Yet when it comes to Iran today war just seemingly happens based on the whims of President Trump, a small network of loyal advisers, and the wishes of Bibi Netanyahu and Israel. The American people aren’t even asked if they approve. Little effort is made to mobilize national will. We’re simply told by the POTUS that “Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon.” Never mind that the DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, testified that Iran wasn’t actively pursuing such a weapon. Never mind that America has thousands of nukes and Israel a hundred or more. Iran simply can’t have one, apparently because that country can’t be trusted. America and Israel, of course, can have all the nukes they want.

The Iran War, put bluntly, might be the dumbest war ever for America. It has strengthened hardliners in Iran, weakened America’s economy and moral stature (what’s left of it), and arguably revived and accelerated Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It’s done the exact opposite of what the Trump administration claimed it was supposed to do and at enormous cost.

Nevertheless, despite this dumbass war (to put it in Trumpian terms), a frustrated U.S. president seems determined to double down on more war. If only those pesky Arab allies would stop getting in the way, what with all their concerns about getting hit by Iranian drones and missiles in retaliation for U.S. and Israeli attacks. How dare Iran defend itself!

War is the first refuge of the brain dead, to coin a phrase, which led me back to a book I read as a teenager, Isaac Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy. Asimov wrote that Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Springing into action, blowing things up, kicking and punching people when they’re down (to cite the noble sentiment of Pete Hegseth), is surely the refuge of the incompetents in the Trump administration.

If only we could put this confederacy of very unstable dunces in time out until they grew up and smartened up.

It’s fascinating to learn that Welles once sat next to Adolf Hitler and found him completely forgettable. A nullity. Unremarkable except for a void that surrounded him.

Other accounts I’ve read about Hitler have highlighted the banality of his views, his pedestrian nature. We know, for example, he was a mediocre painter. He liked westerns and sappy sentimental films. He liked dogs as well. And he liked big things: buildings, weapons, schemes. Welles has a point that there was nothing that extraordinary about Hitler, at least at first glance.

Hitler came alive in front of crowds. For some people, he also had a dark form of charisma, a certain magnetism, that inspired likeminded cranks and power-hungry toadies to gather in his orbit. Hitler was a sort of dark star or black hole to some; they found it difficult to escape his gravitational pull (assuming they wanted to escape).

In the above interview, Welles goes on to tell memorable stories about George C. Marshall and Winston Churchill. Welles was especially taken by Marshall and his gallantry and generosity, not words that one would ever apply to Hitler.

Book shelves groan with tomes written about Hitler. I’ve read many myself. It’s often been asked how the country of Goethe and Schiller could have unified behind a leader as vulgar and as dangerous as Hitler. A non-entity. A nullity.

It’s a question that has partial answers, but I don’t know if there’s anything like a definitive one. What is definitive is that Hitler remains a warning from history. We haven’t seen the end of wannabe dictators with grandiose schemes surrounded by cranks and toadies.

As President Xi of China makes a point, President Trump shows a hint of a scowl.

When I was a kid, I remember U.S. presidents like Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter visiting China and the Soviet Union. I had a sense that these men, despite their flaws, stood for a system and for ideals that were somehow better than those practiced by their more authoritarian counterparts. I had a sense America was upholding certain values (however imperfectly and sometimes hypocritically) that were worthy of support.

I find myself in an odd place today, hoping that President Xi Jinping of China was able to talk some sense into an American president known for his impetuosity and authoritarian personality.

If the personal is the political, a cordial personal meeting between Xi and Trump may yet bring greater cordiality between China and the U.S. It sure beats heightened tensions and constant references to potential conflict between “near-peer” competitors.

Speaking of which, is China our “near-peer,” or vice-versa?

I was raised Catholic and though I no longer attend church, I still consider myself to be a Christian. By that I mean I believe in the Beatitudes, I believe in Christ as a man of peace, I remain inspired by the Gospels and by Christ’s parables. I don’t concern myself with the intricacies of dogma and doctrine, debates about the right time and form of baptism, whether it’s transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Those debates don’t worry me, and indeed I find them distractions from the central message of peace, charity, love.

In the bad old days, I was taught salvation outside the Catholic Church was unattainable. This strikes me today as nonsense. Whatever salvation exists in this world of ours is available to anyone with a kind, loving, and generous heart. Even Protestants! (Just kidding, my Protestant friends.)

My opposition to war is based in part on its murderous waste but it’s also grounded in my sense of right and wrong, which in itself is based on what I learned reading the Gospels. Anyone who finds support for aggressive warfare and killing in the New Testament is preaching heresy of the worst kind.

You have to admire Jesus the man, who came to help beggars, to heal the sick, to comfort the afflicted. Jesus in his day hung out with workers, fishermen, and the like, and he was remarkably open to giving women from all walks of life a place at the table. (Not an openness that was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, mind you.)

What concerns me is the extent to which the power of faith and belief is being twisted and almost monopolized by so-called christians who are thirsty for war, power, and money. There is far too much emphasis on apocalyptic visions and end-times prophecy and not nearly enough on core tenets such as loving thy neighbor.

I don’t think it’s wise to cede Christianity to the zealots who use it as a kind of sanction for men like Donald Trump. Again, the misuse of religion doesn’t mean that religion has no use.

I’ve never tried to proselytize, never tried to convert anyone. To me the efficacy in any system of faith or belief is the good works it inspires. Many people throughout history have drawn deeply from a well of faith and belief to change the world for the better. Think here of Martin Luther King Jr. or Mother Teresa or Dorothy Day, among so many others.

It pains me to see evangelical ministers praying over Trump in the White House because I believe in the separation of church and state. I also believe religion and faith should not be tied to any one nation or political party. Those who misuse religion — well, let us judge not, lest we be judged. But I’m not going to turn away from the New Testament because it’s being cited and misused by fools, the power-hungry, and heretics.

