Tag: perpetual war

Why Are Our Regional Experts Expecting More War in Every Corner?

“Kim Jong-un has made a strategic decision to go to war.  The danger is already far beyond the routine warnings in Washington, Seoul and Tokyo about Pyongyang’s ‘provocations’.”

– Robert Carlin (former State Department analyst) and Siegfried S. Hecker (nuclear scientist and former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory), Stimson Center website 38 North, Discussion of North Korea attack against South Korea, January 11, 2024.

“It’s reached a very, very high level of tension.  War could essentially happen anytime.”

– Lyle Goldstein, Director of Asia engagement at Defense Priorities, Discussion of Chinese attack against Taiwan.

“The implications of Putin’s victory in Ukraine…will only encourage more threats and more war, first in Europe and then in Asia.”

– Michael McFaul, professor at Stanford University and former ambassador to Russia, Substack, January 26, 2024.

“The world war potential is really, really significant.”

– Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen, New York Times, January 30. 2024.

Nicholas Kristof, opinion columnist for the New York Times, asked last week if American anxiety about war can become self-fulfilling.  I don’t believe so, but I do believe that the various experts, cited above, are irresponsibly anticipating an outbreak of war without any evidence  to support such assertions.  It must be emphasized that there is no hard evidence available for any of these lines of dangerous speculation that is available to those outside the intelligence community.  Furthermore, they neglect the larger geopolitical picture that suggests various deterrents to the wars they are anticipating.

These “expert” opinions receive enormous attention in the mainstream media, however, particularly in the New York Times and the Washington Post.  This certainly contributes to the anxiety of the American people.  The irresponsible debate that is currently taking place regarding going to war against Iran adds to that anxiety, and puts a great deal of pressure on the Biden administration, already facing uncertain reelection prospects.

McFaul’s expectation of an expanded war with Russia is particularly unworthy.  McFaul, an academic who was an ambassador to Russia for the Obama administration, confessed that he believed that Russian President Vladimir Putin “surely will be satiated if, God forbid, he succeeds in annexing more of Ukrainian territory.”  But after a trip to Lithuania last week and meetings with government officials and regional experts, he shares their fears that “Putin is only getting started.”  McFaul believes that Putin has “transformed Russia into a wartime economy,” and that there is a possibility of a “direct, conventional war between NATO and Russia.”

McFaul’s arguments would make some sense if it were not for the fact that Russia has done so poorly against the inadequately trained and supplied Ukrainian forces on its border.  Putin’s military has failed in key conventional situations and, as a result, has been forced to withdraw from attacks on Kyiv, Kharkov, and Kherson.  The long-term prospects for Russia’s economy are very weak, and Russia has gone hat in hand with Third World states such as Iran and North Korea for military weaponry.

Moscow’s western border is studded with NATO members as well as a NATO organization that has significantly increased its military prowess.  Over the past year, NATO has increased its military spending by nearly $200 billion, which nearly equals Russia’s annual defense budget.  This argues strongly against Russia undertaking military action in the West against any of the 31 members of NATO.

Keep reading

Ukraine Set To Receive Bomb So New It Hasn’t Reached US Arsenal Yet

The Pentagon is poised to begin equipping Ukraine with a long-range precision bomb that’s so new it hasn’t even hit the American arsenal yet, Politico reports. The first shipment could arrive as early as Wednesday. 

The precision-guided Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB), a joint project of Boeing and Saab, comprises a 250-pound explosive that’s attached to a rocket motor and fired from ground launchers. From a range of about 90 miles, it’s supposedly accurate within a meter. The US military has an air-launched version, but not this new ground-launched one, six of which were fired in a final, pre-ship test conducted at Florida’s Eglin Air Force Base on Jan. 16, according to a Reuters source.  

The weapon has one feature that’s particularly attractive: since it’s already “paid for,” the Pentagon can ship it to Ukraine without waiting for additional Ukraine war-funding legislation that’s been held up in Congress for months. That’s especially important at a time when Ukraine’s stockpile of 100-mile Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) is running low. The US has put off requests to supply ATACMS to Ukraine — partly out of concern that doing so would be seen as a Western escalation — only to later supply them anyway, with the missiles making their debut in October.  

