing criticism if they perceive it might undermine troop morale in the field. Related to this is the belief that “negative” media criticism led to America’s defeat in Vietnam, the hoary but nevertheless powerful “stab-in-the-back” myth. Thus, these men see Pentagon boosterism as a service to the nation — one that they believe is desperately needed to redress the balance of negatively-charged, “liberal,” anti-war coverage.
Paradoxically, that the “War on Terror” has gone badly is a reason why some retired military officers believe we can’tafford serious criticism. If you believe the war can and must be won, as most of them do, you may suppress your own doubts, fearing that, if you air them, you’ll be responsible for tipping the balance in favor of the enemy.
The fifth, perhaps most telling, reason why networks should not rely on retired colonels and generals is that it’s extremely difficult for anyone, let alone a die-hard military man, to criticize our military because such criticism is taken so personally by so many Americans. When you criticize the military, even abstractly, people hear you attacking Johnny or Suzy — their son or daughter, or the boy or girl next door, who selflessly enlisted to defend America. Who wants to hear that Johnny or Suzy may possibly be fighting (even dying) for a mistake? And, assuming he believed it, what senior military man wants to appear on TV to pass along thatmessage to America’s mothers and fathers?
The Next Step
It’s not that retired colonels and generals lack integrity [well, some do, I’d add in 2026], but they are often deeply conflicted and lacking in self-awareness. And you certainly can’t profess to be an objective media analyst while representing contractors vying for funding from the Pentagon.
So what should the media do? Since it will take time for networks to develop their own corps of independent military analysts, they should consider hiring junior officers and NCOs, with recent combat experience, who have left the military after a few years of honorable service. Civilian military historians could also provide critical commentary. Even foreign military officers might be queried; at least they need not worry about their patriotism being impugned each time they hazard a criticism of the Pentagon.
French premier Georges Clemenceau famously noted that “War is too important to be left to generals.” So too is the TV and cable networks’ analysis of our wars.
*****
Quick comment in 2026: I wasn’t critical enough in 2008. Some of these “cheerleaders” are shameless sales- and pitchmen who are profiting from war.
Brian McGinnis, a U.S. Marine Corp veteran, was wounded in action protesting the Iran War in the U.S. Senate. Thrown down, his arm broken, McGinnis was a victim of friendly fire from the Capitol police and Senator Tim Sheehy, who decided he’d join the police in wrestling McGinnis out of the hearing room.
McGinnis’s “crime”? Using his freedom of speech to declare that no one wants to die in a war for Israel.
You can watch it all here. (You can hear the bone crack in his arm.)
This is what happens in America when you stand up and speak truth to power. The powerful already know the truth. Their response is either to ignore truth-tellers or to silence them, sometimes with extreme prejudice.
This Marine, this patriot, exercising his Constitutional right of free speech before the Senate, became yet another casualty of the U.S./Israeli War on Iran, a victim of a deliberate and unconscionable act of friendly fire. All he wanted was to have his voice heard; all he got in return was a broken arm and a most violent silencing, even as U.S. senior leaders in uniform steadfastly ignored him.
Again, this Marine was wounded in action; his action was to speak truth before the powerful, but they don’t traffic in hard or noble truths, only in easy and convenient lies.
Shame on the U.S. Senate, shame on the military’s senior leaders, and shame on the Trump administration for waging an illegitimate, unconstitutional, and illegal war against Iran and against legitimate and courageous dissent in America.
Reading NBC News this morning, I saw where the U.S. “is winning decisively, devastatingly and without mercy,” so claimed self-styled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. “We are only four days in,” he added, and the U.S. “will take all the time we need” to prevail. He further added “We are punching them while they’re down, which is exactly how it should be.” (There’s nothing more honorable than punching someone when they’re down, right?)
“They [the Iranians] are toast, and they know it, or at least, soon enough, they will know it. And we have only just begun, to hunt, dismantle, demoralize, destroy and defeat their capabilities,” Hegseth boasted. As far as how long the war will last, he equivocated. Three weeks? Eight weeks? Who knows? Hegseth doesn’t.
Hegseth also doesn’t know something fundamental: You can’t do a wrong thing the right way.
The Iran War is wrong. It’s illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and also extremely dangerous. There’s no way to prevail in a war fought for the wrong reasons, a war fought without clear goals, a war that is already beginning to spiral out of control. But Hegseth thinks if the U.S. launches enough missiles, drops enough bombs, and torpedoes enough ships, somehow the U.S. will “win.”