Christ’s Beatitudes are easy to understand and should form the core of any faith that labels itself as Christian. Getting back to that core should concern all Christians everywhere.

The Beatitudes

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

² And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

³ Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

⁴ Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

⁵ Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

⁶ Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

⁷ Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

⁸ Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

⁹ Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

¹⁰ Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

¹¹ Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

¹² Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Along with this bonus passage:

⁴³ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

⁴⁴ But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

⁴⁵ That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

⁴⁶ For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

⁴⁷ And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

⁴⁸ Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Of course, Christ’s teachings here are incredibly demanding; no human can be perfect. They are meant to be aspirational—they are meant to be arduous, in fact unattainable, and that is their point. We must strive to be better, we must believe we can be better, we must have faith in ourselves and our ability to do better, knowing we’ll fall far short of perfection.

The idea or the belief in a better, more humane, more compassionate, world is fundamental to making it so, however imperfectly or incrementally we achieve it.

Faith can help move mountains; a twisted faith may remove mountains, as in an apocalyptic nuclear war. A faith based on love of neighbor, a humble faith, a faith built on respect for life and that celebrates peacemakers as the children of god is surely a faith that is worth celebrating. Or so I believe.

And if you think religion is gibberish, or if you believe it is insidious and harmful, I take no offense. It’s not organized religion itself that motivates me: it’s the basic teachings of love, tolerance, compassion, and the rejection of hatred, murder, greed, and war. Plenty of people who reject the idea of a higher power are guided by morals and ideals that are consistent with the better angels of our nature.

It’s not about being a holy roller, and it’s certainly not about being holier than thou. It’s about reverence for life—a love of life in all its forms. For if we truly embraced a love of life, how could we possibly justify the pursuit of mass death that is so painfully manifested in America’s incessant imperial warmongering?

In God We Trust? A warmongering state makes a mockery of that motto. Yet why do the self-avowed Christians connected to Trump embrace war so tightly to their chests? Some would say this is why religious faith is so dangerous. But just because someone says they’re born again doesn’t make them children of God. Make peace and then I’ll call you a Child of God. Make war and I’ll call you a warmonger.

With some trepidation, I welcome your comments. (Wouldn’t it be something if comment sections showed compassion and generosity of spirit?)

Naturally, Trump and his entourage will likely be too consumed with matters of business and profit. Matters of peace and prosperity for all (not just the richest among us) will likely get the short shrift. In the spirit of Austin Powers, “Groovy. Smashing. Yay, capitalism.”

Nothing can destroy human civilization (and most life on earth) as quickly as nuclear war. Negotiations on reducing nuclear arsenals need to be reSTARTed (pun intended).

In a saying attributed to Churchill, jaw jaw is better than war war. (Apparently, Churchill actually said “Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.”) And anything is better than nuclear war. As JFK said in his finest speech, we all breathe the same air. It’s high time we humans work not just for peace in our time, but peace for all time.

As Dick Cheney once said when he was told the American people were against further U.S. involvement in Iraq: “So?” Who cares what ordinary Americans think? War isn’t even declared anymore, not since World War II, the people aren’t mobilized (indeed, they’re largely kept isolated from war’s true costs), even as war budgets, funded by the taxpayers or supported by more debt, keep surging and surging some more.

These facts were on my mind this AM with the news that President Trump has rejected Iran’s latest peace proposal as “totally unacceptable.” Totally unacceptable to whom? Not to the American people, who are against the war to the tune of 60% or higher. Support for the war hovers around 30% in national polling, which is likely a measure of Trump’s cult-like political support.

The Iran War is basically Trump’s war, which is to say it’s a dictator’s war, a war that one man, Trump, can choose either to prolong or to stop based on personal whims.

If Iran gave Trump a golden statue of himself, I wouldn’t be surprised if he called off the war.

One of my favorite names for a past war is the War of Jenkins’ Ear, a dustup between Britain and Spain in the 18th century. The U.S. is perhaps now fighting the War of Trump’s Rear, as America’s self-avowed winner tries to cover his own ass in a stupid war he started under pressure from Bibi Netanyahu. The great winner doesn’t want to look like a bigly loser so the war must go on.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had a system of government where the people’s voice could be heard? Where duly-elected representatives held the power of the purse and the power to declare (and stop) war? Even the power to impeach and remove dictatorial presidents?

I guess we couldn’t keep our Constitutional republic after all. Anyone in the mood for a 250th birthday party this July 4th?

The way we label wars is illustrative of our confusion and dishonesty. “The Vietnam War”: more accurately, it was the U.S. government’s war on Vietnam. “The Iraq War”: again, the U.S. government’s war on Iraq. Same with Afghanistan. Same with Iran. America wages constant wars against other nations and peoples; these wars are really variations on a theme of militarism, imperialism, and profiteering.

Cui bono, who benefits, is always the question to ask. The answer is usually some combination of the military-industrial complex, U.S. oligarchical corporate interests, and, in the case of wars in the Middle East, Zionist Israel and fossil fuel interests.

By its nature, a constant state of warfare feeds authoritarianism and stifles freedom and democracy. Wars favor oligarchs and dictators and feed fascist tendencies. No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare, James Madison warned.

There is no “victory” to be had in these wars, not for the American people. This was true of the Vietnam War and it’s also true of the current war on Iran. America is losing and will lose because these wars weaken freedom and democracy while reinforcing authoritarian and fascistic elements.

America, as in people like us, can only “win” when these wars are ended.

All this has been on my mind as I recalled this review that I wrote (see below) on why the U.S. lost the Vietnam War.

*****

American Reckoning: Why the U.S. Lost the Vietnam War

Written in 2015.

