When I think of celebratory military parades with lots of heavy weaponry and the like, images of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union come to mind. Authoritarian regimes, strongly militaristic, led by dictators.
When I think of U.S. military parades, featuring large numbers of troops, I think of victory parades after World War II that celebrated the defeat of Nazi Germany. Back then, the idea was to celebrate the triumph of the free world over darkness, not the triumph of Trump’s will over wokeness.
The naked celebration of military strength in Trump’s proposed parade is yet another example of American militarism on steroids. It marks the further erosion of democracy in America and a coarsening of the human spirit in America.
Trump’s parade, scheduled to coincide with his birthday on June 14th (Flag Day as well), may cost as much as $100 million. But that price tag is minuscule compared to the damage it does to America’s image.
For Trump, openly embracing the idea (and ideal) of America as a dominant empire built around a trillion-dollar-a-year military just seems commonsensical. An acknowledgement of the obvious and the irreversible.
What are the seven habits of highly effective presidents?
My simple answer is the president needs to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. That’s first and foremost.
Second, he or she needs to be a public servant. Not a servant of special interests, and not a servant of himself or herself.
Third, he or she needs to be a leader. A president should be able to inspire, to bring people together, to get things done for the betterment of all (as much as that’s possible).
Fourth, the president should be a defender of the little guy or gal. Wall Street doesn’t need a defender. Corporations don’t need a defender. But ordinary people do. People without big money and connections need a champion, and the president should be that champion.
Fifth, the president must represent America on the world stage in a positive light. Like it or not, the president, whoever he or she is, inevitably becomes a lead symbol of America. That person should represent us at our best, not our worst.
Sixth, the president, as commander-in-chief, needs to recognize the limits of military power, and needs to exercise control over the national security state, recognizing that incessant war is an enemy of democracy, and that spending on weapons and war is a waste of resources.
Seventh (and perhaps most importantly), the president must be a steward of the nation’s resources, especially its environment (healthy air, clean water, unpolluted land, and so on). The president must always have an eye on the future — on the need to preserve our country for our children and their children.
This is a quick list, and it could easily be lengthened, but these to me are the seven most important habits for the U.S. president.
One presidential role model: An MLB Umpire
With respect to the fourth “habit,” I used “should,” not “must.” In my mind, I see the president as a sort of umpire or referee, making sure the game is played fair and square. In the “game” of life, powerful interests (the ultra-rich, powerful corporations, and so on) already have a big advantage, so I see the president as a public servant (umpire) who acts to ensure the interests of the people are not subsumed or denied or violated.
Of course, there are many interests of the people, and some are contradictory, but again I see the president as acting to ensure, as much as he or she can, the integrity of the process.
This is one reason we need campaign finance reform. Those with money speak with a much louder and more powerful voice, essentially drowning out our voices. A president who’s a captive of the special interests is a president only in name, i.e. just a money-grubber, just a bag-man (or -woman). We’ve allowed politics to be co-opted by special interests with deep pockets; campaign finance reform and public funding of elections will help to reverse this.
The “Big Beautiful Bill” passed recently by the House is petty and ugly. A sham. A reverse Robin Hood. It cuts SNAP benefits (food stamps) to the poor. It cuts Medicaid. Because who needs food and medical care, amirite? Meanwhile, it cuts taxes for the richest Americans and funds various weapons follies (a foolish and wasteful missile shield known as “Golden Dome,” more nuclear weapons, yet more billions for the wall on America’s border with Mexico). And it adds significantly to the national debt.
Remember when Republicans were once known as fiscal conservatives? Remember calls for a balanced budget? Those days are long gone. The “Big Beautiful Bill” is a fever dream, or a night terror if you prefer, of wanton and wasteful spending that rewards the already well-heeled and hurts the most vulnerable of Americans.
Trump, who is truly an expert at the craft of the con, concocts the most outrageous names to sell his BS. Thus a missile shield that may end up wasting $500 billion is a “golden dome.” Heck, the whole bill, which is contempuous toward the poor and punishing to workers organizing for higher wages, is sold as “big” and “beautiful.”
When Trump describes things as “golden” and “big” and “beautiful,” you should know to hold tightly to your wallets and purses, America, because you’re about to get scammed.
At his site, Stephen Semler has a superb chart that breaks down the petty ugly bill the House just passed. Here’s an excerpt. Read it and weep, America.
The bottom line: More money for the already affluent and for the Pentagon; less money and benefits for the poor. The rich get richer, the poor poorer, as America reinforces its turn to weapons, walls, police, domes, and warriors.
