Tag: perpetual war

Betraying America’s Military and the Constitution They Swore To Defend

Donald Trump and his administration have done a grave disservice to America’s military.

By politicizing the military, sending service members into wars of questionable legality, attempting to use military forces against American citizens, and seeking to punish veterans who exercise their constitutional rights, the Trump administration has attempted to turn the U.S. military into its own guns-for-hire battalion.

This is not how you honor America’s military.

Pete Hegseth has done an even graver disservice to the men and women who serve.

Having called for a “warrior ethos” that celebrates aggression, lethality and an unquestioning commitment to warfighting, the self-styled Secretary of War has repeatedly demonstrated a troubling disregard for the constitutional safeguards meant to govern the military’s use of force.

Now, faced with eight articles of impeachment introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), Hegseth has dismissed the effort as an act of “sabotage,” suggesting that holding military leaders accountable amounts to punishing the troops who carry out their orders.

Questioning the war makers is not an attack on the troops. It is one way of defending them.

The charges at the heart of Massie’s impeachment effort speak to an identity crisis under Hegseth’s leadership—one that pits the Founders’ vision of a military that exists to defend the Constitution and a constitutional form of government against a version of the military as a ruthless killing machine whose purpose is to invade, intimidate, and destroy the president’s enemies.

Three of Massie’s eight articles of impeachment accuse Hegseth of violating separate provisions of the War Powers Resolution by waging war against Iran without congressional authorization, continuing hostilities despite Congress’s direction to withdraw U.S. forces, and refusing to terminate military operations after the expiration of the law’s 60-day limit and potential 30-day withdrawal period.

The remaining five accuse Hegseth of disregarding laws meant to protect civilians during military operations; authorizing extrajudicial killings of suspected drug traffickers at sea; retaliating against Senator Mark Kelly for exercising his First Amendment rights; directing the military operation to seize Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, without lawful authority; and waging an unauthorized military campaign in Yemen.

Hegseth wants to dismiss the impeachment effort as a disagreement over military policy, but this is about something far more fundamental than one man’s job or one administration’s military strategy.

It is about the constitutional balance of power.

Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution. It is one of the mechanisms the Founders provided for holding public officials accountable for serious abuses of power.

The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the president, places the military under civilian authority, and binds those in power to the rule of law.

But those safeguards mean little when Congress refuses to challenge unauthorized wars, presidents treat military force as their private prerogative, and military leaders demand obedience without accountability.

Consider the human price of the war with Iran.

Keep reading

Democratic Wave or Imperial Rebrand?: Time Will Tell

As a citizen and scholar, whose research, advocacy and moral framework have been dedicated to seeking justice and peace for the people of Palestine, Iran, Yemen and across West Asia, I find little cause for celebration in the recent Democratic Party midterm victories.

Political reveling makes sense if you trust the winning party offers a significant departure from the horrors of the status quo.

Applauding the Democratic Party means ignoring the ashes of Gaza, the massacre at Minab in southern Iran, and the violent legacy of 80 years of bipartisan U.S. foreign policy in the region.

When analyzing the unified bipartisan consensus that has governed U.S. policy in West Asia for decades, the apparent divide is exposed as mere illusion.  For those committed to international law, human rights and decolonization, a Democratic victory does not guarantee political reformation.  It is more likely to represent adaptation—a cosmetic shift in the stewardship of American empire.

Historical evidence demands a rejection of the conventional false binary political narrative that has framed U.S. elections:  the dichotomy between a unilateralist, militaristic Republican Party in opposition to a diplomacy oriented, human rights focused Democratic Party.  With regard to West Asia, both parties operate within a doctrine of institutional hegemony, military interventionism and colonial dominance.

While Republicans pursue aggression through overt unilateralism and unfiltered bellicose rhetoric, Democrats have executed similar policies behind a veneer of rules-based internationalism and institutional diplomacy.  The end result remains the same for the people in Gaza, Tehran, Beirut or San’a – structural violence, economic strangulation and military destruction.

The catastrophic legacy overshadowing Democratic leadership, past and present, makes it difficult for me to foresee, in the party’s electoral success, any departure from a foreign policy dictated by entrenched institutional systems.

The Biden-Harris administration did not simply miscalculate diplomacy; it actively embraced and underwrote what international legal bodies, human rights organizations and scholars worldwide have characterized as genocide in Gaza.

Most Democrats in Congress fast-tracked the shipment of munitions to Israel to carry out its devastating war on Gaza, rather than opposing it.

