Tag: perpetual war

Former SecAF Kendall Unwittingly Exposes The Base Problem Of The DEI Agenda

The Biden Administration’s Secretary of the Air Force, Frank Kendall (a West Point graduate whom a classmate said is “left of Marx”), displayed remarkable tone deafness quoted in a recent article, Pete Hegseth’s blocks on promotions rankle former military leaders, where those interviewed erroneously think SecWar Hegseth is blocking promotions because the person is black or a woman.

That is the complete opposite of what Hegseth is trying to do in eliminating DEI–throwing out selections based on skin color or sex. (Now if the person was an enthusiastic advocate for the divisive Marxist-based CRT/DEI/Woke ideology and pushed that agenda, that’s another thing).

Kendall was quoted in this article as saying,

“There seems to be an assumption that if you were a minority or a woman and you were promoted, that it was because of your identity and not because you’re good at what you do.”

Well, yeah, because you created that assumption by pushing the DEI agenda so much where people WERE promoted based on their DEI identity and not their qualifications. (See sample articles below).

Servicemembers watched this happen over and over again causing more qualified, experienced people to give up and leave or not recommend military service.

This is the whole base problem of constantly pushing the divisive DEI agenda on the military: it created an atmosphere where minorities and women (and their coworkers observing) didn’t know if they were selected because they were good at what they do or because of their skin color or gender, thus creating doubts in everyone–a horrible situation. Said one senior military officer,

“If we can’t get rid of this DEI BS, none of us of color are ever going to know if we really earned the position we are promoted into.”

Hegseth is removing DEI and its advocates and once DEI is really in the wastebin and no longer pushed and thought about, everyone can assume people are selected based on their qualifications, period. In other words, Merit.

Keep reading

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is Creating Their Own ‘Red Guard’ – A Militia Network Called the ‘Red Rabbits’

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is creating an armed paramilitary group called the ‘Red Rabbits’ which sounds almost exactly like Mao Zedong’s infamous ‘Red Guards’ in communist China.

The training tactics being described for the ‘Red Rabbits’ mirrors the tactics of Antifa and other leftist groups.

The human infrastructure for this already exists. You know those people you see marching on college campuses wearing keffiyehs and shouting free Palestine? Those are exactly the type of people who will join an outfit like this one.

City Journal reported:

Inside the DSA’s Emerging Militant Network

As its national influence has risen, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has simultaneously grown more extreme. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the group’s “Red Rabbits” initiative. The Red Rabbits Security Commission, a subgroup within the DSA focused on “community defense” efforts, is, according to its authorizing resolution, preparing for a “national uprising against federal agents and police brutality.” In practice, that means training cadres in tactics like armed and unarmed self-defense, blocking intersections, and fighting “fascists” with umbrellas.

A recent panel offered an unprecedented window into what the project looks like. Organizers from Minnesota, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Tucson, Austin, and Portland compared notes. As the discussion made clear, the DSA is trying to construct a nationwide security apparatus to support its expanding role in street protests and direct-action organizing. And in so doing, it fears drawing the attention of the Internal Revenue Service—likely with good reason.

The DSA launched the Red Rabbits Security Commission at its 2025 national convention. Organizers chose the deliberately innocuous name as a nod to the novel Watership Down, in which anthropomorphized rabbits are outnumbered and beset by enemies. Earlier branding proposals, including “National Vigilance Committee,” were deemed too politically stark, with some members concerned that they could be interpreted as an endorsement of vigilantism.

The Red Rabbits claim that their focus is on five core security skills: de-escalation, Stop the Bleed (a first aid training on bleeding control), firearm safety, unarmed self-defense, and protest marshalling (crowd management during demonstrations).

Keep reading

The Logic and Harm of the United States Launching Foreign Wars

The United States has a long history of launching foreign wars, but the logic that drives these interventions – and the harm they inevitably produce – deserves closer scrutiny. When insecurity can be artificially manufactured and war proceeds without democratic consent, the American people are left bearing the burden of decisions made in the service of political and economic interests rather than genuine national security.

The Flawed Procedure: How Presidents Bypass Congress

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war, yet modern presidents have consistently circumvented this check on executive authority. The 1973 War Powers Act was intended to limit this drift, requiring the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and mandating withdrawal within 60 days unless Congress authorizes continued hostilities. But the act contains two critical loopholes: it allows the president to determine what counts as a “war,” and it provides two to three months of unilateral military action without congressional approval.