Keep reading

No magic US weapon left for offensive Ukraine victory

The stark failure of Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive, which Kyiv billed as the one-two punch that can knock Russia out of the war, has led proponents of maximalist war aims in Ukraine to revise their timetable for victory.

The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), according to this emerging consensus, can fend off ongoing Russian attacks and replenish their capacity for renewed offensives in 2025 with sustained Western support. Key to these plans is a two-fold assessment of both sides’ strike capabilities.

This view argues that Ukraine, if supplied with enough “game-changing” medium and long-range missiles, can successfully degrade Russian logistics and command and control (C2) nodes and make large swathes of occupied territories — including Crimea — untenable for Russian forces. Such perspectives are complemented and often accompanied by the parallel observation that Russian forces are running critically low on key munitions and thus lack the ability to apply sustained long-term pressure on Ukrainian infrastructure.

Both approaches, which invite Western policymakers to double down on Ukraine’s maximalist war aims in hopes that something approximating a total victory can yet be secured with enough funding and persistence, are deeply flawed and risk putting Kyiv and its Western partners in an even more precarious military position over the coming year.

The AFU received around 20 ground-launched ballistic M39 Block I Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, missiles from the United States in late 2023. These older variant missiles, which boast a range of 170 kilometers, were reportedly used by the AFU to strike Russian-controlled airfields in southern and eastern Ukraine.

In a November 2023 letter, a group of lawmakers called on the Biden administration to transfer more ATACMS, including advanced longer-range variants, to Ukraine with the aim of sustaining the AFU’s “requirement for deep-strike capability.” Former U.S. General Ben Hodges argued that the provision of ATACMS and other Western missiles, including German Taurus cruise missiles, would isolate Russian-occupied Crimea and make it untenable for Russian forces. “ATACMS with 300km range will make Crimea untenable as soon they arrive in Theater. No place for Russian Navy, Air Force, Logistics to hide in Crimea,” Hodges wrote. “On ATACMS for Ukraine, don’t settle for a job half done.”

As with other plans formulated around Ukraine’s use of game-changing “wunderwaffen,” the thinking on massed ATACMS strikes all too often presumes a static Russian adversary incapable of adapting to these weapons over time.

Keep reading

Israel, the US, and the Endless War on Terror

In a New Yorker piece published five days after the attacks of Sept.11, 2001, American critic and public intellectual Susan Sontag wrote, “Let’s by all means grieve together. But let’s not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen.” Sontag’s desire to contextualize the 9/11 attacks was an instant challenge to the narratives that President George W. Bush would soon deploy, painting the United States as a country of peace and, most importantly, innocent of any wrongdoing. While the rhetorical strategies he developed to justify what came to be known as the Global War on Terror have continued to this day, they were not only eagerly embraced by Israel in 2001, they also lie at the heart of that country’s justification of the genocidal campaign that’s been waged against the Palestinian people since Oct. 7, 2023.

On Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush delivered a speech to Congress in which he shared a carefully constructed storyline that would justify endless war. The United States, he said, was attacked because the terrorists “hate our freedoms — our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” In that official response to the 9/11 attacks, he also used the phrase “war on terror” for the first time, stating (all too ominously in retrospect): “Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”

“Americans are asking,” he went on, “why do they hate us?” And then he provided a framework for understanding the motives of the “terrorists” precluding the possibility that American actions prior to 9/11 could in any way have explained the attacks. In other words, he positioned his country as a blameless victim, shoved without warning into a “post-9/11 world.” As Bush put it, “All of this was brought upon us in a single day — and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.” As scholar Richard Jackson later noted, the president’s use of “our war on terror” constituted “a very carefully and deliberately constructed public discourse… specifically designed to make the war seem reasonable, responsible, and inherently ‘good.’”

