Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Elizabeth Vos on the social-media suppression of information that could help U.S service people refuse to join the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran as fears grow that Trump will send ground troops into the conflict.

As the U.S. and Israel’s deeply unpopular war with Iran enters its second week, social media platform X is censoring the accounts of people providing information to military servicemembers on how they can refuse to serve. This is particularly relevant as fears have grown that U.S. ground troops may enter the conflict.

The Center on Conscience & War, an 80-year-old nonprofit that, according to its website, “advocates for the rights of conscience, opposes military conscription, and serves all conscientious objectors to war,” was banned on X for 12 hours. The center’s executive director, Mike Prysner, shared a notice that the center received from X which labeled their posts as having “violated X rules” against “illegal and regulated behaviors.”

X has just suspended @CCW4COs for informing service members of their legal rights. pic.twitter.com/joNYvW9E2w

— Mike Prysner (@MikePrysner) March 7, 2026

Prysner wrote: “This is the post @CCW4COs was suspended for, informing service members of their legal right under DoDI 1332.14 to report “failure to adapt” within first 365 days of service and receive an entry-level discharge.”

This is the post @CCW4COs was suspended for, informing service members of their legal right under DoDI 1332.14 to report “failure to adapt” within first 365 days of service and receive an entry-level discharge https://t.co/PLPQslEz6x

— Mike Prysner (@MikePrysner) March 7, 2026

It remains legal to conscientiously object to military service. The only conceivable way that the post could be framed as encouraging illegal or irregular behavior would be to recast such objections as mutiny, which is exactly what pro-Israeli voices on social media have been frantically doing in the last few days.

In response to conservative commentator Candace Owens also encouraging those in the U.S. military to conscientiously object to serving in Iran, pro-Israel journalist Emily Schrader wrote on X:

“This is illegal. She is literally advocating mutiny. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2387 (Advocating overthrow or disloyalty in the armed forces). It is a crime for any person, including civilians, to willfully advocate or attempt to cause:
• insubordination in the armed forces
• disloyalty among service members
• mutiny or refusal of duty
It also criminalizes distributing materials intended to encourage those outcomes.
The penalty can be up to 10 years in prison and fines.”

Other pro-Israel voices like Bill Ackman, the billionaire hedge-fund manager, reposted Shrader’s sentiments.

The social media ban on the Center for Conscience and War came less than 24 hours after its executive director, Prysner, also wrote via social media regarding anecdotal evidence of troops being readied for combat:

“I just spoke with the mother of a service member in this unit. They were given one last call home before having to turn in their phones. He told his mom they were going ‘boots on the ground’ tonight.”

I just spoke with the mother of a service member in this unit. They were given one last call home before having to turn in their phones. He told his mom the were going “boots on the ground” tonight. pic.twitter.com/3OCupSfp9Q

— Mike Prysner (@MikePrysner) March 7, 2026

As noted by The Cradle,

“Mike Prysner … said in posts on X that his office has been overwhelmed with requests for guidance from service members seeking to dodge deployment…. ‘Phone has been ringing off the hook,’ he wrote … adding that many troops had not been told the mission involved combat until the last moment and were initially informed they were heading to training.”

As veteran Greg Stoker said via X: “Service members knowing their rights is a direct threat to both the secular imperialists who own these apps and the rapturous evangelicals trying to bring about Armageddon.”

Service members knowing their rights is a direct threat to both the secular imperialists who own these apps and the rapturous evangelicals trying to bring about Armageddon.

You don’t want to be fighting for either. https://t.co/hMzq96xSir

— Greg Stoker (@gregjstoker) March 7, 2026

Some X users have also been anecdotally reporting the apparent mobilization of troops:

“Spoke to a family member tonight — a Marine stationed in California. He said half\ the troops on base have disappeared in the past couple days and that the situation is chaos with those still remaining.”

Despite official denials that troops on the ground are part of the current plan, President Donald Trump has not ruled out the possibility. Democrats expressed alarm over the possibility following a March 4 classified briefing.

Democracy Now! noted that Sen. Richard Blumenthal said, “I just want to say I am more fearful than ever, after this briefing, that we may be putting boots on the ground.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren also stated after the briefing:

“I just left a classified briefing on Iran, and here’s what I can say. It is so much worse than you thought. You are right to be worried. The Trump administration has no plan in Iran. This illegal war is based on lies, and it was launched without any imminent threat to our nation. Donald Trump still hasn’t given a single clear reason for this war, and he seems to have no plan for how to end it, either.”

The censorship of an account sharing information for troops regarding how to conscientiously object is particularly relevant now as thousands of U.S. troops are facing the potential for imminent deployment in the escalating conflict with Iran: a war largely unsupported on the home front.

Breaking news: The Army abruptly canceled a major training exercise, officials said, fueling speculation within the Defense Department that soldiers specializing in ground combat and a range of other missions may be sent to the Middle East. https://t.co/1nuTFn8acH

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) March 6, 2026

According to The New York Times, support for U.S. intervention in Iran is incredibly low, having “ranged from 27 percent in a Reuters/Ipsos poll to 41 percent in a CNN survey, far below the level of public backing that Mr. Trump’s predecessors initially enjoyed when they used force overseas.”

Many see the intervention as a war waged overwhelmingly for Israel, especially in light of broad daylight comments from figures like U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said:

“The president made the very wise decision: We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”

Other veteran activists have also been speaking out against the war, and urging servicemembers to refuse to serve. As reported by Breakthrough News, at a Chicago rally on Saturday, veteran Daniel Lakemacher urged U.S. soldiers to “refuse this illegal and immoral war” on Iran.

“To all those who are not yet deployed: Now is the time to resist.”

At a Chicago rally on Saturday, veteran Daniel Lakemacher urges U.S. soldiers to “refuse this illegal and immoral war” on Iran.

The rally was part of a “Stop the War on Iran!” national day of action. The… pic.twitter.com/ukeY6Sci3i

— BreakThrough News (@BTnewsroom) March 8, 2026

This negative sentiment was also voiced by former U.S. Marine Sgt Brian McGinnis, a Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate for North Carolina, who was dragged out of a recent congressional hearing after shouting that “America does not want to send its sons and daughters to war for Israel.”

Sen. Tim Sheehy and police officers reportedly broke McGinnis’s arm as they struggled to remove him from the room. McGinnis was then charged with multiple counts of assault.

Former US Marine Sgt Brian McGinnis as he’s dragged out of Congress:

“No one wants to fight for Israel!”

Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-AIPAC) can be seen helping cops manhandle the veteran

Expect to see much more of this as the Zionist war drags on pic.twitter.com/itHaOkexf2

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) March 4, 2026

The violent repression of a former service member’s speech against U.S. intervention in Iran, like the social media suppression of information that might help military members use legal methods to refuse to serve in that war, demonstrates how desperate the government is to preserve its ability to force Americans to fight for Israel.

