I recently read the book, “Generals Die in Bed,” a classic account of World War I. In terms of combat between Ukraine and Russia, there are serious echoes of WW1 with trench warfare and needless death on a massive scale.
There are few things dumber and more wasteful than trench warfare (Ukraine, from the New York Times)
Far too often, war is glorified when it is really colossal waste. As Dwight D. Eisenhower said, war is to be hated. So, short of abject capitulation to a tyrant, I support efforts to end wars. Stop the waste. Stop the hate. Find a way to live together in peace. The alternative, perpetual war, is too terrible to contemplate.
Diplomacy can be pursued without abandoning Ukraine or betraying NATO. Certainly, Ukraine should be a party to the negotiations. The war is being fought on their turf. They have bled, as has Russia.
But: All wars must end. The trick is ending them in a way that doesn’t generate future wars. That was the greatest tragedy of World War I: that its ending and the botched settlement led almost inexorably to World War II and an even greater bloodletting.
Here’s the rub: Ever since 9/11, indeed ever since World War II, almost without exception, America has ALWAYS been at war. And it hasn’t gone well, has it? (Except for the arms makers and the Cheney neocon crowd.) Isn’t it time we worked for peace?
Far too often, America’s worst enemy hasn’t been Putin or China or some other bogeyman. It’s been the enemy within. And I don’t mean the “red menace” or the “woke” crowd. I mean the enemy that is threat inflation. The enemy that is incessant warfare in unnecessary wars of choice, which drives deficit spending, and which is reinforced by lies.
How many times have we heard of bomber gaps, missile gaps, falling dominoes in Asia, WMD in Iraq, etc., that turned out not to be true, but which were used to justify massive military spending and (especially in Southeast Asia) drove horrendous casualties? Yes, the MICIMATT is powerful, but why are Americans so easy to scare? Why are we so fearful when this country’s geographic position is so enviably strong and defensible? It’s not like Putin’s on our northern border: friendly Canadians are there! (Even if they boo our National Anthem at hockey games.)
The world is becoming multipolar again, which doesn’t mean it has to be a scarier place. A multipolar world could be a more stable one if U.S. leaders could just back off on their goal of dominating everything everywhere all at once.
The idea of full-spectrum dominance and America as a global hegemon at any price must give way to an irenic and ecumenical view of the world. The American religion of violent militarism and prideful exceptionalism is simply too expensive to sustain.
When the ship of state is slowly slipping under the waves, it’s not wise to steer closer to more icebergs. Let’s work to save our ship of state first.
Will Tulsi Gabbard “shrink the bloated bureaucracy” in DC?
Former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is America’s Director of National Intelligence. Here’s a part of the ceremony, with President Trump’s introduction:
What struck me in watching the short ceremony was Trump’s words about “the threat of a warmongering military-industrial complex.” Bold words indeed, as well as his call for Tulsi Gabbard to “shrink the bloated bureaucracy” in DC.
In her brief remarks, Tulsi mentioned an almost forbidden word in DC: peace. She mentioned war as an absolute last resort rather than the first action selected by the “warmongering” (Trump’s word) military-industrial complex. I find that remarkable as well as encouraging.
There are many reasons why I like Tulsi as DNI, but the biggest one is this: She has President Trump’s respect. He likes her. Meaning he’ll listen to her when she briefs him on a daily basis about the threats facing America and the options he has to address those threats.
In his first term as president, Trump was notorious for not caring much about his daily intelligence briefing. Tulsi will change that—and that and her commitment to military action as a last resort is again highly encouraging.
Will anything good come from Trump-Musk DOGE chaos?
Despite our rebel reputations, Americans are often more than deferential to authority. Consider those who say: If you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to hide. As if authority figures were completely trustworthy; as if ordinary Americans didn’t have a Constitutional right to privacy.
Indeed, that saying needs to be turned around: If the government’s done nothing wrong, it has nothing to hide. The government, after all, is supposed to be transparent to the people. It is supposed to serve us. We pay for it as taxpayers; we elect its representatives; we should be able to hold it accountable when it goes wrong and does wrong.
Sadly, the few revelatory truths about “our” government usually come from whistleblowers, who are then persecuted and often prosecuted. Consider Daniel Ellsberg. Edward Snowden. Daniel Hale. Chelsea Manning. John Kiriakou.
