SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
republican party
A Message to Trump and Musk: The Pentagon's Problem Is Waging War, Not Being Woke
Fighting endless wars in distant lands is not the solution, it’s the problem.
Jan 12, 2025
As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take America back (again!) to greatness, there’s been much talk of Elon Musk’s new DOGE, or Department of Government Efficiency, and whether it will dare tackle Pentagon spending in useful ways. Could it curb rampant fraud, waste, and abuse within military contracting? Will the Pentagon finally pass a financial audit after seven consecutive failed attempts? Might the war in Ukraine finally sputter to an end, along with U.S. taxpayer support for that country of roughly $175 billion over the last three years?
“Efficiency” may be the word of the hour, but a more “efficient” imperial military, with a looser leash to attack Iran, bottle up China, and threaten Russia would likely bring yet more unrest to a world that’s already experiencing war-making chaos. When military “lethality” becomes the byword of even the Democrats, as was true with Kamala Harris’s campaign — her vice-presidential running mate’s main criticism of the Trump record on Iran was that his leadership was too “fickle” when it came to that country’s possible acquisition of a nuclear weapon — one wonders if any move toward restraint, let alone sanity and peace, is possible within the Washington beltway.
If Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy want to lead a useful DOGE when it comes to the U.S. military, they should focus on effectiveness, not efficiency. Remind me, after all, of the last major war America effectively won. Yes, of course, it was World War II, 80 years ago, with a lot of help from allies like Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union.
On the other hand, remind me of just how “effective” the U.S. military was in replacing the Taliban with… yes, the Taliban in Afghanistan after 20 years of effort and roughly $2 trillion in expenditures; or how “effective” it was in finding Saddam Hussein’s (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction while bringing democracy to Iraq; or how “effective” it’s been in decreasing the risk of a world-altering nuclear war (while building a whole new generation of nuclear weaponry), as the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists creeps ever closer to a thermonuclear midnight.
Color this retired Air Force officer red, as in angry and scared. Still, a new administration should represent somewhat of a fresh start, another opportunity for this country to alter its militaristic course. Perhaps you’ll indulge me for a moment as I dream of 10 ways the Trump administration could (but, of course, won’t) bring a form of “greatness” back to America. (An aside: Explain to me Donald Trump’s eternal focus on making America “great again” when any president should instead be focused on making America good, as in morally just and decent, again.)
1. It’s said that Trump’s nominee for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, will “end wokeness” in the military. No more DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) generals, whatever that may mean. Apparently, the next administration wants to return to a military world of white men wearing stars (and losing wars) — the twenty-first-century equivalent of the heroes who “triumphed” in places like Korea and Vietnam in the previous century. Perhaps the new Trump administration should reanimate former Air Force Strategic Air Commander General Curtis LeMay to “win” a nuclear war against China or Russia. Whatever else you can say about LeMay, he wasn’t “woke.” Nor were generals like Douglas MacArthur in Korea and William Westmoreland in Vietnam. Nor, of course, were they victorious or even that effective, as was no less true of more recent “savior” generals like David Petraeus in Iraq and Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan.
America, we don’t need a secretary of defense to “end wokeness” in the military. What we need is one to end warness, the pursuit of perpetual conflict across the globe. Instead of channeling his inner Darth Vader and choking the careers of the “woke,” Hegseth — assuming he makes it to the Pentagon — should act to rein in all its “warriors” and civilian neocons who keep boasting of putting on their big-boy pants as they clamor for yet more war.
2. Speaking of Darth Vader and Star Wars (and recalling its planet-destroying weaponry), the $2 trillion or so planned for the “modernization” of this country’s nuclear arsenal, including new Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, a new stealth bomber (the B-21 Raider), and new Columbia-class nuclear submarines, could easily be curtailed, even cut completely, without faintly impacting national security. Instead, the U.S. could pursue nuclear reduction talks with Russia and China that would enhance world security so much more than building a whole new genocidal set of nukes and their delivery systems. If the Trump administration wants to show “greatness,” it should do what President Ronald Reagan once did: work to put an end to nuclear madness through diplomacy.