Christian G. Appy, professor of history at U-Mass Amherst, has written a new and telling book on the Vietnam War: American Reckoning: The Vietnam War and Our National Identity (New York, Viking Press). Reading his book made me realize a key reason why the U.S. lost the war: for U.S. leaders it was never about Vietnam and the Vietnamese people. Rather, for these men the war was always about something else, a “something else” that constantly shifted and changed. Whereas for North Vietnam and its leaders, the goal was simple and unchanging: expel the foreign intruder, whether it was the Japanese or the French or the Americans, and unify Vietnam, no matter the cost.

Appy’s account is outstanding in showing the shifting goals of U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis Vietnam. In the aftermath of World War II, the U.S. first supported the French in their attempts to reassert control over their former colony. When the French failed, the U.S. saw Vietnam through a thoroughly red-tinted lens. The “fall” of a newly created South Vietnam was seen as the first domino in a series of potential Communist victories in Asia. Vietnam itself meant little economically to American interests, but U.S. leaders were concerned about Malaysia and Indonesia and their resources. So to stop that first domino from falling, the U.S. intervened to prop up a “democratic” government in South Vietnam that was never democratic, a client state whose staying power rested entirely on U.S. “advisers” (troops) and weapons and aid.

Again, as Appy convincingly demonstrates, for U.S. leaders the war was never about Vietnam. Under Eisenhower, it was about stopping the first domino from falling; under Kennedy, it was a test case for U.S. military counterinsurgency tactics and Flexible Response; under Johnson, it was a test of American resolve and credibility and “balls”; and under Nixon, it was the pursuit of “peace with honor” (honor, that is, for the Nixon Administration). And this remained true even after South Vietnam collapsed in 1975. Then the Vietnam War, as Appy shows, was reinterpreted as a uniquely American tragedy. Rather than a full accounting of the war and America’s mistakes and crimes in it, the focus was on recovering American pride, to be accomplished in part by righting an alleged betrayal of America’s Vietnam veterans.

In the Reagan years, as Appy writes, American veterans, not the Vietnamese people, were:

portrayed as the primary victims of the Vietnam War. The long, complex history of the war was typically reduced to a set of stock images that highlighted the hardships faced by U.S. combat soldiers—snake-infested jungles, terrifying ambushes, elusive guerrillas, inscrutable civilians, invisible booby traps, hostile antiwar activists. Few reports informed readers that at least four of five American troops in Vietnam carried out noncombat duties on large bases far away from those snake-infested jungles. Nor did they focus sustained attention on the Vietnamese victims of U.S. warfare. By the 1980s, mainstream culture and politics promoted the idea that the deepest shame related to the Vietnam War was not the war itself, but America’s failure to embrace its military veterans.” (p. 241)

Again, the Vietnam War for U.S. leaders was never truly about Vietnam. It was about them. This is powerfully shown by LBJ’s crude comments and gestures about the war. Johnson acted to protect his Great Society initiatives; he didn’t want to suffer the political consequences of having been seen as having “lost” Vietnam to communism; but he also saw Vietnam as a straightforward test of his manhood. When asked by reporters why he continued to wage war in Vietnam, what it was really all about, LBJ unzipped his pants, pulled out his penis, and declared, “This is why!” (p. 82).

Withdrawal, of course, was never an option. As Appy insightfully notes,

LBJ and most of the other key Vietnam policymakers never imagined that withdrawal from Vietnam would be an act of courage. In one sense this moral blindness is baffling because these same men prided themselves on their pragmatic, hardheaded realism, their ability to cut through sentiment and softhearted idealism to face the most difficult realities of foreign affairs. They could see that the war was failing. But they could not pull out. A deeper set of values trumped their most coherent understandings of the war. They simply could not accept being viewed as losers. A ‘manly man’ must always keep fighting.” (p. 84)

A few pages later, Appy cites Nixon’s speech on the bombing of Cambodia, when Nixon insisted the U.S. must not stand by “like a pitiful, helpless giant,” as further evidence of this “primal” fear of presidential impotence and defeat.

Even when defeat stared American leaders in the face, they blinked, then closed their eyes and denied what they had seen. Beginning with Gerald Ford in 1975, America shifted the blame for defeat onto the South Vietnamese, with some responsibility being assigned to allegedly traitorous elements on the homefront, such as “Hanoi Jane” (Fonda). As Appy writes, “Instead of calling for a great national reckoning of U.S. responsibility in Vietnam, Ford called for a ‘great national reconciliation.’ It was really a call for a national forgetting, a willful amnesia.” (p. 224)

As a result of this “willful amnesia,” most Americans never fully faced the murderous legacies of the Vietnam War, especially the cost to the peoples of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Instead, our leaders and government encouraged us to focus on America’s suffering. They told us to look forward, not backward, while keeping faith in America as the exceptional nation.

Appy notes in his introduction that America needs “an honest accounting of our history” if we are “to reject—fully and finally—the stubborn insistence that our nation has been a unique and unrivaled force for good in the world.” (p. xix) American Reckoning provides such an honest accounting. But are Americans truly ready and willing to put aside national pride, nurtured by a willed amnesia and government propaganda, to confront the limits as well as the horrors of American power as it is exercised in foreign lands?

Evidence from recent wars and military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere still suggests that Americans prefer amnesia, or to see other peoples through a tightly restricted field of view. Far too often, that field of view is a thoroughly militarized one, most recently captured in the crosshairs of an American sniper’s scope. Appy challenges us to broaden that view while removing those crosshairs.

*****

Addendum (2026): Self-styled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has already floated the lie that Democrats (and a few Republicans) are betraying the country by seeking to constrain the Trump administration in its disastrous war on Iran. What Hegseth is saying, essentially, is that Congress is committing treason in attempting to exercise its constitutional duties.

