Just when you thought the assault on the English language couldn’t be more severe, I came across a new abomination in a recent memo (11/3/25) signed by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF).
The CSAF expressed his commitment to nuclear force “recapitalization,” meaning that he fully supports the B-21 Raider and the Sentinel ICBM, which will cost more than $500 billion over the next two decades. He vowed he’d “relentlessly advocate” for them.
“Recapitalization”: What a word to describe more genocidal nuclear weapons!
Typically, the Air Force refers to “modernization” or “investment” when it comes to new nukes. This latest euphemism is an even more extreme example of bureaucratese and business-speak.
We’re just “recapitalizing” our nuclear forces, folks. Nothing to see here, move along.
One thing is certain. The new CSAF, with his talk of “recapitalization,” will make the smoothest of transitions to industry once he retires from the military.
It’s time for recapitalization! (Red sky in morning, America take warning.)
Above is an idealized illustration of a Sentinel ICBM soon after launch. Don’t think about the aftermath of thermonuclear war. As NBC Pitchman Brian Williams once said, it’s important to be guided by the beauty of our weapons.
Today is Veterans Day, though of course November 11th was originally Armistice Day to mark the end of World War I on the 11th hour of the 11th day in 1918. Back then, it was hoped that the World War would inaugurate an era of lasting peace. Tragically, instead it inaugurated a state of more or less permanent war.
When I think of Veterans Day, I recall a grizzled veteran who spoke to me and a group of other young men (we didn’t want to be called “boys”) at Boys State in Massachusetts in 1980. I told the story 16 years ago at Huff Post, and I think it bears repeating today in 2025.
One Grizzled Veteran’s Dream
On this Veterans Day [in 2009], what if we began to measure our national success and power not by our military arsenal or number of recruits, but rather by the very opposite of that?
Writer, History Professor, Retired Lieutenant Colonel (USAF)
Thirty years ago [Now, 45 years ago], I attended Boys State. Run by the American Legion, Boys State introduces high school students to civics and government in a climate that bears a passing resemblance to military basic training. Arranged in “companies,” we students did our share of hurrying up, lining up, and waiting (sound preparation, in fact, for my career in the military). I recall that one morning a “company” of students got to eat first because they launched into a lusty rendition of the Marine Corps hymn. I wasn’t angry at them: I was angry at myself for not thinking of the ruse first.
Today, most of my Boys State experience is a blur, but one event looms large: the remarks made by a grizzled veteran to us assembled boys. Standing humbly before us, he confessed that he hoped organizations like the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars would soon wither away. And he said that he hoped none of us would ever become a member of his post.
At first, we didn’t get it. Didn’t he like us? Weren’t we tough enough? (Indeed, I recall that one of our adolescent complaints was that the name “Boys State” didn’t seem manly enough.)
Then it dawned on us what the withering away of organizations like the American Legion and the VFW would mean. That in our future young Americans would no longer be fighting and dying in foreign wars. That our world would be both saner and safer, and only members of an “old guard” like this unnamed veteran would be able to swap true war stories. Our role would simply be to listen with unmeasured awe and undisguised thanks, grateful that our own sons and daughters no longer had to risk life or limb to enemy bullets and bombs.
It pains me that we as a country have allowed this veteran’s dream to die. We as a country continue to enlarge our military, expand our foreign commitments, and fight seemingly endless wars, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or in other far-off realms of less-than-vital interest to us.
As a result of these wars, we continue to churn out so many new veterans, including so many wounded veterans, not forgetting those who never made it back.
Collectively, we Americans tend to suppress whatever doubts we have about the wisdom of our wars with unequivocal statements of support for our troops. And on days like Veterans Day, we honor those who served, and especially those who paid the ultimate price on the battlefield.
Yet, wouldn’t the best support for our troops be the achievement of the dream of that grizzled vet who cut through a young man’s fog thirty years ago? Shouldn’t we be working to achieve a new age in which the rosters of our local VFWs and Legion posts are no longer renewed with the broken bodies and shattered minds of American combat veterans?
