Yesterday, I posted the following comment to a fine article that addressed America’s nuclear triad and the reality that we really only need the Navy’s nuclear submarine force for deterrence:
My old service, the Air Force, will fight for new ICBMs and new “stealth” bombers just because they always want MORE. More money, more bases, more planes, more power. Doesn’t matter if America needs them or not. Doesn’t matter if new nuclear weapons may end the world. What matters is dominance, especially Air Force dominance over the U.S. Navy and Army.
“Nothing can stop the U.S. Air Force” in its budgetary battles at the Pentagon.
Honestly, this is self-evident to me. The Air Force always wants more planes, especially offensive aircraft like fighters and bombers. The Army always wants more divisions, more equipment, a bigger Army. The Navy always wants more ships.
Who cares if it costs $700 million per plane? Or even a billion? It’s a bomber and the Air Force wants it! (The B-21 Raider)
Within the armed services, there are special interests. So, for example, the Navy carrier enthusiasts fight for their hegemony while the submariners fight to keep their slice of the budgetary pie. Within the “old” Army, the combat branches (infantry, armor, artillery) fought to ensure their continued relevance (and money). Now there’s an entire special ops and forces community, a military within the military, along with a new Space Force, a cyber command, various intelligence “communities,” all fighting for more budgetary authority and power.
Everyone always wants MORE. Victory in the U.S. military is measured by who wins the Pentagon budgetary battles, not who wins in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan.
Service parochialism is encouraged at the highest levels and is instilled by the service academies. A friend of mine’s daughter recently received her acceptance letter to West Point. The letter stressed the proud tradition of the Army, and though it mentioned service, it said nothing about the Constitution and the oath of office. Each service academy stresses loyalty to service branch. Duty, honor, country takes a back seat to bleeding Air Force blue or Army green.
Pride in service isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it can be blinding on issues like building new ICBMs and stealth bombers. The default Air Force position is to support more missiles and bombers “just because.” Because they’re “our” toys, part of “our” mission, bringing with them bases, command billets, influence, and all the rest.
Service parochialism ensures a military that is wasteful, overly conservative, and dysfunctional. Too much bleeding of Army green or Air Force blue has led to too much real bleeding of red.
If one side is armed with cap guns and the other with bazookas, would we call that a “war” between roughly equal powers?
I thought of this as I turned to Antiwar.com to see that President Biden has approved yet another massive arms shipment to Israel, to the tune of $8 billion. Here’s the report:
The sale includes AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, Hellfire AGM-114 missiles, 155 MM artillery rounds, small-diameter bombs, JDAM kits, and 500-pound bombs. Many of these munitions have been used by Israel during its campaign of extermination in Gaza, including in attacks on civilian targets.
In June, CNN reported that Israel used US small-diameter bombs in an attack on a school that killed 40 civilians. In October, The Washington Post noted, “The Biden administration has received nearly 500 reports alleging Israel used U.S.-supplied weapons for attacks that caused unnecessary harm to civilians in the Gaza Strip.”
Remember when human rights used to matter (just a little bit)? Remember when genocide was considered morally reprehensible—a murderous wrong? The U.S. government simply ignores human rights except when they advance a particular agenda. And genocide? It’s OK when it’s couched as Israel doing it in the cause of “defending” its “right to exist.”
If your “right to exist” involves denying millions of others their right to exist, have you not bought that “right” with blood money?
Of course, we’re all told by the “experts” that the situation in the Middle East is immensely complicated. Certainly, the history of the region is complex. But what’s happening there today to the Palestinians isn’t complex. In Israel, Zionism has run amuck as Israel grabs land, water, oil and gas rights, indeed everything it can, in the cause of creating a Greater Israel. It just doesn’t matter to most Israelis, and the U.S. government as well, that two million Palestinians will be killed, wounded, or displaced. Might makes right here, accentuated by media spin and government propaganda.