3. Speaking of diplomacy and disarmament, isn’t it time for this country to stop being the world’s foremost merchant of death? The United States is, in fact, an uncontested number one in international arms sales, accounting for 40% of the marketplace. For a start, Trump and his minions could regain a smidgen of moral authority by halting the endless flow of (nearly) free bombs, missiles, and shells to Israel, thereby slowing its genocidal efforts to murder yet more Palestinians in Gaza. (Good luck on that one, of course.)
4. If Trump is so keen to put “America First,” shouldn’t that mean sending money to Main Street, USA, rather than to Wall Street, K Street arms lobbyists in Washington, D.C., and giant military contractors in Crystal City, Virginia, and elsewhere? Euphemistically called the “defense” budget, the money that flows into the U.S. military is now officially set at nearly $900 billion, but its future ceiling seems unlimited and the total “national security budget” is already closer to an astounding $1.4 trillion. Why are Americans letting the Pentagon and the National (In)Security State gobble up roughly 60% of the federal discretionary budget, year in, year out, no matter which political party gains the presidency? In truth, America’s real political party is a warbird with two right wings.
5. Given those two right wings, perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising how often it spins, flails, and fails. Only recently, for example, the Pentagon failed its seventh audit in a row. Had it been a Trump casino, it would have declared bankruptcy and gone belly up 30 years ago. Even then, you couldn’t have dissolved and distributed its assets, since roughly $2 trillion of them are “missing.” (America, your money is MIA, or missing in action, while the American dream has been KIA, or killed in action, by wanton, wasteful, and wrongheaded Pentagon spending.) Want that institution to pass an audit? Cut its budget in half until it produces a credible and accurate accounting. Something tells me that the bureaucracy would finally “win” its war on the numbers if faced with the equivalent of a budgetary guillotine.
6. Isn’t it finally time for the Pentagon to abandon its global fever dream of “full-spectrum dominance”? An American military deployed everywhere is also one that is vulnerable everywhere. What sense is there in having U.S. Special Forces in 80+ countries? What sense is there in having roughly 800 military bases around the globe? Harkening back to my sci-fi youth, America today most closely resembles the power-driven empire in Star Wars (with the belligerence of the Klingons in Star Trek thrown in for good measure). If Elon Musk truly believes that less can be more (as in more efficient), why not start with far fewer bases and foreign entanglements?
7. Speaking of Star Trek, this country could use a new “prime directive” where we don’t go in search of monsters to destroy everywhere. Isn’t it high time we turned inward and focused on healing ourselves? As presidential candidate and Senator George McGovern, a decorated World War II bomber pilot, said so powerfully in 1972, “Come home, America.” Leave the world to settle its own affairs.
8. Speaking of new approaches, why not try rapprochement? Stop attempting to dominate Russia and China, countries that could conceivably destroy the U.S. (as we could destroy them), and start finding smart ways to cooperate. Echoing the business-speak that might appeal to Musk and Trump, isn’t it time to seek win-win scenarios rather than war-war ones?
9. They say fascism will come to America only if it’s wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross, but maybe some version of that is, in fact, the only way to neutralize future fascism — with critical patriotism (rather than jingoistic nationalism) that stresses fidelity to America’s highest ideals. Stop hugging the flag and start living up to the vision of a United (rather than increasingly dis-united) States, a true land of the free and home of the brave that refuses to be frightened by drones in the sky or an expanding China. Stop promoting a vision of a crusading America and start living a vision of a country in which peacemakers are honored, even revered.
10. The names of American drones — “Predator” and “Reaper” — reveal much about this country’s direction over the last half-century. What this country needs to be “great again” are military and government establishments that are far less predatory and reap far fewer bodies overseas or, even better, none. (Keep in mind the millions of people killed, wounded, or displaced in countries ranging from Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia to Afghanistan, Iraq, and all too many other lands across this planet in this century.)