Congratulations, U.S. and Israel: You made him a martyr
In so many ways, the U.S. has already lost. The Ayatollah Khamenei is now a martyr. Iran is now more likely to pursue a nuclear weapon. Even more so than usual, Israel is now in the driver’s seat, calling America’s shots in the Middle East. This has all the makings of a major catastrophe for U.S. forces, but all Hegseth can see is the promise of punching a man when he’s down.
Clearly, Hegseth is intoxicated with winning “without mercy.” Think about that for a moment—war without mercy. Only the most barbaric or fanatical person would boast about waging war without mercy.
With the Iran War, the Trump administration is marching down the most perilous of paths, blinded by illusions of total victory.
A warning: More than anything, America must not allow this to become a religious war, a crusade, between a Judeo-Christian force and a Shia-Islamic force. We’re already seeing a lot of talk within the U.S. military of a God-driven mission against Iran, with (positive!) references to Armageddon. Such rhetoric is incredibly dangerous and inflammatory. (In this context, that crusader cross tattoo on Hegseth’s chest is more than alarming.)
If anything, the best outcome for the U.S. would be an immediate ceasefire before more U.S. troops are killed and wounded. But how is such a ceasefire to be negotiated? U.S. diplomacy has no credibility. None.
Among the worst outcomes would be the commitment of U.S. troops to Iran, so-called boots on the ground, which would likely create a massive Bay of Pigs-style fiasco. America can ill afford yet another land war quagmire in the Middle East. There is already talk, however, of committing U.S. Special Forces to Iran, perhaps to organize Kurdish and Iranian dissidents against the legitimate Iranian government. Such folly must be prevented.
Any commitment of U.S. troops to Iran would further accelerate escalation. If you begin to hear rumblings about Selective Service and a return to a military draft, you’ll know the Trump administration has become completely unhinged (if it isn’t already).
In just a few days of “major combat operations,” the Trump administration already has more than enough innocent Iranian blood on its hands. That toll in blood is only going to increase, as will the risk of blowback on the “homeland.”
The smartest course for America at this moment is to declare “victory” and leave. Since it’s unlikely Trump and Hegseth will see the light, Congress should immediately cut war funding. Sadly, a weak-willed Congress seems far more likely to pass supplemental funding bills to give Trump and Hegseth a blank check to wage a Judeo-Christian crusade.
We don’t live in interesting times: we live in unhinged times. Perilous times. We must find a way to seek a merciful peace. The alternative just might be World War III.
Here are some macro ideas and thoughts about America’s latest war of choice with Iran:
1. It’s a war so call it that. It’s not “strikes” or “major combat operations.”
2. It’s an unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, and potentially escalatory war.
3. The war has no clear objective other than decapitation of the Iranian leadership (achieved?) and installation of a new regime that will play ball with USA/Israel. That latter outcome is extremely unlikely.
4. It’s a war for Israel to advance its regional hegemony.
5. In the main, the war is neither supported nor understood by the American people. That fact doesn’t seem to matter to the Trump administration.
6. For all those involved, the war will prove increasingly expensive in blood and treasure.
7. Recklessly begun, the war is utterly unpredictable in its final outcomes.
8. The war does not serve the national defense interests of the U.S., as Iran posed no imminent threat to U.S. national security.
9. With no clear Congressional mandate, the war lacks the critical support of the American people. Again, the Trump administration remains unconcerned here.
10. For these reasons, among others, there should be an immediate ceasefire followed by negotiations, leading to discussion of war reparations to be paid by the aggressors. (This scenario, I realize, is unlikely in the extreme.)
Yesterday, I went on “Judging Freedom” with Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss the Iran War.
As I said to the Judge, I am still confused about America’s true rationale, its intent, and its goals, and I have no clear idea of how this war is going to proceed, let alone end. War is inherently unpredictable, much like fire. Trying to predict its path of destruction, what it will burn and what it will leave behind, and when it will end, is nearly impossible. We must work to contain and extinguish this new fire in the Middle East before it becomes an inferno that engulfs even wider areas, leading to yet more innocents dead.
I woke to the news that Israel/USA is launching attacks (New York Times) and strikes (NBC News) against Iran. The BBC used “joint attack” for the Israeli/U.S. war plan. Three sources, and all three avoiding that useful descriptive word, war.