The president and his supporters seem increasingly confused when justifying the U.S. involvement to the press. When asked about U.S./Israeli strikes on Iran’s water desalination plants, Trump rambled about beheaded babies and referenced Oct. 7. This behavior is stoking public resistance to the war, including amongst members of the military.

At a time when a dangerous war of America’s own making is escalating dangerously out of control, it cannot be acceptable to censor or render it illegal for members of the U.S. military to have a conscience.

Original article:  consortiumnews.com

Segue nostro Telegram.

Nei giorni scorsi, oltre 800 alti ufficiali delle forze armate statunitensi – compresi quelli operanti in teatri di guerra attivi – convocati dal segretario alla Guerra Pete Hegseth sono confluiti a Quantico per presenziare al cosiddetto “Liberation Day dell’esercito”. L’evento è stato introdotto dal presidente Trump, il quale ha posto l’accento sulla necessità di risvegliare lo “spirito guerriero” dell’esercito, e di temprarlo all’interno dei confini nazionali. «È giunto il momento – ha affermato Trump – di distogliere l’attenzione da Kenya o Somalia, perché c’è un nemico più insidioso fra di noi […], da combattere prima che diventi incontrollabile». Un nemico incistato nelle città degli Stati Uniti indicate apertamente da Trump  come «terreno di addestramento per l’esercito».

Le direttive impartite dal presidente risultano pienamente coerenti con le linee guida condensate all’interno della bozza della National Defense Strategy, che, come anticipato da «Politico», antepone alla gestione della “minaccia cinese” la tutela degli interessi statunitensi nell’emisfero occidentale. Territorio nazionale compreso. Lo si evince dal contenuto dell’ordine esecutivo, firmato da Trump il giorno stesso dell’insediamento alla Casa Bianca, in cui si incarica il Northern Command di contribuire a «sigillare i confini e mantenere la sovranità, l’integrità territoriale e la sicurezza degli Stati Uniti respingendo forme di invasione, tra cui l’immigrazione illegale di massa, il traffico di stupefacenti, il contrabbando, la tratta di esseri umani e altre attività criminali». Secondo un anonimo funzionario raggiunto da «Military Times», «proteggere il confine rappresenta la massima priorità per la base elettorale, e forse anche per i moderati. Quindi il mutamento [descritto nella National Defense Strategy, nda] è in linea con gli impegni assunti».

Nel corso dei mesi successivi, molte delle iniziative assunte dall’amministrazione Trump si orientavano nella medesima direzione: dalle rivendicazioni su Groenlandia e Panama alle ambizioni annessioniste nei confronti del Canada; dalla mobilitazione della Guardia Nazionale a sostegno delle forze dell’ordine a Washington e Los Angeles all’impiego dell’Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Oregon; dalla militarizzazione del confine con il Messico allo schieramento di navi da guerra e caccia F-35 nei Caraibi e al largo delle coste venezuelane con lo scopo ufficiale di combattere il narcotraffico. Secondo quanto riportato dal «Washington Post» la National Defense Strategy in via di definizione investirebbe il Pentagono del mandato di «assegnare la priorità agli sforzi volti a sigillare i nostri confini, respingere le forme di invasione tra cui la migrazione di massa illegale, il traffico di stupefacenti, il contrabbando, la tratta di esseri umani e altre attività criminali, e deportare gli stranieri illegali in coordinamento con il Dipartimento della Sicurezza Interna».

Come preannunciato dai licenziamenti del vecchio presidente del Joint Chiefs of Staffs, generale Charles Q. Brown Jr., e del capo delle operazioni navali, ammiraglio Lisa Franchetti, e confermato da Hegseth dinnanzi alla platea di Quantico una volta concluso l’intervento di Trump, il “nuovo corso” contempla anche una riduzione del 10% del numero di generali e ammiragli, con un picco del 20% per quanto riguarda gli ufficiali a quattro stelle, oltre alla ridefinizione delle linee dei comandi combattenti degli Stati Uniti. I tagli verterebbero sull’eliminazione delle strutture “superflue”, e si inseriscono in un radicale cambio di registro rispetto al passato. «È quasi impossibile – ha dichiarato Hegseth – modificare alla radice una cultura con le stesse persone che hanno contribuito a crearla o ne hanno addirittura tratto beneficio. A un’intera generazione di generali e ammiragli è stato ordinato di ripetere a pappagallo la folle fallacia che “la nostra diversità è la nostra forza”». Si va dunque verso l’eradicazione della “cultura woke” impostasi sotto l’amministrazione Biden, da promuovere anche mediante epurazioni selettive – il segretario alla Guerra ha apertamente invitato gli ufficiali dissenzienti a rassegnare le dimissioni – e la destrutturazione sistematica dei meccanismi premiali intesi a promuovere l’inclusione e al raggiungimento di quote razziali e di genere. Nonché attraverso la revoca dei programmi dedicati alla diffusione di “distrazioni ideologiche” quali il cambiamento climatico.

Il merito, ha sottolineato Hegseth, va recuperato come criterio supremo di selezione del personale militare, il quale sarà chiamato d’ora in poi ad adeguarsi a severi regimi in materia di dieta e allenamento, a conformare il proprio aspetto a precisi canoni estetici (niente barbe, capelli lunghi, ecc.) e a sottoporsi a regolari controlli di altezza e peso. «È del tutto inaccettabile vedere generali e ammiragli grassi aggirarsi nelle sale del Pentagono e guidare i comandi in tutto il mondo», ha tuonato il segretario alla Guerra.

Quella che l’amministrazione Trump ha battezzato “giornata di liberazione per l’esercito”, ha suscitato non poche perplessità e critiche. Anzitutto perché l’innalzamento strutturale degli standard atletici stride pesantemente con il progressivo deterioramento qualitativo dei cittadini statunitensi in età arruolabile, tale da aver indotto il Pentagono ad abbassare i requisiti minimi pur di conseguire gli obiettivi di reclutamento prefissati. Allo stesso tempo, la svolta annunciata da Hegseth richiede un netto cambiamento di abitudini ormai consolidate in seno alle forze armate.

Le obiezioni di maggiore rilevanza attengono tuttavia agli aspetti dottrinali. Come evidenzia il «Washington Post», un certo livello di dissenso «durante il processo di stesura [della National Defense Strategy, nda] è normale, ma il numero di funzionari preoccupati per il documento, così come la profondità delle loro critiche, è insolito». Il nuovo presidente del Joint Chief of Staffs Dan Caine, in particolare, avrebbe «condiviso le sue impressioni negative con i vertici del Pentagono nelle ultime settimane […], cercando di mantenere la National Defense Strategy ancorata alla preparazione dell’esercito per scoraggiare e, se necessario, sconfiggere la Cina».