Speaking of the Middle East, I watched a superb documentary recently: “This Is Not a Movie: Robert Fisk and the Politics of Truth.” I highly recommend it. Fisk was a foreign affairs journalist for The Independent. When I lived in Britain from 1992 to 1995, I used to read his articles in that paper. He lived in Beirut and covered the Middle East, ultimately spending forty years living in and writing about the region. The documentary follows him on assignment, demonstrating what a principled and brave man he was. Fisk did journalism the old fashioned way: he got out among the people, he journeyed to the front lines, he saw the dead bodies from massacres (indeed, in one horrific moment, he was forced to climb over a “barricade” of dead bodies, a nightmarish moment for him, as one would expect).
There are very few journalists like Fisk left today. A truth-seeker, he was unafraid to criticize the powerful when they deserved it. He always sought to understand what was happening through knowledge gleaned at firsthand, carrying his trusty notebook and a pen or pencil.
Check out the documentary on Fisk. You’ll learn a lot and be inspired by a man of considerable courage and unimpeachable integrity
“Peace” is a word rarely heard in American discourse. No matter the year, there are wars and rumors of war for America. This is obviously unhealthy for society, for the environment, for everything, an idea caught by a Vietnam War-era slogan, “War is not healthy for children and other living things.”
About all that war is “healthy” for is the continued growth of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the MICIMATT that truly runs much of America. As America’s war budget soars to $900 billion and as America dominates the world’s market in weaponry, accounting for 40% of that deadly trade, acts of violence and extremism continue to rise. The U.S., for example, has provided roughly $200 billion over the last three years to support Ukraine and Israel, most of it in the form of deadly weaponry. This is sold to the American people as a job-creator.
Back in 2021, I wrote about endless war feeding extremism in America for the Eisenhower Media Network. You can read the entire report here; what follows in an excerpt of what I wrote.
Endless War Fosters and Favors Extremism
Written in 2021
Since the attacks of 9/11/2001, America has been at war. A U.S. military vision of global reach and global power morphed into a global war on terror (GWOT). The GWOT led to invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq—wars that were based on lies and which promoted atrocity. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, the leading issue publicly in America’s decision to invade in 2003. Afghanistan had no direct role in the 9/11 attacks; indeed, 15 of the 19 Al Qaeda terrorists were Saudi nationals. Yet the Afghan War was waged both in the false name of avenging 9/11 and of preventing such attacks in the future.
Both wars cost thousands of American lives killed, tens of thousands grievously wounded, and both failed. Temporary gains secured by U.S. troops at high cost in “surges” in Iraq and Afghanistan proved fragile and reversible, two words used by General David Petraeus himself, and at the time, to qualify them.
Nevertheless, whether these wars were led by Petraeus or a series of otherwise forgettable generals, progress proved elusive even as real money was being squandered (the two wars are estimated to have cost America more than $6.4 trillion by May of 2021). Yet as Army Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling wrote in 2007, a private losing a rifle suffers quicker and more adverse punishment than generals who continually lose wars.
America’s wars have proven to be losers, shamefully so, yet no senior leaders have been punished or even demoted. Bewildered troops returning home from these meaningless wars often discovered grim prospects despite slogans of “support our troops” and “20%-off mattress sales” ostensibly held in honor of veterans and their service.
Donald Trump, a reality TV star and failed casino owner, gained popularity and eventually the presidency in part by promising to end America’s wasteful and winless wars overseas. It was a promise he failed to keep. Nevertheless, Trump’s message about wasteful and fruitless wars was noteworthy, demonstrating the domestic impact and blowback of open-ended and disastrous foreign military interventions.
Winless, seemingly endless, and often brutal wars have had a brutalizing impact on the troops who served. A state of constant war, James Madison warned, is corrosive to democracy. Wars without progress, wars without purpose, wars unsupported by the people (Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II), breed alienation, bitterness, and dismay. They also foster extremism.
Nearly one in five of the Capitol rioters charged for their actions on January 6, 2021 were military veterans. White supremacy is a known and increasing problem in the U.S. military. In response to riots and extremism, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in February 2021 ordered military units to observe a one-day stand-down to address extremism. Remarkably, troops had to be reminded that attempts to seize seats of power in the U.S. government, as during the Capitol riot, were contrary to their oaths to the Constitution and against the law.
And it’s not just rank-and-file service members who apparently require lessons in civilian primacy. A letter signed by 124 retired generals and admirals warned of Marxism and socialism within the U.S. military and questioned President Joe Biden’s mental and physical fitness to serve as commander-in-chief. The civil-military divide manifested by this letter echoed a similar one in France where right-wing military officers warned of a civilizational struggle within France allegedly being aggravated by Muslim immigration and Islamism.
Extremism within the U.S. military undeniably exists; manipulation by senior leaders spouting big lies remains a serious concern, as do groups such as QAnon and the Oath Keepers that specialize in radicalization via misinformation. Yet the ultimate source of radicalization within the U.S. military, and possibly within wider U.S. society, is war itself.
Wars that are waged without the people’s support, under false pretenses, and with no profit to society other than to America’s military-industrial-congressional complex are conducive to rampant corruption and societal decay.
Endless wars and the deep wounds that come from them have served as an ideal incubator of extremism in America. The first and most vital step in ending extremism, therefore, is to end these undeclared wars and the resentments, violence, and hatred they breed.
I caught this headline in the morning send-out for the New York Times:
It Can Be Lonely to Have a Middle-of-the Road Opinion on the Middle East
Some college students and faculty members are seeking space for nuanced perspectives on the Israel-Hamas war on deeply divided campuses.
See, it’s a “war” between Israel and Hamas, and what’s really needed here is “space” for “nuanced perspectives.”
Don’t you want to have “a middle of the road opinion” on genocide in Gaza? Don’t you want to explore all the “nuances” of Israel’s ongoing destruction of Gaza, where the death toll is likely to have reached 200,000 and counting? (Or not counting, since apparently Palestinian deaths don’t count for much.)
Here are some “nuances”: As Chris Hedges recently noted, the genocide in Gaza resembles that of Armenians during World War I. It’s happening in the open, unlike the Holocaust which the Nazis tried to hide, yet not enough people, especially in the West, are seeking to stop it.
In fact, the U.S. government is deeply complicit in the genocide in Gaza, arming Israel and providing military and diplomatic cover at a cost of scores of billions of dollars (when you factor in maintaining two carrier strike groups in the region as well as all the weapons shipments to Israel).
The intent is obvious: the creation of a Greater Israel in which Gaza and the West Bank cease to exist as lands for a Palestinian state. The “nuance” here is a “no-state solution,” as Palestinians are killed or forced from their land in the name of Israel’s “right to exist.” The fall of the Syrian government, meanwhile, sees Israel expanding into the Golan Heights and beyond, also in the name of protecting Israel.
It’s a land grab, a water grab, a gas reserves grab, a power grab, all for Israel and its big brother, the USA. It’s an illustration of Thucydides’ lesson that “The strong do what they will; the weak suffer what they must.” Israel, supported wholeheartedly by the U.S. government, is strong; the Palestinians (and now the Syrians) are weak; so the latter suffer.
The New York Times article suggests I should be looking for “middle ground” here, but I have news for them: Israel has already seized and occupied it.
It’s always the right time to stop building more weapons of mass destruction
William Astore and Matthew Hoh
[Note to readers: Back in early September, Congressman Mike Turner penned an op-ed for the “liberal” New York Times supporting a massive “investment” in new nuclear weapons. Matt Hoh and I quickly submitted letters to the Times to protest this op-ed and its arguments; the Times ignored them. We then wrote our own op-ed below, shopping it to various mainstream media outlets without success. Here it finally appears for the first time.]
*****
Representative Mike Turner’s essay on nuclear weapons in The New York Times (We Must Invest in Our Aging Nuclear Arsenal, September 6, 2024) is dangerously loyal to counterproductive US national security policies and narratives.
Turner’s lamentation over foreign nuclear weapons programs ignores destabilizing US arms control choices this century. The US spends more on nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined. Its $1.7 trillion modernization program (the Sentinel ICBM; the B-21 Raider bomber; Columbia-class nuclear submarines) has done little more than upset the decades-long nuclear deterrence balance among nations.
In his essay, Turner neglects to mention the US government’s unilateral withdrawal from multiple arms control treaties. Then-Senator Joe Biden rightly predicted the effects of George W. Bush’s abandonment of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty: “A year ago [in 2000], it was widely reported that our intelligence community had concluded that pulling out of ABM would prompt the Chinese to increase their nuclear arsenal tenfold.” The Chinese are now clearly headed in that escalatory direction.
To prevent the apocalyptic consequences of yet another nuclear arms race, the US should act to decrease “investments” in new weapons while cutting current arsenals by negotiating and enacting new arms reduction treaties. Together, the US and Russia already possess ten thousand nuclear warheads, enough to destroy life on earth and several other earth-sized planets. We need desperately to divest from nuclear weapons, not “invest” in them.
Consider as well that America’s current nuclear triad, especially the Navy’s Trident submarine force, is potent, survivable, and more than sufficient to deter any conceivable adversary.
Simply put, the US must stop building genocidal nuclear weapons. It must instead renew international efforts and treaties to downsize these dreadful and dangerous arsenals. Spending yet more trillions on more world-shattering nukes is worse than a mistake—it’s a crime against humanity.
Here we are haunted by the words of Hans Bethe, who worked on the Manhattan Project that created the atomic bomb during World War II. The first reaction Bethe said he’d had after Hiroshima was one of fulfillment—that the project they had worked on for so long had succeeded. The second reaction, he said, was one of shock and awe: “What have we done? What have we done,” he repeated. And the third reaction: It should never be done again.
That is the imperative here. The US must act so that future Hiroshimas will never happen.
It’s not America’s fate alone that’s at stake here, but the fate of humanity itself, and indeed most life on earth, as only a few dozen thermonuclear warheads exploding would likely produce nuclear winter and an eventual “body count” in the billions.
During the First Cold War, one heard it said: “Better dead than red.” That mentality remains, even as the “reds” today are more capitalist than communist. Meanwhile, the weapons makers for the military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC), in their greed, are the adversary within. From Israel and events in Gaza, we’ve learned the MICC will literally empower a people to commit mass murder. With more and newer thermonuclear weapons, the MICC may yet kill the world.
Higher quarterly profits will mean little when everybody is dead.
During the Vietnam War, a US Army major was heard to say: “We had to destroy the town to save it [from communism].” If America can destroy towns in Vietnam to “save” them from communism, if it can facilitate the destruction of Gaza to “save” it from Hamas, it can similarly destroy the earth to “save” it from China, or Russia, or some other “threat.” That is the indefensible (il)logic of building yet more weapons of mass destruction.
Contra Congressman Turner, there is no logical, sensible, defensible reason for America’s proposed “investment” in new nuclear weapons. But there are nearly two trillion reasons why it’s going forward, because that’s the projected total cost of modernizing America’s nuclear triad. Money talks—loudly, explosively, perhaps catastrophically.
Today, more than half of US federal discretionary spending is devoted to war and weapons. Americans, in essence, live both in a permanent war state and a persistent state of war. As bad as that reality is, a state of nuclear war is unimaginable and must not be allowed to happen.
At the height of the Cold War, one of us served in Cheyenne Mountain, America’s nuclear command center, and witnessed a simulated nuclear attack on the US. Even on the primitive monitors the Air Force had back in 1986, seeing Soviet missile tracks crossing the North Pole and terminating at American cities was unforgettable.
A generation earlier, Robert Oppenheimer, the “father of the atomic bomb,” tragically noted in 1965 that it was 20 years too late to control nuclear arms. Those efforts, he said, should have been started “the day after Trinity” in July of 1945.
Let’s not make it 80 years too late. Congressman Turner is exactly wrong here. We must cut America’s nuclear arsenal and pursue new nuclear disarmament treaties. Never should our children be haunted as we were (and still are) by the darkness and doom of radioactive mushroom clouds.
William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and historian, is a senior fellow at the Eisenhower Media Network.
Matthew Hoh, a former Marine Corps captain and State Department official, resigned in protest in 2009 against America’s ill-conceived war in Afghanistan. He is Associate Director at the Eisenhower Media Network.
The Stupidity of the Sentinel ICBM and the B-21 Raider Bomber
My fellow Americans, your government wants to spend nearly $2 trillion over the next 30 years to “modernize” its nuclear arsenal. Modernization, of course, is a euphemism. And the Pentagon actually uses the word “invest” rather than “spend.” The dividends on this “investment” go to the weapons makers, obviously, not to the American people.
Let’s first consider the Sentinel ICBM; the military wants to buy 400+ of these and stuff them in fixed silos in places like Wyoming and North Dakota. Land-based ICBMs were (among other things) obsolete by the 1970s; that’s why the MX was developed as a mobile system under President Jimmy Carter. Fortunately, the shell-game idea of moving nuclear missiles around by truck or rail was too dear and dumb even for the government. You don’t “modernize” that which is obsolete and redundant (and escalatory due to its inherent vulnerability). The smart move here is to eliminate land-based ICBMs.
Speaking as a retired Air Force officer, my old service will always want more of everything, including that which is obsolete. It’s all about budgetary share. No enemy is more to be dominated than the other services, who are also competing for money.
The B-21 Raider, with American flag (Northrop Grumman photo)
Similarly, strategic bombers to drop nuclear bombs (or even to launch cruise missiles) are not needed for nuclear deterrence. The whole idea of “penetrating” strategic bombers was obsolete by the late 1970s, which is why President Carter cancelled the B-1 bomber (it was revived by Ronald Reagan). We simply don’t need more strategic nuclear bombers–but the AF will always want them. If pilots can fly it (even if they have to do it remotely, as with drones), the AF wants it. Who cares if the B-21 will cost roughly $1 billion per plane when it’s finally fielded?
There is no need for the Sentinel or Raider. But the Air Force will fight until doomsday to protect its budgetary authority and the pilot and command billets that come with nuke missile fields and planes.
Let’s never forget the power of the industrial side of the military-industrial complex as well. There are hundreds—even thousands— of billions of dollars at stake here, so of course industry will fight to the end (of all of us) for the money. Weapons makers will spend millions on lobbyists, and millions more to buy politicians, to make billions in return. The profit margin here is better than crypto or most anything, actually.
They say alchemists were wrong that lead could be turned into gold, but every day the lead of bullets is sold, earning gold for the weapons makers, so alchemy is real after all. Now America’s weapons makers are turning radioactive uranium and plutonium into nearly $2 trillion in gold (or paper money, at least), the ultimate alchemical trick.
Like too many people, I sometimes make the mistake of talking about nuclear war, when it’s really annihilation and genocide we’re talking about.
Wars have winners and losers. In nuclear “war,” everyone loses. The planet loses. Life loses and death triumphs on a scale we simply can’t imagine.
Language is so important here. I grew up learning about nuclear exchanges. EXCHANGES! The U.S. military talks of nuclear modernization and “investing” in nukes when the only dividend of this “investment” is mass death.
One of the few honest acronyms is MAD, or mutually assured destruction. Lately, it’s an acronym that’s largely disappeared from American discourse.
More than anything, though, realistic images of a nuclear attack are perhaps the most compelling evidence against building more nukes, as in this powerful and unforgettable scene from Terminator 2:
To me, nothing beats that scene. That is nuclear “war.”
The U.S. has over 5000 nuclear weapons; the Russians close to 6000. That’s more than enough to destroy the earth and a few other earth-sized planets. Imagine the scene above repeated eleven thousand times on our planet.
The insanity, the immorality of spending another $2 trillion on new nukes … well, it boggles my mind. We’ve become like the mutants in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, worshipping the bomb, acolytes of death and destruction.
If we all don’t end up killing ourselves and the planet in “an exchange,” we’ll likely degenerate into utter barbarism, as depicted in Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. And even that grim novel has a life-affirming ending that is most unlikely.
Amazingly, after I wrote the above passages about nuclear “war” and “exchanges,” I came across Admiral TR Buchanan’s recent keynote address at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), where he uses the word “exchange” in a remarkably banal (and frightening!) way.
BUCHANAN: Yeah, so it’s certainly complex because we go down a lot of different avenues to talk about what is the condition of the United States in a post-nuclear exchange environment. And that is a place that’s a place we’d like to avoid, right? And so when we talk about non-nuclear and nuclear capabilities, we certainly don’t want to have an exchange, right?
I think everybody would agree if we have to have an exchange, then we want to do it in terms that are most acceptable to the United States. So it’s terms that are most acceptable to the United States that puts us in a position to continue to lead the world, right? So we’re largely viewed as the world leader.
And do we lead the world in an area where we’ve considered loss? The answer is no, right? And so it would be to a point where we would maintain sufficient – we’d have to have sufficient capability.