I suppose Mr. Trump doesn’t have to ask Congress for a declaration of war since it’s not a war—it’s just attacks or strikes or “major combat operations,” as Trump said today.
“All I want is freedom for the [Iranian] people,” Trump also said. Once again, “freedom” is synonymous with war and death.
So perhaps Orwell had it wrong. It’s not war is peace; it’s war is freedom.
It’s funny: I’m listening to ABC News and they keep using the words “strike” or “joint strike” or “preemptive strike.” Or even “larger-scale strike.” Trump sees it as a “noble mission,” but not apparently a Nobel Peace Prize one.
So many lies, so much dishonesty, so much illegality.
Grim times.
If you can stand it, here’s Trump talking about Iran’s terror. Iran has “soaked the earth with blood and guts,” so he claims. I’m glad the USA is innocent of death and violence. No blood and guts from our military “strikes.”
It’s not a war. It’s just “strikes” or “attacks” or something
So remember America: Don’t speak of war. You have no say anyway. Just sit back and watch the strikes and attacks ordered by two paragons of virtue, Bibi Netanyahu and Donald Trump.
Update (2/28, Noonish)
The words of James Madison resonate here:
Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debt and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals, engendered in both. No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare …
Allegedly, we’re bombing for freedom in Iran, even as freedom in America vanishes. Is it time to drop “freedom” bombs on ourselves?
Ask Americans (or any other people) being bombed if they think it’s conducive to greater freedom.
If you’re looking to “your” military to resist wrongful wars, you’re looking in the wrong place.
I should know. I was still on active duty in 2003 during the run-up to the disastrous Iraq War. What I remember was a sense of inevitability. The Bush/Cheney administration obviously wanted a settling of accounts with Saddam Hussein, and the war was going to happen irrespective of diplomatic efforts. One clear sign was that the good-faith efforts of weapons inspectors were discarded in a rush to war.
I did not speak out against the Iraq War until 2007 (I retired in 2005). Some profile in courage!
As I’ve commented here, “It’s not easy for us military lifers to get a grip on organizational betrayal because we’re part of the organization–our identities and ideals are linked to it. We are too close–we are reluctant to believe we’re being misled by lies spread from the very top of the pyramid.”
I submit this as a partial explanation, not as an excuse. Within the military, there’s a strong emphasis on staying in your lane. Do your job. Leave the decisions to the higher-ups. They have the intelligence, not you. Yours not to reason why … yours but to do and die.
History indicates that dissent within any military will be tightly constrained. And of course the U.S. military, if necessary, will use the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) to imprison and otherwise to silence those who represent a threat to “good order and discipline.”
A separate question is this: How does a rebellious military even work? Alternatively, if a military is a hotbed of dissent and rebellion, it suggests a dishonest war and poor leadership as well. Are we headed in that direction now with respect to Iran? Are we already there? Perhaps this is one reason why there’s so much talk of “warriors” today in the U.S. military–the idea our soldiers fight as mercenaries for the thrill of it, not because they’re citizen-soldiers upholding the Constitution.
*****
Let’s be blunt: We are not supposed to go to war based on presidential whims, pressure from foreign powers like Israel, corporate profits, imperial dominance, and similar imperatives. Only Congress has the power to declare war in the name of the American people. But ever since World War II, Congress has been shunted aside by the National Security State. A few members of Congress may protest, but Congress writ large has abdicated its responsibility over war. This is perhaps the leading reason why we fight wrongful wars.
Another reason is our poor choice of leaders. Donald Trump spoke plainly early in 2016 that he believed the military should and would follow his orders irrespective of their legality. Trump believes he is not constrained by the U.S. Constitution, that his orders are the law. He should have been disqualified from running for office when he admitted he saw himself as being above the law; instead, he was elected and reelected.
And, let’s face it, “our” government treats we the people like mushrooms, keeping us in the dark while feeding us bullshit. Along with being actively misled, warmongers like Dick Cheney simply don’t care what the people think. As Cheney infamously replied when he was told the American people were losing faith in the Iraq War: “So?” Who cares? America’s leaders don’t care what you think. They don’t require your approval—only your obedience.
Finally, we the people, writ large, have acquiesced in the construction of a U.S. military machine based on global reach, global power, and full-spectrum dominance. We’ve “invested” gargantuan sums to create a military machine of great enormity. A military machine that we hold in high esteem. There will always be a temptation to use that machine, to see every problem as a Gordian knot that can be easily cut by our well-honed military saber.
