Barbarians At The Nuclear Gate

Oh look, the United States is at war again! And this time the guy who got us into it has been shamelessly promoting himself as the "President of Peace" and applying vociferously in the court of public opinion for a Nobel Peace Prize. Why are we there? To obliterate their nuclear program that we already obliterated? To achieve regime change? (We we now are saying is not the goal) Because Israel is our ally? Because if Israel attacked without us Iran would attack us anyway? Who knows? It doesn't appear that anyone in the Trump regime does. Certainly none of them envisioned Iran fighting back, including drone and missile attacks against our military bases and against our regional allies, nor closing the Strait of Hormuz. 

You don't have to be a veteran or active duty service member to understand what our military is for. You don't have to have experienced combat to know that war is a messy business. The purpose of the military isn't to bully the rest of the world into submission, bombing and killing in order to get our way. Yes, sometimes bombing and killing is necessary to protect our people and our interests, but it shouldn't spring from the oversized ego of the president without any clear plan or rationale. 

Trump has a skewed view of war and the military. He's like that guy at the bar who inserts himself into conversations among veterans, bragging about how he was "looking into" joining the Marines when he was younger. He's almost certainly a fan of the kind of old school war movie where the Americans were the unquestioned heroes fighting for freedom (surely not for democracy, since we're a republic doncha know) and no one was napalming villages or stacking Iraqis into naked pyramids or fragging their lieutenants. His view of what the military does seems to be limited to blowing up foreigners, which he apparently believes is always justified.  I would not be surprised to learn that he is unaware that members of the military include cooks, truck drivers, accountants, lawyers, doctors, equipment maintenance, and IT specialists. And that all of them are necessary. 

It should be no surprise that Trump installed Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense. Unlike Trump, Hegseth is a military veteran, and served in a variety of roles, including his first assignment at Guantanamo Bay detention facility. I don't know what Hegseth was like before that assignment, but I have a family member who was posted there for a year. He was changed, and not for the better, when his time there was done. Hegseth came to Trump's attention, not due to his military service, but for his time as a Fox Television host and commentator where he known for advocating for convicted war criminals. Hegseth, after illegally changing the name of his department to the Department of War, embarked on a program of remaking the DoD into what I can only assume is the image Lt. William Calley. He blathers on about a "warrior ethos" and refers to all service members as "warfighters". 

I'm aware that since not all service members are soldiers (which refers to Army service members only) and that warfighter has been in use for many years, but really, what's wrong with saying "military service members"? Or even just "service members"? I guess that doesn't sound bloodthirsty enough. It certainly doesn't take into account all the cooks, truck drivers, accountants, lawyers, doctors, equipment maintenance, and IT specialists in the military. 

But what irks me more is Hegseth's use of the term "warrior ethos". What is that? Hegseth hints at it when he vows to eliminate "those stupid rules of engagement".  Even more than "warfighter" it points to a disregard of the military's mission:

• Conduct operations to deter and defeat threats to national security.
• Support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
• Provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in times of crisis.
• Train and equip allied forces to enhance global security.
• Maintain readiness to respond to emerging threats and conflicts.
• Engage in peacekeeping and stability operations to promote global peace.

When I hear the word "warrior", the image it evokes is a tattooed woad-covered barbarian screaming defiance at his enemies, raining death and destruction while seeking for glory in battle. In a recent New York Times interview retired General Stanley McChrystal had this to say:

"I even have a problem with the word warrior. Traditionally, warriors were separate from soldiers. The difference between an army and a mob is discipline and leadership and uniform code of military justice."

Hegseth and Trump, far from seeing our military as a force for protection, deterrence, and stability, envision it simply as the biggest, meanest, son of a bitch in the neighborhood, the world's mafia enforcer or hit man, with Trump himself as the godfather. We're only different from Russia in that we're not trying to annex territory, but we are trying to assert control. With our indiscriminate destruction of cities and threats to destroy power plants, we're no better than any nation we call an enemy. 

So what happens next? Trump is claiming that the Iranians are "begging" for a "deal". The Iranian leadership isn't rolling over, nor are the people rising up to "take the government". The easy win that Trump and his sycophants (although, not his most experienced generals) thought would have come within days hasn't happened. Will this drag on into another of those "forever wars" that Trump promised he'd keep us out of? Or will he simply call it a win (Mission Accomplished anyone?) and bring everyone home knowing his cultish followers will believe anything he says?