Showing posts with label war crimes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war crimes. Show all posts

Monday, March 09, 2026

The Wickedness of the Unwanted War

Are we the baddies?
--
Mitchell and Webb


The "bomb 'em all" war that trump and his lackeys triggered in Iran last week started with a horrific war crime: the destruction of a school building that killed hundreds including children. Only now are we getting confirmation it was our side doing it (via Merlyn Thomas and Shayan Sardarizadeh with the BBC, through a fact-checking service called BBC Verify): 

A US Tomahawk missile hit a military base near a primary school in southern Iran where Iranian authorities said 168 people, including around 110 children, were killed, expert video analysis shows.

A video published yesterday by Iran's semi-official Mehr news agency, which BBC Verify has confirmed as authentic, shows a missile moments before it struck an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) base next to the Shajareh Tayebeh primary school in Minab.

BBC Verify has previously established through satellite imagery, verified videos and expert analysis that the area near the school was hit by a series of strikes.

Experts who have seen this latest video told us the presence of a Tomahawk missile, along with evidence the area was hit with multiple strikes, indicates this was a US operation. Neither Israel nor Iran are known to possess Tomahawks, experts said.

Netanyahu and his Israeli forces are eagerly striking targets across Iran for their own reasons - to end Iran's proxy war through terror groups, and to destabilize the entire Middle East to justify land-grabbing Gaza and the West Bank - but they've dragged in on their side a bomb-happy trump regime that wants "results" through glorified explosions and graphic body counts.

Just look at Secretary of War Assholes Pete Hegseth, out here crowing about ignoring the rules of engagement that our military is supposed to follow to reduce civilian casualties (via Haley Fuller at Military.com):

At a Pentagon briefing on March 2, 2026, War Secretary Pete Hegseth used blunt language about how the United States would fight, saying there would be “no stupid rules of engagement,” “no politically correct wars,” and “no nation-building quagmire.”

Those remarks became a flashpoint because rules of engagement, or ROE, are not “vibes” or slogans. They are a formal control system that ties tactical force decisions to strategy, law, and escalation management. Human Rights Watch responded the same day by warning that dismissing ROE in public can read as minimizing legal constraints that exist to protect civilians and keep operations compliant with the laws of war. 

In U.S. doctrine, ROE start with standing baseline rules and then get tailored by commanders for a mission, geography, and threat picture. The Joint Staff’s Standing Rules of Engagement and Standing Rules for the Use of Force (CJCSI 3121.01B) are the backbone reference that describes how U.S. forces think about self defense, hostile act, hostile intent, and the conditions for using force...

There are well-documented cases where tighter guidance on the use of force improved strategic outcomes by reducing civilian harm and preserving legitimacy with the population. In Afghanistan, ISAF’s 2009 Tactical Directive under Gen. Stanley McChrystal tightened standards for air-to-ground fires and emphasized protecting civilians, explicitly shaping how units used force in populated areas.

U.S. military analysis later described how that directive and related command emphasis drove changes in how airpower was used and contributed to decreased civilian casualties from airpower during that period. That is not a moral victory lap; it is operational logic. Civilian harm can create tactical blowback, degrade intelligence access, and strengthen enemy recruiting. 

Counterinsurgency doctrine makes the same point in more formal language: in COIN, legitimacy and civilian protection are not side quests. They are part of the theory of victory, which means ROE can become an instrument of strategy rather than just a compliance checklist...

In short: we're supposed to be the good guys, and good guys do not blow up schools and kill hundreds of children.

We do that - our US forces go in and commit atrocities across the board - and we signal to the local population we can't be trusted, that we are the demons that the other side keep painting us as. Recruitment for insurgents will go up: Local resistance - if we ever send troops to occupy - will get violent. Regional terrorism within any allied nations - and the likelihood of another terror strike here in the U.S. - will play out. And you get the quagmire Hegseth claims we're not getting dragged into.

But Hegseth doesn't care, he just wants to preen and strut as "a warrior" playing out his Alpha Male fantasies. trump never cared, he wants to satisfy the cruel urges that fill that empty void where a human soul should be.

