Posts Tagged ‘war’

Iran: Operation Blind Fury

March 22, 2026

We’re at war in Iran because in 2011, President Obama joked about Trump at a Washington dinner.

That made Obama his bête noire (almost literally, for racist Trump). Obsessed with getting even by reversing everything Obama did. Including tearing up his 2015 deal to curb Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Had Trump not done that, there’d be scant pretext now for attacking Iran.

After last June, when he said he’d “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capability, U.S. intelligence judged that Iran is not seeking a bomb. But our latest attack could actually convince them they need such weapons after all.

Trump also trumpets Iranians’ freedoms. More bullshit, with no organized and armed Iranian opposition; no path for a democratic transition. When protesters did rise up in January, Trump said he had their backs, but did nothing when the regime killed tens of thousands. (And when he did take out Venezuela’s dictator, he then sidelined the organized and popular democratic opposition to instead back another dictator.)

But he really attacked Iran because he thinks it “fun.” He’s said that. Didn’t need much logic for it. While “war” secretary Hegseth is a cartoon caricature of a macho blowhard, reveling in talk about “lethality” and “killing bad guys.”

The global economy (and our own) were already messed up by Trump’s insane tariffs. He launched the Iran war with no idea of the further economic harm. With curtailed energy supplies sending prices through the roof. As if Iran would never have thought of using the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic weapon when attacked. This is already history’s biggest disruption to global oil supplies. An oil spill in the Strait would close it for months.

Trump asked our “allies” to help in the Strait. Our former allies, whom he’d previously totally antagonized. Now he’s berated them for not rushing to help. While saying he doesn’t need them anyway.

So far our actual military casualties have been limited. But I’m recalling the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, killing 241 U.S. soldiers. Isn’t Iran, for all the damage we’ve inflicted, still capable of a devastating strike, against various U.S. assets throughout the region? We’re whistling past a graveyard.

And the direct cost is huge. Our military power is not infinite. We’ve used up a lot, already running short on some key munitions. Plus concentrating forces in that region, drawing them away from the Pacific — all crippling our ability to deter China from invading Taiwan, which Xi Jinping itches to do.

Meantime, because Iran is fighting us by blocking the world’s access to oil, a Trump counter-measure, to get more oil onto the market, was to lift sanctions upon Russia’s oil sales. Putting billions in Putin’s pocket to help fund his Ukraine atrocities.

And now, guess what other country’s oil sanctions have also been lifted? Wait for it . . . Iran!

Yes; because Iran is fighting us by curbing oil supplies, we’re fighting that by enabling Iran to sell more oil.

A month ago, MAGA ranks overwhelmingly opposed war on Iran, a big reason why they’d supported Trump. Now that he’s done it, they overwhelmingly back it.

Trump says the war is winding down — while our forces there are ramping up. Pundits struggle to parse his thinking. Hello — there isn’t any.

Almost three years to go. It will get worse.

The Trump (No) Class Battleship

March 13, 2026

Trump has been trumpeting a Trump Class Battleship — to trump all others — as central to a plan for juicing up our navy, which has languished while China aggressively expands its own.

The Economist calls this part of a “garish proposal” for a “Golden Fleet.” Trump’s love for all things golden (and garish) is evidenced by the White House almost sinking under the weight of all the gold (or is it gilt?) ornamentation he’s larded into it, so he can feel like some potentate. And this new battleship would feed two other Trump cravings — his narcissist lust to have things named for himself — and bigness for bigness’ sake.

It would indeed be a behemoth three to four times larger than our current combat ships. And Trump says (though preposterously as usual) it will be “a hundred times more powerful than any battleship ever built.”

“Fighting the last war” is a cliche, but full of truth, especially in our own time when technology is so changing the face of warfare (as seen in Ukraine, with battlefields dominated by drones). Trump’s immense galleon would not be fighting the last war, but rather ones older still. Not since the 1940s have any ships of this general sort been commissioned.

And how exactly might these be used, in a modern war scenario? Hard to see, actually. The Economist does say the idea would “trade speed and range for armour and firepower.” Seems a lousy tradeoff, with hobbled speed enabling target vessels to elude the firepower. And the stupendous cost of $15 billion each (even without the customary overruns) would mean a further tradeoff, of having fewer vessels rather than many. Putting most of our eggs in this one basket.