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The American paratroopers who landed in Kayseri are, of course, not coming to “invade” Turkey; their aim is to prepare alongside the Turkish army against Russia. However, this exercise carries much greater significance than a routine airborne operation. For countries that determine their national security, regional position, politics, and economy according to the interests of an imperialist power, the occupation has already begun.

A few days ago, the Ministry of National Defense (MSB) shared a press release on its website.

This announcement, which received little attention in the Turkish press, informs us that American troops under the U.S. military will parachute into Kayseri between July 21-23. Moreover, ‘hand in hand’ with Turkish soldiers…

We are talking about the Agile Spirit-2025 exercise.

The brief announcement shared by the Ministry of Defense reads as follows:

1. Agile Spirit-2025 Exercise, coordinated by the United States Army Europe and Africa (USAREUR-AF),

1. a) The Airborne Phase will take place in Turkey, hosted by Turkey, with participation from Turkish and American paratroopers, between July 21-23, 2025, at the Martyr Lieutenant Hasan BAK Parachute Drop Zone in Kayseri.
2. b) The Live Field and Computer-Assisted Command Post (BDKY) Phase will take place in Georgia, hosted by Georgia, with participation from the U.S., Germany, Bulgaria, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Turkey, between July 25 and August 6, 2025, in Tbilisi.

1. The aim of the exercise is to enhance training, cooperation, interoperability among the land forces of the participating countries in a joint and combined operation, and to contribute to stability in the Black Sea region.

The exercise, which could be translated into Turkish as “Çevik Ruh” (Agile Spirit), is technically not a NATO exercise. Agile Spirit is a multinational military exercise series organized under the “NATO partnership framework” and led by the United States.

The “magical phrase” here is partnership framework. This is a formula designed to answer NATO’s question, “How can I militarize even non-members?”—NATO being an organization that has continued to expand since its founding, even though the so-called reason for its existence—the Soviet threat—has long disappeared.

In this scenario, the non-member “partner” is Georgia.

What is the Agile Spirit exercise?

This year’s Agile Spirit is not the first; it’s the twelfth in the series. The first exercise was a small-scale event held between the U.S. and Georgia. By 2015, it had expanded to include NATO members like Turkey. In 2018, the number of participating countries reached 13. By 2021, it had increased to 15, and in 2023, the number hit a record level.

The main theme of the exercises has been “solidarity” on NATO’s eastern flank. While decorated with phrases like “operational readiness” and “regional security and stability,” these exercises clearly have one purpose: to strengthen military capabilities against Russia in the South Caucasus–Black Sea corridor.

Approximately 2,800 soldiers from the host countries Turkey and Georgia, as well as the U.S., Poland, Germany, Italy, Greece, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Lithuania, and Ukraine will participate in the exercise. Armenia and Japan will attend as observers.

The opening will take place on July 21 in Adana, Turkey, with a joint U.S.-Turkey airborne operation. Main training areas in Georgia will include Krtsanisi, Vaziani, Norio, Mukhrovani, and Senaki. Armored vehicles and aircraft including UH-60 Black Hawk and AS332 Puma helicopters will be involved.

United States Army Europe and Africa (USAREUR-AF)

According to the MSB’s statement, the exercise will be coordinated by the United States Army Europe and Africa (USAREUR-AF).

USAREUR-AF is one of the command structures that the U.S. has actively used since the Cold War.

The 1990-91 Gulf War, the 2003 Iraq invasion, the Kosovo War, and the occupation of Afghanistan—these imperialist aggressions were planned and executed under the coordination of USAREUR-AF.

Formed through the merger of the U.S. Africa Command and the U.S. European Command, this body was originally the central ground force formation positioned against the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War.

Although it was said to be “downsized” after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it came back to the fore with the Russia–Ukraine war. The headquarters of this command is located in Wiesbaden, Germany.

Moreover, just as Agile Spirit is not an “official NATO exercise,” the U.S. military presence based in the heart of Europe has no formal connection to NATO.

USAREUR-AF is a command structure directly tied to the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Its authority to mobilize NATO members and “partners” through various exercises stems from “coordination,” which is essentially the hegemonic role the U.S. plays within NATO.

In other words, this command is an armed threat instrument through which U.S. imperialism systematically limits the military sovereignty of European nations using NATO, and aligns “NATO’s eastern flank” with Washington’s geopolitical interests.

While the “EUR” in USAREUR-AF aims to control Europe via the Soviet—now Russian—“threat,” the “AF” refers to an effort to take over France’s colonial legacy in Africa. This command plays a central role in the Pentagon’s long-standing strategy—alongside AFRICOM—of training local governments in Africa under the pretext of “counterterrorism” and “military assistance.”

Why is Turkey participating in this exercise?

Turkey’s presence in NATO has always been a highly debated issue. If we evaluate this alliance through its hierarchical structure, it becomes clear that it is a war machine that carries death across the globe—and most importantly, that it is under the direct control of the United States.

These concrete facts, while irrefutable, are often brushed aside in political discourse. So let’s briefly recall the arguments of those who defend Turkey’s presence in NATO, “one way or another”:

That Turkey is one of the strongest members of the alliance, that NATO provides solidarity in the fight against terrorism, that it offers Turkey a “protective shield,” even that it protects Turkey from the U.S. itself…

The common theme of these arguments is that NATO membership is part of a rules-based, institutional, and legal alliance.

But in practice, the reality on the ground is that soldiers of a U.S. military entity that is not even formally bound by NATO rules, committees, or laws are parachuting into our territory. And this is happening even though NATO has its own distinct command structures responsible for land forces in Europe—such as NATO Allied Land Command (LANDCOM), based in Şirinyer, İzmir.

Likewise, while the government and its supporters describe Turkey as a “new player” in the region, the reality on the ground is that our country is becoming integrated into the operational activities of the U.S. Army in Europe and Africa.

The emphasis in this recent exercise on “Black Sea security” is also crucial. Our country—an active stakeholder in the Black Sea with nearly 5,000 kilometers of coastline—is being positioned in accordance with the interests of the United States, which lies thousands of kilometers away. And it does so based on its own “laws.” One cannot help but ask: How legitimate are such laws?

Moreover, the Turkish public is not even informed about how, at what level, or for what purpose the government engages in such military collaborations. And there’s no need to inform them, since these partnerships are largely exempt from parliamentary oversight.

“Ally,” “coordination,” “interoperability,” “security”… All these terms serve to soften the real nature of Turkey’s role as a NATO member and “U.S. ally”: a proxy force.