Veteran’s grave, Williamsport, PA (Author’s photo)
Sadly, as we raise more troops and fight more wars, we seem committed to the opposite. Our military just enjoyed its best recruiting class in years. This “success” is not entirely surprising. It’s no longer that difficult to fill our military’s expanding ranks because many of our young men and women simply have little choice but to enlist, whether for economic opportunity, money for college, or benefits like free health care.
Many of course enlist for patriotic reasons as well. Yet the ease of expanding our military ranks during a shooting war is also a painful reminder of the impoverishment of opportunities for young, able-bodied Americans – the bitter fruit of manufacturing jobs sent overseas, of farming jobs eliminated by our own version of corporate collectivization, of a real national unemployment rate that is approaching twenty percent.
On this Veterans Day, what if we began to measure our national success and power, not by our military arsenal or by the number of new recruits in the ranks, but rather by the gradual shrinking of our military ranks, the decline of our spending on defense, perhaps even by the growing quiet of our legion posts and VFW halls?
Wouldn’t that be a truer measure of national success: fewer American combat veterans?
Wouldn’t that give us something to celebrate this Veterans Day?
I know one old grizzled veteran who would quietly nod his agreement.
“Star Wars’“ fans will recall the Imperial Death Star, a ship the size of a small moon that was powerful enough to obliterate planets.
Who needs the Death Star when we humans are doing such a bang-up job of obliterating our planet?
This thought came to mind as a friend queried me about nuclear accidents. I recalled a piece I wrote in 2017 about various accidents we’ve had involving nuclear weapons. We’re incredibly lucky not to have nuked ourselves with megatons of thermonuclear explosive power and radiation.
Maybe we should echo Voltaire and cultivate our gardens while we’re still alive.
Anyhow, here’s my article from 2017, timely as ever as the Trump administration embraces new nukes and a “golden dome,” both representing yet another golden fleecing of American taxpayers.
The Threat of Nuclear Weapons to America
W.J. Astore (posted in April 2017)
Did you know the U.S. has built nearly 70,000 nuclear weapons since 1945? Did you know the U.S. Air Force lost a B-52 and two hydrogen bombs in an accident over North Carolina in 1961, and that one of those H-bombs was a single safety-switch away from exploding with a blast equivalent to three or four million tons of TNT (roughly 200 Hiroshima-type bombs)? Did you know a U.S. nuclear missile exploded in its silo in Arkansas in 1980, throwing its thermonuclear warhead into the countryside?
On more the one occasion, the U.S. has come close to nuking itself
That last accident is the subject of a PBS American Experiencedocumentary that I watched last night, “Command and Control.” I highly recommend it to all Americans, not just for what it reveals about nuclear accidents and the lack of safety, but for what it reveals about the U.S. military.
Here are a few things I learned about U.S. nuclear weapons and the military from the documentary:
During the silo accident, the Strategic Air Command (SAC) general in charge of nuclear missiles was a pilot with no experience in missiles. His order to activate a venting fan during a fuel leak led to the explosion that destroyed the missile and killed an airman. (Experts from Martin Marietta, the military contractor that built the Titan II missile, advised against such action.)
Airmen who courageously tried against long odds to mitigate the accident, and who were wounded in the explosion, were subsequently punished by the Air Force.
The Air Force refused to provide timely and reliable knowledge to local law enforcement as well as to the Arkansas governor (then Bill Clinton) and senators. Even Vice President Walter Mondale was denied a full and honest accounting of the accident.
Nuclear safety experts concluded that “luck” played a role in the fact that the Titan’s warhead didn’t explode. It was ejected from the silo without its power source, but if that power source had accompanied the warhead as it flew out of the silo, an explosion equivalent to two or three megatons could conceivably have happened.
Finally, the number of accidents involving U.S. nuclear weapons is far greater than the military has previously reported. Indeed, even the nation’s foremost expert in nuclear weapons development was not privy to all the data from these accidents.
In short, the U.S. has been very fortunate not to have nuked itself with multiple hydrogen bombs over the last 70 years. Talk today of a threat from North Korea pales in comparison to the threat posed to the U.S. by its own nuclear weapons programs and their hair-raising record of serious accidents and safety violations.