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.
Though the sentiment has been wrongly attributed to George Orwell, it makes sense to say that in an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Two graduating college students recently decided to tell the truth about Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The first student, Logan Rozos, said he’d searched his heart, a search which led him to condemn mass murder in Palestine.
New York University responded by denouncing his statement and withholding his diploma.
At George Washington University, another student-speaker, Cecilia Culver, used her speech to denounce Israel’s genocide in Gaza and U.S. complicity in the same. I haven’t heard as yet how she will be punished.
It’s truly hard to be a “prestigious university” when you have no moral spine.
It’s nice to think that speaking truth to power works, except that the powerful already know the truth, indeed they work hard to define what is “truth” and what isn’t, and they will indeed punish those who pose a threat to manufactured notions of truth.
I commend these students for speaking boldly and honestly, as democracy withers when it’s defined and dominated by lies. They truly earned their diplomas, even if the powerful conspire to take them away.
These students have learned a valuable lesson that really can’t be taught in classrooms: that doing the right thing, when it’s contrary to the dictates and interests of powerful entities, is risky and will often lead to severe repercussions. Just ask truth-tellers like Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Daniel Hale.
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.
Language and repetition of the same is so important. We hear about the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Pentagon budget and we think little of it. The DoD, of course, used to be called the Department of War until 1947, a far more telling and accurate name, and there wasn’t a Pentagon until we built one during World War II. In the old days, the Army fought the Navy for which service would get more money in the War Budget, with the Navy usually winning as America sought to control the seas as a means of dominating trade and “intercourse” among nations.
Those were more honest times when retired generals like Smedley Butler wrote in the 1930s that he’d served as a “gangster” for capitalism. Butler was a Marine who was twice awarded the Medal of Honor, so it wasn’t easy for the imperialists to smear him, though they certainly tried (as they did to David M. Shoup, another Marine Corps general and Medal of Honor recipient who turned against the Vietnam War in the 1960s).
Anyhow, I just saw at Antiwar.com that President Trump is proposing a $1.01 trillion budget for the Pentagon for FY2026, a 13% increase in imperial spending. Trump, of course, is proud of reaching the Trillion Dollar threshold. Big numbers have always appealed to him.
It doesn’t seem to matter who is president, whether it’s Biden or Trump, Democrat or Republican, when it comes to the Department of Empire and its bloated imperial budget. For that is what it is, a budget that seeks to sustain and enlarge America’s imperial domain. If you add other costs related to imperial dominance, such as interest on the national debt due to war spending, VA costs, nuclear weapons, and the like, the true imperial budget soars toward $1.7 trillion yearly.
No matter. A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.
The Pentagon tries to disguise the enormous waste of this imperial budget by speaking of it as an “investment,” but imagine an “investment” that you’re involved in which fails seven audits in a row. How likely would you be to see this as anything other than theft?
Dwight D. Eisenhower had it right in 1953 when he spoke of military spending as a theft from those who hunger. Ike’s words are almost never heard today inside the Washington Beltway. It’s worth reflecting upon them again as America’s leaders boast of trillion-dollar war budgets:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children… This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
“Fighting a war to fix something works about as good as going to a whorehouse to get rid of a clap.” — Norman Mailer, The Naked and the Dead
I read Norman Mailer’s fine book about World War II, “The Naked and the Dead,” several years ago, though I’d forgotten the quote above until I ran across it again in an article by Andrew Bacevich at Harper’s in 2009.
Bacevich’s article was titled “The War We Can’t Win,” in which he critiqued and rejected President Barack Obama’s decision to “surge” in Afghanistan. As Bacevich wrote back in 2009:
What is it about Afghanistan, possessing next to nothing, that the United States requires, that justified such lavish attention? In Washington, this question goes not only unanswered but unasked. Among Democrats and Republicans alike, with few exceptions, Afghanistan’s importance is simply assumed—much the way fifty years ago otherwise intelligent people simply assumed that the United States had a vital interest in ensuring the survival of South Vietnam. Today, as then, the assumption does not stand up to even casual scrutiny.
Bacevich was right, of course. And once America pulled out of Afghanistan in 2021, we were encouraged to forget about it, just as we were encouraged to forget about Vietnam after the fall of Saigon in 1975.
If it doesn’t matter much to the U.S. when we lose wars, doesn’t that suggest the wars meant little to begin with? That there never truly were vital matters of national interest at stake?