To come back to the U.S. military: First, troops are trained to obey, not so much educated to think, and they certainly aren’t encouraged to disobey. Pilots want to be the best pilots they can be; maintainers want to be skilled maintainers; and so on. Sergeants and lieutenants leave bigger questions to their COs, their commanding officers. This is how militaries have worked for millennia.
The harsh realities of war
*****
Again, I write this as a partial explanation about why we wage wrongful wars. It’s not meant as an excuse.
Ten years ago, I wrote an article for TomDispatch on why it’s so difficult for military members to speak out, even against illegal wars. (And who’s to say what is illegal?) Here’s an excerpt from that article:
Leaving military insularity, unit loyalty, and the pressure of combat aside, however, here are seven other factors I’ve witnessed, which combine to inhibit dissent within military circles.
1. Careerism and ambition: The U.S. military no longer has potentially recalcitrant draftees — it has “volunteers.” Yesteryear’s draftees were sometimes skeptics; many just wanted to endure their years in the military and get out. Today’s volunteers are usually believers; most want to excel. Getting a reputation for critical comments or other forms of outspokenness generally means not being rewarded with fast promotions and plum assignments. Career-oriented troops quickly learn that it’s better to fail upwards quietly than to impale yourself on your sword while expressing honest opinions. If you don’t believe me, ask all those overly decorated generals of our failed wars you see on TV.
2. Future careerism and ambition: What to do when you leave the military? Civilian job options are often quite limited. Many troops realize that they will be able to double or triple their pay, however, if they go to work for a defense contractor, serving as a military consultant or adviser overseas. Why endanger lucrative prospects (or even your security clearance, which could be worth tens of thousands of dollars to you and firms looking to hire you) by earning a reputation for being “difficult”?
3. Lack of diversity: The U.S. military is not blue and red and purple America writ small; it’s a selective sampling of the country that has already winnowed out most of the doubters and rebels. This is, of course, by design. After Vietnam, the high command was determinednever to have such a wave of dissent within the ranks again and in this (unlike so much else) they succeeded. Think about it: between “warriors” and citizen-soldiers, who is more likely to be tractable and remain silent?
4. A belief that you can effect change by working quietly from within the system: Call it the Harold K. Johnson effect. Johnson was an Army general during the Vietnam War who considered resigning in protest over what he saw as a lost cause. He decided against it, wagering that he could better effect change while still wearing four stars, a decision he later came deeply to regret. The truth is that the system has time-tested ways of neutralizing internal dissent, burying it, or channeling it and so rendering it harmless.
5. The constant valorization of the military: Ever since 9/11, the gushing pro-military rhetoric of presidents and other politicians has undoubtedly served to quiet honest doubts within the military. If the president and Congress think you’re the best military ever, a force for human liberation, America’s greatest national treasure, who are you to disagree, Private Schmuckatelli?
America used to think differently. Our founders considered a standing army to be a pernicious threat to democracy. Until World War II, they generally preferred isolationism to imperialism, though of course many were eager to take land from Native Americans and Mexicans while double-crossing Cubans, Filipinos, and other peoples when it came to their independence. If you doubt that, just read War is a Racket by Smedley Butler, a Marine general in the early decades of the last century and two-time recipient of the Medal of Honor. In the present context, think of it this way: democracies should see a standing military as a necessary evil, and military spending as a regressive tax on civilization — as President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously did when he compared such spending to humanity being crucified on a cross of iron.
Chanting constant hosannas to the troops and telling them they’re the greatest ever— remember the outcry against Muhammad Ali when, with significantly more cause, he boasted that he was the greatest? — may make our military feel good, but it won’t help them see their flaws, nor us as a nation see ours.
6. Loss of the respect of peers: Dissent is lonely. It’s been more than a decade since my retirement and I still hesitate to write articles like this. (It’s never fun getting hate mail from people who think you’re un-American for daring to criticize any aspect of the military.) Small wonder that critics choose to keep their own counsel while they’re in the service.
7. Even when you leave the military, you never truly leave: I haven’t been on a military base in years. I haven’t donned a uniform since my retirement ceremony in 2005. Yet occasionally someone will call me “colonel.” It’s always a reminder that I’m still “in.” I may have left the military behind, but it never left me behind. I can still snap to attention, render a proper salute, recite my officer’s oath from memory.