Despite this record, President Obama and now President Trump have asked for nearly a trillion dollars over the next generation to modernize and improve U.S. nuclear forces. Talk about rewarding failure!
Threatening genocidal murder is what passes for “deterrence,” then and now. This madness will continue as long as people acquiesce to the idea the government knows best and can be trusted with nuclear weapons that can destroy vast areas of our own country, along with most of the world.
To end the insanity, we must commit to eliminating nuclear weapons. Ronald Reagan saw the wisdom of total nuclear disarmament. So should we all.
An Addendum: In my Air Force career, I knew many missileers who worked in silos. They were dedicated professionals. But accidents happen, and complex weapons systems fail often in complex and unpredictable ways. Again, it’s nuclear experts themselves who say that luck has played a significant role in the fact that America hasn’t yet nuked itself. (Of course, we performed a lot of above-ground nuclear testing in places like Nevada, making them “no-go” places to this day due to radiation.)
Update (4/27/17): I’d heard of Air Force plans to base nuclear weapons on the moon, but today I learned that a nuclear test was contemplated on or near the moon as a way of showcasing American might during the Cold War. As the New York Timesreported, “Dr. [Leonard] Reiffel revealed that the Air Force had been interested in staging a surprise lunar explosion, and that its goal was propaganda. ‘The foremost intent was to impress the world with the prowess of the United States.’ It was a P.R. device, without question, in the minds of the people from the Air Force.” Dr. Reiffel further noted that, “The cost to science of destroying the pristine lunar environment did not seem of concern to our sponsors [the U.S. military] — but it certainly was to us, as I made clear at the time.”
The U.S. military wasn’t just content to pollute the earth with nuclear radiation: they wanted to pollute space and the moon as well. All in the name of “deterrence.”
Two pictures of above-ground nuclear testing in Nevada in 1955
Here’s a tip, ladies: Wear light-colored dresses during a nuclear war. They absorb less heat
Lately, there’s a “Talking Heads” lyric that’s been popping up in my brain: Our president’s crazy/Did you hear what he said?
A few days ago, President Trump threatened war against Nigeria. He vowed that U.S. military action against Nigeria would be “fast, vicious, and sweet.”
Sweet? What kind of president describes warfare as “sweet”? Truly this is militarism run amuck.
What is wrong with our country? Must we wage war on everyone?
Speaking of “sweet,” J. Robert Oppenheimer described the development of the atomic bomb as a “technically sweet” challenge for the scientists and engineers who worked on it. I suppose it was, but the results were bitter indeed.
America, all is not sweetness here.
Wars and threats of war: It’s how Americans learn geography
War and rumors of war dominate the headlines. Venezuela. Nigeria. Iran. Somalia. A “new Cold War” involving Russia and China. What are we to believe?
The events of the 62 years of my short life (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, peace dividends that never arrive, military budgets that keep soaring, U.S. domination of the world’s weapons trade, the National Security State as America’s fourth and arguably most powerful branch of government, and on and on) make me highly suspect of official narratives about any war, especially as those same Pentagon budgets soar and those same arms exports keep flooding the world in the (false) name of democracy.
Nevertheless, warmongers in our country continue to shout and bray for more war. Those who make the most noise are typically the furthest from the fighting. Typically, the closer you are to the fighting, the more you want it to stop. Especially if you’re doing the fighting. Consider Erich Maria Remarque’s “All Quiet on the Western Front.” When the main character, Paul, a frontline grunt, goes home on leave, he realizes the blood-thirstiness of the REMFs is far different from the war he’s seeing at the front. (REMF, rear-echelon mother-fucker, is a colorful and meaningful military acronym.)
Often those who talk about war use the most bloodless expressions. So, for example, I’ve read that Ukrainians must “prosecute their war of defense,” helped by generous supplies of American-made weaponry. When I think of war, I think of the concrete. Blasted bodies, a poisoned environment, disease, dead animals, PTSD and TBI, moral injury, atrocities and war crimes (because wars always produce atrocity), and so on. Phrases like “help Ukraine prosecute their war of defense” strike me as Orwellian in the sense of his classic essay on politics and the English language. It sounds good and noble, but how ready are those who support Ukraine to join the cause in the trenches?