It’s been ages since battleships played any real role in war. Not in the current Iran conflict. Conceivably it could happen if China attacks Taiwan; but that will likely come before any Trump Class ships can get built. Anyhow, concentrating our strength in a few monster vessels, rather than an agile dispersed fleet, would be a huge strategic gift to China.

A massive Trump battleship, like a musclebound giant, lumbering slow, would be a sitting duck for China to obliterate, whatever its armor. (As my wife remarked, “How ya gonna hide that thing?”) And losing just one would be a devastating blow, crippling our ability to combat China’s Taiwan assault.

Meantime though, would President TACO — caring nothing for democracy or a rules based world order — even deign to risk those ships to fight for Taiwan, against an authoritarian Chinese ruler he enviously admires?

So why build them? Not vessels of war but of ego.

Lai, Law, and Lies

December 29, 2025

Jimmy Lai, 78, is a wealthy Hong Konger whose Apple Daily newspaper, advocating for democracy, was a thorn in the Chinese regime’s side. They crushed Hong Kong’s 2019 protest movement with a draconian “National Security Law.”

Lai’s been jailed since 2020, and has now been given a life sentence. A brave hero. Holding British citizenship, he might have escaped what befell him, but chose to stand up and face it. Another Navalny.

Hong Kong, controlled by Great Britain until 1997, was handed back to China under an agreement that its rule of law and democratic institutions would be respected at least until 2047, indeed with elections broadened. China trashed that commitment.

Adherence to international agreements is (was) a foundational principle of a world order rising above past horrors. In the 1994 Budapest Pact, Ukraine agreed to give up its Soviet-legacy nuclear weapons in exchange for Russia’s commitment to honor its sovereignty. The Ukraine war is about whether the world order is now nihilism.

(Yesterday, after talking to Putin and Zelensky, Trump the fool said Russia wants peace, and “wants to see Ukraine succeed.” No, Putin wants Ukraine under his fist.)

Back to Hong Kong and Jimmy Lai: An article in The Economist was full of words like “law,” “trial,” “verdict,” “judge,” “legal,” even “just.” Reading this, I was like, what are they talking about?

Rule of law has been another cornerstone of a modern world putting past horrors behind us. China does not have rule of law but rule by law. Rule of law means a society freely agreeing to comply with strictures created jointly for the general good. A concept China’s regime actually rejects as some alien Western idiosyncrasy. Their very different rule by law is imposed by the regime for its own purposes, to control people as it sees fit.

Thus Hong Kong’s “National Security Law” — what it really is is the regime just forbidding any dissension. Jimmy Lai is jailed not for offense against society but against its rulers — who rule not by consent but by force. All the legalistic formalism seen in Lai’s case is just a big lie masquerading that rule by force. The National Security Law simply is cover for the repression to which the regime deems itself entitled.

Rule of law is not some Western cultural foible, but a fundamental universal human ideal. America was long in its vanguard. Today that light is going out. Led by a man who tried to overthrow our lawfully elected government, using violence, then pardoned those guilty, and made the “Department of Justice” into a corrupt vehicle for punishing political opponents, while a masked gestapo seizes people off the streets without due process. Will Americans wake up to what they’re losing while it can still be saved?

Ukraine Migraine

December 9, 2025

The White House has unveiled a new official “National Security Strategy.” Reeking with disdain and vitriol toward Europeans. Saying they’re unrealistic about Ukraine. Let in too many immigrants (read: non-whites), heading for “civilizational erasure.” So Europe’s only hope lies with right-wing populist xenophobic political movements, which the U.S. should encourage. NATO mustn’t expand. Instead we need to improve ties with Russia.

Russia has officially praised this as echoing their own view. While Europeans don’t welcome American interference in their politics.

The U.S. President, who is clinically insane, also recently put out a 28-point Ukraine “peace plan” that was a Russian wish-list. Europeans politely found it unhelpful. So Putin — who invaded Ukraine and continues horrendous atrocities there — says Europeans don’t want peace, they want war. And he’ll gladly give it to them, too.

Let’s be clear: Russia never had any legitimate cause to attack Ukraine. Ukraine was no threat to Russia. Nor indeed was NATO. Which only ever existed because it was Russia that was a threat to the West.

All Trump cares about is a Nobel Peace Prize. (That silly football “peace prize” concocted to kiss his rear doesn’t cut it.) He somehow believes that rewarding Russia’s military aggression, and proving that might makes right, should earn him a real peace prize. Ignoring all else he’s done making the world nastier and less stable.