Always when the warmongers lose a war, they resort to the hoary “stab-in-the-back” myth. Rare indeed is someone like Robert McNamara, who admitted decades after the Vietnam War that he had been wrong, terribly wrong, to prosecute that war.

Usually in America, those who are most unrepentant about war are the ones hired to comment on or wage the next one.

Anton Troianovski, who covers global diplomacy, writes:

The Persian Gulf war in 1991 ushered in the era of permanent, large-scale military bases in the Middle East — in part to protect oil supplies. The rationale evolved to include crushing Al Qaeda, promoting democracy and fighting the Islamic State. The bases are part of a military network spanning the globe that officials say helps project America’s economic and political power. Russia and China also have global ambitions, but their military footprint is much smaller. Russia’s main military presence outside the former Soviet Union is in Syria, where its influence has declined after the fall of the Assad regime in 2024. China has an African base near the Red Sea and is expanding elsewhere — Cambodia, for instance.

Where to begin?

1. The U.S. military has had a large military presence in the Middle East beginning with the Carter Doctrine in 1980, if not decades before then. Israel and Iran (from 1953 to 1979) were the main U.S. proxies in the region. The NYT’s answer suggests the large permanent U.S. military presence dates only from 1991 and was almost an accident of that war. At least the answer mentions oil, though U.S. designs weren’t so much about “protecting” the oil—more like securing or stealing it.

2. Yes, the rationale sure did “evolve.” But there’s no mention of how the growing U.S. military presence in the region inspired the 9/11 attack on the U.S. in 2001. Osama bin Laden specifically called out the U.S. military’s presence in Islam’s sacred areas as inflammatory and intolerable.

3. “Promoting Democracy.” How has that worked in Iraq? Libya? Syria? Elsewhere? Sorry, democracy isn’t spread by Hellfire missiles and decapitation strikes.

4. “Officials say” the U.S. global network of 800 or so military bases (no number or cost figures provided by the NYT) helps “project” economic and military power. At least the NYT said “project” and not “protect.” No mention here of the effectiveness of these bases in defending the United States. Consider this a tiny burst of honesty from the NYT about how these bases are truly intended to project power.

5. And then there’s the kicker about Russia and China having “global ambitions,” even though “their military footprint” is much (MUCH!) smaller overseas. We’re talking a handful of bases compared to nearly a thousand for the U.S. empire.

By the way, here was the original question addressed to the NYT:

Why does the United States maintain so many military bases in the Middle East? How do we compare with Russia and China? How many military bases do they have in foreign countries? | Tom Ahlberg | Gig Harbor, Washington

Poor Tom Ahlberg. He can’t even get a simple and straight answer. I think I can provide one:

Acting as an imperial hegemon, the U.S. seeks to dominate the Middle East while serving the expansionist designs of Israel. The U.S. global military presence is both grossly larger and more aggressive than the regional postures of Russia and China. While the U.S. military has roughly 800 military bases worldwide, costing in the neighborhood of $65-$75 billion yearly just to maintain, Russia and China have only a handful of military bases in foreign countries. (My AI friends tell me that China has exactly one, whereas Russia has roughly twenty, mostly in former Soviet republics.)

Why couldn’t the NYT provide an answer somewhat like my cut at it? It’s not hard. Well, leave it to the “radical left” NYT to be so critical of U.S. militarism, imperial ambitions, and murderous foreign wars. Yes, that’s sarcasm.

New slogan for the NYT: All the propaganda that’s fit to print.

That is one powerful image. I like the tiny heads on the pallbearers. They make me think of the posturing politicians who tell us to “support our troops” while sending them to die in illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional wars.

That cartoon was published near the end of 2007, when America’s disastrous war of choice in Iraq was supposedly improving due to the Petraeus Surge. Of course, General David Petraeus qualified his surge by saying its gains might prove “fragile” and “reversible.” And so they proved.

“Support our troops” is a catchphrase, almost a mantra, often used by cynical politicians to suppress dissent about their disastrous wars of choice. Basically, dissenters are accused of being unpatriotic because their criticism allegedly betrays the troops and weakens national resolve. It’s a BS argument but it’s often compelling and even convincing to some.

Americans have a civic religion defined by the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag, the National Anthem, military parades and pageantry, and U.S. history taught as heritage and as a celebration of American goodness and greatness. When you step outside of that, when you criticize it, dissent from it, you must be prepared to be attacked as a heretic.

Back in 2010, I wrote an article for TomDispatch in which I argued that not every American troop is a hero. I argued instead that real heroes are few and far between, and that the ideal of heroism shouldn’t be associated so closely, even almost exclusively, with military service. These are obvious points (to me, at least), but I took some flak for suggesting that merely donning a military uniform doesn’t and shouldn’t make one a “hero.”

I remain convinced that hyping the troops as universal “heroes” isn’t a form of support. The troops know better. If you truly want to support them, listen to them. Be an informed and knowledgeable citizen. Speak your mind and don’t be afraid to criticize those who seek to use the military for dishonorable or indefensible purposes.

Since this is America, theoretically land of the free, feel free as well to speak out against the military. Our founders were suspicious of large standing armies and were wary of wars as being especially pernicious to democracy.

We Americans celebrate our troops for defending freedom, yet we paradoxically attack those who try to exercise their freedom by denouncing war and militarism. You can’t have it both ways. Unless you want hypocrisy instead of democracy, you can’t celebrate freedom while denying it.

This was, of course, the so-called original sin of the American republic: celebrating freedom while also enshrining the institution of slavery. Rank hypocrisy led inexorably to the U.S. Civil War.