The 2026 U.S.-Iran conflict illustrates precisely how these constitutional tensions play out. When the Trump administration launched coordinated strikes with Israel on February 28, 2026, it did so without a congressional declaration of war or an Authorization for Use of Military Force. In response, House Democrats invoked the War Powers Act, ultimately passing a resolution to restrain the president by a vote of 215 to 208. Yet the resolution remained largely symbolic; the Senate must also act, and Republican majorities in both chambers have consistently rejected similar proposals. Michael O’Hanlon and Amy McGrath summarized the fundamental problem: “One person must not have exclusive decision-making authority over matters of war and peace for the United States of America, unless there is an imminent and acute threat to the United States that requires emergency action”. When that threat does not genuinely exist, the procedure becomes a fig leaf for executive overreach.

The Costs of Conflict: What Americans Have Paid and What They Think

The U.S.-Iran war has imposed staggering financial and human costs. By mid-2026, the Pentagon acknowledged that direct operational expenses had reached approximately $29 billion. However, as Harvard economist Linda Bilmes – who accurately forecast the $3 trillion cost of the Iraq War – has warned, the true long-term burden will be far higher. Bilmes estimates that once veterans’ healthcare, weapons replenishment, and interest on borrowed war funding are included, the total cost to American taxpayers will exceed $1 trillion. Already, the war is costing roughly $2 billion per day.

Beyond direct military spending, shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have pushed oil above $100 a barrel. Americans face much higher gas prices, which peaked above $5 a gallon.  The latest Producer Price Index, tracking business input costs, showed a 6% surge from a year ago – 1.4% in April alone. Consumers are faring no better. The most recent Consumer Price Index showed consumer costs up 3.8% from a year ago, the fastest rise in three years, erasing workers’ inflation-adjusted wage gains over the past 12 months.

Public opinion has shifted dramatically as these costs have become apparent. Polls conducted before and after the outbreak of hostilities reveal a consistent pattern: Americans did not want this war, and many now resent its consequences. Early polls after the war began found a slim plurality opposed it: 48% to 43%. By May, disapproval surged to 58%, with only 38% supporting the war. Only 25% believed the Trump administration’s claim that Iran posed an imminent threat, and 56% said the administration should have sought congressional approval first.

By April, concerns widened. More than six in 10 Americans said Trump lacked a clear plan, and two-thirds said the war’s goals were unexplained. Majorities said the U.S. had failed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, stop Iran’s nuclear programs, or secure freedom for Iranians. A Chicago Council on Global Affairs survey in early May found Americans see the war’s impact as negative for the U.S. cost of living (86%), international relations (72%), reputation (72%), and national security (65%). Majorities said the administration hadn’t consulted allies, limited casualties, or pursued negotiations. A plurality called the war stalemated. Few believed Iran would comply with a peace deal; 48% lacked confidence the U.S. would comply.

Keep reading

Democratic Party’s Corollary to the Donroe Doctrine

Donald Trump’s second term has precipitated a tsunami of criticism from Democrats over his foreign policy. Yet when it comes to Washington’s efforts to dominate Latin America and the Caribbean, the substantive dispute – if there is any substance remaining, once stripped of partisan bickering – is less about ends than means.

Beneath the rhetoric of inter-party conflict lies a broad bipartisan consensus in favor of promoting US hemispheric hegemony and crushing governments that resist it – with Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua at the forefront. While Democrats frequently portray Trump as reckless, they generally accept the underlying premises of economic coercion, political intervention, and regime-change pressure. Their objections mainly focus on the execution of policy rather than its legitimacy.

The central role of sanctions in projecting imperial coercive power

Under Democratic administrations, the US forged and institutionalized what may be its most effective instrument of hegemony. Coercive economic measures, commonly called “sanctions,” were first deployed by Franklin D. Roosevelt against Mexico in the 1930s. They were used by Dwight D. Eisenhower to pressure Guatemala in 1954 and then – most drastically – against Cuba by both Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy in 1960. Today, one-third of the world’s nations are under US sanctions.

Sanctions – a form of collective punishment – are held by legal experts to be contrary to international law. Paradoxically, not only does Washington disregard international law in imposing sanctions, but the US then behaves as if they are applying the law when, for example, they pirate a ship delivering humanitarian supplies to a sanctioned country.

Use of sanctions has accelerated because successive administrations have seen their unique advantages. Compared with “forever wars,” they are more easily justified to US voters as cost-free and as not imperiling US lives. If sanctions are the precursor to military intervention – as in Guatemala in 1954, Cuba in 1961, Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989 and, of course, Venezuela in 2026 – the interventions have usually been limited, with few US casualties.