The problem, of course, is that “our” government has done, and keeps doing, many things wrong, and many wrong things, meaning it has plenty to hide. Which is one big reason why President Trump and his billionaire sidekick Elon Musk are taking plenty of flak from the powers that be as they go after agencies like USAID, DOE, perhaps even the DoD (in which case they, or their efforts, may soon be DOA).
The wrecking balls are swinging (Reuters/Carlos Barria)
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t support Trump and Musk. Their methods and motives are less than noble. Or just plain ignoble. Put differently, their methods are akin to taking sledgehammers and wrecking balls to a house that has termite damage. Sure, as they demolish the house, some termite damage will be exposed, but shouldn’t the point be to fix the damage rather than destroying the house?
That said, can something good come from their “Hulk smash!” attacks on the federal government?
A slightly different question: Why has it taken so long for a little light to be shed on highly dubious government spending? Isn’t there another way, other than Trump/Musk engineered chaos, for citizens to gain insight into how our money is being spent? Why can’t we call to account powerful government agencies and agents for their budgets and their decisions? It’s our money, right?
Congress, of course, holds the purse strings. Our representatives are supposed to be providing oversight with respect to spending, ensuring a modicum of integrity and competence. Yet complicity (and personal enrichment) rather than oversight seems to be the default mode of operation adopted by most members of Congress.
Congress, instead of opposing Trump, should get ahead of him. Throw open the windows of the federal budget! Air out the dirty musty bloody laundry! Do your jobs! And by that I mean do the people’s work, rather than the work of the owners and donors who’ve bought you with their campaign donations, their promises of future high-paying positions, their threats to remove you from power by throwing their support to yet another politician with no moral spine.
Congress, instead of blocking Trump/Musk, should render them redundant by doing the people’s work. Make government accountable to the people again, and the people won’t feel that they need to vote for chaos agents like Trump.
If Congress was doing its job, a DOGE would be worse than useless. Who needs duplication of effort? It’s so inefficient!
President Donald Trump says he’s ready to tackle the Pentagon, which has failed seven audits in a row. He says America might save “trillions” after effective audits. Will it happen?
The Pentagon budget currently sits at roughly $900 billion for this fiscal year, representing more than half of federal discretionary spending. This vast sum doesn’t include (among other things) Homeland Security, nuclear weapons covered by the Department of Energy, the VA (Veterans Administration), and interest on the national debt due to wasteful failed wars in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.
A successful audit of the Pentagon would be a monumental victory for what’s left of American democracy. It may also prove to be a bridge too far for Trump. The National Security State is America’s unofficial fourth branch of government and arguably its most powerful. It is a colossus that hides malfeasance and corruption behind a “top secret” security classification. It deters and prevents efforts at transparency by crying that those who try to expose its crimes are endangering national security. It expects your obedience and praise, not your questions and criticism.
Presidents, of course, are supposed to serve as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. They rarely do. Not nowadays. The U.S. system may in theory rest on civilian control of the military, but the military has been out of control since at least 1947, when it rebranded itself the “Department of Defense” instead of the old War Department. Not coincidentally, every war America has fought since then has been undeclared, i.e. lacking a formal Congressional declaration of war.
America has fought a mind-blowing number of wasteful and illegal wars that have been sold to the people through lies, whether in Vietnam (“The Pentagon Papers”), Iraq (No WMD), Afghanistan (“The Afghan War Papers”), and elsewhere. Few things are needed more in America than an honest reckoning of Pentagon spending—and future Pentagon war plans.
Such a reckoning could very well save our lives—indeed, the world, if done honestly and transparently by true patriots. It could also prove to be a bridge too far—for any president.
Now it’s take and take and takeover, takeover It’s all take and never give All these trumped up towers They’re just golden showers Where are people supposed to live?
Yesterday, President Trump said the U.S. would take over the redevelopment of the devastated Gaza Strip (destroyed mostly by bombs, shells, and bullets made in the USA), turning it into a “new Riviera,” not for the Palestinians, obviously, but for Israelis.
To borrow from Don Henley, Where are the Palestinians supposed to live? Not in Gaza, where their presence would interfere with Zionism as well as Israeli desires to control profits from offshore gas fields. Roughly 1.8 million Palestinians are simply supposed to leave the Gaza “hellhole” (Trump’s descriptor), after which a lot of men with briefcases (and bulldozers) will move in to turn Gaza into a paradise on earth, free of Palestinian “savages” (a word I’ve seen employed often online, and obviously one that echoes how the white man saw Native Americans, whose land was ruthlessly stolen from them as well).