The American paratroopers who will land in Kayseri in a few days are, of course, not coming to “invade” Turkey; their aim is to prepare alongside the Turkish army against Russia. However, this exercise carries much greater significance than a routine airborne operation. For countries that determine their national security, regional position, politics, and economy according to the interests of an imperialist power, the occupation has already begun.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Intraprendere la carriera militare rappresenta per un numero tendenzialmente crescente di cittadini statunitensi una prospettiva assai poco attraente. Lo si evince dalle dichiarazioni rese lo scorso autunno dalla direttrice dell’ufficio del Pentagono deputato agli arruolamenti Katie Helland, secondo cui il timido miglioramento della situazione registrato nel 2024 doveva indurre soltanto a un «moderato ottimismo riguardo alle future operazioni di reclutamento, mentre continuiamo a confrontarci con una bassa propensione dei giovani a prestare servizio, una limitata familiarità con le opportunità militari, un mercato del lavoro competitivo e un’idoneità in calo tra i giovani adulti». I dati relativi all’anno fiscale 2024 attestano un incremento degli arruolamenti su base annua pari a 25.000 unità (+12,5%), che compensa sul piano numerico i risultati pesantemente negativi conseguiti nel biennio precedente, in cui gli obiettivi di reclutamento dell’esercito sono stati mancati per 15.000 unità nel 2022 e per altre 10.000 nel 2023 rendendo – con 452.00 effettivi – la forza di terra regolare la più ridotta dal periodo antecedente la Seconda Guerra Mondiale. Il problema non riguardava soltanto l’esercito, dal momento che nell’anno fiscale 2023 la Us Navy e la Us Air Force hanno mancato rispettivamente di 7.464 e 2.700 unità i loro obiettivi di arruolamento. Significativamente, l’“ammanco” risultava quasi interamente riconducibile al crollo degli arruolamenti maschili, diminuiti su  base decennale del 35% (da 58.000 a 37.700 tra il 2013 e il 2023)  a fronte di dati stazionari riguardo alla componente femminile (circa 10.000 reclute ogni anno).

«Queste carenze di reclutamento – si legge all’interno di uno studio realizzato nel 2022 dall’Association of the United States Army – pongono rischi a breve e lungo termine per la sicurezza nazionale degli Stati Uniti […]. Se considerati nel contesto dell’attuale ambiente strategico, i rischi collegati alla disponibilità di un esercito più piccolo sono significativi. La strategia di difesa nazionale del 2022 identifica la Cina come “sfida” e la Russia come “minaccia acuta”. Qualora la deterrenza fallisse, è concepibile che l’esercito statunitense, insieme ai suoi alleati e partner, si ritrovi nella necessità di combattere due grandi conflitti regionali simultanei o, come minimo, a combattere un grande conflitto regionale e a scoraggiare simultaneamente aggressioni opportunistiche altrove. Inoltre, la forza congiunta deve continuare a mitigare le “minacce persistenti” portate da Corea del Nord, Iran e da organizzazioni estremiste violente».

Il cauto ottimismo suggerito dalla Helland nasce dalla consapevolezza che le statistiche in controtendenza relative all’anno fiscale 2024 rappresentano con ogni probabilità un caso episodico, perché il contesto sociale del Paese rimane estremamente critico.

Tra le motivazioni generalmente addotte dalle autorità statunitensi per spiegare il fenomeno, una delle più gettonate – menzionata dalla stessa Helland – è indubbiamente rappresentata alla maggiore attrattività esercitata dal mercato del lavoro statunitense, a cui si attribuiscono caratteristiche di solidità e competitività sebbene non consenta, certifica una indagine condotta da Bankrate nel gennaio 2024, a qualcosa come il 44% delle famiglie statunitensi di guadagnare abbastanza da sostenere una spesa imprevista da 1.000 dollari. Un altro fattore comunemente indicato riguarda il calo strutturale delle vocazioni, che i repubblicani tendono a imputare alla sfiducia nelle forze armate – passata dal 70 al 48% tra il 2018 e il 2022 secondo un sondaggio condotto dal Reagan Institute – generata sia da clamorosi insuccessi militari come il ritiro dall’Afghanistan nel 2021, sia dalla politicizzazione delle stesse promossa dall’amministrazione Biden. I democratici, di converso, tendono a indentificare nel graduale consolidamento delle posizioni “suprematiste” in seno all’ambiente militare e nei gravi episodi di violenze a sfondo sessuale che lo interessano (come l’omicidio del soldato Vanessa Guillén, avvenuto nel 2020) le cause principali della crisi di credibilità che investe le forze armate.

La ragione fondamentale della crisi dei reclutamenti che stanno attraversando gli Stati Uniti va tuttavia ricercata altrove, e assume una rilevanza che travalica il singolo ambito militare. Secondo quanto emerge da un’approfondita analisi condotta dall’American Security Project nel marzo 2023, appena il 23% degli statunitensi di età compresa tra 17 e 24 anni risultava idoneo al servizio militare, perché, a differenza del “rimanente” 77%, rispondente ai necessari requisiti cultural-accademici e non affetto da obesità, tossicodipendenza, alcolismo, disturbi psicofisici. Il 44% dei cittadini statunitensi compresi in quella fascia di età soffriva di almeno due di queste condizioni penalizzanti simultaneamente.

L’obesità, che nell’aprile 2021 interessava qualcosa come il 19% dei militari in servizio attivo, rappresenta indubbiamente uno dei problemi maggiori, anche in virtù del fatto che condizioni di grave sovrappeso affliggono il 23% degli statunitensi di età compresa tra i 12 e i 19 anni è sembrano destinate ad aggravarsi nei prossimi anni. Come sottolinea il sito di riferimento delle forze armate statunitensi, «il Sud rappresenta storicamente il più fruttuoso bacino di reclutamento per l’esercito, ma le reclute provenienti da quell’area coprono da sole la metà degli infortuni riportati complessivamente durante l’addestramento di base, superando di gran lunga la loro rappresentanza generale nel servizio. Il fenomeno è parzialmente attribuibile all’epidemia di obesità che interessa in particolar modo il Sud […], dove ampie fasce di popolazione dispongono di redditi familiari relativamente bassi e un accesso limitato all’assistenza sanitaria e al cibo sano». Un aspetto critico, quello relativo all’accesso sempre più precario ad alimenti di qualità dovuto alla riduzione del reddito, che è alla base anche della decrescita dell’altezza media di uomini e donne statunitensi, riscontrata a partire dalla fine degli anni ’80 e perdurante ancora oggi.

Il problema dei reclutamenti delle forze armate degli Usa affonda quindi le radici nel progressivo deterioramento del tessuto sociale degli Stati Uniti, nel degrado costante del “capitale umano” che si riflette in una serie sterminata di indicatori addizionali. A partire da quelli relativi alla diffusione semi-epidemica del disturbo post-traumatico da stress, che nel 2020 riguardava il 5% della popolazione (13 milioni di persone); del diabete, che secondo le stime interessava nel 2021 il 14,7% della popolazione adulta statunitense (38,1 milioni di persone); della tossicodipendenza, con l’overdose da oppiacei assurta a primaria causa di morte tra i cittadini statunitensi al di sotto dei cinquant’anni (oltre 107.000 casi nel 2022, a fronte dei poco più di 67.000 del 2018) nel contesto di una platea di consumatori che riunisce 10 milioni di persone. Stesso discorso vale per i suicidi, cresciuti del 40% tra il 2000 e il 2023 (del 52% tra i giovani compresi nella fascia d’età tra i 10 e i 24 anni); degli omicidi, aumentati del 51% tra il 2014 e il 2021; della mortalità infantile, con 5,6 morti per 1.000 nati vivi (nel 2022) contro gli 1,6 del Giappone, gli 1,8 della Corea del Sud, i 2,2 dell’Italia e i 2,3 della Germania. Anche un Paese come la Bielorussia, fuori dall’Unione Europea e non certamente paragonabile agli Stati Uniti quanto a ricchezza, registra un tasso di 2,5.