As a retired U.S. military officer, I’ve been thanked for my service more often than I’ve been denounced as a murderous agent of American empire. It’s easy to accept the thanks; slurs and attacks are what they are. People sometimes think to defame or demean others is a way to elevate themselves. So be it.

Another aspect of “support our troops” is communal ritual to mark the passing of local “heroes.” Such rituals take various forms. In my community, one involves a mass motorcycle ride in memory of “fallen” troops killed since 9/11. The language used is that of America’s civic religion, celebrating our “great country” and those “heroes” who’ve made the “ultimate sacrifice.”

It’s easy to acquiesce to that language and sentiment. It’s also easy to attack it and dismiss it as patriotic claptrap.

I see it as something else: a communal rite. A recognition of sacrifice. Even if that sacrifice was not in a worthy cause.

I’m not a fan of these communal rituals and the often cynical uses to which they’re put, but I recognize their potency and the need of some people to participate in them. It’s a collective expression of belonging, of grief, of community. A place to find meaning.

A reader put it very well to me in response to my article on heroes in 2010. I saved the letter and have never quoted from it before but I’d like to do so now:

I think the reason we see the “heroification” of so many is a desperate need of so many to feel a sense of self worth. This is especially true in the working class, who have seen their cultural value, their hopes for the future and the quality of their lives decline so radically in recent decades.

This week here in town we see the massive outpouring for the fallen Marine by those who need so desperately to feel a part of something bigger than themselves, when someone like themselves is honored. I see this as poignant in ways that go far beyond the family’s loss.

This is well and sensitively put. How often in our communal settings are “ordinary” people celebrated for anything? Our culture most often celebrates the rich, the powerful, Hollywood and sports “stars,” while neglecting the everyday heroism (or, if not heroism, acts of generosity) of people from all walks of life.

In sum, “our” troops don’t want to put on pedestals and plinths. They certainly don’t want to be carried in flag-draped caskets. And most don’t want to be celebrated as heroes because they know they haven’t earned it. What they want, I think, is to be understood. What they don’t want is to be wasted, to be betrayed, to be misused.

Who among us would want to see their life as a waste, who would wish to be betrayed, who would seek to be misused?

With Memorial Day approaching, it is good to ponder the wise words of Andy Rooney in the video below. Troops don’t give their lives. Their lives are taken from them. Something so precious shouldn’t be taken so lightly by leaders with neither compassion nor conscience. Even better, as Andy Rooney suggests, is a future where war withers away and peace brings out the very best in us.

Oil plunged and markets surged amid a report the U.S. and Iran are nearing a deal to end the war as gas prices jumped past $4.50.

Officials in Washington and Tehran were working on “a one-page memorandum of understanding to end the war and set a framework for more detailed nuclear negotiations,” according to the report from Axios, which cited two U.S. officials and two additional sources.

I like how that NBC report focuses on what really matters: gas prices.

The Iran debacle, much like America’s previous wars of choice in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, has been a total disaster. Professor Glenn Diesen sums it up well in this post on X:

Marco Rubio argues that "Operation Epic Fury is concluded" as the objectives were acheved. In reality, Iran won this war. There was no regime chenge, no nuclear deal, no limits of ballistic missiles and drones, no decoupling of ties between Iran and its regional allies, and the Strait of Hormuz is now under Iran's control. US bases in the region have been destroyed, the US alliance system has been weakened, and the petro-dollar will not recover. This epic failure was not just another failed regime change war, this will severely weaken the position of the US in the Middle East. All that was achieved was the murder of many Iranians and keeping the Epstein files out of the media.

In fact, Iran is likely more determined than ever to acquire a nuclear weapon, more united than ever, and more confident in its ability to resist U.S. and Israeli pressure. Meanwhile, Trump has shown yet again that he’s unconstrained by legality, morality, and the U.S. Constitution, and Congress has shown its utter inability to constrain him in meaningful ways.

When it comes to war and foreign policy in Washington, the process is utterly broken. Congress is inconsequential and irrelevant. All that matters is what Trump, Israel, the national security state, and powerful oligarchs want.

America may have an “all-volunteer” military, but the wars it wages are involuntary, undemocratic, and most often unconstitutional. The troops, whether they know it or not, violate their oath of office when they participate in them. (Not that I blame corporals and ensigns; rather, I blame the gutless “salute smartly” brass.) So too do members of Congress and anyone who takes the oath where one solemnly swears to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Is America ever going to stop waging undeclared wars of aggression? Maybe “We the People” should act to put a stop to this.

It’s always staggering to ponder how small Israel is vis-a-vis most other nations in the region and indeed in the world. My AI friends compare Israel to countries like El Salvador, Belize, and Fiji. When was the last time Belize was accused of dictating U.S. foreign policy? Or Fiji?

Just looking at the globe, you’d think the USA would be far more concerned with countries like Turkey and Iran. My globe doesn’t bother (or ran out of room) to label Israel as “Israel.” Doesn’t my globe know that Israel has a right to exist?

Of course, Israel now seeks a “greater” vision of itself, annexing Gaza and the West Bank while expanding into southern Lebanon and Syria. Unlike Israel, I guess those countries and areas don’t have a right to exist.

Actually, I think people have a right to exist. Don’t you? The borders of nation-states are constantly evolving. Empires come and go. Didn’t the Roman Empire once believe it had a right to exist? What about the Athenian Empire? Or the Ottoman Empire? The British Empire?

People have a right to exist, not nations and empires. People have a right not to be exterminated to make way for other peoples. Germany’s Third Reich didn’t have a right to exist, and it certainly had no right to exterminate Jews and other so-called racial inferiors and social undesirables (gypsies, the Roma and Sinti, also had no right to exist under Nazi racial laws).