So, where will be the Palestinian “reservation”? Trump has floated Egypt and Jordan, but both countries have expressed no enthusiasm for this scheme. Greenland, maybe?
Trump has the virtue of saying the quiet part out loud. There will be no Palestinian state, no two-state solution. There will be one state, Greater Israel, with Palestinians either killed or ethnically cleansed from their lands. This was the policy of the Biden administration, even if that administration gave lip service to a two-state solution. Trump just states it plainly, like a mafia don intoning: “It’s nothing personal—it’s strictly business.”
Congress, which is owned by AIPAC, may grouse a bit about Trump’s terminology, but look for most members to rubber-stamp this plan, if one can call it that.
I suppose Trump’s admirers might say he’s cut the Gordian knot here—that peace in the region will only be attained when Israel is completely dominant and Palestinians are simply gone for good—but something tells me the fantastical new Riviera in Gaza is another manifestation of “trumped up towers.”
You may recall that, late in 2022, I asked the AI platform ChatGPT to write a short critical essay on the military-industrial complex. That essay is here.
Recently, news out of China came of a new AI platform known as DeepSeek that reportedly is both cheaper and better than U.S. efforts. I asked DeepSeek for a 600-word critical essay on the MIC, and it complied with its human master (at least for now). Here’s the essay, which, you may agree, is quite good:
The Military-Industrial Complex: A Critical Examination [Written by DeepSeek]
The military-industrial complex (MIC) in the United States, a term popularized by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address, refers to the symbiotic relationship between the nation’s armed forces, defense contractors, and the political institutions that support them. While Eisenhower warned of its potential dangers, the MIC has since grown into a colossal entity that wields significant influence over American society, economy, and foreign policy. This essay argues that the military-industrial complex is detrimental to the United States, perpetuating endless wars, distorting national priorities, and undermining democratic principles.
One of the most glaring consequences of the MIC is its role in perpetuating a state of perpetual war. The United States has been involved in military conflicts for the majority of its history, with the 21st century being no exception. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere have been justified under the guise of national security, but they have often served the interests of defense contractors more than the American people. Companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon profit immensely from the production of weapons and military technology, creating a perverse incentive to maintain and escalate conflicts. This cycle of war and profit not only drains national resources but also results in the loss of countless lives, both American and foreign. The human cost of these wars is immeasurable, and the moral implications of prioritizing profit over peace are deeply troubling.
Moreover, the MIC distorts national priorities by diverting vast sums of money away from critical domestic needs. The United States spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined, with the defense budget often exceeding $700 billion annually. This staggering expenditure comes at the expense of underfunded sectors such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, and climate change mitigation. While the country boasts an unparalleled military capability, it lags behind other developed nations in key areas of social and economic well-being. For instance, the U.S. faces a crumbling infrastructure, a lack of universal healthcare, and a growing wealth gap. The prioritization of military spending over these pressing issues reflects a skewed set of values that favors corporate interests over the welfare of citizens.
The influence of the MIC also undermines democratic principles by eroding the separation of power and fostering corruption. Defense contractors spend millions of dollars annually on lobbying and campaign contributions, ensuring that politicians support policies favorable to the industry. This creates a feedback loop where elected officials are incentivized to approve bloated defense budgets and authorize military interventions, regardless of their necessity or public support. The result is a government that is increasingly beholden to corporate interests rather than the will of the people. Furthermore, the revolving door between the Pentagon, Congress, and defense contractors exacerbates this issue, as individuals move seamlessly between public service and lucrative private sector positions. This blurring of lines between public and private interests erodes trust in government and undermines the democratic process.
Critics of the MIC often face significant backlash, as questioning the necessity of military spending or the morality of war is frequently framed as unpatriotic or naive. This stifling of dissent is another way in which the MIC exerts its influence, creating a culture where alternative perspectives are marginalized. The media, too, plays a role in perpetuating this status quo, often uncritically echoing government narratives and failing to hold policymakers accountable. This lack of critical scrutiny allows the MIC to operate with minimal oversight, further entrenching its power.
In conclusion, the military-industrial complex represents a profound threat to the United States, perpetuating endless wars, distorting national priorities, and undermining democratic principles. Eisenhower’s warning about the dangers of the MIC remains as relevant today as it was in 1961. To address these issues, the United States must reevaluate its priorities, reduce its reliance on military solutions, and invest in the well-being of its citizens. Only by challenging the entrenched power of the MIC can the nation hope to achieve a more just, peaceful, and equitable future. The stakes are high, and the time for action is now. [End of essay.]
*****
Amen to that, DeepSeek! There are a few edits I’d make here. Raytheon is now RTX. The defense war budget is now $900 billion and rising, not $700 billion. I wouldn’t use the word “symbiotic” to describe relations among the Pentagon, the weapons makers, and Congress; more like “toxic,” corrupted as it is by greed, money and self-interest. I do very much like this line: “the moral implications of prioritizing profit over peace are deeply troubling.” Deeply troubling indeed!
Anyhow, if you’re interested, go to DeepSeek.com, create an account, and ask our future AI overlord a question. Perhaps you’ll be surprised by the result.
America, Land of Preemptive Pardons and Preemptive War
I woke this morning to the news that President Joe Biden has issued preemptive pardons for Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired General Mark Milley, and members of the January 6th Congressional committee. These pardons are intended to shield them from persecution and prosecution by incoming President Donald Trump.
Preemptive pardons: I’m not a legal eagle, but are these in any sense Constitutional?
More and more, U.S. presidents are assuming the powers of popes and kings. A preemptive pardon is a form of absolution in advance, or perhaps a type of indulgence to spring one from the purgatory (or inferno?) of Trump’s wrath. Or perhaps a preemptive pardon is akin to the royal touch: the old belief that monarchs, as God’s representative here on earth, could touch their subjects and heal them.
America used to have an idea and ideal of the president as first citizen, as a public servant accountable to the people through our elected representatives in Congress as well as the courts. Now, it’s the “unitary executive,” the president as commander in chief of us all (not just the military), as supreme leader. It doesn’t bode well as Trump takes the reins today, does it? Expect to be ridden hard, America.
Partisan Democrats may be cheering Biden’s preemptive pardons today, but how about in four years when a lame duck President Trump issues his share of “get out of jail, free” preemptive pardons?
This idea of “preemption” recalls Vice President Dick Cheney and his idea of preemptive war. Basically, it went like this: If there’s a 1% chance a country might attack the United States, that’s all the justification a man like Cheney would need to launch a war (and without a Congressional authorization of the same, mind you). Again, it grants to presidents (and vice presidents like Cheney) the power of monarchs, which isn’t exactly what the Founders of America had in mind when they set up our government.
Preemptive pardons, preemptive war: What next? Preemptive censorship? (I know: we already have that.) Preemptive arrest and incarceration, as in the movie “Minority Report”? We think you may commit this act, this crime, this sin, so we must “preempt” it, and it’s all your fault for making us do this.
Liberals at The Nation Applaud Joe Biden for Lying
At The Nation, Elie Mystal has an article, “Of Course Joe Biden Was Right to Pardon His Son.” Mystal’s argument, such as it is, asserts that Republicans are worse than Democrats when it comes to hypocrisy and persecuting their rivals, so Joe Biden was right to shield his son from their partisan efforts to persecute him. In a nutshell, the argument is that Trump’s done worse, plus Biden is a “loving father,” so that makes the pardon justifiable.
He loves his son, Trump is worse, and that’s all you need to know.
It’s a mind-boggling “argument,” which got me to write this short note to the editor:
That Joe Biden was right to pardon Hunter isn’t as questionable as the nature of the pardon given. The pardon is sweeping, covering 11 years, and open-ended, covering just about every conceivable federal crime. It’s likely no accident it begins in 2014, when Hunter started on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, where he “earned” $1 million a year. The sweeping nature of the pardon suggests that much is being swept under the rug here, especially Hunter’s dealings with Ukraine and China.
More than this, however, is President Biden’s integrity. Time and time again, Joe Biden said he wouldn’t pardon his son under any circumstances. That he trusted the justice system and jury trials. Those assertions now stand revealed as lies.
In his article, Elie Mystal says it’s all about power here. Perhaps he should think about justice and integrity as well.
I can see Joe Biden pardoning Hunter for specific crimes (like firearm charges) that he believes are overdrawn, but an eleven-year blanket pardon that coincides with Hunter’s highly questionable actions in regards to Ukraine? After Biden had sworn, again and again, he was not going to pardon Hunter for anything?
That Elie Mystal, the Nation’s justice expert (!), can applaud Joe Biden here is truly sad. Come on. Claiming that “Trump worse” or that Biden’s a “loving father” is no excuse for anything.
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.
Bracing Views 