So he’s sent his fools Witkoff and Kushner to Moscow to play patsies in Putin’s pantomime game of pretending to want peace while making unrelenting war. The peace Putin wants is snuffing out Ukraine’s resistance.

Europeans have woken up to the Russian threat — and that they’re on their own. Talking about massively increasing defense spending, if not yet actually doing it. The problem is where the money will come from. Not retrenchment on social welfare spending, which would worsen the public disaffection that fuels those right-wing populists — who coddle Russia.

Rather than building up defenses against the Russian threat, it would be cheaper in the long run to eliminate it. Nip it in the bud, by giving Russia a bloody nose in Ukraine. Letting Russia constitute a threat is ridiculous. Europe’s economy is ten times bigger than Russia’s. And Russia has lost much of its own military capability in the Ukraine shredder. Europe is an elephant intimidated by a mouse.

True, Putin still has nukes, and has hinted at using them. Europe should call his bluff. There is no realistic way nuclear weapons can be used in Ukraine, let alone beyond it. Why does Europe tie its hands from deploying its troops, arms, bombers, etc., in Ukraine? Rather than spend trillions against a threat from Russia, they should work with Ukraine to destroy it.

Meantime there’s a quarter trillion dollars of sanctions-related frozen Russian assets sequestered by Brussels Eurocrats. They are taking the interest on that money for Ukraine, but not the principal amount. Like, they’re holding it in trust for Russia!

Some Europeans have been trying to find a work-around, but that’s getting nowhere, gummed up in red tape. And get this — they worry lest Russia sue them for the money. Are you clucking kidding me? They’re in an existential war with Russia, and they’d allow Russia to sue them?

I give up. The world’s gone mad, run by knaves and fools.

The Truth About Ukraine

August 22, 2025

Trump has blasted President Biden for not arming Ukraine enough.

After Biden’s efforts to do so were long blocked by Congressional Republicans. And after Trump blamed the war on Ukraine. Now he says he’ll send weapons — if Europeans pay us for them.

And don’t forget Trump’s 2019 phone call with President Zelensky, demanding a bribe — in the form of smearing Biden — for Trump’s releasing weapons — which got him impeached. Zelensky wouldn’t play along. That’s why Trump hates him, surfacing in that disgraceful February White House meeting.

But Trump hates Biden more. A hatred so consuming he vents it with manic constancy. Why? Simple. Biden beat him in 2020. Rankling even more than President Obama’s jokes about Trump at that 2011 dinner. Not forgotten either — hence Trump’s now falsely branding Obama a traitor who attempted a coup. (Something Trump himself did.)

Meantime his psychotic refusal to accept losing in 2020 spawned the giant “stolen election” lie. Any fool could see that. Yet it has infected our whole body politic with a corrosive sickness.

But back to Ukraine. Trump, seeming to realize Putin was playing him, finally set a 50-day deadline for Russia to stop the war or face “very serious consequences.” Then soon moved it up to 10 days. Then forgot about it. Having been played by Putin some more.

Trump was talking “ceasefire.” Why would Putin agree to that? He’s winning. He laughs off sanctions. Only force will stop him.

So Trump has switched to talking “peace deal.” Russia says that must address the conflict’s “root causes” — which, cutting through the crap, amount to Ukraine’s independence. Unacceptable to Russia, that’s the true root cause. Meantime a “peace deal” would presumably lock in Russia’s territorial gains, rewarding its criminality. A very bad deal, which Ukraine would never accept absent security guarantees — to prevent Russia from just invading again later. NATO membership would be such a security guarantee, but that was idiotically ruled out by Trump the great deal-maker before any negotiations. So Europeans are instead suggesting peace-keeping forces in Ukraine. Something Russia categorically rejects. Square one.

Americans chose this president. History will not be forgiving.

What the Trump-Vance-Zelensky Meeting Means

March 2, 2025

Friday’s televised White House meeting with Trump and Vance berating and humiliating Ukrainian President Zelensky set a new standard for vileness.

Before throwing Zelensky out (cancelling their scheduled lunch, and the minerals deal Trump was trying to blackmail Ukraine into), they accused him of “disrespect.” Of course it was them disrespecting him. Insisting he hadn’t thanked us for our help — ridiculously untrue. Though now, with “friends” like America, who needs enemies?

Disrespect? Those two aren’t fit to lick Zelensky’s shoes. Their behavior drenched this country in shame.

