U.S. presidents since Lyndon B. Johnson, if not before then (think here of Woodrow Wilson’s false promises in 1916 to keep America out of the Great War, known now as World War I), always promise peace, especially while running for office. Trump is the most recent example here. Yet whether Democrat or Republican, as soon as they become president, it’s war and more war. LBJ led America into the disastrous Vietnam War; Trump led America into the ongoing disaster of the Iran War; and the overseas wars just never seem to end, whether George W. Bush is issuing the orders or Barack Obama.
LBJ lacked the courage to resist the siren call of war
I had this thought as I re-read a comment from Mike Murry, a frequent Bracing Views contributor and an astute student of U.S. political and cultural history. Murry, a Vietnam War veteran, had this to say back in 2018:
Then, in the first semester of my senior hear in 1964, JFK’s successor as President: Lyndon Johnson, started his campaign for re-election, promising not to send us American boys to fight a war in Asia that Asian boys could fight themselves. He sounded just like Donald Trump did last year [January 2017], before assuming office. Johnson beat Goldwater in a landslide. The American people did not want another Korean War and made that overwhelmingly clear. But President Johnson betrayed us all, the way all U.S. Presidents now regularly do. Every one of them without exception preaches peace to win election. Then they invariably give their generals the wars that they demand. It happens every time. The stunning cynicism of that betrayal by President Johnson, I think, severed once and for all time any sense of “patriotism” that I might once have felt for the “America” of my youth. From that point on, I became an alien in my own land. My government would later send me abroad for the worst possible reasons, to do the most unnecessary and shameful of things. That same me never came home again. Someone else did. A damaged, but better man, I think. But much less an “American” one.
Today, the most important act to restore America is to end these needless and disastrous wars overseas. And not just overseas but here at home, as Trump promotes the malicious and mendacious notion of an enemy within, often labeled as the “radical left” with “terroristic” tendencies.
Nothing, I think, is more important to America’s health now and in the future than ending wars that waste so much, that kill and destroy so many, and that estrange our own citizen-soldiers from their country.
On a very warm and humid Sunday morning, here are a few random thoughts for today:
1. It’s rather amazing that the U.S./Israel War against Iran has entered its six month with no end in sight. Remember when the Trump administration suggested it would last no longer than eight weeks? The war is holding the world economy hostage, apparently for “greater Israel” and continued U.S. dominance of trade in fossil fuels. I say “apparently” because the war doesn’t make much sense to most Americans, who are in the main against it. The only selling point Trump keeps repeating is that Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, even as Israel is allowed to have up to 300 of them. His own intelligence chief told Trump that Iran was not working to field a nuclear weapon, but the Israelis told him otherwise, and we know who Trump is most obeisant toward.
2. Patrick Lawrence has a great piece on the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America, and how they want to abolish ICE and possibly the presidency itself while defunding the police, the Pentagon, and other instruments of authority and coercion. One sympathizes, but it’s neither a practical nor a winning political message. So I wrote this comment at his site:
Echoing George McGovern, “Come home, America.” You can’t abolish or dismantle everything. But we can downsize the imperium and reinvest in America rather than “investing” in more wars and Zionist Israel.
If the DSA wants to make a contribution, it should focus on that — downsizing the empire, putting the American people first, rather than dreaming of abolishing everything. For what will replace it?
Make the lives of average Americans better, more affordable, more livable. Clean up our environment. And forget the magical thinking and empty posturing.
Come home, America. Come home from wanton, wasteful, and immoral wars.
3. I was breezing through “The Devil’s Dictionary” by Ambrose Bierce and stumbled on his acerbic definition of “Aborigines”:
1. Persons of little worth found cumbering the soil of a newly discovered country. They soon cease to cumber; they fertilize.
2. Considerate persons who will not trouble the lexicographer of the future to describe them.
Bierce, a veteran of the U.S. Civil War, didn’t mince words here. There are always “persons of little worth” to oppressors who’d prefer that they leave or die. What was true of aboriginal peoples of the 19th and early 20th centuries is true of the Palestinians today: they are seen as obstacles to be overcome, even as terrorists to be exterminated.