In short, I’m not a former but a retired officer. My uniform may be gathering dust in the basement, but I haven’t forgotten how it made me feel when I wore it. I don’t think any of us who have served ever do. That strong sense of belonging, that emotional bond, makes you think twice before speaking out. Or at least that’s been my experience. Even as I call for more honesty within our military, more bracing dissent, I have to admit that I still feel a residual sense of hesitation. Make of that what you will.
Bonus Reason: Troops are sometimes reluctant to speak out because they doubt Americans will listen, or if they do, empathize and understand. It’s one thing to vent your frustrations in private among friends on your military base or at the local VFW hall among other veterans. It’s quite another to talk to outsiders. War’s sacrifices and horrors are especially difficult to convey and often traumatic to relive. Nevertheless, as a country, we need to find ways to encourage veterans to speak out and we also need to teach ourselves how to listen — truly listen — no matter the harshness of what they describe or how disturbed what they actually have to say may make us feel.
My fellow Americans, it’s nice to think we have a semblance of a constitutional republic, but that warship has sailed. This time, to Iran.
*****
This AM, I read an interesting story on the Supreme Court’s repeal of Trump’s tariffs. Justice Neil Gorsuch made the point that his fellow justices’ interpretation of the law often changes based on whether the president is a Republican or Democrat. This, to state the obvious, is not how the law is supposed to work.
*****
Years ago, I spied a bumper sticker that read: “I’m already against the next war.” It’s on my mind again.
******
I’ll support a war when Hollywood celebrities and sports stars willingly enlist. And when the sons and daughters of presidents and senators and CEOs happily join them in the ranks.
*****
Do you think it’s a coincidence that Bibi Netanyahu keeps visiting the White House even as the Trump administration prepares for yet another war in the Middle East?
*****
A great book for this moment is “Deadly Betrayal: The Truth About Why the United States Invaded Iraq” (2024) by Dennis Fritz. Fritz, a retired AF command chief master sergeant, was in the halls of power when the Bush/Cheney administration decided to invade Iraq in 2003. He identifies three main reasons for the Iraq War fiasco: U.S. leaders’ concerns about “credibility” and the perpetual fear of being perceived as “weak”; serving the security needs of Israel, especially by weakening Hamas and Hezbollah together with Iraq; and neocon fever dreams of imperial dominance in the Middle East connected to the control of oil.
In his conclusion, Fritz is scathingly blunt:
More than 4,500 [U.S. troops] made the ultimate sacrifice, and 100,000 have been wounded for life. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Saddam Hussein posed no threat to our national security. The Iraq War wasn’t an honest mistake. It was a calculated lie—a deadly betrayal. Our service members were used as pawns by the government to fulfill an imperialist ideology. Their sacrifice had no basis in national defense. All Americans should be outraged, and we should never let this happen again. The troops didn’t even know why they were going to war.
It saddens me to think that Fritz may soon need to write “Deadly Betrayal II” about the forthcoming war with Iran.
In Israel, the two defense officials said that significant preparations were underway for the possibility of a joint strike with the United States, even though no decision has been made about whether to carry out such an attack. They said the planning envisions delivering a severe blow over a number of days with the goal of forcing Iran into concessions at the negotiating table that it has so far been unwilling to make.
The U.S. buildup suggests an array of possible Iranian targets, including short and medium range missiles, missile storage depots, nuclear sites and other military targets, such as headquarters of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The ultimate decision on scope of targets is largely up to Mr. Trump, U.S. officials said.
Strangely, nowhere in this article is it mentioned that U.S. military attacks on Iran legally require a Congressional declaration of war. Apparently, it’s all up to Mr. Trump and Israel whether Iran gets hammered soon.
We the people have absolutely no say. The U.S. Constitution simply doesn’t matter.
Iran poses no direct threat to U.S. national security. There is no clear and present danger; no defensible reason to launch yet another attack on Iran. Yet it seems those attacks will soon be coming, as long as Israel has something to say about this (and that country most certainly does).
Why war with Iran? Apparently for “regime change,” apparently for the oil, and apparently for Israel.
A diplomatic settlement appears to be a long shot here. Perhaps more like a “Hail Mary” pass.
No matter how unconstitutional, no matter how unnecessary to national defense, war always seems to find a way. I sure hope I’m wrong here.
Bracing Views 