Israel, of course, occupies land that is sacred to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. In fact, Christian evangelicals in America appear to believe they must support Israel, if only to precipitate the end-times in which Jews, as non-believers in Christ, await the grimmest of fates on Judgment Day. Israeli leaders like Bibi Netanyahu, it’s quite clear, enjoy Christian evangelical support while remaining unworried about Christ’s second coming.

Assuming humans survive, historians centuries from now will wonder how the tiny nation-state of Israel exercised so much influence over U.S. foreign policy. It’s an astonishing story that may be unprecedented in human history. Paraphrasing Churchill, never has a country with so few and so little exercised such influence over a country with so many and so much.

All these questions came to mind as I watched this stimulating interview featuring Richard Medhurst, a journalist with a unique perspective on the dynamics of recent global events. It’s worth a few minutes of your time:

Israel obviously seeks “greater” land: the annexation of Gaza, the West Bank, portions of Syria, and southern Lebanon. Israel is killing hundreds of thousands, and displacing millions, to achieve this goal. Broadly speaking, the U.S. supports Israel, providing them the money and weapons to achieve this vision. Israel seeks regional hegemony; a telling detail is Israel’s increasing control over Syrian water supplies.

What’s in it for the USA? The military-industrial complex profits, of course, but so too does Wall Street, especially the energy sector and the ever-growing power of multinationals like Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, BP, and the like. Disrupting the flow of oil and gas from Iran benefits those who can step in and replace that supply. Weakening China is another possible benefit; at the very least, controlling the flow of oil provides a powerful bargaining chip vis-a-vis China’s dominance of trade and especially of strategic metals.

There’s a power and profit game being played here that is outside the scope of what passes for my expertise. I’ve spent a lot of time researching and writing about military history, the military-industrial complex, military strategy, U.S. politics, and the like. I’ve never been as interested in economics, the global flow of oil and gas, and the machinations of Wall Street. (For example, I hadn’t heard about the ongoing replacement for the Nordstream pipelines being orchestrated by the U.S. and powerful multinationals.)

The strength of Wall Street, with new records set almost daily in the S&P 500, has struck me throughout the Iran War. Yes, the weapons makers are profiting, but why is the U.S. dollar stronger? Why is the market trending upwards during a disastrous and murderous war? Is the U.S. truly gaining more control of sea lanes and pipelines related to oil, gas, and LNG?

The U.S./Israel War against Iran, as well as recent events in Venezuela, schemes about Greenland, and attacks on Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure, are all connected, Medhurst suggests. There is purpose here, and vast profits to be made, for the richest and most powerful entities. Naturally, if ordinary Americans are impoverished while millions globally are killed or displaced, well, that’s the price of making the U.S. and Israel greater (and great) again.

Readers, help me out. While it’s clear America, as in Main Street USA, is losing, it seems obvious that Wall Street movers and shakers see it differently. Are they delusional? Or are they in some sense “winning” in a nakedly amoral (if not immoral) power game that focuses on natural resources and control and dominance of the same?

Other countries to have annoyed Trump include Spain and Italy. In Trump’s words: “Italy has not been of any help to us and Spain has been horrible, absolutely horrible.”And we might cite Denmark here as well for refusing to hand over Greenland. Look for more U.S. troop withdrawals as “punishment.”

And wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing! The U.S. empire, to use an expression by my smarter wife today, simply has its hands in too many cookie jars. All those overseas bases (750 or more), all those overseas troop deployments, why, exactly, do we have all these? Perhaps during the height of the Cold War, an extensive network of overseas bases had a certain strategic logic in efforts to contain Soviet expansion, but ever since 1991, most of these bases have made little sense strategically. Much like Topsy, they just grew, and grew some more.

An uncontained U.S. empire features an increasingly unconstrained military-industrial complex flush with cash. This is not a good thing. The complex is drunk on money and power; future disasters are guaranteed.

Paradoxically, if America wants stronger, saner, national defense, we must make major cuts to the imperial war budget. Giving the empire yet more cash, yet more power, is a recipe for continual failure on the grandest of scales.

I don’t like the saying, but sometimes less really can be more. Less (as in lower) spending on the military will produce more (as in safer) conditions here in the U.S. and across the world.

My message to world leaders: If you have U.S. military bases in your country, please, please, insult and annoy Trump. It might be the most effective way to downsize the U.S. empire and to bring the troops home.

There are 24 members of Congress who are 80 or older. About 120 are 70 or older. 184 members of Congress have law degrees, including 47 Senators, or nearly half the Senate.

Out of curiosity, I asked our kindly AI friends how many members of Congress had some experience with firefighting? Exactly two. How about plumbers? Exactly one. How about nursing? Exactly three. How many janitors? Exactly none. Surprise!

Three nurses, two firefighters, one plumber, no janitors, and 184 lawyers. There’s a very bad joke in there, somewhere, and the joke’s on us.

Of course, all members of SCOTUS have law degrees, but what matters is their allegiance. Recent “conservative” judges like Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett were elevated to their positions because of their corporate-friendly policies and positions. The Roberts Court will never issue a decision that challenges the corporatocracy in the United States. This is entirely by design.

Thomas and Alito are approaching their late seventies with no urge to retire soon. SCOTUS has a strong 6-3 majority that will support corporations against all efforts to limit their power.

Meanwhile, SCOTUS ruled yesterday against the Voting Rights Act with a predictable 6-3 vote. Basically, the court argued that efforts to ensure greater equity in minority representation within Congress amount to “racial gerrymandering.” But the main issue isn’t about race, it’s about greed. SCOTUS doesn’t care much about Black, brown, or white. Like Congress, what it cares about is green. Money. Profit. The supremacy of corporatism.

The effect of SCOTUS’ latest decision is likely to be more white Republicans (and corporate-friendly lawyers) elected to Congress and fewer minorities. Again, the main issue here isn’t white supremacy but corporate supremacy.

A government of the people, by the people, for the people is a noble ideal. It’s obviously not what America has.

Sorry—we have no janitors to clean house in Congress.

Seriously, why $1.5 trillion for global imperialism in FY2027? Near as I can tell, that colossal figure represents 5% of projected GDP. With GDP in 2025 at $30 trillion, the Project 2025 types believe the “defense” budget should be 5% of that, irrespective of need, strategy, and logic. And who cares if the Pentagon fails every audit. Eight in a row, and counting! Nothing succeeds like failure.

It was only a decade ago that the nominal Pentagon budget was $600 billion, which included the Afghan War and the GWOT.

Like the Overton Window, debates about the Pentagon budget keep shifting rightwards, or upwards in the case of the amount. If Congress somehow keeps the budget at $1.25 trillion instead of $1.5 trillion, the Democrats will probably declare victory, when $1.25T represents a 25% increase in war spending.

This represents a theft from all of us, as Ike said in his “Cross of Iron” speech in 1953.

All this reminds me of another Ike speech when he declared that, “Only Americans can hurt America.” Does any external threat pose as much danger to America as today’s military-industrial-congressional complex? Add to that Israel and AIPAC and you truly have a recipe for forever war.

The United States is a country made by and increasingly for war, a country perpetually making war, and a country that can’t seem to imagine a future without war.

Remember when the “Guess Who” sang “American Woman” with the line “I don’t need your war machines”? That was in 1970 during the Vietnam War. We still don’t need those war machines, but they sure as hell keep rolling along.

Speaking of “American Woman,” here’s my favorite scene featuring that song. We all need a laugh as we think about all the money we’re wasting on war, weapons, and killing innocent people.

Bonus: the clip begins with another classic song, Steppenwolf’s “Magic Carpet Ride.” Yeah, baby!

It’s not an easy question because answers depend on goals. On commitments.

So, for example, I’m committed to the ideal of the American republic. That republic should focus on defense of the nation. I don’t support the American empire. I don’t favor an offensive military. I don’t believe defense is about global domination. Offense is enabled by full-spectrum dominance; defense doesn’t require it.

So much of what America spends on “defense” goes to weapons makers like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and RTX. It’s advertised as military Keynesianism but it’s more like corporate welfare for what used to be called the merchants of death.

I don’t value weapons as “investments.” I see weapons as Ike saw them in 1953. They are a form of theft. They steal funding from schools, hospitals, libraries, fire stations, and other much-needed improvements to national services and infrastructure.

Yes, America has to defend itself, but an imperial military that is vastly overfunded is an albatross around the neck of a declining republic.

A wildly offensive military that seeks global dominance—the budget for that military is almost boundless. It’s not surprising, then, that this is the vision we’re sold. The idea that the U.S. military must be second to none and dominate everywhere at almost any cost. And what a cost!

An essential part of this imperial vision is that diplomacy is best done with bombs, as Pete Hegseth boasted. That diplomacy isn’t even needed, really, because as Trump says, America holds all the (military) cards. If countries like Iran keep resisting, threaten them with extermination.

An imperial military of global dominance based on massively expensive weapons systems and exterminatory threats drives a “defense” budget of $1 trillion or more. Trump, of course, is asking for $1.5 trillion for FY2027, a staggering 50% increase. This insane vision of exterminatory war is enabled by colossal spending on Death Star-like weaponry.

Meanwhile, Members of Congress fight for their share of a rapidly expanding military procurement pie. Shrink the pie? Forget it! They only want their fair share of the pie (or the pork) for their district. Lobbyists from those imperial merchants of death ensure that Congress stays the military (and militarized) course.

To return to my question: Assuming we’re talking about national defense in a republic that believes in diplomacy and that isn’t forever seeking dragons overseas to slay, I’m guessing that roughly $600 billion a year would suffice for the Pentagon. That is still an enormous sum of money. That healthy amount assumes America can avoid fighting wars of choice and stop its various foolhardy military interventions across the globe.

Ten years ago, $600 billion was roughly the baseline for the Pentagon budget even as America was still in Afghanistan and waging a “global war on terror.” Sure, there’s been some inflation, a weakening of the dollar, but that ballpark figure seems reasonable for a military focused on true national defense rather than one based on total global dominance.

One axiom that should always rule: A republic should not spend one more dollar than necessary on military might. If $600 billion is too high, I’d be happy to see a lower amount.

One coda: No more money for the Pentagon until it’s able to pass an audit.

Iran’s forensics chief said nearly 3,400 people had been killed in the country since U.S.-Israeli strikes began Feb. 28. Almost 2,500 people have been killed in Lebanon, 32 have been killed in Gulf states, and 23 have died in Israel. Thirteen U.S. service members have been killed, and two more died of noncombat causes.

I happen to believe Iranian lives are as valuable and precious as American lives. What gives the U.S. and Israeli governments the right to inflict such disproportionate casualties on Iran, on Lebanon, on Gaza? (I know: might makes right.) If you include the Palestinians, more than 100,000 people, and probably closer to 200,000, have been killed in the latest Israeli/U.S. wars, with the United States providing most of the deadly weaponry.

Speaking of weaponry, the liberal New York Times had an article yesterday lamenting the heavy expenditure of costly precision weaponry (like Tomahawk cruise missiles) by the U.S. since the beginning of the Iran War. Nowhere in the article was there a complaint about the death toll, nor was there much of a complaint about the cost. No—what the liberal New York Times was concerned about was how quickly the U.S. could replenish its stockpile of weaponry so it could be prepared for a future war against peer threats like China and Russia.

Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Since the Iran war began in late February, the United States has burned through around 1,100 of its long-range stealth cruise missiles built for a war with China, close to the total number remaining in the US stockpile. The military has fired off more than 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles, roughly 10 times the number it currently buys each year.

The Pentagon used more than 1,200 Patriot interceptor missiles in the war, at more than $4 million a pop, and more than 1,000 Precision Strike and ATACMS ground-based missiles, leaving inventories worrisomely low, according to internal Defense Department estimates and congressional officials.

The Iran war has significantly drained much of the US military’s global supply of munitions, and forced the Pentagon to rush bombs, missiles and other hardware to the Middle East from commands in Asia and Europe. The drawdowns have left these regional commands less ready to confront potential adversaries such as Russia and China, and it has forced the United States to find ways to scale up production to address the depletions, Trump administration and congressional officials say.

Again, if you read the article, nothing is said about morality. Nothing is said about death and dying and the bloody awfulness of war. The article simply says the U.S. has used a lot of very expensive missiles that we MUST replace if we’re to be prepared to wage more wars in the near future.

There’s not even a hint here that maybe America could be at peace—even in the most distant future. Apparently, America must always remain locked and loaded for a war with China, or Russia, or some other country and combination of countries, even as all this is couched as defending the homeland.

How many war crimes can be hidden or explained away by this phrase: “defend the homeland”? Far too many, and of the most horrific nature.

American militarism must end. Support of Israeli warmongering and killing must end. The national love affair with weaponry must end. Cut the Pentagon budget by 50% and keep cutting. Retrench the empire and recommit to being a republic that doesn’t seek war. Turn away from the bloody awfulness and waste of constant warfare.

War isn’t macho. It isn’t glorious. It’s insanity on a mass scale.

“When you’re using a drag queen to recruit for the Navy, that’s not the people we want,” Cao said from the debate stage. “What we need is alpha males and alpha females who are going to rip out their own guts, eat them and ask for seconds. Those are the young men and women that are going to win wars.”

Had to admit I laughed at that image. But is that really the way to win wars? Should our troops be ripping out their own guts, eating them, then asking for seconds? Seems like a self-defeating culinary practice, as well as a self-defeating strategy.

Anyhow, judging by the Navy’s shipboard mess, perhaps sailors do need to eat their own guts now.

Here’s an image that’s been making the rounds of what a trillion-dollar military feeds its troops:

Yum yum! Even Army grub looks better than that.

The serious story here is (former) Navy Secretary John Phelan’s firing for unknown reasons. Perhaps Congress should ask him to testify?

Meanwhile, despite his macho nonsensical soundbite, Hung Cao is more qualified to be Navy Secretary than Phelan, who won his job fundraising for Trump. Rather than eating his own guts, hopefully Cao will show some guts in office by standing up to Trump and Hegseth.

Tucker Carlson has been in the news because he’s apologized for supporting Trump. Here’s the lede from a New York Times article today:

Tucker Carlson Says He Is ‘Tormented’ by His Past Support for Trump

“I want to say I’m sorry for misleading people,” said the conservative commentator, who has broken sharply with the president over the war with Iran.

It’s a decade too late for that, Tucker.

I remember in March of 2016 watching Trump debate in the Republican primary on TV. This was when Trump declared U.S. troops would and should follow his orders regardless of their illegality. (The context here was torture of “terrorists” and perhaps even of family members related to the “terrorists.”) Right then, I knew Trump had disqualified himself. He’d shown his true colors: his preference for violence, his conceit that his word was the law, irrespective of the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.

Yesterday, I went on “Judging Freedom” with Judge Napolitano, where this subject came up. I had little sympathy for Tucker’s mea culpa. Lots of observers in 2015 and 2016 noticed Trump’s conceit, his narcissism, but most of all his lawlessness. Yes, Trump said the Iraq War was a disaster, and I applauded him for that. Yes, he occasionally talks about peace, and he’ll even call out the military-industrial complex. But, as we all know, actions speak louder than words. Trump’s “peace” is a dictated one, even as he seeks to engorge the military-industrial complex with $1.5 trillion in FY 2027.

People tell themselves a lot of comforting stories and lies; we also all get fooled. Perhaps Trump fooled Tucker, but Trump is an eminently scrutable man, a skilled carnival barker and snake oil salesman with a fragile ego, a bully who expects others to serve him and to obey. Indeed, Trump’s definition of leadership is that he gives orders and other people obey them without question.

How did Tucker convince himself that Trump was presidential material? And how did so many other Americans seek to hitch a ride on the Trump MAGA train? Recall that Trump’s signature line back then was “You’re fired.” Who’d want him for a boss, let alone for president? Yes, I understand that Democratic alternatives weren’t exactly compelling and attractive, and that’s on the Democrats. But Trump—seriously? The man who boasted he’d order our troops to torture—he’s the man we wanted to put in charge of our country?

Going Underground

Among other questions, he asked me if Iran should trust the U.S. government and its negotiators. I laughed ruefully because I don’t trust the U.S. government and the information it’s putting out about the Iran War, so why should Iran trust it?

Also, check out this video with the ever-intelligent Jeffrey Sachs. The illegality and immorality of America’s war with Iran can’t be mentioned enough.

Another point: the cowardice and failure of Congress to serve as a check on Trump’s dictatorial usurpation of war powers is something to behold. In this illegal war, Congress is essentially an obliging co-conspirator to Trump, and I include Democrats here. Caitlin Johnstone has a new post where she reveals that a second Biden administration (or the first Harris administration) would likely also have bombed Iran. (Recall that Harris claimed Iran was our biggest enemy while she boasted of U.S. military lethality.) Johnstone had a telling point: How do you vote yourself out of having an empire?

Since we’re marking the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution, perhaps we should ask ourselves whether a new revolution is needed, this time to restore the American republic.