We’d have to have reserve capacity. You wouldn’t expend all of your resources to gain winning, right? Because then you have nothing to deter from at that point.
So very complex problem, of course. And as I think many people understand, nuclear weapons are political weapons. I think Susan Rice said that at one point.
The motto of Admiral Buchanan might be: We had to destroy the world in order to lead it. Buchanan here is less sane than General Buck Turgidson in Dr. Strangelove.
This admiral thinks we might have to have “an exchange” with Russia, and that, if we do, we could do so “in terms that are most acceptable to the United States,” and that even after “an exchange,” the U.S. can still “continue to lead the world.”
Truly this is the banality of evil. I like how even after “the exchange,” we need to have a “reserve capacity” so that we can nuke the world again.
This is madness–sheer madness–but it’s received as probity and sane “strategic” thinking by the national security blob.
This guy was promoted to admiral precisely because he thinks this way. He thinks without thinking. With no humanity.
Well, as General Turgidson says in Dr. Strangelove, we might just get our hair mussed during a nuclear “exchange,” but does it really matter as long as we can kill more of them than us?
What is the point of playing Russian roulette—with Russia?
As the Biden administration fades into oblivion, among its last decisions has been to allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russia with U.S.-made ATACMS, a missile with a range of 300 kilometers (190 miles). Ukraine’s recent use of these missiles brought a worrisome response from Russia: hypersonic intermediate-range missiles. If Ukraine persists in striking deeper into Russia with U.S., British, and French missiles, the Russian response will be proportionately greater, and possibly escalatory against NATO.
Here’s the thing: These missiles are too few in number to have a decisive impact on the course of the war. Ukraine isn’t going to “win” by launching ATACMS and similar tactical missiles. Yes, they can inflict more pain on Russia, hitting targets like ammunition dumps, military bases, and the like. But nobody is pretending these are war-winning weapons. All they promise is more dead bodies on both sides.
In World War I, new weapons were often introduced because it was believed they would prove decisive on the battlefield, weapons such as poison gas (1915) and tanks (1916). Of course, the other side adapted fairly quickly and the war dragged on, but at least there was a sincere belief that new weapons might break the awful stalemate of trench warfare.
There is no such sincere belief today. The main objective seems to be to complicate matters for the incoming Trump administration and its stated goal to end the Russia-Ukraine War. To that end, the Biden administration is using all means at its disposal to send the remaining $6 billion or so in weapons and related aid to Ukraine before Trump’s inauguration in January. Even anti-personnel mines are included in the mix.
Here’s how Antony Blinken put it:
President Biden is committed to making sure that every dollar we have at our disposal will be pushed out the door between now and January 20.
We’re making sure that Ukraine has the air defenses it needs, that it has the artillery it needs, that it has the armored vehicles it needs.
If only the Biden administration had been so committed to helping Americans in need.
In playing Russian roulette with Russia, Biden and Blinken have demonstrated unconscionable levels of recklessness and stupidity.
In my morning news feed from the New York Times came this article on Tulsi Gabbard:
How Tulsi Gabbard Became a Favorite of Russia’s State Media
President-elect Donald J. Trump’s pick to be the director of national intelligence has raised alarms among national security officials.
Here’s the key paragraph from the article, which, of course, is delayed until the sixth paragraph:
No evidence has emerged that she has ever collaborated in any way with Russia’s intelligence agencies. Instead, according to analysts and former officials, Ms. Gabbard seems to simply share the Kremlin’s geopolitical views, especially when it comes to the exercise of American military power. [Emphasis added]
Did you get that? NO EVIDENCE. Tulsi has never collaborated with Russia in any way. The problem is that she’s a critic of unnecessary and disastrous wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. She’s a critic of massive U.S. military aid to Ukraine. And since those criticisms are vaguely useful to Russia, she must therefore be a “Russian asset,” a dupe of Putin, according to Hillary Clinton and now the New York Times.
Within the so-called intelligence community (IC), you are allowed to be a cheerleader, a booster, even a selective critic in the sense that you may call for more money for the IC because of certain limitations or oversights, but you are not allowed to question America’s disastrously wasteful imperial foreign policy.