It is important to remember that it was Democratic leaders and representatives who stayed silent when:

  • President Joe Biden signed off on billions of dollars in unconditional military aid, transferring heavy weapons, artillery shells and precision-guided bombs to the Israeli regime that killed countless Palestinians and decimated civilian infrastructure across the Gaza Strip.
  • Democratic leaders repeatedly deployed the veto at the UN Security Council, neutralizing international legal mechanisms designed to enforce ceasefires and hold war criminals accountable.
  • The administration and party establishment sought to vilify and suppress student activists, scholars and dissenting citizens who demanded an end to American complicity in the destruction of Palestinian life.

A party that has, without conditions, armed, funded and morally shielded and enabled conduct that violates the baseline of human dignity cannot legitimately claim the mantle of progressivism, peace and democracy.

Keep reading

The Rise and Fall of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

In November 2024, then-President-elect Trump named Hegseth as his nominee for his secretary of defense. In a Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing right before Trump’s second inauguration, Hegseth faced allegations of sexual misconduct, financial mismanagement, and excessive drinking. Yet, he was confirmed by the Senate that month, but only with the vice president, JD Vance, casting a tie-breaking vote.

Recently, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) introduced articles of impeachment alleging that the defense secretary “abused” his powers and “knowingly executed and implemented unlawful orders.”

On November 10, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 211 to 204 to block an impeachment push against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, effectively killing the resolution for now.

11 absent Democrats undermined Hegseth’s impeachment

Is this the end of the story?

No, the current Republican-controlled House sidelined the measure, but Democrats are set to take control of both chambers of Congress in January. Incoming Democratic leadership has signaled that Pentagon operations and Hegseth’s actions will face intense congressional investigations. So, impeachment or oversight efforts could be revisited next year.

Then again, if this not the end of the story, it should be the beginning of internal reflection in the Democratic Party.

What do you mean?

Rep. Thomas Massie was the sole Republican to vote against the referral, while several members—including 11 Democrats – missed the vote. Why did they miss it?

Every single one of the 203 Democrats who made it to the floor voted against the Republican motion to block the impeachment. Yet, several of the absent lawmakers blamed severe traffic (Reps. Melanie Stansbury, Jonathan Jackson, and Brittany Pettersen).

Since the final vote was tight (211-204), these absences effectively cost the party a push to advance the impeachment. They had a chance to protest an unconstitutional war, which has cost too many innocent lives, including those of fellow-Americans. So, bad traffic sounds like a lame excuse.

Interestingly, the absent Democrats included Nancy Pelosi, who was flying back to San Francisco to attend an annual Veterans Day event and accept an award. Presumably, it was more important to her than protesting the unconstitutional war and its victims. With the exception of progressive-leaning Jonathan Jackson, the list of the absent 11 largely comprised of mainstream, establishment Democrats, reliant on corporate and establishment PACs.

Perhaps bad traffic wasn’t the only motivation.

“Unwarranted, unconstitutional and illegal Iran war”

What do you think about Hegseth’s management style?

DS: Defense Secretary Hegseth’s term is likely to be seen as one of the most disastrous ones in the Pentagon’s history. The lack of personal integrity and even basic executive experience compounds an aggressive, ideologically overdriven campaign that has triggered a chilling effect, tanked military approval ratings and alienated America’s allies, partners and adversaries alike.

What kind of role did Hegseth play in Trump’s launching his war on Iran alongside Israelis?
DS: Hegseth made an unwarranted, unconstitutional and illegal war against Iran even worse, driving regular televised briefings to aggressively market the conflict to the public as a campaign of “maximum lethality” to disable Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. With his apocalyptic Christian-Zionist beliefs, he should have had absolutely no role in the Pentagon.

How successful has Hegseth been in his conduct against Iranians?

DS: While Hegseth claims “historic devastation” against Iranian capabilities, independent analysts view the grinding, nine-month conflict as a strategic disaster that has failed to control the Strait of Hormuz, depleted American munitions, and wreaked global economic havoc.

Keep reading

Fake News – Are they Stupid or On the Take?

I watched the 60 minute interview of Trump and there too they said Russia invaded unprovoked. Here is Politico saying the same shit. Either these journalists are just on the take to put out constant fake news, or they are absolutely stupid and have no right working in media.

Even the Ukrainian press reported that Boris Johnson flew to Kiev to make sure he did not sign a peace deal. Boris got £1 million to introduce the British Military Industrial Complex to Zelensky.

They ignore the Minsk Agreement that the EU signed that was to allow the Donbas to vote on separation. Merkel told the press they never intended to honor that. They were buying toime for Ukraine to build an army to start this war.

Zelensky knew when Russia would invade and he made sure they would for the day before he proclaimed Ukraine would rearm with nuclear weapons. If I recall, we went after Russia and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 for the same reason.