There you have it, Donald Trump and Elon Musk, my 10 thoughts on your all too dodgy (rather than DOGE) quest for “efficiency” and “greatness” (again). In a nutshell, efficiency, as in doing things right, is far less important than effectiveness, or doing the right things, as management guru Peter Drucker put it. So, for example, a more efficient military might have fought in a somewhat smarter fashion in Iraq, but an effective military (and government) would have recognized that such a war should never have been pursued to begin with. Let me be clear: I don’t want an “efficient” war with Iran or China or any other country. I want an effective American foreign (and military) policy where, to cite Abraham Lincoln, right makes might.
Put bluntly, you can’t do a wrong thing the right way, a simple maxim I fear will be lost on that potential future trillionaire Musk and his DOGE. Therefore, the U.S. military and government will continue to do all too many wrong things, perhaps in a few cases slightly more efficiently, only making U.S. “defense” policy ever more predatory and so reaping yet more innocent lives across this globe of ours.
When it comes to Donald Trump and Elon Musk, let me say the obvious: the U.S. needs a smaller military establishment capable of defending this country by upholding the ideals and freedoms delineated in the Constitution. Fighting endless wars in distant lands is not the solution here, it’s the problem. As a result, America has an ineffective military (inefficient as hell to boot) that essentially launders trillions in taxpayer dollars to merchants of death like Lockheed Martin and Boeing while filling far too many body bags with dead foreigners. Your DOGE, Mr. Musk, won’t change this, nor will your predilection for spoiling the Pentagon with ever-higher budgets, President Trump.
So, what is to be done, America? As the prophet Michael Jackson once sang, we must start with the man in the mirror. Collectively, we need to ask ourselves and by extension “our” government to change its ways. Or, more effectively, we need to demand radical and extensive changes, since power of the sort wielded by this country’s national security state will concede nothing without a demand.
The forms those demands take are up to you, America.
In my darker hours, I wonder if, in our latest Trumpian moment, this country will be the national equivalent of the Titanic, post-iceberg — meaning that our fate is sealed. If that’s the case, maybe we can play sweeter music and be kinder to each other as we slip toward an ice-cold watery grave. But there are other moments when I imagine the iceberg still looming before the ship of state and a course correction still possible.
I hope that’s the case, even if our ship’s captain (Donald Trump) and his senior officers appear asleep at the wheel, while a few nutcases seem to be seeking that iceberg as a national death wish of sorts or, if you prefer, as an “end times” quest. As Howard Zinn once said, you can’t be neutral on a moving train — or for that matter on a ship of state already deep in perilous waters.
To use a different nautical reference, a more hopeful (if fictional) one, before the USS Caine goes down with all hands in high winds and heavy seas under the blundering and blustering Commander Queeg, maybe it’s time for us, the crew, to take matters into our own hands, as difficult as that may be to contemplate.
Come hard about, America! Seek the fair winds and following seas of peace. If we have the courage to do that, we will truly save our ship, ourselves, and much of the rest of the world from looming disaster.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Here's How the GOP Could Cut Over $5 Trillion—And Gut Healthcare, Climate Action
"Americans: We just want higher wages and lower costs. Republicans: We are going to take away your healthcare."
Jan 10, 2025
Some Democratic lawmakers and other critics of congressional Republicans on Friday pointed to a document obtained by Politico as just the latest evidence that the looming GOP trifecta at the federal level poses a threat to working families nationwide.
"Americans: We just want higher wages and lower costs. Republicans: We are going to take away your healthcare," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair emeritus of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in response to the reporting, which came as Republicans have taken control of both chambers of Congress and prepare for President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration in just over a week.
The one-page list originated from the House Budget Committee, chaired by Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), Politico reported, citing five unnamed sources. One of them explained that the "document is not intended to serve as a proposal, but instead as a menu of potential spending reductions for members to consider."
The document lists various policies that it claims would collectively cut up to $5.7 trillion. Republicans have been discussing how to offset the high costs of top priorities—specifically, Trump's immigration policies and plans for tax cuts that critics warn would largely benefit the wealthy, like the law he signed in 2017.