No matter how poorly the IC performs (consider the colossal failure of 9/11, or the total obliviousness about the impending collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, or recent disastrous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya), no one is ever held accountable, even as the IC gets more money and authority.
Tulsi Gabbard with President-elect Trump. (Jim Vondruska for the NYT)
Tulsi Gabbard promises to be a game-changer. Skeptical of the blatant misuse of American military power, she’s been an articulate critic of forever wars. She is especially sensitive to deploying U.S. troops in harm’s way for purposes other than the defense of the United States.
The “liberal” New York Times is having none of that. Consider this remarkable paragraph:
“Nominating Gabbard for director of national intelligence is the way to Putin’s heart, and it tells the world that America under Trump will be the Kremlin’s ally rather than an adversary,” Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history at New York University and the author of “Strongmen,” a 2020 book about authoritarian leaders, wrote on Friday. “And so we would have a national security official who would potentially compromise our national security.” [Emphasis added]
Who knew that “Putin’s heart” could be won so easily? And note the weasel wording that Tulsi could “potentially compromise” U.S. national security. Again, no evidence is presented.
Well, we certainly don’t want the U.S. to have a rapprochement with Putin. He must always be our adversary, am I right? How dare that Trump and Gabbard might, just might, pursue a policy that is less antagonistic toward the Kremlin? Don’t you enjoy teetering on the brink of a world-ending nuclear exchange? I much prefer that to listening and negotiation.
In making enemies of Hillary Clinton and now the New York Times, Tulsi Gabbard has demonstrated she has what it takes to serve as director of national intelligence.
President Joe Biden has authorized Ukraine to use powerful long-range US weapons deep inside Russia.
Why now? Biden is a lame duck president, shuffling out the door, and now he decides to allow Ukraine to use American ATACMS missiles, with a range of roughly 190 miles, inside Russia. It’s also expected that these and similar longer-range missiles provided by the French and British will have no decisive impact on the war. They may kill and wound more Russians and inspire responses in kind by Russia against Ukraine, but their use won’t contribute to “victory” for Ukraine. So what’s the point?
My wife put it well when she learned of the decision: “stupid” and “ridiculous” were her words of choice. It’s amazing how well our “experts” feed the obscenity of war.
How dare you handcuff our missiles!
I take my title from a comment made by President-elect Trump’s nominee for National Security Adviser, Mike Waltz, who said we should take the handcuffs off of U.S. missiles in Ukraine, as if those missiles were people being held prisoner.
Whether in the Biden or Trump administrations, the advisers at the top are moral midgets, murderously so. I wonder how they’d feel being targeted by ATACMS. Hey, we just took the handcuffs off, Mr. Waltz. Enjoy your time being bombarded by these liberated missiles.
At the end of September, I noted how Vladimir Putin had redefined Russian nuclear policy to include a possible nuclear response to the use of “tactical” missiles like ATACMS. Here’s what I wrote then:
Vladimir Putin is redefining Russian policy for the use of nuclear weapons. He’s sending a clear warning that Ukraine’s use of U.S. and Franco-British missiles like ATACMS and Storm Shadow deep within Russia could draw a nuclear response. To my knowledge, the U.S. has not yet approved of the use of ATACMS deep within Russia, though Ukraine is pushing for it.
It seems many brain-dead, zombie-like advisers and “experts” insist that Russia is bluffing. They’re willing to bet the health and safety of the world that Russia won’t respond with nuclear weapons. And for what? ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles aren’t war-winning weapons. The Russia-Ukraine War is a slog, an attritional struggle, featuring trenches and artillery and high casualties, a situation akin to World War I. It’s not going to be won by conventional tactical missile strikes.
Yet certain “experts” seemingly want it to escalate to World War III with nukes.
Just about 80 years ago, we humans entered the atomic age at the Trinity test site in July of 1945. We still haven’t come to grips with how the world changed when the first atomic “gadget” exploded in the desert in New Mexico. We had better hurry up and grow up before we all burn.
So, Putin has warned that deep strikes within Russia could draw a nuclear response, and Biden has now approved said strikes just before he leaves the White House. “Stupid” and “ridiculous” are indeed good descriptors here.
The obscenity of war knows no handcuffs in America.
Bracing Views 