Keep reading

Lawyer preps class action over Veterans Affairs MAID offers as more veterans come forward

Two days before Remembrance Day, Ezra Levant opened Monday’s episode of The Ezra Levant Show with Rudyard Kipling’s poem Tommy, about a country that cheers its soldiers in wartime and forgets them in peacetime.

“But simply ignoring or underfunding veterans is one thing,” Ezra said. “But how about actively proposing to veterans that they should kill themselves or be killed by doctors.”

His guest was Catherine Christensen of Valour Law, who is working toward a class action on behalf of Canadian veterans who say Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) steered them toward medical assistance in dying (MAID).

Christensen said the practice is “a lot more prominent than Veterans Affairs would be willing to admit.” Younger veterans are being offered MAID over the phone, she said, “in an unexpected way, so they’re not able to record it.” But in the last few months, she said, older veterans have started receiving letters from Veterans Affairs suggesting it.

She said more veterans have contacted her since the Daily Mail covered her clients’ stories, including a senior veteran who told someone at a service that he was appalled to have received a letter offering him MAID. She said a copy of one such letter is on its way to her.

One of her clients is Corben McGown, who says a VAC caseworker raised MAID as his first option for treatment when he was a 22-year-old veteran with PTSD. He is now 26 and suing the federal government in Federal Court.

Christensen said Veterans Affairs’ defence was that the call never happened, so her team set out to prove it did. She told Ezra that McGown is physically healthy. “This is a big problem with Veterans Affairs and it needs to stop,” she said.

The government disputes McGown’s account. A 2023 VAC investigation confirmed four cases in which one employee inappropriately raised MAID with veterans, and said it found no further validated incidents.

Asked whether the push is ideological or about money, Christensen said she believes it is about cost. “As gross as it sounds this close to Remembrance Day, the truth of it is that dead veterans are cheaper than live ones, especially young veterans,” she said. “It’s a budget thing, in my opinion.”

Christensen, a former registered nurse, also questioned how informed consent is possible when a veteran with a severe brain injury can be lined up for MAID within a couple of days.

The biggest challenges in the class action, she said, will be defining the classes and getting documents out of the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs. She pointed to the case of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, whose emails were hard to find because officials used a code name. “I’ve never seen defendants fight discovery harder than the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs,” she said.

She said veterans have been afraid to come forward because they fear losing their benefits, and that she is in talks with members of the opposition. Veterans can learn more at the Valour Legal Action Centre, a nonprofit.

“Veterans are very vulnerable and they deserve better treatment than this,” she said.

Keep reading

US Bases Damage by Iran: $19.94 Billion

World BEYOND War has just published a new report by Mohammed M.A. Abunahel and David Swanson called The Damage Done to U.S. Bases in the War on Iran: Documenting Attacks, Assessing Damage, and Estimating Financial Losses (full report here).

The estimated cost of replacing U.S. military property either completely destroyed or severely damaged by Iranian attacks, according to the calculations in the report, is $19.94 billion. When we read cost estimates for the U.S. role in the war of $43.6 billion, we can therefore correct that to an estimated $63.5 billion — not counting economic impacts or lost opportunity costs.

This report documents the damage done by Iranian attacks on both U.S. bases and on non-U.S. buildings and people in Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Cyprus, and Israel.

According to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio the United States attacked Iran because Israel was planning to attack Iran, which was understood as likely to produce Iranian attacks on U.S. bases. Through the course of the war, the U.S. government has used the bases it has maintained thousands of miles away from the United States to describe its attacks on Iran as “defensive.” Prior to the build-up to war, over 50,000 U.S. troops occupied dozens of bases in some of the world’s most brutal dictatorships — dictatorships propped up in part by these bases.

When the U.S. Congress takes up legislation to authorize more military spending, the question must be carefully addressed: how much funding will go to rebuilding bases that make wars more likely and which have a high probability of being destroyed again, and is it fair to the host nations to impose bases that not only support unpopular rulers but also turn the surrounding areas into targets?

This report should have long since been produced by the U.S. government. Independent researchers should not have to make estimates based on news reports and what scraps of information the U.S. government sees fit to make public. Secrecy, like an archipelago of foreign bases, is one factor contributing to the initiation of wars. This report is offered in hopes of shining what light it can into the darkness of U.S. war policy.

Piecing together the costs to U.S. government property is not meant to distract from the massive human and property costs that this war has inflicted on the people of Iran. Rather, it is intended to help inform the U.S. public of one small part of what its government does with its money.

Keep reading

Germany Threatens to Hold the Entire EU Budget Hostage for Ukraine

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is now threatening to block the European Union’s entire seven-year budget unless every member state agrees to finance Ukraine. This is the state of European politics today. The governments of 27 nations are supposed to negotiate a budget that addresses their own economic needs, infrastructure, agriculture, regional development, and public services. Instead, Merz has decided the future of the entire European Union must be conditional on another financial commitment to a nation that is not even an EU member. The war has been dragging on since February 2022, European economies are deteriorating, and the political establishment continues to behave as though there is an unlimited supply of money that can be extracted from the taxpayers.

Ukraine is facing a €70 billion financing shortfall in 2027. Brussels has already promised to cover approximately two-thirds of that amount, or €45 billion, despite having no agreed mechanism to finance the commitment. The European Commission is considering another round of joint borrowing, which would place additional obligations upon European taxpayers. This comes on top of the €90 billion loan approved last December. The existing loan was supposed to provide Ukraine with financing over two years, yet Kyiv is already demanding another enormous injection of capital. At what point does anyone in Brussels acknowledge that this is becoming a permanent financial obligation rather than temporary emergency assistance?

Merz has written to European Council President António Costa demanding that all member states contribute to Ukraine’s financing. He declared, “A collective commitment that all of us, without exception, will contribute fairly to closing this gap is an essential prerequisite for resolving this issue and for discussing any further matters, particularly those with financial implications.” Germany is threatening to withhold approval of the EU’s 2028–2034 budget unless countries that have already expressed opposition to additional Ukraine financing agree to participate.

Keep reading

EU Approves First Military Mission Presence On Ukrainian Soil: ‘Make No Secret Of It’

The European Council has announced that it is sending EU military personnel directly to Ukraine as part of its ongoing train and advise mission.

However, whereas this program – called the EU Military Assistance Mission in support of Ukraine (EUMAM) – previously only took place outside of Ukraine, it will now be extended to Ukrainian territory.

In a Monday press release, the Council confirmed that it is extending the mandate of the EUMAM until November 15, 2028, with a budget of nearly 300 million (or $334 million) – but added this huge new development:

“The Council also decided to establish a presence in Ukraine to ensure direct and effective coordination with the Ukrainian military authorities,“ the press release from Brussels said.

This is a huge provocation aimed at Russia, given that Moscow’s position has long been that European soldiers would be fair game for Russian strikes.

While it’s believed that Western forces and certainly intelligence officers been on the ground throughout the conflict, especially French forces, this has never been done in an official and public capacity.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov addressed this change at a press conference Tuesday while speaking from Abu Dhabi at the trilateral Russia-Ukraine-US talks:

“Europe’s plan is quite simple, and they make no secret of it: as soon as a ceasefire is reached, they intend to move ‘stabilization forces’ into the territory controlled by the Kiev regime.”

Indeed it seems Brussels is trying to create leverage for inself by being more directly ‘involved’ on the ground in Ukraine.

Keep reading

Israel Bombs Lebanon’s Churches

Months after an ostensible “ceasefire” agreement was signed by Marco Rubio’s State Department, the U.S. Army Infantry School-trained President of Lebanon Joseph Aoun, and the government of Israel, Israeli occupation forces continue to occupy much of southern Lebanon, demolish entire villages with C4 explosives, and perpetrate massacres of civilians.

Under the terms of the Rubio ceasefire, Israel has permission to continue occupying what is called a “security zone,” while Lebanese forces are deputized to accomplish the objective of “disarming” Hezbollah. Only once Hezbollah is disarmed must Israel redeploy from Lebanon. The agreement was designed to supplant the terms of the Iran-U.S. MOU negotiated in Switzerland by J.D. Vance and signed on June 17, 2026, which tied the end of the Iran War to the “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon” and on “ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.”

As Lebanese journalist Mohamad Kleit explained to Dragnet, Lebanese forces have only replaced Israeli occupation forces in three southern villages while Israel’s wholesale destruction of villages continues unabated. A recent New York Times investigation reported that “48 of the roughly 60 villages and towns within Israeli-occupied southern Lebanon are mostly leveled,” noting that “of the 48 villages that have been mostly destroyed, almost all are majority Shiite.”

While corporate media frames the Israeli destruction of those villages and the thousands of civilian casualties Israel has produced as incidental to Israel’s fight with Hezbollah, public statements by Israeli officials reveal what Lebanese human rights activists call “inherent systematic targeting” which “there can be no doubt is deliberate.” Boasting of the destruction of more than 23,000 homes on Israeli television, Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz reiterated his longstanding position that Israel seeks to impose what he calls “the Gaza model” in southern Lebanon.

As Israel continues to advance through southern Lebanon despite a ceasefire, Israeli commentators and Lebanese lawmakers alike have said the agreement is designed not to end the conflict but to fuel it, potentially leading to sectarian conflict and civil war.

When the deal was signed, an Israeli analyst remarked on Israel’s Channel 13 that “it seems we’re leading the state of Lebanon into civil war,” adding “maybe it’s not so bad for us, let the Lebanese government fight Hezbollah,” to which his co-host replied that this was “the goal from the start.”

Most recently, Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt admitted that “we made a mistake by choosing Marco Rubio’s track,” because “believing that the Americans can pressure Israel to withdraw is a complete illusion.” Jumblatt, a former self-admitted warlord responsible for what Jumblatt himself calls “religious cleansing and mass destruction” is no fan of Hezbollah. Yet he now believes he “cannot accept a hardline approach toward Hezbollah if it leads to civil war.”

Keep reading

The “Black Sky” Plan & The “Be Ready” Campaign… What Kind Of Disaster Is The UK Urgently Preparing For?

Is there something that they aren’t telling us? All of a sudden, governments all over the globe are instructing their citizens to stockpile food, water and other essential supplies. Why is there such a sense of urgency to do this in late 2026? What has changed? Without a doubt, conditions are far different than they were 12 months ago. It appears that the war with Iran will soon greatly escalate, the war in Ukraine just continues to intensify, a Super El Niño is causing global weather patterns to go nuts, European cities are being ravaged by seemingly endless riots, and we are simultaneously facing a global energy crisis, a global fertilizer crisis and a global food crisis. Chaos is erupting all around us, and the months ahead are almost certainly going to be even more chaotic.

But does this explain why governments throughout the world have suddenly decided that now is the time for everyone to go out and buy emergency supplies?

In the UK, the BBC just published a very long article that reveals details about their “Black Sky” doomsday plan…

In a major emergency, we are being told to hunker down and turn on an FM radio, as thousands did in Lancaster. This is why the BBC has its own Black Sky plan.

Only a small number of staff know the full details, but from what I have gleaned, about 100 people in the BBC will run a special emergency radio studio.

It will have secure lines of communication not dependent on the internet, and fuel, water and food to ensure it can operate without resupply for at least three days.

What kind of scenario are they anticipating that would make this “Black Sky” doomsday plan necessary?

Apparently it would include a loss of power and Internet, because they are planning to use radio transmission towers to keep the British public informed over FM radio…

The BBC’s broadcasts will be sent via radio transmission towers, isolated from the internet and equipped with tanks of between five and 40,000 litres (8,800 gallons) of diesel to keep their generators going for three days – FM radio is power hungry. The teams will be using satellite phones to keep in touch and if these stop working there are pre-agreed protocols and meet-up points.

Why FM? Because it works almost everywhere, even in a blackout or a crippling cyber-attack.

This “Black Sky” doomsday plan was revealed less than a month after the UK government’s “Be Ready” campaign was launched.

Starting on October 22nd, the UK government began instructing citizens to stockpile food, water and other emergency supplies…

The government’s new Be Ready campaign is advising the public to stock up on three day’s worth of supplies for use during severe weather or cyber-attacks, so help can be directed to the most vulnerable first.

In a concise, two-page document, it suggests people stock bottled water and non-perishable food for three days, a torch with spare batteries, a wind-up FM radio, a first aid kit and a copy of their passport. To stave off panic buying, it advises people to check their cupboards first and build up items gradually on regular shopping trips.

Apparently the “Be Ready” campaign has been very successful.

A co-owner of a prepping store in the UK was absolutely astounded by the number of orders that started coming in…

While there is no evidence the advice has triggered mass panic, the public is clearly responding. Jack Brown, who co-owns Sgt Prepper Shop, which stocks emergency food and survival tools, said he received a month’s worth of orders in the first 24 hours of the Be Ready campaign.

“I thought my phone was glitching or being hacked with the number of orders coming in,” he said.

I think that this is wonderful.

But what has prompted this dramatic change of tone by officials in the UK?

Are they concerned that cyberattacks could take down the power grid or the financial system?

In France, hackers just broke into a prominent bank and successfully got away with 133 million dollars…

French cooperative bank Crédit Mutuel Arkéa was targeted in a cyberattack that enabled fraudulent transactions of up to $133 million, forcing it to respond by suspending certain systems.

The bank says that the attacker used its own account to initiate transactions to other banking organizations, but customer assets remain unaffected.

Crédit Mutuel Arkéa is a major French banking group with more than 5.8 million members and 211.5 billion euros in assets.

Our financial institutions are under constant attack, and artificial intelligence is giving hackers more powerful tools that we have ever seen before.

Keep reading