Yet sanctions are very potent: between 2010 and 2021, they caused around 560,000 deaths globally each year – more than five times the number of people killed annually in direct armed combat.

While sanctions are made more palatable by being described as “targeted” at governments or individuals seen as undesirable by Washington, in practice the “targeting” is deliberately far wider. Sanctions do most damage to the poorest sectors of societies – the sectors most likely to support progressive governments. The barely veiled message is that only by withdrawing this support will such communities be able to prosper and avoid the threat of even greater US intervention.

The frequent description of sanctions as “targeted” carries another implication – that they are intended to have a precise and conclusive effect. However, while sanctions cause severe economic damage, there is little evidence that they achieve intended regime change. Even so, sanctions on countries which refuse to change are maintained and – very frequently – intensified. Democrats are as guilty of this folly as Republicans.

Indeed, US sanctions have imperial utility through their “demonstration effect”: attempting to cripple progressive alternatives to the neoliberal world order. Recently subjected to draconian sanctions, Cuban President Díaz-Canel proclaimed: “Cuba is not a failed state; Cuba is a besieged state.” Still, infant mortality in Cuba is lower than among African Americans.

Keep reading

The World Government That Wasn’t

There are certain episodes in Cold War history that modern conservatives are expected to treat as either sinister fantasy or liberal delusion. The McCloy–Zorin Accords of 1961 occupy a curious place. Explain the concept today and half of the audience assumes you are describing a proto-globalist fever dream hatched in Manhattan conference rooms full of Scandinavian furniture and earnest men in rimless spectacles.

Yet for a brief moment — and this is the part that ought to unsettle both the utopians and the cynics — the United States and the Soviet Union formally agreed that the ultimate goal of international politics should be the abolition of war itself.

Not metaphorically. Literally.

The “Joint Statement of Agreed Principles for Disarmament Negotiations,” better known as the McCloy–Zorin Accords, was negotiated between American statesman John J. McCloy and Soviet diplomat Valerian Zorin in September 1961 and endorsed unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1961. It envisioned phased and verified general disarmament under international control, including the eventual elimination of national military establishments and the creation of a United Nations peace force.

This was not drafted by Woodstock pacifists smoking hashish in Vermont. McCloy was the very model of the American establishment insider: Wall Street lawyer, banker, Assistant Secretary of War, and one of the founding grandees of the postwar Atlantic order. Zorin, meanwhile, was a hard Soviet apparatchik who had spent decades navigating the darker corridors of Kremlin diplomacy.

And yet there they were, at the height of the Berlin Crisis and only a year before the Cuban Missile Crisis, jointly sketching a roadmap toward “general and complete disarmament.”

The irony is that the men closest to this project were not starry-eyed internationalists in the modern sense. They were realists in the older and more serious tradition. They had lived through industrial slaughter on a civilizational scale. Twenty-seven million Russians had died in World War Two. They understood that thermonuclear war was not a talking point but an extinction event. The generation that built the United Nations had watched Europe commit suicide twice in thirty years and concluded, however imperfectly, that sovereign states armed to the teeth and gripped by ideological hysteria might not indefinitely coexist.

Dag Hammarskjöld, the Swedish Secretary-General of the UN, became the moral and administrative face of this ambition. Today he is remembered, if at all, as the Nordic bureaucrat whose name adorns the plaza outside the UN building by the East River in New York and the library inside that skyscraper. In his own time he was treated almost as a secular pope. The press followed him obsessively. In the newsreels, he emerged from turboprop airliners with a mysterious Swedish smile. A new conflict, a new day for Dag. For a few years from the mid-fifties to very early sixties, the UN became a repository for a tired planet’s hopes. Diplomats regarded him with awe, irritation, or both. He believed the UN could become not merely a debating chamber but an actual mechanism for preventing great-power war.

This is the part modern conservatives are supposed to laugh at.

Keep reading

Israel And Hezbollah Trade Fire In Southern Lebanon, Deaths On Both Sides, Israeli Media Goes After Trump, Vance Cancels Swiss Iranian Negotiation Trip As Violence Rages, Iran Says Deal In Jeopardy

Hezbollah fired missiles into Northern Israel yesterday, which were intercepted by Israeli missile systems. Israeli leadership responded angrily to the U.S.-Iran peace deal as the IDF continued operations in Southern Lebanon. Multiple Israeli soldiers were killed south of Beirut as Israeli forces continue to consolidate positions and go after Shia proxy army targets in the south. The IDF continues to be challenged by FPV drones, which are effective against armor and infantry in southern Lebanon.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz rages on Israeli TV:

“Nobody can tell us what to do, and we’ve proven it. The entire first line of Lebanese villages has been destroyed.  We are destroying all the houses. The residents will never see them standing before their eyes again.