An American president now speaks of “the enemy within” and city streets as a training ground for U.S. military action. When everything is war, nothing is safe as the worst crimes and atrocities become possible.
As a young man, Cheney had “other priorities” than serving in the U.S. military. Later, the further he was from battle, the more hawkish he became.
Postscript: As I was writing this, I learned that Dick Cheney has died at the age of 84. NBC News described him as the “Iraq war architect,” as if he was a highly skilled and creative builder instead of a war criminal. A reader sent along a BBC headline that suggests there was “faulty” intelligence leading up to the Iraq war in 2003, as if Cheney had no hand in manufacturing a malicious and mendacious narrative of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Even warmongers like Cheney, proud of their mailed fists, get treated and fitted with kid gloves by a fawning media. Of course, Cheney, when he had an opportunity to serve in Vietnam, famously said he had other priorities.
Maybe the American people, collectively, need to say we have other priorities than waging war around the globe.
Last week, I talked to Judge Napolitano about the Russia-Ukraine War, the Trump administration’s designs on Venezuela, and the rule of law in America.
A point I could have made more clearly involves casualty figures in the Russia-Ukraine War. There are no official figures that are trustworthy; each side is exaggerating the casualties of the other, which is unsurprising, since the first casualty of war is truth.
Figures that I’ve seen suggest that Ukraine has suffered over 100,000 killed and another 400,000 wounded/missing/captured. Russian figures may be double those of Ukraine but I honestly don’t know. My guess is that Russian casualty figures are higher because they have been on the offensive more and Ukrainian defenses have generally been robust and the troops increasingly skilled. Added to these battlefield casualties are the more than 30,000 Ukrainian citizens killed in the war, plus another six to seven million Ukrainians who have fled the country.
My point here isn’t to celebrate one side as “winning” or “losing.” To my mind, both sides are losing as they wage this devastating war, a war that will enter its fourth year next February. While some commentators see this war as a necessary one for Ukraine, a war for high ideals like democracy and freedom, I see a country that has lost roughly 20% of its territory, a country that suffers because the war is being fought largely on Ukrainian land, a country where roughly 7 in 10 people seek an end to this costly struggle.
A common narrative in the West is that Putin must not be allowed to profit from war, and if he does, the Russian military will next be on the march against NATO countries. This narrative suggests war and more war until either Putin is defeated or Ukraine collapses under the strain.
I would prefer to see negotiations to end the killing, the suffering, and the destruction, allowing Ukraine to recover, even if Ukraine must give up its desire to join NATO. I remain concerned that this war could expand further, as lengthy wars tend to do, becoming a wider regional war that could conceivably escalate toward nuclear weapons.
I wonder why the Trump administration is so interested in Venezuela?
Oh, so that’s why.
A barrel of oil is selling for about $60 this morning. 303 billion barrels at $60 a barrel is more than $18 trillion in future earnings (likely much more than this as the price of oil climbs to $100 per barrel and higher).
Who put America’s oil off the coast of Venezuela? Remember, it’s the Gulf of America, people.
In other news, the admiral in charge of SOUTHCOM is retiring early. Rumor has it he’s objected to the kill and regime change policies of Trump and Hegseth vis-a-vis Venezuela.
President Trump himself recently admitted he’s authorized covert overt CIA activities against the Venezuelan government. A CIA-orchestrated coup combined with U.S. military attacks on Venezuela is likely coming. It’s shrouded in drug war rhetoric, but of course the real goal is control over Venezuela’s oil.
The recent award of the Nobel Peace Prize to a Venezuelan opposition leader is another fig leaf in this operation. Once again, war will be sold to the American people as advancing democracy when it’s really all about the Benjamins.
Trump and Hegseth’s murderous strikes against alleged drug-running boats (at least five already destroyed) is another pretext for regime change. Yet the USA was more than happy to tolerate, even encourage, a massive drug trade in heroin during the Afghan War.
Oh well. War always finds a way, especially when oil is involved. Just think of the Iraq regime change invasion in 2003. That went so well, didn’t it?
This short video by Max Blumenthal sums it up quite well:
Conveniently, the government is still shut down, so I guess Trump can’t ask Congress for a formal declaration of war. Yet another unconstitutional war has already started and Congress is nowhere to be found.
It’s time for regime change for democracy right here in America.
Should senior military officers consider resigning?
The short answer is yes—if they believe the orders they are given violate their oath to the U.S. Constitution.
In practice, however, resigning for cause is exceedingly rare. The military is a culture of conformity and hierarchy, where resignation is often seen as an act of rebellion—a threat to cohesion and discipline. Officers are taught to work quietly within the system, to suppress doubts, and to remain “loyal” to superiors and to the institution itself. Few are willing to resign openly on moral or legal grounds.
For senior officers, the decision to resign in protest is especially difficult. Colonel David Hackworth, one of the most decorated soldiers of the Vietnam era, resigned after concluding the war was unwinnable—not because he viewed it as unconstitutional. Earlier, General Harold K. Johnson, the Army Chief of Staff under President Lyndon Johnson, considered resigning in protest of the administration’s Vietnam policies but ultimately stayed, hoping to influence policy from within. He later regretted that decision, admitting he had lacked the moral courage to resign.
Both Hackworth and Johnson objected to how the war was fought, not to whether it was lawful. That distinction is crucial.
Senior officers today may likewise convince themselves that remaining in uniform allows them to do the most good—to temper reckless orders from within the system. Resignation, after all, feels like quitting. And there’s an unspoken incentive to stay: the lucrative post-retirement opportunities awaiting those who keep faith with the military-industrial complex.
Given the recent clownish and dangerous behavior of Trump and his defense war secretary, Pete Hegseth, one hopes that senior military leaders are at least preparing for the possibility of resignation—keeping their powder dry until a clear line is crossed. Arguably, that line may already have been crossed.
One resignation might not change much. But several coordinated resignations—anchored in principle—could. The question is whether today’s generals and admirals have the moral courage to do so when the moment arrives.
Trump and Hegseth appear to have neutralized much of the brass by flooding the Pentagon with money. But will those same leaders, drunk on budgets and contracts, have the courage to resist illegal orders and yet another series of wars launched on dubious grounds?
Already, Trump and Hegseth have issued extrajudicial orders—such as the recent killings of suspected smugglers on three speedboats in the Caribbean, ostensibly part of the “war on drugs.” They have deployed active-duty troops to U.S. cities under partisan pretexts that appear to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. And more attacks on Iran—without any declaration of war—may be imminent.
Given all this, there is ample reason for senior officers to consider coordinated resignations in protest. The question is whether they will summon the moral courage to do what is right—to uphold their oath by walking away.
Perhaps they could call it Operation Just Cause—an operation without bombs or killing, requiring that rarest of things: moral courage.
Since the last time (July 19th) I wrote about the Russia-Ukraine War, perhaps the biggest change has been to President Trump’s rhetoric. After being frustrated in his efforts to end the war (and perhaps win a Nobel Peace Prize to boot), Trump effectively washed his hands of the conflict. A Truth Social post was especially surprising, as the BBC reported on 9/24:
US President Donald Trump has said Kyiv can “win all of Ukraine back in its original form”, marking a major shift in his position on the war with Russia.
In a post on his Truth Social platform, he said Ukraine could get back “the original borders from where this war started” with the support of Europe and Nato, due to pressures on Russia’s economy …
Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to end the war, but has previously warned that process would likely involve Ukraine giving up some territory, an outcome Zelensky hasconsistently rejected.
In his post, Trump added Ukraine could “maybe even go further than that”, but did not specify what he was referring to.
Exactly how Ukraine is going to win back all the land captured by Russia is unclear. Also less than clear is the role of the EU and NATO in this. Trump appears to have said it’s up to the EU and NATO to support Ukraine (as if NATO is not commanded and controlled by America), with the U.S. more than willing to sell weapons to EU and NATO countries to support Ukraine’s efforts.
Trump’s gambit is this: If Ukraine wins, he takes credit for continuing to supply weaponry and for his new vote of confidence. If Ukraine loses, Trump shifts the blame to the EU and possibly to Ukraine and Zelensky too.
It’s a cynical policy—but these are cynical times.
An undeniable truth is that the war grinds on with no end in sight. U.S. aid to Ukraine will soon reach $200 billion. Meanwhile, front lines have stagnated, counteroffensives have stalled, and Ukrainians themselves have grown increasingly weary of war.
Observers in the West point to a weakening Russian economy and high battlefield losses as signs Russia itself may be nearing a tipping point that could lead to collapse and defeat. Both a heavily damaged Ukraine and a destabilized Russia might be the fruits of “victory,” leading to chaos and possible nuclear escalation.
Again, no matter what Trump says, a total victory for Ukraine looks remote. Russia controls about 20 percent of Ukrainian territory, including the industrial Donbas and much of the south. Ukraine’s economy is weakened (as is Russia’s), its army is depleted, and its demographics are unfavorable to success (millions of Ukrainians have sought sanctuary abroad).
The Media’s Role in Perpetuating Illusion
The mainstream media in the U.S. has been partisan since day one. The MSM framed the conflict as a morality play: a heroic democracy versus an evil autocrat.
Meanwhile, the MSM overhyped U.S. weapons as “decisive” and Ukrainian counteroffensives in 2023 as “war-winning.” Media hype distorted expectations and contributed to public fatigue.
Most strikingly, the press has consistently downplayed the risks of escalation with a nuclear power. Ukraine’s use of long-range Western missiles to strike inside Russia carries serious dangers. That Putin will tolerate further provocations without escalating himself is a dangerous bet.
The Case for Diplomacy
Ukraine, no matter Trump’s new faith, cannot win this war in the maximalist sense of regaining all occupied territories and forcing Russia’s surrender. The longer the war continues, the more Ukraine will suffer—physically, economically, and politically.
Wars feed autocracy. Already, Ukraine has postponed elections, banned several opposition parties, and restricted media outlets. These measures may be understandable in wartime, but they belie the notion that Ukraine is a flourishing democracy.
A negotiated settlement is not capitulation. It is recognition of limits. The alternative is indefinite conflict—one that may bleed Ukraine dry even as it edges the world closer to catastrophe.
Dangerous Assumptions
Some policymakers argue a prolonged war will weaken Russia to the point of collapse. But a weakened Russia is not necessarily a safer one. If the Russian state disintegrates, who controls its nuclear arsenal? What if chaos in Moscow produces a more radical, vengeful leader? What if a desperate Kremlin lashes out, or if fighting spills into a NATO country like Poland?
Conversely, what if Ukraine, drained by endless war and reliant on foreign arms, slides toward authoritarianism? Wars have a way of transforming republics into garrison states. The longer the conflict lasts, the greater the risk that Ukraine’s democracy will become a casualty of its own “great patriotic war.”
The Limits of Analogy
Too often, the war is discussed through lazy historical analogies. Putin is Hitler; Zelensky is Churchill; negotiations are “another Munich.” Such framing flatters Western moral vanity but obscures strategic reality. This is not 1938. Putin is not on the verge of conquering Europe, and diplomats are not appeasing him by seeking peace.
Putin may be ruthless, but he is not suicidal. He knows that attacking a NATO member would invite his own destruction. Nuclear deterrence remains real. To suggest otherwise is to indulge in a fever-dream of perpetual conflict, one that justifies limitless military spending and forecloses diplomacy.
The American Connection
For most Americans, the Russia–Ukraine War remains distant and impersonal. We are not threatened by Russian artillery; the war is thousands of miles away. Yet we are paying for it—literally. Every artillery shell, every tank, every missile financed through our taxes contributes to death and destruction abroad. Some justify this as moral duty: helping Ukraine defend freedom. But morality also demands an accounting of consequences.
How many Americans know that 69 percent of Ukrainians report being weary of the war, or that their own government has suspended elections? How many realize that each dollar spent on war is a dollar not spent on schools, infrastructure, or healthcare at home?