The same was true of the Iraq War, as Bacevich describes it in the same article for Harper’s. This war, Bacevich writes, was “utterly needless” as “no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction [were] found, no ties between Saddam Hussein and the [9/11] jihadists established, no democratic transformation of the Islamic world set into motion, no road to peace in Jerusalem discovered in downtown Baghdad,” yet the U.S. was nevertheless hyping the success of the “surge” there from 2007 and how it should be applied to Afghanistan, an example of obtuseness and self-delusion that Bacevich said “is nothing short of obscene.”
He was right, of course, as both surges proved as fragile and reversible as weasel-worded General David Petraeus hinted they would be. Petraeus might be America’s best example of Grima Wormtongue from “The Lord of the Rings,” though of course there’s a lot of competition for that honor.
Bacevich, a retired Army colonel, political scientist, and Vietnam War veteran, criticizes U.S. leaders for their “failure of imagination,” for their crusading zeal, for their hubris, and for their tendency to substitute technique for sound strategy. He is right about all this, but someone always profits from war. Somebody always wins. And so perhaps the best way to understand these wars is to focus on the winners.
So, who won these wars? Certainly, the military-industrial complex won them. Every war, winning or losing, wise or unwise, strengthens the MIC by expanding its budgetary authority and scope of action. Military contractors, the merchants of death, especially profit from war, notably long “stalemated” ones like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
In a short video clip, Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange explained the purpose of the Afghan War which, as Bacevich mentions above, is inexplicable in terms of U.S. national interest:
A vast money-laundering operation that enriches oligarchs who profit from war, death, and mayhem: it makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? Note too how Assange explains that the ultimate purpose here is to make war permanent, to make it normal, to make it unremarkable, even to make it the height of sanity.
This has happened and is happening. Today, Iraq and Afghanistan are largely forgotten in the U.S. and Europe. New fears are focused on bigger fish: Russia and/or China, even as the U.S. pummels Yemen. Few Western leaders are talking about peace; Europe is fixated on Russia even as America is more concerned with pivoting to Asia and doing the bidding of Israel in the Middle East.
And so the money-laundering continues.
A lesson here is to follow the money, especially when wars seem strategically stupid, because the people and forces in charge aren’t stupid—their priorities are just far different from our priorities.
And this is something Bacevich catches in a different context as he explains that the costs of war are not borne “by the people who inhabit the leafy neighborhoods of northwest Washington, who lunch at the Palm or the Metropolitan Club and school their kids at Sidwell Friends.” Indeed not. The costs are borne by the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and so on, as well as those U.S. troops who get caught waging these wars, and who likely come from small towns in Alabama and Texas and similar rural areas.
I recently checked in with HAL 9000, actually ChatGPT and DeepSeek, to see what AI says about my writing on military policy. I’ll let ChatGPT go first:
William Astore, a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel and historian, has emerged as a prominent voice critiquing America’s militaristic culture and its pervasive influence on domestic and foreign policy. Through his essays on platforms like TomDispatch and Truthdig, Astore offers a candid examination of how militarism has become deeply embedded in American society, often to its detriment.
The Militarization of American Society
Astore argues that the United States has transitioned from a nation with a military to a militarized nation. He contends that this shift is not marked by overt displays of military power but by a subtle, pervasive presence of militaristic values in everyday life. This includes the normalization of war, the glorification of military service, and the integration of military imagery into civilian spaces. He warns that such normalization desensitizes the public to the realities of war and erodes democratic values.
The Business of War
In his critique of the military-industrial complex, Astore highlights how war has become a profitable enterprise for a select few. He references General Smedley Butler’s assertion that “war is a racket,” emphasizing that the true beneficiaries of war are often corporations and political elites, rather than the general populace. Astore suggests that this profit-driven approach to war leads to prolonged conflicts with little regard for their human or financial costs.
The Disconnect Between Military and Society
Astore points out the growing divide between the military and civilian sectors. He notes that the all-volunteer force, while composed of individuals who choose to serve, often does so out of limited economic opportunities rather than a deep-seated desire to fight. This creates a situation where the broader public remains detached from the consequences of war, leading to a lack of accountability and understanding.
A Call for Reflection and Change
Throughout his writings, Astore advocates for a return to a more restrained and reflective approach to military engagement. He urges Americans to critically assess the true costs of war and to reconsider the glorification of militarism in public life. By fostering a more informed and engaged citizenry, Astore believes the U.S. can move towards a foreign policy that prioritizes diplomacy and peace over conflict.
Astore’s insights challenge readers to confront the complexities of American militarism and its implications for both domestic society and international relations. His work serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining a vigilant and informed public to ensure that the nation’s military endeavors align with its democratic ideals.