I cittadini statunitensi, come denunciato in tempi “non sospetti” da studiosi come Robert Putnam e Angus Deaton, stanno in altri termini diventando sempre più bassi, grassi, deboli, vulnerabili e aggressivi, per effetto del processo di concentrazione della ricchezza in un numero ristretto di privati che detiene il controllo delle infrastrutture fondamentali per garantire la sussistenza e il benessere della popolazione, da cui dipende la capacità del Paese di proiettare potenza all’esterno.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, andVK

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Listening to Chris Hedges and Cornel West the other day, I heard them use the term “multicultural militarism” to describe the Democratic Party’s embrace of war and the U.S. military. It fits. Consider Kamala Harris as commander-in-chief. She’ll be celebrated as the first woman of color, the first Black and South Asian president, even as she embraces and boasts about the “lethality” of the U.S. military and the utility of war. And by “utility,” I mean Harris’ support of Ukraine and Israel to the tune of $200 billion in weapons and other forms of mainly military aid.

But do the bombs and missiles land softer because a Latina lesbian Air Force pilot drops and launches them?

Speaking of the Air Force, my old service, I caught this cartoon by Pia Guerra:

The U.S. government really believes it can have it both ways. It can provide bombs to Israel to annihilate Gaza while at the same time dropping care packages among the wounded and desperate. Call it feel-good militarism. Have some MREs with your HE.* A new form of American (un)happy meal.

Harris and Trump reflect the bipartisan consensus in DC that Pentagon budgets must always go up. They both boast and brag about the U.S. military and its deadliness. They mainly disagree on which enemy is the most serious, with Harris favoring Iran and Russia while Trump hypes China. Neither candidate sees militarism as a problem: they see it as something to celebrate. It’s just that Harris and the Democrats prefer “diverse” militarism.

Trump, of course, has said he wants to end the Russia-Ukraine War. He also raised the specter of nuclear war. Harris, apparently, seems to think she must be more hawkish than Trump, hence her embrace of generals and her talk of lethality.

Whether Harris or Trump wins, higher military budgets are guaranteed and probably more war too. Interestingly, Trump talks more of the enemy within than the enemy without, though his “enemy within” is typically a caricature of woke liberals out to destroy America by forcing your kids to undergo gender-reassignment surgery. Just as Trump is using threat inflation for the enemy within, Harris is inflating the Iranian and Russian threats from without.

Civil discord within America or more war outside of America? That may be our “choice” on November 5th. Or maybe we’ll get both.

One thing is certain: A B-52 with a rainbow flag and a BLM slogan is still a B-52.

* That’s meals ready to eat (MRE), or rations, with your high explosives (HE).

Is Congress willing to recognize the major problems a mandatory draft will create?

By Sven R. LARSON

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Soon, every man aged 18-26 in America could be forced to serve in the military. On June 14th, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 8070, which amends the National Defense Authorization Act with a mandate that

every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, shall be automatically registered under this Act by the Director of the Selective Service System.

The law that Congress is in the process of amending is called “The Military Selective Service Act.” In practice, this amendment could open for all young men in America to serve in the military, much like it was mandatory from 1940 to 1973.

After the draft ended under President Nixon, it became associated with the ill-fated war in Vietnam. Partly for this reason, it earned a bad reputation that was amplified by, among others, Frank Zappa in his song “I Don’t Wanna Get Drafted.” The song was allegedly written in response to a debate under President Carter over the possible reinstitution of the draft.

Bruce Springsteen also took a jab at the draft with his song “Born in the USA“:

Got in a little hometown jam, so they put a rifle in my hand, sent me off to a foreign land, to go kill the yellow man

Since President Reagan, the U.S. government has been focused on building a strong professional military where the best men and women are picked among volunteers. With the vote in the House of Representatives on June 14th, that era seems to be coming to an end—and the reason for this is unmistakable. As The Gateway Pundit reports, the bill to forcibly draft all young men into Selective Service

was introduced by Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.). Houlahan is a former Air Force officer. It was endorsed by HASC [House Armed Services Committee] Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and approved by a voice vote of the full committee without audible opposition.

In other words, this is the legislative response to a desperate plea to Congress from the military: we can’t attract enough volunteers, so please help us fill our dwindling ranks.

The draft amendment gained support from 219 Republicans and six Democrats. The heavy political bias in the support vote is a bit surprising given that the Democrats are fervent advocates of a more active American role in the war in Ukraine. The only explanation for their opposition to this bill is that they know it is going to be unpopular among young voters. Since Joe Biden is losing support among this very demographic, the Democrats may be planning to use their official opposition to the draft as leverage against Trump in November.

It is hard to judge which side of the draft vote is more cynical—that which wants to force inept, even war-resistant young men into the military ranks, or the side that beats big war drums but pretends to be peaceful in order to win an election.

Both these sides lose out morally to the very few Republicans who opposed the draft bill. One of them is Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who explained her opposition vote on X. Mentioning the continued efforts by Congress to support the war in Ukraine, she noted the timing of the House approving another $300 million for Ukraine and passing the draft mandate. With one sentence, she summed it all up:

I think we all know where that could lead.

Given full Republican support in the Senate, the draft bill needs at least one Democrat to vote for it—unless, of course, Vice President Kamala Harris, who chairs the Senate, joins the Republicans. Either way, the fate of the bill in the upper chamber will depend on how Biden is doing with young voters in the opinion polls. If they are behind him in good enough numbers, the president’s handlers will tell him to sign the draft mandate into law.

At that point, the Pentagon will start forcing young American men into the armed services. Once there, they can be shipped off to any war, anywhere in the world—including Ukraine. Or, in the words of a premonition-inspired article in Yahoo News on June 12th. Two days before the House vote, it tied the military recruitment problems to the idea of reintroducing the draft:

The military hasn’t been reaching recruitment goals to refill its ranks, and shortfalls are now impacting some branches more than others. Politicians on both sides agree that the military recruitment shortfall is a concern. Could a national service mandate … fix the problem?

It is going to be tough to implement the draft. Back in February, the Pew Research Center reported that a majority of all Americans aged 18-29 have a negative view of the military. This is also the age group that, according to Newsweek, has the weakest will among all age groups to fight to defend their country.