We are told the U.S. can afford virtually limitless weapons for Ukraine, but when it comes to social programs, we always hear the same question: How are you going to pay for that? Apparently, there’s always money for war, never for peaceful pursuits.
A Broader Reckoning
The Russia–Ukraine War has become a mirror reflecting America’s own pathologies: our addiction to militarism, our aversion to diplomacy, our willingness to spend without scrutiny when the cause is war, and our moral complacency about the human cost of conflict.
We have turned foreign policy into a morality play, where compromise is dismissed as cowardice and negotiation is treated as akin to sin. Yet history teaches the opposite: the greatest statesmen are not those who glorify war but those who end it.
The Russia–Ukraine War continues, and so does the silence around the most basic of questions: What is America’s endgame? If the answer is “as long as it takes,” we should ask: takes for what? For Ukraine’s victory—or for its ruin? For democracy’s defense—or for another endless war?
It is time to demand accountability, restraint, and above all, diplomacy. Supporting Ukraine should not mean subsidizing endless cycles of death and destruction. How many more must die before this war is finally ended?
The military historian Dennis Showalter once told me that he didn’t care about the amount of fat around a general’s belly—he cared about the fat between a general’s ears. It was a telling quip, and one that highlights the shortsighted nature of Pete Hegseth’s emphasis on fitness and military bearing to the generals and admirals he assembled yesterday.
(By the way, what about Trump as commander-in-chief. Is he going to exercise and lose weight? Good luck with that one, Pomade Pete.)
Pomade Pete Hegseth, Self-declared Secretary of War
Of course, physical fitness is important in military settings, especially if you’re at the pointy end of the spear, as they say in the military. But America’s senior leaders today are not “boy generals” like George Armstrong Custer in the U.S. Civil War. They are men and women in their fifties and early sixties, presumably promoted for their integrity, knowledge, insight, skill, and experience, not because they can still run sub-six minute miles or perform 100 pushups.
(Aside: It might be time to buy stock in Ozempic and similar drugs used for weight loss.)
Recall all the media praise showered on William Westmoreland, David Petraeus, and Stanley McChrystal. These three generals were lauded for their physical fitness and military bearing, their “spartan” qualities as warriors. And they all demonstrated strategic mediocrity in fighting and losing the Vietnam, Afghan, and Iraq Wars. They may not have had flabby bellies, but they had flabby minds.
Hegseth is all about “warrior” image over substance. Don’t get me wrong: I think everyone should exercise if they can, and being substantially overweight isn’t healthy. When I was in my early forties and a lieutenant colonel, I ran with the troops and did pushups and sit ups. But there’s a lot more to military effectiveness than being “a lean mean fighting machine.”
But I’ll admit I’m burying the lede here. Trump and Hegseth’s message to senior leaders was far more disturbing than complaints about a fat and woke military. Here’s what I sent to a friend about this:
The “national security” state has kept our country in a state of permanent war since 1947. Trump and Hegseth are just ripping the facade of “security” away and replacing it with “war.”
“Peace” is the word that dare not speak its name. And “war,” of course, has come to the streets of America, with troops deployed to Portland next. Add that to the many police who got their initial training in the military and the rapid expansion of ICE along with detention centers and it’s obvious how the war on terror has truly become global since now the focus is on terror in America.
We are reaping what we sowed …
I was then asked for a more formal comment and came up with this:
The statements of Trump and Hegseth show that the “global” war on terror was and is truly global (as well as permanent) because that war has now come home to America’s cities. Now places like LA and Portland are to be pacified by American “warriors” and warfighters, with detention centers (concentration camps) for those who resist. President Dwight D. Eisenhower was never more right or prescient when he noted, “Only Americans can hurt America.”
Trump and Hegseth see America’s streets as a battleground for the U.S. military against “the enemy within.” The real enemy to democracy, of course, is the very deployment of troops to the streets. American colonists launched a revolution 250 years ago partly because they didn’t want the king’s troops among them as enforcers.
Anyone who doesn’t see the fundamental dangers of Trump and Hegseth’s actions to democracy and our Constitutional rights truly has some flab between their ears.
Bracing Views 