Keep reading

Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters dropped by music publisher BMG over Israel comments

Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters has reportedly been dropped by music rights company Bertelsmann Music Group (BMG) over his inflammatory remarks about Israel, Ukraine and the United States.

The news was reported by Variety, which notes that Waters’ antisemitic statements “infuriated his former bandmates, as they have driven off several suitors interested in acquiring the wizening band’s recorded-music catalog, which was said to be on the market for half a billion dollars.”

The Berlin-based company signed a deal with Waters, 80, back in 2016 and planned to release a newly re-recorded version of Pink Floyd’s seminal 1973 album ‘Dark Side of the Moon’ in 2023, but the new CEO Thomas Coesfeld dropped the contract. The album was eventually released by the UK label Cooking Vinyl.

Since the start of the Israel Hamas war, Rogers has made multiple remarks that have been deemed antisemitic, and has been the subject of multiple controversies in recent years.

Waters, a longtime supporter of Palestine and a critic of Israel, has vehemently denied these accusations, but caused uproar last year after wearing a “Nazi-style” uniform onstage in Berlin.

Keep reading

Pentagon Admits It Has No Evidence Iran Was Behind Drone Attack That Killed 3 US Troops in Jordan

The Pentagon on Monday said Iran “bears responsibility” for the drone attack in northeastern Jordan that killed three US troops but admitted it has no evidence that Iran was directly involved.

Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said the responsibility fell on Iran due to its support for Iraqi Shia militias the US believes carried out the attack.

“In terms of attribution for the attack, we know this is an [Iran]-backed militia. It has the footprints of Kataib Hezbollah, but [we’re] not making a final assessment,” Singh said at a press conference. “Iran continues to arm and equip these groups to launch these attacks, and we will certainly hold them responsible.”

When asked if the US knew Iran and Iranian leaders were “actually behind this attack, as in planned, coordinated, or directed it,” Singh admitted the US had nothing to show that.

“We know that Iran certainly plays a role with these groups, they arm and equip and fund these groups. I don’t have more to share on — terms of an intelligence assessment on if leaders in Iran were directing this attack,” she said.

Singh was again asked about the claim that Iran was behind the attack and said the US just knows that “Iran funds these groups” and had nothing more to add. Later in the press conference, she said Iran “bears responsibility” for the killing of three American soldiers.

Keep reading

‘Dangerous’: Pelosi calls for FBI to investigate cease-fire supporters

As The New York Times reported Sunday that more than 1,000 Black American pastors have joined the widespread call for a cease-fire in Gaza, U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi suggested the demand was “Putin’s message” and said the FBI should investigate groups that are speaking out about Biden’s pro-Israel policies.

On CNN, the former House speaker, a California Democrat, told Dana Bash that the “call for a cease-fire is [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s message,” and said she thinks some of the protests that have erupted across the U.S. since October to demand the U.S. push for an end to Israel’s killing of civilians in Gaza “are connected to Russia.”

“I think some financing should be investigated and I want to ask the FBI to investigate that,” Pelosi said.

A number of progressives pointed out that the demand for a cease-fire is hardly coming from the fringes of American society, but rather from more than two-thirds of Americans in a November poll by Reuters/Ipsos. Three-quarters of Democrats in the survey backed a cease-fire, along with half of Republicans.

The Times detailed calls from more than 1,000 Black pastors who represent hundreds of thousands of congregants across the U.S. and who have written open letters and spoken to White House officials at sit-down meetings in support of a cease-fire, warning that “it’s going to be very hard to persuade our people to go back to the polls and vote for Biden.”

The Intercept reporter Prem Thakker pointed to other groups supportive of the call, including the Democratic parties of Arizona and Texas; the United Auto Workers, which endorsed Biden last week; and Doctors Without Borders.

Writer and researcher Abdullah Shihipar denounced Pelosi’s comments as “stupid,” but was among those who cautioned against dismissing her plan to ask the FBI to “investigate” certain pro-Palestinian rights protesters and groups.

Keep reading

Preliminary report suggests enemy drone that killed US troops in Jordan was mistaken for a US drone

An enemy drone that killed three American troops and wounded dozens of others in Jordan may have been confused with an American drone returning to the U.S. installation, two U.S. officials said Monday.

The officials, who were not authorized to comment and insisted on anonymity, said preliminary accounts suggest the enemy drone that struck the installation known as Tower 22 may have been mistaken for an American drone that was in the air at the same time.

The officials said that as the enemy drone was flying in at a low altitude, a U.S. drone was returning to the base. As a result, there was no effort to shoot down the enemy drone.

The preliminary conclusion was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Keep reading

The Killing of 3 American Troops Was an Avoidable Tragedy

American blood has been drawn in a Middle Eastern war for the first time in a while. Iraqi guerrillas allied with Iran killed three U.S. troops and wounded dozens more along the Jordanian-Syrian border on Sunday, using an explosive drone. President Joe Biden has promised to “all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner of our choosing.” Members of Congress have called for a harsh response, with some Republicans demanding a full-on war against Iran.

The government of Jordan, clearly not keen on getting dragged into the conflict, has denied that the attack happened on its side of the border. Iran shrugged off responsibility for the bombing, insisting that the issue is entirely between the United States and “resistance groups in Iraq and Syria.” The Iraqi fighters may have indeed been acting on their own accord. Iraqi commander Qais al-Khazali had complained about U.S. airstrikes on Iraq in a speech last November: “You are cautious when it comes to Iranian blood, but you pay no regard to Iraqi blood. Therefore, Iraqis should teach you a lesson for what you have done.”

The immediate cause of the violence is the war in Gaza, which prompted Iraqi militias to break a truce they had with the U.S. military. But this particular attack was a long time coming. The target was Tower 22, an extension of al-Tanf, a base that the U.S. military maintains in Syria for murky and confusing purposes. Over the past few years, Israeli aircraft have used al-Tanf’s airspace to strike Iran’s forces, and Iranian forces have struck back at the base. It was only a matter of time before Americans were dragged into the proxy war, with tragic results.

U.S. Special Forces had first set up shop in al-Tanf during the war against the Islamic State. Their plan was to support the Revolutionary Commando Army, a friendly Syrian rebel group. That project failed embarrassingly. The Revolutionary Commando Army suffered a major defeat at the hands of the Islamic State in 2016, and one of its leaders ran off with American-made guns after he was accused of drug trafficking in 2020. Kurdish-led forces elsewhere in Syria became a much more reliable partner for the U.S. military.

Meanwhile, Russia—which is allied with the Iranian and Syrian governments—agreed to enforce a 55 kilometer “deconfliction zone” around al-Tanf. The zone also included Rukban, an unofficial refugee camp built by Syrians fleeing government persecution. (The Syrian government reportedly tortured two former Rukban residents to death in October 2022.) No country wanted to take responsibility for the camp, and it took almost a decade for the U.S. military to begin providing food aid to Rukban.

Keep reading

Genocide in Gaza as an Opportunity: What Ben-Gvir Wants in the West Bank

If what is currently happening in the occupied Palestinian West Bank took place before October 7, our attention would have been completely fixated on that region in Palestine.

The ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza, however, has devalued the important, if not earth-shattering events underway in the West Bank, which is now a stage for the most violent Israeli military campaign since the Second Palestinian Uprising (2000-05).

As of the time of writing of this article, since October 7, more than 360 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank, while thousands have been wounded and thousands more arrested.

These numbers exceed, by far, the total number of Palestinians killed in 2022, which was already designated by the United Nations as the most violent year on record since 2005.

But how are we to understand the logic behind the Israeli violence in the West Bank, considering that it is already under Israeli military occupation and the joint ‘security’ control of the Israeli army and the Palestinian Authority?

Moreover, if the Israelis are honest in their claim that their war in Gaza is not genocide against the Palestinian people but a war on Hamas, why are they attacking the West Bank with such ferocity, killing people from all different political and ideological backgrounds, and many civilians, including children as well?

The answer lies in the growing political power of the Jewish settlers.

Keep reading