"In order to make his rich, billionaire buddies richer, Trump wants to kick millions off healthcare coverage and starve families. How does this help working families thrive?"
The policies are divided into eight sections, with headings that critics called "dystopian" and "Orwellian." The first calls for repealing "major" health rules from outgoing President Joe Biden's administration, which would supposedly cut $420 billion. The second section takes aim at Medicare, the federal health program for seniors, proposing policies that would cut $479 billion.
A large share of the potential cuts would come from section three, which lists seven potential changes to Medicaid, a program that provides health coverage to low-income people. The policies include per capita caps, work requirements, and lowering the federal medical assistance percentages (FMAP) floor.
"In order to make his rich, billionaire buddies richer, Trump wants to kick millions off healthcare coverage and starve families. How does this help working families thrive?" Michigan state Rep. Carrie Rheingans (D-47) asked on social media. "In this leaked list of cuts, 'lower FMAP floor' for Medicaid means states pay a higher proportion of Medicaid costs for enrollees—this just shoves [federal] costs to states so billionaires get more yacht money."
Section four of the document calls for "reimagining" the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cut $151 billion, with changes that include repealing the Prevention and Public Health Fund, limiting eligibility based on citizenship status, and reclaiming $46 billion from subsidies set to expire at the end of the year.
The fifth section lays out $347 billion in cuts by "ending cradle-to-grave dependence," targeting initiatives including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), often called food stamps.
Section six claims "reversing Biden climate policies" would cut $468 billion: $300 billion by discontinuing some provisions from the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure legislation, $112 billion by rolling back electric vehicle policies, and $56 billion by repealing green energy grants from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
The seventh section is a catchall, listing up to $1 trillion in potential cuts through moves that include ending student debt forgiveness, restricting emergency spending, and reforming federal employee benefits. Section eight identifies up to $527 in potential tax offsets from requiring Social Security numbers for the child tax credit and green energy credits.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who recently agreed to use the budget reconciliation process to cut $2.5 trillion, "can't afford any Republican defections if he wants to pass a package on party lines," Politico reported. "Even proposed cuts to green energy tax credits, worth as much as $500 billion, could be tricky—as the document notes, they depend 'on political viability.' Already 18 House Republicans—14 of whom won reelection in November—warned Johnson against prematurely repealing some of the IRA's energy tax credits, which are funding multiple manufacturing projects in GOP districts."
Sharing the report on social media Friday, Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) stressed that "Republicans want to cut vital food and healthcare support programs to pay for a tax cut for billionaires and large corporations. The GOP wants working families to pay for their billionaire handouts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Don't Be Fooled': Laken Riley Act Not About Crime by Migrants—It's a Right-Wing Power Grab
"This bill is political grandstanding at its worst," said one lawmaker.
Jan 10, 2025
With the U.S. Senate poised to vote on the Laken Riley Act on Friday, immigrant rights advocates are warning that—despite claims from proponents that the bill is aimed at protecting American communities from violent crime—supporters of the legislation are actually advancing a dangerous "Trojan horse" and securing a power grab for xenophobic right-wing authorities.
The bill is named after Laken Riley, a Georgia woman who was killed last February while she was jogging. Jose Antonio Ibarra, an undocumented immigrant from Venezuela, was convicted of her murder in November, and the case was a focal point of President-elect Donald Trump's campaign last year.
But as Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of immigrant rights group America's Voice, said Thursday, the bill "is filled with unrelated and sweeping measures that won't improve public safety."
Central provisions in the legislation, which passed in the House on Tuesday with the support of 37 Democrats along with the entire Republican caucus, would require immigration officers to detain undocumented immigrants who are accused of theft, including shoplifting—an apparent response to the fact that Ibarra was cited for shoplifting in Georgia but was not detained before he killed Riley.
Critics have expressed outrage over the provision, with Cárdenas saying it would trample "important due process principles—greenlighting detention and deportation for those accused, rather than convicted of low-level crimes."