Personally, I find this lack of will puzzling. As an American immigrant (for well over 20 years) and naturalized citizen, if I was asked to pick up a rifle and defend this country, I would gladly do so. It is probably not likely that someone old enough to be a grandfather would be called upon, but that is not the point. I love this country and would fight for it if I were called to do so.

With that said, I have personal experience with a military draft and I can therefore see the problems that the U.S. government will probably be faced with. My native country, Sweden, had a draft when I grew up. All boys were called in for draft assessment at the age of 17, whereupon the military determined what service we would be best suited for.

Since the draft was mandatory, it was a felony to refuse it, which put some young men in a problematic situation. I was one of them. My reason had not so much to do with not wanting to defend my country—it was more personal than that. I just knew that I would not make a good soldier.

Throughout my life, I have had problems taking orders from people who—in my humble mind—are less competent or less intelligent than I am. Regardless of how unwisely I may have lived by that principle when I was younger, that was how I saw things.

Knowing that I would not be able to take orders without questioning them, I told the draft officer that I considered myself a conscientious objector. I asked to enter the civil defense service instead, a hard-to-get legal option which I was eventually granted.

If I were young today, I might have made a different decision. However, I do know that men of the age group targeted by the House of Representatives in H.R. 8070 are stubborn, strong-willed, and often prone to opposition to authority just for the sake of opposition. Even though a large group, possibly a majority, of the drafted would dutifully serve in the military, there will be a substantial number who, for one reason or another, will refuse to do so.

How big of a conscientious objector window should the government allow? Are people with my character traits, with an inherent resistance to following orders without question, really what our military wants?

We do not draft young men—and women—to become police officers. We do not draft anyone to work in health care or any other societally critical function. For obvious reasons, we rely on the recruitment of the best suited. Just like with law enforcement, the jobs in the military are best done if the ranks are filled with those who combine a willingness to serve with the right qualities.

If the draft is reintroduced, there will very likely be a conscientious-objector window and other criteria according to which the draft assessors can sort out those who are the least suited for, and most opposed to, military service. However, this sorting mechanism cannot be too generous, or else the draft will defeat its own purpose, namely to expand the ranks of the military.

In other words, Congress appears to be on the way to putting large numbers of young Americans in the very situation that I found myself in:

• On the one hand, they know they will not be good soldiers;
• On the other hand, they know that since the draft is mandatory, they don’t want to refuse it and thereby commit a felony.

This dilemma becomes more relevant the deeper the military’s recruitment problems become. If the recruitment deficit is large, the threshold for conscientious objectors will be high. In my case—back in Sweden decades ago—with an all-draft army, it was harder to become a conscientious objector than to be selected for special warfare training. Had I wanted to, I would have had an easier path into paratrooper school than to fire-and-rescue service under civil defense.

There are, of course, upsides to a draft. Back in Sweden, I had one friend who was about as enthusiastic about the draft as I was, but who chose to join the army. His year of mandatory service changed his mind completely, and he made a professional career out of it. But I also knew others who did not perform well, who slacked and cut corners and dragged their feet at every opportunity.

How big would this problem be in America’s armed forces, if the Pentagon could use the draft to fill its ranks to the volumes it desires? Are the officers who command units at the frontline prepared to deal with soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines who are there because they see it as the lesser of two evils—the other being a jail sentence? Have they been trained in motivating men who did not choose to be there, to go into a battle where they know they may very well die?

To be blunt: what would the outcome of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 have been if a large majority of the American fighters had been drafted, not volunteers?

Ican sympathize with Congress in their worries about the military recruitment problems. I, too, want America to have the strongest military in the world. But the recruitment problem cannot be solved with the draft. It is a much deeper problem than that.

One aspect is the aforementioned lack of patriotism, or even an apathy toward America, among the nation’s own young. It originates in a broad-sided cultural war on the foundational values of our constitutional republic. This war stretches from the long-standing despise for Christianity among Hollywood’s elite to our schools, where ignorant or ill-intended teachers, librarians, and school administrators want to sexualize our children. An anti-Christian culture and an exploitative attitude toward children have in common the notion that our country’s history, from its foundation of faith to its bedrock of nuclear families, is repulsive and racist and must be destroyed.

You don’t fight it by forcing young men into the military. You fight it by restoring faith in America among our young, by throwing sexual exploitation out of our schools, and by winning back our young for faith and family.

The military recruitment problem is also related to a cultural war on traditional masculinity. The cultural war on the nuclear family branched out in the 1990s into a barrage of medial, political, even judicial persecution of masculinity. Men were no longer supposed to be the breadwinners of their families; men in general—and white men in particular—were portrayed as potential rapists simply by being men. More recently, the concept of ‘toxic masculinity’ has conquered the minds of a whole generation.

The third reason for the military’s recruitment problem is squarely planted in the thick of our political swamp. Through its grip on the Republican party since the Vietnam War era, neoconservatism has exercised phenomenal influence over American politics, primarily foreign policy. The neocon philosophy is to drum up patriotism using war; the only path to patriotism that a neocon knows runs through a battlefield saturated with dead Americans.

President Trump showed the American people that we can have a prosperous country and a peaceful world without starting new wars. The neocons opposed him, of course, especially after he ordered the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Yet the decline in support for the military did not happen on his watch. It has happened under Joe Biden’s tenure. One reason is the war in Ukraine, which has reminded Americans that joining the military means fighting endless wars abroad, not defending our country at home.

So long as our young men and women can expect to be shipped off to Ukraine to fight Russia, a country they do not perceive as a threat to America, they will not be very enthusiastic about joining the military.

With that said, it is important to recognize that if military service becomes mandatory for all young men in America, they must follow the law and make the best of that service. We can only hope that since this effort to expand the ranks of the military is focused on men, not very many draft-age men self-identify as women.

Original article: The European Conservative

W.J. ASTORE

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

America Must Reignite Its Distrust of Large Standing Militaries

A recent article by Major General (ret.) Dennis Laich and Colonel (ret.) Lawrence Wilkerson notes a crisis in military recruitment in America. Here’s how their article begins:

The U.S. military’s all-volunteer force (AVF) model is an abject failure. Last year, the active Army fell 15,000 recruits short of its goal. This year, it was 10,000, and the Army Reserve fell 40% short of its goal. This year, the active Navy fell 7,000 short, and the Navy Reserve was 33% short. Finally, the active Air Force fell 3,000 recruits short, and the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard each fell 30% short of their goals.

There is no reason to believe these trends won’t continue, and even less reason to believe they will not get worse. In the past 10 years, the propensity to serve has fallen from 15% to 9%, and the portion of the recruiting-age population qualified to serve has dropped from 30 % to 23%. The number of children 5 and under in the United States is 12% smaller than the 15- to 25-year-old cohort, presenting a grim demographic reality.