“In Lebanon, the 200,000 residents who lived in the “security zone” are not returning.  Not one of them is returning.

“We are fighting there. We do not need al-Julani. Al-Julani, the terrorist in a suit, does not need to come and help us. We know Syria well. He is not going to help us in Lebanon. He should stay in Syria, not interfere with us, and not make us interfere with him.

“Do you know what really hurts the jihadists? Maybe it hurts them when you kill them personally, but they don’t care as much about that.  What really hurts them is when you take territory from them and destroy their homes—and that’s what we did.

“You remember the raids? They would go in and come out.  We go in, destroy, and do not leave. That’s what we’re doing now in Lebanon

“The IDF must be on the other side of the border, beyond the border, defending the State of Israel against jihadist organizations in Lebanon, in Syria, and in Gaza. We will not move from the “security zones”—not in Syria, not in Gaza, and not in Lebanon.

“Why are we on the other side in Syria?  Because we need to be there to protect ourselves against what we see in Syria.

“We are already in more than 60% of Gaza, and all of it is destroyed. It is destroyed above ground and underground. That is the difference in the approach we introduced.”

Keep reading

Trump says oil reserves would run out in 4 weeks without Iran deal, risking ‘bedlam’

President Trump said Wednesday that oil reserves could have run out in four weeks if the Strait of Hormuz were not opened.

“We run out of reserves at about four weeks,” Trump said in France while at the Group of Seven summit, discussing the recent memorandum of understanding with Iran. “You know, there are reserves all over the world, and we would really run out, and there’ll be a time when you wouldn’t be able to get it.”

He said it would be “bedlam” if the oil ran out.

“What this does is it allows the ships to go,” he said of the Iran deal. “If we keep bombing, those ships won’t be going.”

It’s not entirely clear whether Trump was referring to U.S. or global oil inventories. The White House declined to elaborate, referring The Hill back to Trump’s original remarks.

In recent weeks, the International Energy Agency (IEA), an organization of oil consuming countries, has warned of declining oil reserves.

IEA head Fatih Birol said last month that oil reserve releases were helping to keep up the market supply, but he warned the reserves “are not endless.”

He indicated at the time that because of the war and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, only a few weeks of commercial inventories were remaining. 

The IEA also warned in May that oil demand would exceed supply this year.

At the start of the war, both the U.S. and other IEA countries announced they would release oil from their strategic reserves, putting 400 million additional barrels onto the market.

As part of the announcement, the Trump administration said it would release 172 million barrels from its strategic reserve. The releases were set to occur over a 120-day period.

At the time, the U.S. strategic reserve comprised about 415 million barrels of oil, meaning the release of an additional 172 million would eventually bring the reserve down to about 243 million unless barrels were added or subtracted for other reasons.

Keep reading

‘Slash the Pentagon Act’ Would Cap Trump’s Military Budget To Fund Healthcare, Education, and More

Democratic US Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts took aim Monday at President Donald Trump’s illegal war of choice on Iran and request for a record $1.5 trillion in total military-related spending authorization by introducing legislation that would cap the Pentagon budget at half that amount.

Markey introduced the Slash the Pentagon Act at a Capitol Hill press conference that took place “as Americans struggle to pay for healthcare, rent, electricity, groceries, and gas, while Trump has spent over $100 billion on his expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary war with Iran.”

“Instead of funding Medicaid and education or investing in veterans’ care, Republicans want to pad the pockets of gold-plated defense contractors with billions more dollars for weapons and wars we do not need,” Markey said at the press conference.

“Just before SpaceX’s IPO made Elon Musk a trillionaire, Trump gave SpaceX billions in contracts for his expensive and ineffective ‘Golden Dome’ system,” Markey continued. “Coincidence? No, corruption.”

“It’s time to put people before the Pentagon and make major cuts to Trump’s bloated and wasteful defense spending,” the senator added. “We should invest in our hospitals, schools, affordable housing, and the real security American families need right now – not expensive wars and weapons that make us less safe.”

Markey’s bill comes just days after the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 18-9 to advance the $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027, and the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee approved the Fiscal Year 2027 Defense Appropriations Bill during a closed-door markup. The House bill provides $1.072 trillion for the Pentagon and other military-related activities, a $234 billion increase from this year’s enacted level.

The Trump administration’s broader national security proposal requests nearly $1.5 trillion in total defense-related spending for 2027, which includes $350 billion in supplemental funding for munitions production, shipbuilding, missile defense, drones, artificial intelligence, and other long-term military programs.

Keep reading

Israeli Desperation Leading to Enormous Sums for Lobbying, Media Manipulation

Things aren’t going so well these days for Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. While his partner President Trump is working actively to end the war with Iran by inking a memorandum of understanding to halt the fighting, American public opinion of Israel continues to plummet. That is no surprise — Israel’s war on Gaza has now killed over 73,000 Palestinians (at least), the Gaza Strip is largely rubble, and Israel has moved to do the same in south Lebanon.

Netanyahu blames the loss of support on TikTok and social media writ large (not his government’s own policies) and is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to pursue media management and pro-Israel advocacy in the U.S. On a parallel track, Israel is seeking unprecedented integration with the U.S. military and its intelligence agencies — which would mean co-production on weapons, technology and sharing of sensitive intel. Experts say this is why Israel has been insisting it doesn’t “need” the 10-year agreement that provides Israel $3.8 billion annually in military aid. This would shift that aid to the places that don’t require the same oversight and overt American buy-in.

My colleagues Ben Freeman and Nick Cleveland-Stout, who form up the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute, have been digging away at these Israel efforts on myriad fronts. Ben has been writing about the integration legislation on both the military and intel sides, now making their way through Congress. Nick has been sifting through Foreign Agent Registration Act and other public efforts to expose the millions that have been going to former Trump campaign guy Brad Parscale to push pro-Israel messaging through conservative media platforms, text campaigns, manipulating ChatGPT, and more.

Both talk to me this week about how all of these efforts have ramped up as Israel is more keenly aware that it has lost the thread with the American people and that powerful lobbying forces like AIPAC are not enough.

Keep reading

The US-Israel Wars on Iran: Follow the Money

Like most of America’s wars in West Asia, the current joint U.S.-Israel attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran is about securing control over the region’s energy resources and preserving oil currency policies; practices that have fueled its expansive economy since the end of the Second World War.

Ultimately, this conflict, which has sent shockwaves through the global economy, boils down to who will reign in West Asia, control the world’s energy lifeline, and dictate the rules of global finance.

Beneath the veneer of geopolitical diplomacy and rhetoric about global order, the true catalyst for U.S. wars in the Persian Gulf – from the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to the current Iran war – has always been monetary supremacy, “money.” They have been rooted in oil revenue, debt leverage, and the staggering economic stakes of global energy and currency dominance.

Washington’s hardline stance, economic strangulation and military interventions  have been designed to enforce compliance. Countries, like Iran, that resist U.S. hegemony face severe financial and military pressures, because their defiance challenges America’s regional security architecture and unipolar dominance over the global financial system.

Since the 1970s, the “petrodollar system” has been the invisible engine of American prosperity and power.  However, the economic scaffolding that has buoyed its global hegemony is fraying, as geopolitical shifts and de-dollarization trends gradually erode the U.S. dollar’s absolute grip on global energy markets.

To make sense of how we reached this point, it is important to consider how the U.S. dollar achieved its global dominance and shaped our current economic reality.

In June 1974, the United States and Saudi Arabia signed a landmark economic and military cooperation agreement, establishing what has come to be known as the “petrodollar system.”

This consequential bargain was born in an era of political and economic uncertainty – inflation, Vietnam War and the 1973 Arab oil embargo. With the U.S. economy in a nosedive, then-President Richard Nixon, anxious to maintain the global demand for dollars, persuaded the Saudi government to finance America’s debt with its petroleum wealth.  He convinced them to price their oil exclusively in U.S. dollars and to invest their surplus oil profits in U.S. Treasury bonds.  In exchange, Washington agreed to provide the Saudis with weapons and protection.  By 1975, all Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries were pricing their oil in dollars.

The Saudi policy of pricing crude exclusively in U.S. dollars compelled all purchasing nations to convert their native currencies before making purchases.  Increased international demand for the dollar made it the world’s singular reserve currency and preferred medium of exchange.  To meet the increased need, Washington simply fired up the printing presses.

Over the years, Washington’s staunch support of the repressive Saudi regime has been driven by a strategic imperative: to ensure that its client state remains committed to the 1974 bargain.

This favorable pricing and trading arrangement has allowed Washington to entail massive deficits, to borrow and spend with abandon without triggering financial collapse. It has financed America’s numerous military adventures and provided the tools to wield economic sanctions and enforce its foreign policy.

Although a web of motives have fueled Washington’s interventions in West Asia, punishing currency dissenters was prominent in its past wars in Iraq and Libya.

Keep reading