"It's no surprise Republicans are continuing to exploit a horrific act of violence and portray immigrants as dangerous threats to America, despite the reality that immigrants have a lower crime rate than the native-born," said Cárdenas. "And it also should be no surprise to any close observers of right-wing politics that the bill being pushed this week doesn't seek to improve public safety or even focus on public safety threats."
At Arizona Republic, editor Elvia Díaz advised readers, "Don't be fooled by soundbites."
"Republicans and now Democrats, too, want you to believe the Laken Riley Act is about deporting shoplifters," she wrote. "It's a power grab by states to dismantle federal authority over immigration enforcement."
In a column at MSNBC on Wednesday, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, wrote that Republicans pushing the bill are asking the question: "Who runs the U.S. immigration system?"
The answer, backed up by numerous courts, has been the federal government, but the bill would give broad new authorities to state officials, such as attorneys general, to file legal challenges in order to have specific immigrants detained and to force the State Department to block visas from countries that won't accept immigrants who are deported.
"Giving states a veto power over thousands of decisions made every day by federal law enforcement officers and leaders will complicate immigration issues in every community and threaten to set off international incidents which could hurt U.S. interests around the globe," wrote Reichlin-Melnick.
The visa provision could impact countries such as China and India, which have "historically not cooperated fully with the United States on deportations," and where more than 1.8 million immigrant and short-term visas were issued to nationals in 2023.
"Because the United States is so intertwined with these countries, administrations of both parties have been unwilling to threaten blanket visa bans as a punishment for not accepting deportees," wrote Reichlin-Melnick. "Yet should the Laken Riley Act become law, that decision may no longer be in the hands of our nation's top diplomats and law enforcement officers; it could be in the hands of a single federal district court judge in Texas or Louisiana."
He continued:
What could this look like in practice? Imagine a person from China living in Texas on an H-1B visa who commits an offense that leads to a deportation order. If China does not accept the deportation, [Texas Attorney General] Ken Paxton could go to court seeking to force the federal government to ban all visas from China (or maybe just all H-1B visas) without having to worry about taking the blame for the economic or diplomatic fallout to the United States.
"What happened to Laken Riley was a terrible tragedy, and the perpetrator has been sentenced to life in prison for his heinous acts," wrote Reichlin-Melnick on Wednesday. "But just as Willie Horton's bad acts decades ago were not a justification for supercharging a system of mass incarceration, the heinous acts of Jose Ibarra should not be an excuse to flip our system of constitutional governance on its head and empower individual states and federal judges to run immigration law."
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who opposed the bill this week, said he has heard from "a lot of people who say they support this bill, but who don't seem to know what it really does."
"For example, if this bill is signed into law, a 12-year-old kid brought here by a parent could be LOCKED IN ICE DETENTION if they are accused—not even convicted, simple accused—of stealing a candy bar," McGovern said in a post on X, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement..
Kylie Cheung of Jezebel pointed out that while Republicans have held the Laken Riley Act up as essential legislation to protect women from violence, "these lawmakers don't care about women's safety or high rates of femicide perpetrated by people with citizenship—they've cut all actual resources for victims. They just want to gut basic civil liberties."
Immigration attorney Ben Winograd of the Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center offered a hypothetical scenario under the bill: "Imagine a man who is a U.S. citizen marries a woman who entered the country illegally. He abuses her constantly, and after learning that she intends to leave him, he calls the police and (falsely) claims that she stole some of his property."
"If the police arrest the woman, she would be subject to mandatory detention while in removal proceedings—even if the police determined that the accusation was bogus," said Winograd. "The Laken Riley Act would allow any person with a grudge against an undocumented immigrant to make them subject to indefinite mandatory detention simply by leveling a false accusation of theft."
All the Senate Republicans are sponsoring the bill, which was cleared for a vote on Thursday, with Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) joining them. In order to overcome a filibuster the GOP needs just six more Democrats to support the legislation.
Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), one of nine senators who opposed advancing the bill on Thursday, said he is in favor of "bipartisan action to fix our broken immigration system."
"I stand ready to work across the aisle to get it done," he said. "Let's start from a foundation grounded in our Constitution."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular