There are U.S. “advisors” in Ukraine

One of the perennial jokes of U.S. foreign policy is that the first U.S. troops to arrive in any foreign theater of conflict are just there as “advisors.” The U.S. intervention in Vietnam started off with just “military advisors” in 1950. Within two and a half decades, some 55,000 American soldiers had returned home in body bags from that tiny war-torn southeast Asian country on the other side of the world.

In recent days, President Joe Biden has made alleged “gaffes” about U.S. troops being present in Ukraine and removing Vladimir Putin from office, prompting administration officials, including secretary of State Antony Blinken, to make hurried correctives on his behalf that neither are official U.S. policy. While it remains unclear as to whether or not the latter is a serious U.S. policy goal, the former “gaffe” is a documented fact. There are in fact U.S. and NATO military personnel present in Ukraine at the moment, but only in a “limited” “advisory” capacity, of course. And they’ve been there since at least January–several weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine.

Eerie echoes of Afghanistan circa late-1970s. The U.S. began supporting mujahadeen resistance to the newly installed Marxist regime in Kabul at that time and lo and behold the Soviets invaded several months after. The U.S. just officially ended its nearly 20-year occupation of Afghanistan last August.

The ability of the U.S. government to convince the vast majority of the American public of a false perception of what they’re really up to never fails to astound. The Biden administration keeps insisting that the direct involvement of U.S. troops in Ukraine is not in the cards, and yet we know for a fact that U.S. and NATO military advisors have been there for at least the past few months. They’re apparently teaching Ukrainian forces how to use all those weapons–including Soviet-made tanks being delivered by NATO allies–that were made possible courtesy of $1 billionand counting–in U.S. military aid.

But yet we’re supposed to be convinced that Uncle Sam just isn’t doing enough in Ukraine. Never mind that this recent twist of tragic events was catalyzed by the Obama administration’s support for the Euromaidan putsch in Kiev some eight years ago. Never mind that billions of dollars in American military aid has been sent to Ukraine since then. Never mind that the U.S. and NATO are now facilitating weapons transfers to Ukraine. We’re supposed to believe that Washington has been acting with restraint and caution in regards to Russia v. Ukraine for fear of escalating into all out war with nuclear-armed Russia.

But doesn’t it appear more and more as though the opposite is true? The U.S.–which has launched a total of three regime-change and attempted regime-change wars since its invasion of Afghanistan in 2001–appears to be inching closer and closer to a direct military confrontation with Russia. Just as his “gaffe” about U.S. troops in Ukraine turned out to be an absent minded revelation of what was in fact true, perhaps Biden’s “gaffe” about Putin being forced out of power in Moscow will, in due time, turn out to be another slip-of-the-tongue that prematurely revealed the truth regarding Washington’s actual long term goal with regards to Russia.

Ukraine Notes

I caught Obama’s former CIA director, Leon Panetta, for a few minutes on CNN late this past week. He said that the U.S. put the kibosh on a proposal to transfer 29 Soviet-era MiG-29s from the Polish to the Ukrainian government as a result of some kind of “miscommunication.” Which is odd, because I had just seen it widely reported that the Pentagon threw cold water on the idea because such a transfer would run a “high risk” of escalating the war. It would directly implicate NATO in an armed conflict with Russia, you see, which is something that Biden has repeatedly stated he is studiously avoiding. (Though maybe he and his old boss should’ve thought through the possible consequences eight years ago when they decided to back the overthrow of the then existing Ukrainian regime for one that they thought they could more effectively control, and then arm that regime to the tune of $2.5 billion so that they could wage war on Ukraine’s Donbas region). We would then be in the World War III scenario that nobody wants: European states joining in the fracas, triggering Article 5, and before you know it, the nuclear-armed U.S. and nuclear-armed Russia are facing off not merely by proxy, as they are now, but directly, mano a mano. Cities of NATO countries then become Russian targets and vice-a-versa.

But I guess that was wrong…? Turns out somebody just didn’t get a memo or something…?

Nonetheless, there are members of the U.S. Congress calling for the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Ukraine, led by my adopted home state’s Republican U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger. Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin seems open to the idea as well. To describe these individuals as being in dire need of mental health treatment would be an understatement. Vox explains why.

Pete Quinones recently interviewed Kirill from the podcast Russians With Attitude, who gives his no-nonsense take on the chain of events leading up to the Russian attack on Ukraine. This includes some deep background on the Ukrainian nationalist project as an anti-Russian project dating back to the 19th century and the rivalry between the old Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires, and the ad hoc invention of a “Ukrainian” language.

Michael Malice recently talked to Curtis Yarvin on the Russian-Ukraine war and Yarvin explains that based on an application of classical international law, Putin kinda has a legit beef–the U.S. would certainly take some kind of action if the Russians or the Chinese built military installations and bases in southern Canada or northern Mexico, which is directly analagous to how the U.S. and NATO have been gradually surrounding Russia since the mid-2000s or so. Yarvin, however, believes that Putin has likely miscalculated and is now in way over his head. Nonetheless, recent U.S. economic actions against Russia may lead to the unintended result of “de-dollarizing” the global economy, which would have some pretty serious economic consequences for Americans.

The blog Moon of Alabama recently relayed some disturbing reporting that 450 Islamic radicals have arrived in Ukraine by way of Turkey to fight the Russians. Meanwhile, the Russian government claims that 16,000 fighters from the Middle East have volunteered to go to Ukraine to fight on the side of Russia and the Donbas region. Whether either claim is actually true remains to be seen, in my own humble opinion. The propaganda always comes in hot and heavy from all sides during a war. However, there has just been some recent reporting today that the Russians have struck a complex housing some foreign fighters, killing 35. Perhaps more details on who they were and where they were from will be coming out in the coming days.

Scott Horton’s recent interview with journalist Ann Williamson is a must-listen. She was living and reporting in Russia at the time the USSR imploded. She discusses her testimony before the U.S. senate back in the late 1990s in which she predicted that U.S. ambitions to expand NATO further eastward would yield disastrous results. She wasn’t the only one, of course. A long line of U.S. Russia experts, ranging from the late George Kennan, the architect of the U.S. containment policy toward the USSR during the Cold War, to President Biden’s current CIA director, William Burns, had made similar predictions.

American Russia expert Gilbert Doctorow‘s recent conversation with Tom Woods is also well worth listening to.

Meanwhile, 52% of polled Americans appear to believe that Biden has not acted “forcefully” enough against Russia. This is the kind of poll that is ideally made into the warmongering bullshit that any astute observer has come to expect from Conservatism, Inc. in recent decades. Rather than call out previous Democratic administrations for crafting the foreign policy that has made this whole tragic shit show possible, they would much rather hector the current Democratic occupant of the White House into tangling directly with Russia, which, of course, as previously noted, would mean World War III.

ADDENDUM: Be sure to check out this March 2014 editorial by the late Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com, wherein he breaks down the list of neo-Nazis and fascists scattered throughout the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian nationalist movement. Democrats saw a brown shirt in every closet following Donald Trump’s surprise 2016 victory, and yet when they’re confronted with evidence of actual Naziism and fascism being the ideological standard of their Ukrainian allies, they barely talk about it. Appalling, but hardly surprising.

Mask and vaccine mandates, liberty, order, etc.

So about 18-19 years ago I decided that my politics were libertarian. This was in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and everyone I knew and saw on TV were all gung-ho to lock this country down into a fortress America and go on all sorts of wars in the Middle East. “We need to turn the entire Middle East into a coffee table–made of glass!” was the kind of sentiment that was often e-mailed to me by friends and co-workers at the time. My own reaction was along the lines of, “look, everyone is understandably upset and concerned, but maybe we should take a deep breath and actually think about what would be the best response?” What “we” wanted made no difference, of course, as the Bush administration had already made up its collective mind. We now know that they were planning to invade Iraq from the time they first came into power.

Anyway, considering myself to be at least a centrist, moderate liberal Democrat at the time, I was skeptical as to what the US government was doing in response to the attacks under the leadership of the Bush administration. Wandering through the information highways and byways of the internets, I eventually came across not just libertarian thought, but “Austro-libertarian” thought–libertarianism grounded in the tradition of the “Austrian” school of economics. I decided that the “Austrians” were the sanest of any ideological group I had ever encountered, and I still consider myself a fairly plumbline Misesian-Rothbardian-Hoppean Austro-libertarian to this day.

If you had asked me ten years ago what my highest social and political value was, I would have said liberty, undoubtedly, with barely a second of thought. But in the light of events that have occurred in recent years, particularly in the last year and a half or so, I would now say that liberty is most certainly not my highest political ideal.

Now, a lot of people who just read the above paragraph may be jumping to the conclusion that I’m about to offer some kind of rationale for masking and vaccination mandates to counteract Covid-19, but no, I won’t. In fact, it’s because I so strongly oppose mask and vaccine mandates–either those issued by governments or private sector actors–that I now say that no, liberty is not my most highly ranking value. Nor should it be for any libertarian who really takes the time to think this stuff through.

If you venture a gander at the social media of people who consider themselves libertarians, including people who are quite well known within the movement (published authors and podcasters and such), you’ll see that a lot of them have been embroiled in some considerable debate about private businesses making vaccinations a condition for employment, restaurants making proof of vaccination or a negative test result a condition for being served by them, etc. Similarly, you’ll see a lot of debate about social media platforms censoring people and kicking them off due to expressing certain political views. Certain libertarians consistently make the argument that private actors in the marketplace can do whatever they want with their own property. If a company wants to make vaccination a condition of employment, they should be able to do that. If a restaurant wants to refuse you service unless you provide proof of vaccination or a negative Covid test result, then they have the right to do it. If Jack Dorsey doesn’t like your political views, then by God he should be allowed to ban you from using Twitter. And so forth.

In other words, what these libertarians essentially argue (though I grant them the benefit of the doubt that they don’t honestly see it this way, which I think is largely due to them simply not thinking things through), is that if enough people want to turn society into a large collective of neurotic, paranoid, fearful, and censorious authoritarian lunatics, led by delusional utopians, then that’s perfectly okay just so long as no actual force or coercion is being exercised, as long as no aggression is being initiated and all of the actions are completely voluntary and well within the bounds of private property rights.

Now, there are a lot of things to say about that argument–a whole lot–and I don’t have the time or the patience right now to elucidate even a fraction of them in a blog post, but it was after taking some time to consider that argument that I realized that I most certainly do not hold liberty as my foremost, highest ranking political ideal anymore–even though I refuse to surrender my libertarian card to anyone.

Now, what is it that I value more highly than liberty, you may ask? Living amongst people who are not neurotic, paranoid, fearful, censorious, delusional authoritarian lunatics, that’s what. So, to any libertarians who are perfectly OK with private actors attempting to micromanage everyone’s personal health and patrol their thoughts as long as they do it in such a way that avoids any obvious violations of the non-aggression principle, I have to say that we are not quite on the same page, my friends. We appear to be roughly in the same book, but we are most definitely not on the same page. Actually, no, now that I think about it, we are in a different book altogether, though perhaps one of us is in a revised edition or a new translation of the other one’s book. Or maybe one of us is in a companion volume that complements the other one’s book, I’m just not sure yet.

In any case, liberty is absolutely essential to my above stated goal, undoubtedly. But I’ve come to the realization that for me, it’s really a means to an end, not an end unto itself. And the end goal for me is a society that is free from the dominance of neurotic, paranoid, fearful, censorious, delusional authoritarian lunatics, as they are the enemies of social order and cohesion–yes, a society that is rational, sane, orderly, bourgeois, and family friendly, the very things that the aforementioned lunatics always seem hellbent on destroying.

But I certainly don’t want to force my ideal of a non-neurotic-paranoid-fearful-censorious-delusional-authoritarian society on anyone else. I only want to be in a society with those who are more or less already in line with the same ideal and are willing to live by the necessary ethics out of their own free choice. As the 19th century individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker used to say before he turned into a nutso Wilsonian progressive, liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order.

Which is why, to that end, I am fully on board with the right of secession and radical decentralization, as advocated by the classical liberals of the 19th century as part and parcel of their commitment to the right of self-determination for all peoples.

I don’t begrudge anyone their nonstop neurotic-paranoid-fearful-censorious-delusional-authoritarian struggle sessions and public shamings and “papers-please” checkpoints, whether it’s over Covid, political speech, critical race theory, toxic masculinity, the patriarchy, or anything else–if that’s what they really truly want–but can’t there please be alternatives for the rest of us who don’t want to be forced into those things? Who just want to live our lives like normal people without all the f***ing melodrama and ongoing social conflict? And moreover, who don’t believe that it’s Americans’ responsibility to convert the rest of the world to the same kind of lunacy?

Hm? Is that really so much to ask?

Election Thoughts

As I write this, Donald Trump’s campaign has filed multiple lawsuits in several key states that have been called for Joe Biden, challenging the legitimacy of their vote counting processes.

I have to wonder if the Trump people really believe that any of those lawsuits will affect the election result. We went down this road 20 years ago, during the great Bush v. Gore fiasco of 2000. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a recount of votes in Florida ordered by the state supreme court was to grind to a halt. That played out in George W. Bush’s favor as it allowed the state’s previous certification of him as their presidential winner to stand.

Granted, I’m no legal expert, of course, and I don’t know any of the ins-and-outs of the various suits, but it instinctively seems doubtful that, if any of those lawsuits were to be admitted for hearing by the SCOTUS, or any Federal court for that matter, that they would rule that any of those states must do a recount, or that they would intervene in state counting processes in any other way. I’m wondering if, in one of those ironic little twists of history, the Bush v. Gore decision would hold precedent and this time favor the Democratic nominee rather than the Republican. But who knows?

In any case, it could be that Trump, as befits his wont, is merely shoving his great big middle finger in the ruling establishment’s face one more time on his way out the door. He’s not going quietly into that good night. It may be that he’s just determined to gum up the works as much as possible by casting as many aspersions and doubts as he can on the legitimacy of Biden’s election before he leaves.

And why shouldn’t he? A similar tactic was used against him four years ago, though how it was done to him was far worse by any conceivable viewpoint. His enemies hurled charges of treason at him; they accused him of being a witting tool of a foreign head of state, Vladimir Putin. Putin, we were supposed to believe, somehow rigged the 2016 election in Trump’s favor, in exchange for Trump doing Putin’s bidding (though it was often difficult to keep track of the specific allegations, they were so fluid). After spending nearly two years and $32 million, the best Robert Mueller could come up with was that there may have been, possibly, just perhaps, maybe, a dozen or so instances in which Trump committed every prosecutor’s favorite catch-all crime, “obstruction of justice.” Did Trump commit a crime or not? Mueller chose not to make either claim, which we can safely assume to be due to a lack of any evidence supporting the former.

Then there was the impeachment circus over The Notorious Phone Call. The more you learned about it, however, the more that was revealed of Joe Biden’s bullying–by means of the carrot-and-stick of U.S. foreign aid–of the Ukrainian government into firing a prosecutor because he was investigating an energy company with which his son Hunter was involved. Biden was even caught on tape bragging about this at a public event. He apparently didn’t care who heard it, likely because he was confident that he would face no consequences.

After major media figures had spent years accusing him of treason on national television–the maximum penalty for which is death–perhaps Trump is just kicking a little sand into the faces of his enemies before he stalks off. Who could blame him?

Still, it must be asked, is it really so far-fetched that the Democrats manufactured votes and/or tossed out others in key states? I don’t think so. There are plenty of reports out there that even the most die-hard partisan Democrat has to admit just look fishy. Furthermore, considering that there are people on the Democrat side who have repeatedly stated for the past four years that Donald Trump is the ultimate manifestation of Pure Evil–the literal reincarnation of Adolf Hitler in his pact-with-Stalin phase–isn’t it totally reasonable to conjecture that such people, if given the opportunity, would resort to any means necessary, no matter how illegal, to prevent President Literally Hitler from winning re-election?

Even if there wasn’t any voter fraud at all–and every intelligent person should find that terribly difficult to believe–then the way they handled the counting of the unprecedented number of mail-in votes, plus the absentee ballots, based on what I’m seeing reported, seemed almost designed to invite suspicion and skepticism of the victor’s legitimacy. I would think that to at least start counting the mail-in and absentee votes at the same time as the in-person votes that were cast on election day–all of it 100% observed by a bipartisan (or even tri- or quadrapartisan) group, of course, from beginning to bitter end–would go a long way toward at least making a sudden turning of the tide during the count look a lot less shady. This dropping off votes at 4 a.m. stuff, even if every vote was completely legit, is just “bad optics,” as the kids say. If election authorities insist on retaining the current counting methods indefinitely, then they should be viewed with suspicion.

In any case, the sudden change in Democrat talking-points analysis as the tide turned in Biden’s favor, as the counting progressed in the days following the election, was quite revealing in and of itself. When it looked early on as though Trump may yet squeak his way to another victory, social media was predictably barraged with the typical, boiler-plate laments of the systemically racist specter haunting America, and that possibly the Russians–this time with the possible assistance of the Iranians and the Chinese (pick your favorite foreign bogeyman)–had struck yet again.

But then, lo and behold, whaddya know?! Biden surged ahead in the key state-by-state tallies, and racism and Russians didn’t seem so much of a factor anymore! (I was in deeply blue Chicago’s Wrigleyville neighborhood this past Saturday just after the corporate media declared Biden the winner. There were so many people waving U.S. flags that I thought I had stumbled into a Trump rally. Biden is making America great again, apparently.)

Should we just accept Biden’s victory as indisputable prima facie evidence that those twin evils have finally been vanquished? I mean, how do we know that the Russians and racists didn’t just switch parties in a particularly sneaky and diabolical maneuver? (Look–here’s Richard Spencer endorsing Joe Biden!) I say we have a new round of congressional and independent counsel investigations just to make sure our elections haven’t been “hacked” yet again.

But of course, it just may very well be–as I think is most likely the case–that there were some Democrat shenanigans, and yet it could also still be said at the same time that Trump lost the election fair and square. The Trumpites have to face the fact that their guy’s worst qualities–the self-obsession; the mammoth ego; the lazy refusal to actually prepare himself, study, and follow through; the thin-skinnedness; and, worst of all, his obvious and pathetic yearning to do whatever he thinks it takes to be adored by the masses, most likely torpedoed his re-election chances.

In Trump’s focus on defending himself from the albeit relentless personal attacks by his enemies, he soon lost sight of what got him elected in 2016. He simply lacked the discipline to do otherwise. And it certainly didn’t help that he had surrounded himself with typical GOP establishment hacks. The agenda his administration ended up pursuing turned out to be quite different from the agenda that he ran on in 2016. Those who voted for him back then were expecting some drastic curtailment of unfettered, completely out-of-control immigration, and some kind of action to safeguard America’s obviously struggling working class. They didn’t get much of either.

Instead, the Trump administration got a comprehensive criminal justice reform bill passed, a bill that seemed designed to win over liberal support. Whatever the merits (or demerits) of that bill may be, there was certainly nothing that Trump could do to sway Democrats. They persisted in shrieking that he was literally Hitler regardless. And such a bill wasn’t on his base’s agenda in 2016.

On the foreign policy front, Trump does genuinely deserve credit for not launching one single new long-term military intervention overseas during his term, and for turning down the temperature in U.S.-North Korean relations, at least for a little while.

At the same time, however, he insisted on ramping up Barack Obama’s war in Yemen; he slapped new sanctions on Russia and pulled the U.S. out of the Reagan-negotiated intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty; he backed out of the Iran nuclear agreement and increased severe sanctions on that beleaguered country (which have now escalated even further), and had a high-ranking Iranian military officer drone-assassinated in a needlessly provocative move; he insisted on moving the U.S. government’s Israel embassy to Jerusalem; and he facilitated a new treaty between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, formally consummating a relationship that had already been under way for years.

All of those moves seemed intended to appease the dead-enders of the conventional bipartisasan foreign policy establishment, and, once again, none of those goals were on the wish list of his 2016 base. Their desire to roll back immigration and establish some economic security for the working class were overwhelmingly domestic concerns; they rarely seemed much concerned about foreign policy at all. I honestly believe, however, that they would have cheered a major scaling back of U.S. military commitments around the world, including withdrawals from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, due to their domestic policy preferences. They surely would have welcomed it as an opportunity for the redeployment of resources for domestic goals.

As a result, the populist approach Trump had taken the first time around was almost entirely abandoned, and that no doubt cost him some of his base in certain swing states amidst the record voter turn-out.

Trump’s handling of the covid crisis obviously didn’t help him out, either, but not in the way most Democrats assume. If he had come out firmly against the states’ hysterical, overreactive, and totally irrational lockdowns–most of the first of which were led by Democrat governors–he could have dominated the public debate over that approach. He could even have had the Justice Department file suit in Federal court to force the states to stay open or re-open, citing the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. constitution as their legal basis. To instead play along with the initial hysteria, and only later begin to protest that the country needed to get back to normal, was just so much weak tea. It may have given him the opportunity to play the knight in shining armor riding to the rescue with the stimulus payments to newly impoverished working people and small business owners, but I’m willing to bet that most of those people would have rather kept their jobs and businesses.

So what now? Joe Biden will be sworn in as president of the United States, and that will obviously be followed by a new Era of Good Feelings, during which we will all join hands and sing kumbaya–or at least Biden himself has expressed that he’d like to see as much.

“Let’s give each other a chance,” Biden said in his recent victory speech. “It’s time to put away the harsh rhetoric, lower the temperature, see each other again, listen to each other again. And to make progress we have to stop treating our opponents as enemies.”

My guess is that this entreaty rings very hollow to the Trumpites, and I can’t say that I’d blame them.

If Biden really wants people to stop demonizing one another over politics, he would do well to specifically address the problem within his own base, among whom it’s endemic. For nearly every single day for four straight years, the loudest Democrat cheerleaders took to social media to routinely denounce anyone who voted for Donald Trump as hopelessly stupid, hateful, racist bigots. Expressing vicious, boundless hate towards those people has been the top-ranking political fashion among the “progressive” “liberal” set for the past four years.

Trump voters have consistently been the one demographic in America for whom one could safely express public contempt in the most graphically hateful and vitriolic terms imaginable.

It seems like only yesterday that actor Michael Shannon declared, during the 2016 campaign, that every senior citizen who was planning to vote for Trump should just die already. “[I]f you’re voting for Trump, it’s time for the urn,” the renown character actor colorfully declared. I once met Shannon briefly many years ago, and he seemed a nice enough guy; I doubt he’d remember me now. But we have some mutual acquaintances. I keep forgetting to ask them to convey to him that my father, who had voted for Trump in 2016, died last year at the age of 72, in the midst of his fourth bout with cancer. I imagine that would make Mr. Shannon’s day.

For Democrats to now offer an olive branch to those they’ve relentlessly otherized and demonized for four long years, now that they’re about to be safely re-installed in executive power, must certainly strike any Trumpite as the emptiest and most meaningless gesture imaginable. For even as Biden speaks of wanting people to “listen to each other again,” a glance through Twitter shortly after the media’s announcement of Biden’s victory showed that the contempt had not abated.

And not only mere contempt was expressed. These people want vengeance. Having convinced themselves that they’d been subjugated to the rule of a quasi-Nazi regime for nearly four years, but are now newly liberated by Biden’s declared victory, they are now out to exact retribution from their former oppressors–whom they define as any person who has ever expressed any kind of support for Donald Trump.

It’s sort of like, “you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.”
She’s making a list and checking it twice.
And now a brief message from Gad Saad on not giving in to political hate.

But perhaps their real problem is that they have come to recognize, in their heart of hearts, that their recent national victory is merely a pyrrhic one. For after all of the non-stop whining and carping about Trump and his base–the Hitler comparisons, the Russiagate allegations, the claims of endemic bigotry–with about 98% of the news media, the entertainment industry, big tech corporations, and academia–and let’s not forget the FBI and the U.S. intelligence apparatus–all of them egging it on and facilitating it–the historic voter turn-out did not deliver the kind of overwhelming, immediately decisive Biden victory that they had claimed would happen.

Approximately 149 million voters cast presidential ballots in this election, a huge increase in voter turn-out when compared to the 129 million ballots cast four years ago, about a 16% uptick. Biden’s margin of victory in the popular vote was just a little over 3%, and was just a wee bit shy of a solid majority. 66 million ballots were cast for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and 77 million voted for Biden. That 11 million-vote increase is about a 17% improvement for the Democrats.

About 63 million voters cast their ballots for Trump in 2016, and he increased that by about 9 million votes this time around. That’s about a 14% improvement. Not bad for someone who was supposed to be The Most Evil President of Our Lifetime.

Even worse, the Democrats suffered a net loss of 5-6 seats in the U.S. House, and the GOP appears to be holding on to at least a slender majority in the U.S. Senate. The two run-off elections in Georgia may very well flip it in January, but that thin majority would be far more troublesome for the Democrats, as they would still have a very difficult time passing Biden’s agenda. There were almost immediate recriminations among congressional Democrats over the lackluster results in the congressional elections.

(For my Democrat friends: if you should ever be told again to expect a “Blue Wave,” for God’s sake, just ignore it. The disappointment will be just too much for your emotional state.)

Another interesting bit of information: President Hitler actually improved his votes among blacks and hispanics compared to 2016, and he actually lost some white voters.

Those results are just too much for your die-hard Democrat to bear. Trump should have been buried in a landslide, with the Democratic party vastly improving their majority in the House and easily dominating the Senate, considering what truly evil Nazis Trump and the Republicans were supposed to be.

But just as Trumpites have blind spots about their guy, so, too, does our disillusioned Democrat friends have their blind spots as well. They have a hard time even conceiving that Biden’s repeated ominous warnings of a “dark winter” due to covid–i.e., more forced restrictions, lockdowns, and other nanny-state interference with normal civil society, from the Federal level–may have made a lot of people think long and hard before casting their vote, and that they may have concluded that Trump was the better option. Trump, after all, his previous capitulation to the covid hysteria notwithstanding, had made it clear that it’s high time to knock off at least some of this paranoid nonsense about the new virus–which has already wreaked considerable damage in peoples’ lives–and get back to normal.

Further, Biden and the Democrats’ reluctance to condemn the BLM-leftist riots in the wake of George Floyd’s death at the hands of a Minneapolis cop earlier this year certainly didn’t help their cause any, either. Who knows how many of Trump’s additional 9 million voters were motivated by a desire to insure that left-liberal rioters and looters would not be rewarded with their choice of presidential candidate?

The end result was that the Trumpites may have lost the election, but 72 million voters is not exactly an insubstantial minority. Though leaderless after January of 2021, they will likely prove to be a massive headache for the Democrats in the 2022 mid-terms, and thereafter.

Now, how does this all wrap up? Here we have the country, sharply divided between two awful, obnoxious political parties whose chances for victory seem to ride almost entirely on whether or not they’re hated a little less than the other side.

Any color-coded electoral map will tell you that “Blue America” is mostly centered in the cities and large towns, the urban centers, with “Red America” encompassing mainly the small town/rural areas. That’s where the focus of one’s attention should be in assessing America’s ongoing political conflict, not just on the White House and the U.S. Congress. For whichever faction controls the urban areas, pretty much controls the states’ electoral votes, with few exceptions. My own adopted hometown of Chicago is one prime example. The city is so overwhelmingly blue that it consistently delivers Illinois into the Democrat column in one presidential election after the other.

Or maybe this country finally needs an amicable divorce, so that all factions can have the freedom to seek out the maximum of their preferred social arrangements. The problem isn’t just the division in the U.S., it’s the ongoing conflict between the divisions, which are caused by fundamental differences in world views–including views of existence itself–that are not likely to be resolved any time soon.

Peaceful co-existence may be the best outcome that we can possibly hope for.

Mitch McConnell Ruins My Fun

So the U.S. senate has voted against calling witnesses and examining evidence in its trial of Donald Trump. It was a bare majority vote, 51-49, as two Republicans, Susan Collins and bland-flavored-cream-of-wheat king Mitt Romney, joined the Democrats. This effectively brings the senate’s trial to a swift conclusion, of course. The senate is scheduled to vote on Trump’s removal from office on Wednesday, Feb. 5th, which will most likely be of a roughly similar result. Since the constitution calls for two-thirds of the senate to vote to convict in order to remove him, even if those figures are hypothetically reversed (and they won’t be), it’s still not enough to kick Trump out of the White House and replace him with every Democrat’s dream choice, Mike Pence.

Damn. I was so hoping for an all-out trial with the witnesses, the cross-examinations, and the evidence provided by both sides. My God, what a glorious shit-show circus it would have been. All the dirty laundry would very possibly have been aired right out in the nation’s collective front yard. Because if Democrats would have been able to call witnesses and cite evidence, they would have had to allow the Republicans to do the same. And the whole scenario is just the type of conflict-rich arena that Trump thrives in. It would have been a brawl. There was even talk of the Democrats and the GOP negotiating to call in Joe and Hunter Biden for testimony in exchange for disgruntled warmonger and ex-Trump employee John Bolton taking the stand.

Oh, what a glorious battle it would have been.

But, of course, it was never going to happen, as everyone with a fully functioning prefrontal cortex had been saying from the very beginning. (As for myself, I’m just a hopeless romantic.) There was no way Mitch McConnell was going to allow such a circus to take place in the senate during a presidential election year.

And so, my friends, the entire two-party establishment has been saved from yet another spectacle of embarrassment.

Damn it.

Scott Horton and Mark Perry: The Times We Almost Went to War with Iran

Scott Horton recently posted an interesting interview with Mark Perry discussing Perry’s recent article at The American Conservative, “1984: The Year America Didn’t Go to War”, and the near-wars with Iran that were narrowly averted. The U.S. and Iran have been tangling for at least 40 years, or rather, 60-plus years if you go all the way back to the CIA-engineered coup against Iranian President Mohammed Mossadegh to have him replaced by the restored Shah, as Horton reminds us. The interview should be listened to and the article should be read.

Perry’s article specifically focuses on the internal debate within the Reagan administration as to how to respond to the bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in October of 1983, which killed 241 Marines. They were deployed as part of a multi-national peacekeeping mission in the midst of Lebanon’s long and bloody civil war. The U.S. concluded that Hezbollah (“the Party of God”)–which was then, as now, an Iranian proxy force–was behind the attack. Then Secretary of State George Schultz demanded retaliation but Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger–who was a veteran of the horrific Battle of Buna during World War II–opposed any U.S. military escalation in the region. Weinberger even went so far as to ignore a direct order from Reagan to launch military strikes on what were believed to be Iranian-connected assets, though he later claimed that he never received any such order. Weinberger, apparently, had been completely opposed to the Marine deployment to Lebanon in the first place, as was his senior military advisor at that time, Colin Powell, a veteran of Vietnam. Weinberger eventually got his way after months of apparently deliberate bureaucratic foot-dragging, with the Marines ultimately restricted to U.S. ships in the Mediterranean.

It’s a surprising and enlightening story that I wasn’t aware of. As Horton and Perry point out, the military leadership in the Pentagon is often far more cautious than the civilian leadership in the State Department when it comes to getting the U.S. into new wars. That has frequently been the case throughout this country’s history.

And that was apparently the case recently when it came time for Trump to decide whether or not to pull the trigger on Iran. The conventional wisdom has it that Trump caught a broadcast by conservative commentator Tucker Carlson denigrating the idea of attacking that country and possibly instigating a whole new war, which supposedly dissuaded Trump from launching any strikes. But Perry reports that it’s far more likely that it was Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff–and who was a commanding officer in the 2003 invasion of Iraq–who convinced Trump not to do it.

In a meeting Gen. Dunford and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had with Trump when he was mulling over possible strikes on Iran, Dunford did what is called “flooding the zone”–“providing volumes of facts and figures that are as likely to delay as inform.” Dunford apparently does that whenever a policy option that he disagrees with has been put on the table, reminiscent of Weinberger’s delay tactics to resist launching attacks in retaliation for the 1983 Marines barracks bombing. And the facts and figures Dunford cited at Trump and Pompeo were apparently not very pretty. Just as Reagan had eventually pulled back the Marines from Beirut, Trump ultimately called off the attack on Iran.

Perry quotes Weinberger as having said, “It is easy to kill people, and that might make some people feel good, but military force must have a purpose, to achieve some end…We never had the fidelity on who perpetrated that horrendous act.”

In one interview some years ago, Perry argued to Weinberger that Reagan’s increasing military budgets would make it far more likely that the U.S. would find itself in the midst of a foreign conflict once again. “You don’t get it,” answered Weinberger. “We’re not buying more guns because we intend to use them, we’re buying more guns so we don’t have to.”

Weinberger should be commended for resisting the pressure to drag America into what would surely have been yet another quagmire of a war, this time in the Middle East, barely a decade after the last Marines and U.S. embassy staff were evacuated from Saigon. His overall attitude toward U.S. military intervention abroad appeared to be that it should be kept to a minimum. If only his successors shared that view, then this country would have been spared a lot of conflict, bloodshed, and expense over the past few decades.

But if Weinberger honestly thought that subsequent U.S. presidents would use the massively built-up military forces that Reagan had bequeathed to them on only very limited small-scale operations, and only when the U.S. was eminently and directly threatened, he was very much in error, as history taught him by the time he passed away in 2006. Reagan’s successors would, in fact, use America’s military might quite liberally and recklessly. Two of them were of Weinberger’s and Reagan’s own party: the George Bushes, Sr. and Jr. George, Sr. would march into Panama based on highly questionable premises within his first year in office, and he would then proceed to contract out the U.S. armed forces on behalf of the sheikhs and emirs of Kuwait and wage war on Iraq.

Bush, Jr., of course, would use the 9/11/01 attacks as not only a pretext to invade and occupy Afghanistan, which continues to drag on eighteen years later, but to continue his father’s war on Iraq as well, overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime, which was followed by a long and bloody occupation. And since then, there have been the interventions in Libya, Syria, and now Yemen, in aid of Saudi Arabia’s chosen side in that poor and beleaguered country’s civil war.

“What’s the the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once famously asked Gen. Colin Powell during the 1990s, as the Clinton administration pondered intervening in the Balkans.

Farewell, Justin Raimondo

cc82a136-b0a4-4906-9361-b5a77d879359

Justin Raimondo, author and co-founder and longtime editor-in-chief of Antiwar.com, recently lost his battle with cancer at the age of 67.

Raimondo was not exactly a household name. He made an occasional appearance on television and radio, but most people have no idea who he was. And yet he and Antiwar.com have had a profound impact on the popular perception of the many U.S. wars that have been initiated since 9/11/01. His frequent critiques of the American war machine were devoured by a relatively small but dedicated niche audience, whose political views ranged across the entire spectrum from left to right, and who all shared his contempt and disdain for systematic mass murder by the state, and all the deception and convoluted moral gymnastics that go with it.

Those dedicated readers learned much from Raimondo over the years about that small but powerful clique of court intellectuals known as the “neoconservatives,” who acted as the bodyguards of lies to justify the criminal U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the endless U.S. war in Afghanistan, the destruction of Libya and much of Syria, and many other areas of the U.S. government’s lawless foreign policy. Many of those readers then distributed what they learned from Justin far and wide, which undoubtedly helped shape the skepticism of U.S. war and empire that is broadly shared by so many ordinary Americans at the present moment.

I only exchanged the occasional tweet with Raimondo; I never got to meet him, unfortunately. But I always detected a delightfully cantankerous and crotchety personality throughout his voluminous writing. As you read his razor-sharp broadsides at Antiwar.com, you couldn’t help but imagine that he was sitting right there next to you, chain smoking as he explained everything.

Looking at Antiwar.com’s obituary, to say that he was a complicated man containing multitudes would be an understatement.

Born into a Catholic family in Yorktown Heights, NY, he led a childhood so rebellious that he nearly got incarcerated in a mental institution by a prominent psychiatrist who later turned out to be a Soviet spy.

He decided that he was an Objectivist and libertarian at the age of fourteen; he even deigned to pen an article on Objectivism at that tender age, which was published by a New York newspaper. He was thanked for his efforts with a cease-and-desist letter from Ayn Rand’s attorney, which eventually led to him meeting Rand herself. Struck by his youth, she ended up encouraging his passion for writing and urged him to never compromise his vision.

He was a gay libertarian who was a fierce advocate of gay liberation in his youth but then developed some conservative sympathies as he got older, a man who alternatively participated in the presidential campaigns of Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan. To his many critics, those elements didn’t seem to go together. But those seemingly incongruous pieces do in fact fit when you grasp the strategically evolving nature of how he developed his views. Dismantling the U.S. war machine and achieving liberty were always the foremost goals of his writing, which he largely learned how to do from his early mentor, the late Austrian school libertarian economist Murray Rothbard, who was also a persistent and intransigent opponent of American militarism.

Like Rothbard, Raimondo came to realize that in order to mount an effective challenge to U.S. militarism in the court of public opinion, you’re going to have to make an appeal to the ordinary working class Americans who have been sending their kids into the U.S. armed forces, only to see them return in flag-draped coffins or physically and/or psychologically crippled. In Raimondo’s view, too much of the antiwar movement, historically dominated by the political left since the Vietnam War, had become distracted with lifestyle and group identity politics to the detriment of their antiwar activism. And though politically divergent on many other issues, Nader and Buchanan were both aggressively critical of Uncle Sam’s globally interventionist foreign policy, Buchanan particularly so following the collapse of the USSR and Bush Sr.’s war to save the financial behinds of the emirs and sheiks of Kuwait from Saddam Hussein.

Raimondo’s reasoning also escaped the comprehension of his critics when it came to his treatment of Donald Trump. Though at first extremely hostile to Trump’s candidacy early in the 2016 election cycle, Raimondo recognized a new opportunity to strike a blow against the U.S. foreign policy establishment after Trump denounced the pretext for the Iraq war as a pack of lies at the GOP South Carolina primary debate in February 2016. He began writing more and more in defense of Trump’s campaign and then his administration, especially when it came to any apparent resistance by Trump to the mandarins of the U.S State Department and the Pentagon.

But it’s not my job or place to offer any apologetics on Raimondo’s behalf, nor do I have any desire to. I didn’t always agree with his observations and interpretations of certain events. In any case, the man wrote quite clearly and articulately on behalf of his own views. My point is only that there was one very important reason for Raimondo’s sympathies with the Trump phenomenon: He saw it as, potentially, a means to an end, that end being a rollback of the U.S. government’s sprawling, globe-spanning machinery of endless war. How correct Raimondo was about that is, in my own humble opinion, debatable. But the fact remains that Trump, though he did ratchet up Barack Obama’s intervention in Yemen, has not exactly turned out to be quite the warmonger that so many of his critics claimed he would be. Despite preceding press coverage to the contrary, it does not look as though there will be any U.S. war on Venezuela anytime soon, and when the hour arrived to strike Iran, Trump called it off at the last minute.

One could easily imagine Raimondo writing similarly in support of Democratic U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard right now due to her own opposition to the U.S. government’s idiotic and pointless regime-change wars.

That’s because ending U.S. foreign wars was always his number one political priority, and he happily took what he could get wherever he could find it, on whatever point of the political spectrum it could be found.

Justin Raimondo spent virtually his entire life fighting for one of the worthiest causes that any American could ever dedicate himself to: the rollback of, with an eye to someday entirely dismantling, Uncle Sam’s massive war machine.

And for that, there is no doubt that St. Peter embraced him upon his arrival at the pearly gates with the following words: “You did good, son. You did real good. Welcome, and enjoy your rest.”

ADDENDUM:

Aside from Anitwar.com’s wonderful obituary (and do read the whole piece to the very end), here are some other tributes to Justin Raimondo from people who knew and worked with him:

“How Justin Raimondo Made Me A Braver Writer” by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos at the American Conservative.

“In Memoriam: Justin Raimondo, 1951-2019” by Edward Welsch at Chronicles, to which Raimondo was a regular contributor for many years.

Scott Horton discusses Justin Raimondo’s legacy with Pete Raymond.

Horton also discusses Raimondo’s legacy with Tom Woods here and the future of Antiwar.com here.

State of War

All my bitching about the U.S. government’s completely batshit insane foreign policy over the years has taught me that not many people feel this issue is as urgent as I do. Well OK then. But I’ll still bitch about it, because of all the things that provokes massive outrage, the U.S. government’s slaughtering of people in far-off countries—people and countries most Americans know absolutely nothing about, aside from whatever bullshit or cherry-picked factoids the media feeds them—seems to be what perturbs people in this country the least. I can’t think of a single U.S. war since 1945 that accomplished anything approximating the actual protection of Americans, which means that the U.S. has senselessly slaughtered, or created or contributed to conditions that caused the deaths of, millions of people around the world for absolutely no reason. And the U.S. has squandered, and continues to squander, vast resources that could be far better used at home. Shoring up the unfunded Social Security and Medicare commitments, for which many have already been taxed for the past several decades of their lives, is one example that comes to mind.

But better than my bitching is the 13-minute video above, featuring a handful of members of Congress of both parties who try, usually in vain, to place some constraints on the American war machine. Even trying to pass legislation enforcing the War Powers Act is like pissing in the wind and having your own urine splash back in your face. The congressional leadership of both parties always resort to the most vile, disgusting, Machiavellian tactics to block any kind of War Powers bills or amendments. They LOVE the war machine.

But maybe you don’t give a shit and don’t want to watch it. Fine.

I’ll still be here, bitching as usual.

(Thank you, Antiwar.com.)