What ignited their sickening fireworks was when Vance ignorantly babbled about “diplomacy,” and Zelensky reasonably pointed out Putin’s consistent history of violating agreements. Hence the need for security guarantees in any peace deal. Trump refuses to hear this, and it set off his loud tirade of finger-pointing insults.

Indeed, Trump refuses to hear that Russia started the war with unprovoked aggression and horrific atrocities. Instead, as the Kremlin’s mouthpiece, he grotesquely puts all the blame on Ukraine for the war’s start, and for not somehow ending it (by surrendering). Even ludicrously called Zelensky a dictator. But won’t say a word against Putin — who, with his flunkies, were dancing with glee over Trump’s Freaky Friday performance.

He hates Zelensky because of that “perfect” phone call where Trump tried unsuccessfully to extort a smear of Biden in exchange for releasing aid (resulting in his first impeachment). While seeing Putin as a role model he wishes he could emulate.

Thus Trump aligns us with Russia as against Ukraine and the rest of Europe. That’s not merely an appearance or inference, it’s brute reality. He actually believes in a “might makes right” world order where the strong can crush the weak.

This is what America today literally stands for in the world. When the UN voted overwhelmingly the other day condemning Russia’s Ukraine invasion, the U.S. joined with North Korea, Iran, Russia, and few others, opposing the resolution. Even China abstained.

On the PBS Newshour Friday, noted Yale historian Timothy Snyder spoke in measured terms, yet devastatingly, about how it’s not only morally bankrupt but insanely self-harming for America to turn like this. Shredding the bonds with advanced democratic nations we’d spent 80 years building, in favor of allying with a rogue Russia, that actually has a mere fraction of NATO and EU countries’ economic importance. That past alliance well served our interests by ensuring a stable peaceful Europe and a global economy that spread prosperity far and wide. Now Trump aligns us with criminals who want to blow it all up. Making us not only dishonorable, but weaker, poorer, and less secure.

Republican officialdom, beaten down by terror of Trump, is of course mostly mute about this disgrace. While Senator Lindsay Graham declared that Zelensky should resign, and Secretary of State Rubio actually lauded Trump for “standing up” to Zelensky!

In Friday’s meeting, Trump crazily accused him of gambling with millions of lives and even courting “World War III.” Trying to cast himself as a peacemaker and Zelensky as an obstacle. Of course what really threatened WWIII was Putin’s invasion accompanied by nuclear saber-rattling; the prospect that he’ll be rewarded for it undermines peace everywhere. That’s what Trump’s surrender deal would actually achieve. Encouraging all the world’s bad guys to similarly go for it (notably Xi Jinping against Taiwan).

And of course Zelensky was spot-on in highlighting that a Ukraine “peace deal” without some sort of security guarantee would just be another Munich enabling Putin to consolidate his gains and gird for the next assault. Refusing to see this obvious reality makes Trump a deranged fool. Moreover it’s mad to imagine he can make some deal with Putin and simply impose it on Ukraine. Most frontline European countries — denouncing Trump’s Friday awfulness — say they’ll continue and even step up their aid for Ukraine’s resistance.

They should just tell Trump and Putin where they can shove their slimy deal.

Civilizational Crisis: The World According to Brooks (& Robinson)

September 5, 2014

imagesI like columnist David Brooks for being a “Big Picture” kind of guy – giving the view from Olympus.

His 9/3 column finds commonality in the two big conflicts bedeviling us. Ukraine and the Islamic State might not seem direct threats to our security. (Obama calls Ukraine a “regional” conflict.) But this is myopic because “the underlying frameworks by which nations operate” and “the norms of restraint that undergird civilization,” Brooks says, “are being threatened in fairly devastating ways.” This is not geopolitical business-as-usual, but a true civilizational crisis.

I don’t say that lightly. Politicians are always burbling how the challenges of the day are somehow unique, but as a student of history, I know better. In my Rational Optimism book I argued that cynics and pessimists lacking true historical perspective don’t grasp the progress we’ve made. But that was 2009, and now in 2014 that progress is really jeopardized.

images-2Brooks casts Putin as playing, in conventional terms, a very weak hand. His country is a shit-hole. “But he is rich in brazenness . . . in his ability to play by the lawlessness of the jungle, so he wants the whole world to operate by jungle rules.” That’s exactly what the world (mostly) had progressed beyond.

Neither Russia’s kleptocracy nor the Islamic State can give their people a modern living standard. Putin substitutes for that the intoxication of militarist swagger; the Islamic State substitutes the intoxication of religious fervor. This Brooks calls “a coalition of the unsuccessful . . . a revolt of the weak.” Unable to play by the normal rules, they seek “to blow up the rule book.” (Thomas Friedman talks of the “world of order” versus “the world of disorder.”)

Thus while Putinism attacks a key principle of modern civilization – no grabbing territory by force – so too does the Islamic State – no imposing religion by force.

As Brooks says, you (well, Obama) might think these atavisms must ultimately fail because they are such ugly responses to human aspirations. “But their weakness is their driving power; they only need to tear things down, and, unconfronted, will do so.”

images-1Put another way – people not squeamish about shooting will beat those who are.

I am tired of hearing the words, “There is no military solution.” Actually, there is. And, contrary to pacifism, there are things worth fighting for.

The Islamic State may indeed be weak, seen objectively; but it thrives on an aura of success. Osama Bin Laden was on to something in saying, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” UnknownWhile the West acts like a 97-pound weakling, the Islamic State appears to sweep all before it. That’s what attracts so many, even from the West, to its banner, heightening its seeming strength. This needs to be crushed – militarily.*

Likewise, Putin rides a wave of popularity, seen as avatar of a resurgent Russia making fools of a flabby decadent West. This too needs to be militarily crushed. What are we afraid of? That Russia will nuke us? Putin isn’t that crazy. I far more fear a future in which he did not get his nose bloodied in Ukraine.

Germany and Japan had to be militarily crushed to teach them the lesson that aggression does not pay. They learned it well, and the world is better for that. But it seems the lesson must be applied a few more times before the whole world absorbs it once and for all.

We took 10,000 years to finally achieve a world order where you don’t grab territory or impose religion by force. That is worth fighting to defend. Even pacifists should get this; it’s peace that needs fighting for.

Unknown-1But are Putin and the Islamic State right after all – have we become too flabby and pusillanimous to really defend our values?

* In Iraq. In Syria, let them and Assad’s goons kill each other, for now.

POSTSCRIPT: At today’s NATO summit, for all the bluster, nobody proposed to send Ukraine any military help, not even defensive. And the cease-fire, if it holds, locks in the Russian military gains of the last few weeks — a clear victory for Putin.

June 6, 1944

June 6, 2014

imagesOn this day 70 years ago the greatest invasion force in the history of the world, led by the United States of America, set out to liberate Europe from barbarism.

My father, and my wife’s father, though they did not hit the Normandy beaches on D-Day, did sacrifice years of their lives and took part in the overall enterprise. I salute them, and all those like them who (unlike me) made such sacrifices, including the ultimate one. But if I had been one of those men jumping from landing craft at Normandy, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have lasted two minutes. In fact, many never even made it as far as the beach.

Bumper stickers saying, “War Is Not The Answer,” or “War Never Solves Anything” are puerile. War isn’t always the answer, and doesn’t solve everything – but sometimes it is, and does. Diplomacy could not have rescued Europe from the Nazis; nor freed America’s slaves (nor will it free Syria from Assad). images-1Sometimes the reality of the human condition requires us to face up to hard choices, and not wish them away with shallow pieties. It isn’t noble to renounce violence and leave the world at the mercy of those who don’t.

In his March 28 West Point speech, President Obama (otherwise so fond of “false choice” rhetoric) drew a false choice between war and no war. images-3Nobody is suggesting we rampage into, say, Syria, or Ukraine, with boots on the ground and guns blazing. Yet plenty could have been done*, short of “blundering into war,” to prevent or at least moderate the indisputable crumbling of international order and security that has occurred on Obama’s watch. His assertion of undiminished American global puissance was ludicrous empty swagger. The world knows that actions speak louder than words.

Obama also said terrorism is our biggest threat. images-5How foolish. The threats that can really harm America include that mentioned crumbling, of the paradigm that has until lately kept peace among big powers; flagging support for economic openness and trade; rising authoritarianism; climate change; and humanity’s age-old nemeses of disease, ignorance, hunger, and intolerance. Meantime, at home, America’s political paralysis and failure to tackle fiscal imbalances presage economic ruin.

Terrorism? images-4Its main threat is provoking yet more over-reaction, and distracting us from those other far more dangerous challenges.

We rose to the challenge on D-Day. Would we do it again today?

* We still have not answered Ukraine’s plea for military aid to suppress Russian-instigated thuggery; nor fulfilled Obama’s previous promise of aid to Syria’s rebels. His 3/28 speech re-promised it. Three years ago it might actually have made a difference and advanced our interests.