Our national security crisis is part of a broader civic rot that plagues our democracy. Ultimately, the AVF’s failure could lead to war if the U.S. appears weak to a potential adversary.

Laich and Wilkerson would like to see a return of a lottery-based military draft for young men and women in America. I respect these men; we are part of the same organization, the Eisenhower Media Network. Yet I see this issue in a different light.

In essence, young Americans are voting with their feet by not joining the military in the numbers the AVF desires. This is not a bad thing. The U.S. military, if it was focused truly on national defense, would and should be considerably smaller. What enlarges our military (and its recruitment quotas) is imperial sprawl. Does the U.S. truly need to garrison roughly 800 military bases overseas? Does the U.S. Army truly need big brigades and battalions to fight conventional wars in Asia? Why does the Air Force need so many people? Why must the Navy have so many ships? Why do we need a growing Space Force?

I don’t see America appearing “weak” to potential adversaries. If anything, potential adversaries look at the U.S. as an overly strong and often unpredictable bully. Every country in the world knows the U.S. puts its military first, that the U.S. is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in war, that the U.S. never met a war it didn’t like, even though it hasn’t won a major war since World War II. Military weakness is not a problem America is ever likely to have. Even when the empire eventually collapses, the military will still be the last American institution that will be fully funded. (Indeed, huge sums of money spent on the military is contributing to that collapse.)

We don’t need a revival of the draft. We need a revival of sanity. We need a foreign policy in which we mind our own business. In which we don’t dispatch military forces to every hotspot in the world. In which we don’t pummel other countries into submission, as we attempted to do with countries like Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. (The death of Henry Kissinger the Pummeler at age 100 shows that only the good die young.)

A smaller military might mean fewer foreign entanglements for America as well as far less global destruction (think of Southeast Asia as well as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and so on). That wouldn’t be a bad thing.

Of course, the U.S. military’s answer to its alleged recruiting crisis is to hire an expensive advertising agency, giving it more than $450 million in taxpayer money to craft new ways of enticing young Americans to join the AVF. It just goes to show how much money the Pentagon has to throw (or throw away) at perceived problems.

If America faced a true and immediate threat (a clear and present danger, as the saying goes) to its national security, I don’t doubt young Americans would step up. But I see no foreign enemy seeking the military conquest of Topeka or Tampa or Tucson, nor do I see a pressing need for a super-sized military that still retains a Cold War mentality of full-spectrum dominance against the Reds (China and Russia remain the bogeymen for most in the U.S. military and Congress as well.)

As one major general once told me, less money for the U.S. military, along with fewer troops, might have the salutary effect of forcing the brass to think for once before invading another country or threatening yet another war. Wouldn’t that be something.

Throughout most of our history, America had a profound distrust of large standing militaries and the mayhem and mischief they so often cause. It’s time to reignite that distrust.

The U.S. Military’s Alleged Recruiting Crisis Isn’t the Problem – Bracing Views

By Nick TURSE

❗️Join us on Telegram , Twitter , and VK .

In his message to the troops prior to the July 4th weekend, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin offered high praise indeed. “We have the greatest fighting force in human history,” he tweeted, connecting that claim to the U.S. having patriots of all colors, creeds, and backgrounds “who bravely volunteer to defend our country and our values.”

As a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel from a working-class background who volunteered to serve more than four decades ago, who am I to argue with Austin? Shouldn’t I just bask in the glow of his praise for today’s troops, reflecting on my own honorable service near the end of what now must be thought of as the First Cold War?

Yet I confess to having doubts. I’ve heard it all before. The hype. The hyperbole. I still remember how, soon after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush boasted that this country had “the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known.” I also remember how, in a pep talk given to U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2010, President Barack Obama declared them “the finest fighting force that the world has ever known.” And yet, 15 years ago at TomDispatch, I was already wondering when Americans had first become so proud of, and insistent upon, declaring our military the world’s absolute best, a force beyond compare, and what that meant for a republic that once had viewed large standing armies and constant warfare as anathemas to freedom.

In retrospect, the answer is all too straightforward: we need something to boast about, don’t we? In the once-upon-a-time “exceptional nation,” what else is there to praise to the skies or consider our pride and joy these days except our heroes? After all, this country can no longer boast of having anything like the world’s best educational outcomes, or healthcare system, or the most advanced and safest infrastructure, or the best democratic politics, so we better damn well be able to boast about having “the greatest fighting force” ever.

Leaving that boast aside, Americans could certainly brag about one thing this country has beyond compare: the most expensive military around and possibly ever. No country even comes close to our commitment of funds to wars, weapons (including nuclear ones at the Department of Energy), and global dominance. Indeed, the Pentagon’s budget for “defense” in 2023 exceeds that of the next 10 countries (mostly allies!) combined.

And from all of this, it seems to me, two questions arise: Are we truly getting what we pay so dearly for — the bestest, finest, most exceptional military ever? And even if we are, should a self-proclaimed democracy really want such a thing?

The answer to both those questions is, of course, no. After all, America hasn’t won a war in a convincing fashion since 1945. If this country keeps losing wars routinely and often enough catastrophically, as it has in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, how can we honestly say that we possess the world’s greatest fighting force? And if we nevertheless persist in such a boast, doesn’t that echo the rhetoric of militaristic empires of the past? (Remember when we used to think that only unhinged dictators like Adolf Hitler boasted of having peerless warriors in a megalomaniacal pursuit of global domination?)

Actually, I do believe the United States has the most exceptional military, just not in the way its boosters and cheerleaders like Austin, Bush, and Obama claimed. How is the U.S. military truly “exceptional”? Let me count the ways.

The Pentagon as a Budgetary Black Hole

In so many ways, the U.S. military is indeed exceptional. Let’s begin with its budget. At this very moment, Congress is debating a colossal “defense” budget of $886 billion for FY2024 (and all the debate is about issues that have little to do with the military). That defense spending bill, you may recall, was “only” $740 billion when President Joe Biden took office three years ago. In 2021, Biden withdrew U.S. forces from the disastrous war in Afghanistan, theoretically saving the taxpayer nearly $50 billion a year. Yet, in place of any sort of peace dividend, American taxpayers simply got an even higher bill as the Pentagon budget continued to soar.

Recall that, in his four years in office, Donald Trump increased military spending by 20%. Biden is now poised to achieve a similar 20% increase in just three years in office. And that increase largely doesn’t even include the cost of supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia — so far, somewhere between $120 billion and $200 billion and still rising.

Colossal budgets for weapons and war enjoy broad bipartisan support in Washington. It’s almost as if there were a military-industrial-congressional complex at work here! Where, in fact, did I ever hear a president warning us about that? Oh, perhaps I’m thinking of a certain farewell address by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961.

In all seriousness, there’s now a huge pentagonal-shaped black hole on the Potomac that’s devouring more than half of the federal discretionary budget annually. Even when Congress and the Pentagon allegedly try to enforce fiscal discipline, if not austerity elsewhere, the crushing gravitational pull of that hole just continues to suck in more money. Bet on that continuing as the Pentagon issues ever more warnings about a new cold war with China and Russia.

Given its money-sucking nature, perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that the Pentagon is remarkably exceptional when it comes to failing fiscal audits — five of them in a row (the fifth failure being a “teachable moment,” according to its chief financial officer) — as its budget only continued to soar. Whether you’re talking about lost wars or failed audits, the Pentagon is eternally rewarded for its failures. Try running a “Mom and Pop” store on that basis and see how long you last.

Speaking of all those failed wars, perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that they haven’t come cheaply. According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University, roughly 937,000 people have died since 9/11/2001 thanks to direct violence in this country’s “Global War on Terror” in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere. (And the deaths of another 3.6 to 3.7 million people may be indirectly attributable to those same post-9/11 conflicts.) The financial cost to the American taxpayer has been roughly $8 trillion and rising even as the U.S. military continues its counterterror preparations and activities in 85 countries.

No other nation in the world sees its military as (to borrow from a short-lived Navy slogan) “a global force for good.” No other nation divides the whole world into military commands like AFRICOM for Africa and CENTCOM for the Middle East and parts of Central and South Asia, headed up by four-star generals and admirals. No other nation has a network of 750 foreign bases scattered across the globe. No other nation strives for full-spectrum dominance through “all-domain operations,” meaning not only the control of traditional “domains” of combat — the land, sea, and air — but also of space and cyberspace. While other countries are focused mainly on national defense (or regional aggressions of one sort or another), the U.S. military strives for total global and spatial dominance. Truly exceptional!

Strangely, in this never-ending, unbounded pursuit of dominance, results simply don’t matter. The Afghan War? Bungled, botched, and lost. The Iraq War? Built on lies and lost. Libya? We came, we saw, Libya’s leader (and so many innocents) died. Yet no one at the Pentagon was punished for any of those failures. In fact, to this day, it remains an accountability-free zone, exempt from meaningful oversight. If you’re a “modern major general,” why not pursue wars when you know you’ll never be punished for losing them?

Indeed, the few “exceptions” within the military-industrial-congressional complex who stood up for accountability, people of principle like Daniel Hale, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden, were imprisoned or exiled. In fact, the U.S. government has even conspired to imprison a foreign publisher and transparency activist, Julian Assange, who published the truth about the American war on terror, by using a World War I-era espionage clause that only applies to American citizens.

And the record is even grimmer than that. In our post-9/11 years at war, as President Barack Obama admitted, “We tortured some folks” — and the only person punished for that was another whistleblower, John Kiriakou, who did his best to bring those war crimes to our attention.

And speaking of war crimes, isn’t it “exceptional” that the U.S. military plans to spend upwards of $2 trillion in the coming decades on a new generation of genocidal nuclear weapons? Those include new stealth bombers and new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) for the Air Force, as well as new nuclear-missile-firing submarines for the Navy. Worse yet, the U.S. continues to reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first, presumably in the name of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And of course, despite the countries — nine! — that now possess nukes, the U.S. remains the only one to have used them in wartime, in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Finally, it turns out that the military is even immune from Supreme Court decisions! When SCOTUS recently overturned affirmative action for college admission, it carved out an exception for the military academies. Schools like West Point and Annapolis can still consider the race of their applicants, presumably to promote unit cohesion through proportional representation of minorities within the officer ranks, but our society at large apparently does not require racial equity for its cohesion.

A Most Exceptional Military Makes Its Wars and Their Ugliness Disappear

Here’s one of my favorite lines from the movie The Usual Suspects: “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.” The greatest trick the U.S. military ever pulled was essentially convincing us that its wars never existed. As Norman Solomon notes in his revealing book, War Made Invisible, the military-industrial-congressional complex has excelled at camouflaging the atrocious realities of war, rendering them almost entirely invisible to the American people. Call it the new American isolationism, only this time we’re isolated from the harrowing and horrific costs of war itself.

America is a nation perpetually at war, yet most of us live our lives with little or no perception of this. There is no longer a military draft. There are no war bond drives. You aren’t asked to make direct and personal sacrifices. You aren’t even asked to pay attention, let alone pay (except for those nearly trillion-dollar-a-year budgets and interest payments on a ballooning national debt, of course). You certainly aren’t asked for your permission for this country to fight its wars, as the Constitution demands. As President George W. Bush suggested after the 9/11 attacks, go visit Disneyworld! Enjoy life! Let America’s “best and brightest” handle the brutality, the degradation, and the ugliness of war, bright minds like former Vice President Dick (“So?”) Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Donald (“I don’t do quagmires”) Rumsfeld.

Did you hear something about the U.S. military being in Syria? In Somalia? Did you hear about the U.S. military supporting the Saudis in a brutal war of repression in Yemen? Did you notice how this country’s military interventions around the world kill, wound, and displace so many people of color, so much so that observers speak of the systemic racism of America’s wars? Is it truly progress that a more diverse military in terms of “color, creed, and background,” to use Secretary of Defense Austin’s words, has killed and is killing so many non-white peoples around the globe?

Praising the all-female-crewed flyover at the last Super Bowl or painting rainbow flags of inclusivity (or even blue and yellow flags for Ukraine) on cluster munitions won’t soften the blows or quiet the screams. As one reader of my blog Bracing Views so aptly put it: “The diversity the war parties [Democrats and Republicans] will not tolerate is diversity of thought.”

Of course, the U.S. military isn’t solely to blame here. Senior officers will claim their duty is not to make policy at all but to salute smartly as the president and Congress order them about. The reality, however, is different. The military is, in fact, at the core of America’s shadow government with enormous influence over policymaking. It’s not merely an instrument of power; it is power — and exceptionally powerful at that. And that form of power simply isn’t conducive to liberty and freedom, whether inside America’s borders or beyond them.

Wait! What am I saying? Stop thinking about all that! America is, after all, the exceptional nation and its military, a band of freedom fighters. In Iraq, where war and sanctions killed untold numbers of Iraqi children in the 1990s, the sacrifice was “worth it,” as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once reassured Americans on 60 Minutes.

Even when government actions kill children, lots of children, it’s for the greater good. If this troubles you, go to Disney and take your kids with you. You don’t like Disney? Then, hark back to that old marching song of World War I and “pack up your troubles in your old kit-bag, and smile, smile, smile.” Remember, America’s troops are freedom-delivering heroes and your job is to smile and support them without question.

Have I made my point? I hope so. And yes, the U.S. military is indeed exceptional and being so, being #1 (or claiming you are anyway) means never having to say you’re sorry, no matter how many innocents you kill or maim, how many lives you disrupt and destroy, how many lies you tell.

I must admit, though, that, despite the endless celebration of our military’s exceptionalism and “greatness,” a fragment of scripture from my Catholic upbringing haunts me still: Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.

tomdispatch.com