4. Antiwar forces in America remain fragmented, and that’s partly by design. To oversimplify, you have the so-called radical left, which is antiwar, sometimes anti-military, often as critical of America as it is of empire, versus the “unpatriotic” (to Trump) right, which is anti-dumb wars, generally pro-military, and animated by putting “America first.” Left and right have much in common: they want less war, less militarism, and more investment and support for Main Street USA. If they could combine, they would make a formidable force against the MICC and incessant warfare. Which is why each side is encouraged to distrust and even hate the other, i.e. the “radical left” is told the right is racist and reactionary and the “unpatriotic right” is told the left is woke, arrogant, and un-American.
The MICC and “Deep State” know that these two groups must be kept divided. They must never be allowed to cooperate in meaningful ways.
5. Ike said only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry could tame and reduce the anti-democratic forces unleashed by the MICC. Note how Ike said nothing about the left or right. Being for democracy, freedom, and liberty isn’t a right or left issue. The same applies to being against war and killing and massively wasteful military budgets. These are human issues that should unite everyone irrespective of political allegiances.
Caveat: Any foolishness written above is on account of the heat, but fortunately I’ve been told global warming is a Chinese hoax. Stay cool, everyone.
There’s so much militarized crazy in America today that it’s entirely overwhelming. Here’s a “top ten” list:
1. The illegal and unconstitutional war against Iran.
Remember when Trump told us he wouldn’t start wars? Remember when attacks on Iran began, the Trump administration told us they’d be over in a matter of days, perhaps a few weeks, ending in Iran’s total defeat? Instead, the U.S. government and military is engaged in yet another disastrous losing undeclared war that is unsupported by most Americans. As if our opinions matter!
2. The continued blanket support of Israel’s genocide against Gaza, pogroms in the West Bank, and demolition/seizure of land in Lebanon.
The Trump administration remains 100% committed to the project of a “Greater Israel,” no matter how many Palestinians suffer and die in the process.
3. The obscene $500 billion increase in military spending in FY2027.
The U.S. military hasn’t won a major war since 1945. It’s failed eight audits in a row. The “punishment” is a vast increase in military spending in the next fiscal year.
4. The escalatory and nearly impossible Golden Dome proposal.
The golden dome missile defense system is a golden boondoggle for weapons makers. It’s unlikely to work, and if it does, if only partially, it may make nuclear war more likely.
5. The unnecessary “modernization” of the nuclear triad at a projected cost of $2 trillion.
U.S. militarists still believe the nuclear triad is the Holy Trinity. It isn’t. Land-based ICBMs and nuclear bombers should be scrapped as obsolete. The Navy’s Trident-missile-firing submarines are all the U.S. needs for nuclear deterrence.
6. The continued headlong pursuit of artificial intelligence (AI) and the ongoing empowerment and enlargement of the surveillance state.
AI combined with ever-more intrusive cameras and digital monitoring is creating a dystopic “Big Brother” state. Imagine sweeping AI with a steroidal Homeland Security; now imagine the total disappearance of privacy.
7. The war against the ICC and UN and indeed any legal check on U.S./Israeli aggression.
As the U.S. and Israel engage in global aggression, they attack institutions such as the International Criminal Court and the United Nations that attempt to limit and stop that aggression.
8. Related to (7), the proposal to merge the U.S. military with Israel’s for research and development, intelligence sharing, and the like.
Incredibly, the Trump administration is proposing a merger between the U.S. and Israeli militaries that would compromise U.S. national security at the highest levels of classification. Obedient to Aipac and Israeli imperatives, Congress seems prepared ultimately to support it.
9. Continued environmental damage due to war and military operations and the complete disregard of climate change.
Rarely in the U.S. do you hear any talk of how war and global military actions accelerate global warming and aggravate environmental damage. Check out the documentary by Abby Martin, “Earth’s Greatest Enemy,” and her interview with Chris Hedges.
10. The abandonment of the citizen-soldier tradition in the U.S., the embrace of a warrior ethos, and the increasing contempt for diversity within the military.
The last war America won (with serious help from allies like the Soviet Union) was World War II, also the last time America had a true citizen-soldier military. Since then, America has increasingly embraced a warrior ethos. And while diversity used to be a hallmark of the U.S. military, it is now under attack as “woke” by Pete Hegseth.
There you have it: ten signs of America’s increasingly militarized madness. Greater sanity would involve the reversal of all of these.
An article at the New York Times today cites the creative accounting of the Trump administration on U.S. casualties in the Iran War. That count now exceeds 600 wounded, with eighteen service members killed. And for what, exactly?
Words fail…
President Trump claims America’s service members are being killed and wounded so that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear bomb. However, his former Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified that Iran wasn’t actively trying to acquire said bomb. In fact, because of the Iran War and U.S. and Israeli attacks, Iran now seems much more determined to acquire nuclear weapons. Can’t say that I blame them.
U.S. and Iran attacks in the region are suspended for the moment, which is one small bit of good news. However, with Netanyahu set to visit the White House tomorrow, we should expect more bellicose rhetoric and surely more bellicose action soon.
One more point: Iranian attacks have done far more damage to U.S. bases and facilities in the region than the Trump administration is prepared to admit. The New York Times also did a story on that. Here’s a report on that from March and a recent onethis month.
America truly has its very own Orwellian Ministry of Truth.
War is too easy in America today. We’ve come to accept it as normal. Peace is now aberrant. As war grows ever easier, peace becomes ever harder.
“Escalation,” not diplomacy, is touted as the smart way to end wars. Logic doesn’t seem to matter. How do you end a war by launching more damaging and deadly strikes? How is killing even more people a way to peace?
President Trump now seems to believe that climbing the “escalation ladder” in the Iran War and in the Russia-Ukraine War is the best way to resolve these deadly conflicts. It reminds me of that Vietnam-era quip that waging war for peace is like screwing for virginity.
Journalist Aaron Maté’s piece today also cites Washington’s belief in escalation:
Shortly before returning to the White House for a second term, Donald Trump criticized the exiting president, Joe Biden, for letting Ukraine fire long-range US missiles into Russia. “Why are we doing that?” Trump complained. “We’re just escalating this war and making it worse.”
Just as his campaign pledge of “no new wars” gave way to a regime-change war on Iran, Trump’s professed aversion to a US-fueled escalation in Ukraine is no more. At this month’s NATO summit in Turkey, Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio endorsed Ukraine’s drone attacks deep inside Russia. With the Russians “finding it more difficult to defend their own airspace,” Rubio explained, this will “create the space now to negotiate the end of this war.” Added Trump: “It’s an escalation, but it’s also an escalation that could help lead to an end.”
How often do “escalations” help to end wars? Does anyone remember how escalation in Vietnam turned out?
Maybe if we truly seek to end a war, we should deescalate attacks, then engage in diplomacy. No, that makes too much sense.
Spock learns that logic often doesn’t apply to murder or war
There’s a great line in an old Star Trek episode, “Journey to Babel,” where Spock is advised he’d do well to “forget logic and devote yourself to motivations of passion and gain,” for “those are the reasons for murder” — and often for war as well.
Of course, these aren’t the only reasons for war, but logic often has little to do with how and why wars are waged. That much is obvious as “climbing the escalation ladder” is seen or sold by Washington as the best way to deescalate in Iran and in Russia and Ukraine.
It’s not Lebanon that’s the weak link here—it’s Israel.
Israel is the attacker. The aggressor. The country that wants to scupper the MOU between the USA and Iran. Everyone knows this—except the NYT, apparently.
I like too how the NYT describes it as the “American-Israeli war on Iran.” At the very least, it should be Israeli-American war of aggression against Iran.
And when was Lebanon a “secondary front” to the USA? America has no desire to seize land and water in southern Lebanon. That goal is entirely Israel’s, as is its fight against Hezbollah, which is responding to Israeli aggression.
The Iran War has been a huge loser (to put it in Trumpian terms) for the U.S., and only Israel seeks to prolong it. Again, who’s the weak link in the U.S.-Iran deal to end the war?
I’ve been playing with Trumpian language to describe the Iran War and its outcome. As Trump might say, it’s been a defeat for America the likes of which we’ve never seen before. No other defeat comes close.
I think Trump finally understands that. The question is, will “weak link” Israel let him withdraw or will the war become even more catastrophic?
It’s a most confusing time to be in the U.S. military. Who knows why we fight?
At the top, there’s a lack of principles, a lack of clarity, a lack of care.
There’s no accountability for losses and bad decisions.
The government keeps the people isolated from war’s true costs. There’s no call for sacrifice. No war bonds, no draft, no increase in taxes. Costs are largely kicked into the future as the national debt soars ever higher.
An all-volunteer military is essentially told to follow orders. Never mind about the morality or legality of the same.
The people are encouraged to cheer on or otherwise to support their warriors and warfighters. Basically, to wave the flag but otherwise to go about their business.
A divided Congress has essentially rendered itself powerless over war-making. Meanwhile, Members of Congress fight for their share of an expanding Pentagon pie of money (or pork) for their districts.
The Secretary of State says we went to war with Iran because Israel forced the U.S. government’s hand. So apparently in this case the U.S. military fights for Israel.
So far, the main beneficiaries of the war appear to be defense contractors, fossil fuel companies and banks, so apparently the U.S. military is fighting for them as well.
Clearly, with Iran the U.S. military is not fighting to defend the American people or to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.
Again, who knows why we fight?
The HAL 9000 knows the score
It’s always useful to ask Cui bono? while following the money. I asked my AI friends who’s benefiting from this war, and this was the answer the HAL 9000 spit out:
*****
The primary beneficiaries of the Iran war are Western defense contractors, major oil and gas corporations, and geopolitical rivals like Russia and China. The conflict has resulted in billions of dollars in windfalls for arms manufacturers and energy producers, while simultaneously shifting regional power balances. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Defense Contractors
Stock Surges: Arms manufacturers like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman have seen multi-billion dollar gains.
Missile & Defense Demand: High demand for THAAD interceptors and other Raytheon systems drives excess revenue. [1, 2]
Oil & Gas Majors
Record Profits: Surging crude prices have boosted revenues for producers like ExxonMobil and Chevron.
Energy Traders: European giants like Shell and BP capitalized on market chaos and sharp price movements. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Geopolitical Rivals
Russia: The conflict acts as a fiscal rescue by diverting Western attention and skyrocketing global energy prices.
China: China’s regional strategic influence is strengthened as the US is forced to divert military resources to the Middle East. [1]
Regional Powers
Israel: The war has neutralized immediate adversaries and solidified the country’s military posture in the region.
*****
Certainly, it’s indisputable how much the weapons makers and fossil fuel companies are profiting here.
Famously, Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler confessed in the 1930s he’d served as a gangster for capitalism with Standard Oil being one of his biggest clients. The Iran War seems to have benefited Israel, oil and gas interests, and military contractors the most, even as the average American has been hurt by inflation with much higher prices for gas, oil, groceries, and the like.
Interestingly, my AI friend didn’t list Iran as a major beneficiary of the war, but many have argued persuasively that Iran will emerge stronger from this conflict.
Again, it’s a most confusing time to be in the U.S. military.
PS: I thought I’d add this response I made to TomR’s comment below:
In 1985, when I pinned on those 2LT bars, I thought I had some clarity. America, though hardly perfect, was better than the model offered by the Soviet Union. Then the USSR collapsed in 1991, and the government went looking for new dragons to slay. And we found them and we keep finding them because we keep sowing the dragon’s teeth.
So the U.S. military has become a perpetual fighting machine, never mind the Constitution, never mind democracy, never mind morality or legality. If we don’t have enemies, we’ll create them.
America’s leaders are always boasting of precision weaponry. Yet the NYT suggests that a precision strike against an Iranian water facility was possibly unintentional, an accident, I guess. Since an intentional strike against critical infrastructure (you can’t get more critical than potable water) for civilians would constitute a war crime—and obviously America would never do that!
Even asking that question, self-styled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth bloviated, is both “disingenuous” and “impugning” the motives of America’s military professionals.
We can’t have reporters asking questions that might impugn the motives of our brave leaders.
Hegseth seems to enjoy himself the most when he’s attacking the media for their lack of faith in him.
The Iran War, yet another disastrous war for the American people (and of course even more so for Iranians), may continue until President Trump’s morale improves. And that may prove to be a very long time. Remember when Hegseth suggested that the war would last eight weeks at most? It’s already roughly double that with no end in sight.
Check out the Iran War Clock. And the war clock keeps ticking …
With the Iran War, two men determined America’s attack on Iran, and one was a foreign leader. The latest aggression against Iran is inconceivable without Bibi Netanyahu and Donald Trump. Of course, there are plenty of operators and schemers and interests behind these men, but they are proud to take credit as the deciders.
This isn’t supposed to be how America goes to war. War is supposed to be a constitutional process involving the Congress and the people. There is to be no war without the consent of the governed. And there should be no wars of aggression, for a democracy should know that persistent wars are an insidious and pernicious enemy of freedom and liberty.
In spite of that, war persists in America. If you’re 25 years old or younger in America, you’ve never known a time when your country has been at peace. Nor is there any prospect of peace in the next three years. I’ve lost track of the countries the Trump administration has bombed or attacked or snatched the leader of, but besides Iran the list would include Venezuela, Somalia, Nigeria, and Yemen. And let us not forget U.S. efforts in the Russia-Ukraine War, for nuclear-armed Russia surely won’t forget.
There’s simply no end to America’s wars partly because it’s all just so easy.
A common expression inside the Washington Beltway is that “all options are on the table,” meaning the worst option, that of deadly attacks and even war, is always an option. A harsh truth is that it’s increasingly the only option considered in DC circles.
The U.S. State Department has become a tiny branch of the Pentagon. Diplomacy takes time. Patience. Expertise. Empathy. A willingness to compromise. Within the Trump administration, these are qualities in short supply, even as they’re not respected. Washington sees itself as a hegemon, the lone and dominant superpower, barking out orders and threats with unrestrained profligacy.
It’s a recipe for disaster and that is what it’s produced: disaster after disaster.
Yesterday, the House finally and narrowly approved a resolution to halt military action against Iran. Its immediate impact is limited and mainly symbolic. As usual, the Democrats fumbled the messaging, making it about gas and grocery prices:
“Enough is enough,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who led the effort.
“It is time for the president to do the right thing,” he said. “The people are tired of suffering because of his war of choice — suffering at the gas pump, suffering at the supermarkets.”
Let’s not focus on the unconstitutional nature of the war, the needless deaths of thousands of Iranians, the enormous price tag of $100 billion or more. It’s really about Americans having to pay more to gas up their steroidal SUVs and monster trucks.
As America approaches its 250th birthday, it’s enduring a tyranny of the warmongers. Yet again, Americans find themselves under the thumb of a tyrannical and foreign government. It is exceedingly difficult to see how we chart a new course when we are so hopelessly lost.
Take heart, America: At least there will be cage fighting soon on the White House lawn. Bread is dear, but the circuses are here.
UFC cage fight to celebrate Trump’s 80th birthday on June 14th!
I woke up this morning with a depressing reality in my head: Americans may have freedom of speech (be careful criticizing Zionist Israel, though), but we have no say. Those who have a say in (and sway over) “our” government are those with the most money and power. AIPAC is just one example of a powerful, highly organized, lobby that wields say and sway over “our” elected representatives. Other powerful lobbyists hail from Big Pharmaceutical companies, fossil fuels, Wall Street in general, the banks, and of course the military-industrial complex.
Generally speaking, Americans don’t want wars (Trump’s war on Iran is deeply unpopular) and they don’t want $1.5 trillion war budgets. Sorry, you have no say here. I may be able to write critiques of disastrous wars, bloated Pentagon budgets, and kleptocratic insiders, but it doesn’t move the needle because I have no say.
This reminds me of when I wrote to my senator back in 2018 about endless wars and the military-industrial complex. The response I received is recounted in the article below.
(Re-reading my article for TomDispatch in 2018, I noted that the Trump administration was scheming for war with Iran back then, which led me to a letter I cited signed by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), warning that such a war would be catastrophic. The VIPS, professionals like Larry C. Johnson and Ray McGovern, have been proven right, but even they have no say. When it comes to the Iran War, Israel and AIPAC arguably have had the most say of all.)
Endless War and the Lack of a Progressive Critique of the Pentagon
The Pentagon has won the war that matters most
W.J. Astore (Written in 2018)
In my latest article for TomDispatch.com, I argue the Pentagon has won the war that matters: the struggle for the “hearts and minds” of America. Pentagon budgets are soaring even as wars in places like Afghanistan continue to go poorly. Despite poor results, criticism of the Pentagon is rare indeed, whether in the mainstream U.S. media or even among so-called liberals and progressives, a point hammered home to me when I contacted my senator. Here’s an excerpt from TomDispatch; you can read my article in full here.
A Letter From My Senator
A few months back, I wrote a note to one of my senators to complain about America’s endless wars and received a signed reply via email. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that it was a canned response, but no less telling for that. My senator began by praising American troops as “tough, smart, and courageous, and they make huge sacrifices to keep our families safe. We owe them all a true debt of gratitude for their service.” OK, I got an instant warm and fuzzy feeling, but seeking applause wasn’t exactly the purpose of my note.
My senator then expressed support for counterterror operations, for, that is, “conducting limited, targeted operations designed to deter violent extremists that pose a credible threat to America’s national security, including al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), localized extremist groups, and homegrown terrorists.” My senator then added a caveat, suggesting that the military should obey “the law of armed conflict” and that the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) that Congress hastily approved in the aftermath of 9/11 should not be interpreted as an “open-ended mandate” for perpetual war.
Finally, my senator voiced support for diplomacy as well as military action, writing, “I believe that our foreign policy should be smart, tough, and pragmatic, using every tool in the toolbox — including defense, diplomacy, and development — to advance U.S. security and economic interests around the world.” The conclusion: “robust” diplomacy must be combined with a “strong” military.
Now, can you guess the name and party affiliation of that senator? Could it have been Lindsey Graham or Jeff Flake, Republicans who favor a beyond-strong military and endlessly aggressive counterterror operations? Of course, from that little critical comment on the AUMF, you’ve probably already figured out that my senator is a Democrat. But did you guess that my military-praising, counterterror-waging representative was Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts?
Full disclosure: I like Warren and have made small contributions to her campaign. And her letter did stipulate that she believed “military action should always be a last resort.” Still, nowhere in it was there any critique of, or even passingly critical commentary about, the U.S. military, or the still-spreading war on terror, or the never-ending Afghan War, or the wastefulness of Pentagon spending, or the devastation wrought in these years by the last superpower on this planet. Everything was anodyne and safe — and this from a senator who’s been pilloried by the right as a flaming liberal and caricatured as yet another socialist out to destroy America.
I know what you’re thinking: What choice does Warren have but to play it safe? She can’t go on record criticizing the military. (She’s already gotten in enough trouble in my home state for daring to criticize the police.) If she doesn’t support a “strong” U.S. military presence globally, how could she remain a viable presidential candidate in 2020?
And I would agree with you, but with this little addendum: Isn’t that proof that the Pentagon has won its most important war, the one that captured — to steal a phrase from another losing war — the “hearts and minds” of America? In this country in 2018, as in 2017, 2016, and so on, the U.S. military and its leaders dictate what is acceptable for us to say and do when it comes to our prodigal pursuit of weapons and wars.
So, while it’s true that the military establishment failed to win those “hearts and minds” in Vietnam or more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, they sure as hell didn’t fail to win them here. In Homeland, U.S.A., in fact, victory has been achieved and, judging by the latest Pentagon budgets, it couldn’t be more overwhelming.
If you ask — and few Americans do these days — why this country’s losing wars persist, the answer should be, at least in part: because there’s no accountability. The losers in those wars have seized control of our national narrative. They now define how the military is seen (as an investment, a boon, a good and great thing); they now shape how we view our wars abroad (as regrettable perhaps, but necessary and also a sign of national toughness); they now assign all serious criticism of the Pentagon to what they might term the defeatist fringe.
In their hearts, America’s self-professed warriors know they’re right. But the wrongs they’ve committed, and continue to commit, in our name will not be truly righted until Americans begin to reject the madness of rampant militarism, bloated militaries, and endless wars.
Bracing Views 