*****
That’s a fair assessment, I’d say. I do believe America is too war- and profit-driven, too adulatory toward the military, and also too disconnected from the grim realities of war. And I have called for a recommitment to and renewal of diplomacy. A “vigilant and informed public” is exactly what Ike called for in 1961 when he said that only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry could keep the military-industrial-congressional complex in check. I suppose that’s why the MICC works to keep Americans isolated from and ignorant about war. The last thing the MICC wants is alert and knowledgeable citizens who challenge it.
HAL 9000 (from the movie “2001”)
Let’s turn to DeepSeek and its summary, which isn’t quite as comprehensive as ChatGPT:
William Astore, a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel and historian, is a vocal critic of U.S. military policy and militarism. His key arguments include:
Excessive Militarization. Astore argues that the U.S. has become overly reliant on military solutions to geopolitical problems, leading to endless wars and bloated defense budgets. He critiques the “military-industrial complex” (a term popularized by Eisenhower) for perpetuating this cycle.
Militarism in Society. He highlights how militarism has seeped into American culture, with the glorification of the military. pervasive defense contracting, and the influence of retired generals in media and politics.
Failed Wars & Lack of Accountability. Astore condemns U.S. interventions (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan) as costly failures, driven by hubris and flawed assumptions, with little accountability for policymakers.
Erosion of Democracy. He warns that unchecked militarism undermines democratic values, as vast resources are diverted to the military while domestic needs (education, healthcare, infrastructure) are neglected.
Need for Reform. Astore advocates for a more restrained foreign policy, reduced defense spending, and greater public skepticism toward military leaders and war propaganda.
*****
Again, I think that’s a fair summary. I like the emphasis on lack of accountability. So-called experts are never called to account for advocating for disastrous wars; indeed, they’re usually promoted to higher positions. You can never go wrong by going “strong,” at least rhetorically. The worst thing in America is to argue for diplomacy and peace and being proven right, for you were right “for the wrong reasons,” i.e. sure, Iraq and Afghanistan were disastrous wars that killed, wounded, and displaced millions, but it would have been pusillanimous and “weak” of America not to slap around a few countries in the aftermath of 9/11. So put on your “big boy” warrior fatigues and start kicking ass, because that’s what real Americans do.
It’s interesting that AI programs probably wouldn’t write that last sentence but they can “write” sober and rational prose rather effectively.
ChatGPT and DeepSeek can be useful tools, I think, if used judiciously. I worry, however, about AI programs being used for decision-making, especially decisions related to life and death in war. So, for example, I’ve read about AI programs being used for target selection in places like Gaza. Just what we need—ever-more automated death.
Israel has dropped more than 100,000 tons of bombs on Gaza. That’s 100+ kilotons. The Hiroshima bomb was roughly 15 kilotons. That means the small area of Gaza has been punished by bombing that is the equivalent in explosive force to seven Hiroshimas.
More than 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza are confirmed dead; the actual number of dead may be twice or three times that number. The number of wounded is likely more than 100,000. (Who can say, exactly, given the level of destruction and disruption in Gaza?)
How is this level of destruction in any way justifiable or defensible?
Gaza is already almost destroyed. The Israeli government’s intent is clear: after rendering Gaza uninhabitable, the Palestinians remaining there will be pushed out, displaced, removed. Or they will die, in place, from more bombing as well as starvation and disease.
The U.S. government has enabled this by supplying Israel all the bombs it needs to pulverize Gaza. The U.S. government has also provided diplomatic cover as well as military protection as Israel implements its final solution to the Gaza question.
Some claim this isn’t genocide because Israel isn’t marching Palestinians to gas chambers. But there are many forms of genocide, many ways to kill massive numbers of people.
In The History and Sociology on Genocide (1990), Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn define genocide as “a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator.”
One-sided mass killing: yes.
Intent to destroy a group: yes.
Gaza and its people are being destroyed before our very eyes. A large part of the effort is being funded directly or indirectly by U.S. taxpayers. Yet we are told it is all the fault of Hamas. That Hamas is making the Israeli government kill and wound hundreds of thousands of people.
One thing is certain: The Israeli government couldn’t perpetrate this genocide without massive military support from the United States.
Perhaps one day, as Omar El Akkad wrote, “everyone will have always been against this” [the ongoing genocide in Gaza]. The question remains: Why now are so many, especially in the Israeli and U.S. governments, still eagerly perpetrating and defending this?
Bracing Views 