It's telling that neither man were never truly soldiers. For all of Hegseth's "military" experience in the National Guard, he rode a desk not a tank. None of the actual Code of good soldiering got through that thick skull of his. Hegseth thinks warring is all about killing, and planting a colored flag on a battlefield to claim victory.

He is so wrong about that.

And trump, draft-dodging bone-spur coward that he is... he said far too often to far too many people that soldiering is for losers and suckers.

In the process, Hegseth is pushing our military into committing more and worse war crimes on the scale of My Lai, or Sand Creek. He's hoping - with trump's approval - to turn our troops into mindless trigger-pullers, taking aim at any target he and trump order them to kill.

This may be about the senseless - and criminal - killing of Iranians, and Venezuelans, and South American boaters, and now they're taking aim at Cubans. It's also about trump and the Far Right's desire to get troops to aim their rifles and missiles at other Americans, the ones the Far Right fear and hate the most.

trump wants his war on the part of America that doesn't cower or offer him adoration. Hegseth and the other Republican chickenhawks are willing to help him.

We need to stop these warmongers, not just for the sake of innocent lives across the globe but for the sake of our families, friends, and communities.

trump, Hegseth, and the Far Right want to be the Bad Guys. We shouldn't let them.

Saturday, January 03, 2026

Waking Up to A War

trump just dialed up international outrage to 11 during last night (via Carrie Kahn and Scott Neuman at NPR): 

President Trump claimed overnight that the United States carried out airstrikes in Venezuela and "captured" President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, following a series of explosions and fires reported around Caracas in the early hours of the morning.

In a post on Truth Social published early Saturday morning, Trump said the U.S. had "successfully carried out a large-scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolas Maduro," adding that Maduro and his wife had been "captured" and flown out of the country. Trump said the operation was conducted "in conjunction with U.S. Law Enforcement" and announced a news conference for 11 a.m. EST at Mar-a-Lago.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a post on X that Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, have been indicted in the Southern District of New York on drug, arms and conspiracy charges...

The Venezuelan government swiftly accused the U.S. of launching what it called a "grave military aggression" against the country. In a statement posted on Telegram, the government said U.S. forces targeted civilian and military locations in Caracas as well as in the nearby states of Miranda, Aragua, and La Guaira, calling the attacks a "flagrant violation" of the United Nations Charter.

On state television, Venezuela's Vice President Delcy Rodriguez said government and military officials had been killed by U.S. strikes across Venezuela. She added the government does not know the whereabouts of President Maduro and his wife and demanded proof of life...

Many Venezuelans have been sharing videos — which NPR has not independently verified — showing multiple explosions across the metropolitan area, including near a military base close to the presidential palace, Miraflores.

This is a major escalation from the ongoing bombing strikes of various civilian boats over the past months where trump and his administration were claiming - but couldn't prove - as drug smugglers operating out of Venezuela.

This is a direct attack on another nation's soil, going against any number of treaties with our allies in the region if not the whole world. It's a legal gray area at best, at worst it's a signal to other dictators and warmongers - like say China towards Taiwan - that it's open season on anybody they want to "arrest".

This is a violation of our own Constitution, which specifically set the power to declare acts of war - and the capture of "enemy combatants" - to Congress under Article I Section 8:  To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.

This is, above all, causing greater tension between a belligerent United States and the rest of Central and South America that trump keeping bullying. Colombia's president Gustav Pedro had earlier accused trump and his thugs of illegal strikes on his nation's fishermen, and is calling for an emergency UN session now to bring international pressure against the United States. Brazil's president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is on record that this attack "crosses an unacceptable line" violating Venezuela's sovereignty.

This is also yet another black mark on the United States' long and troubled history of meddling, interfering, outright destroying the rights and protections of our southern neighbors ever since the Monroe Doctrine gave us an excuse to do all that. 

This is also something a majority of Americans didn't want. Politico back in December reported on a Quinnipiac poll showing 63 percent didn't want any military action even as trump's administration beat the war drums and bombed fishing boats (via Gregory Svirnovskiy):

Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to military action in Venezuela, according to a Quinnipiac poll published on Wednesday amid an escalation of U.S. pressure on President Nicolás Maduro.

Sixty-three percent of respondents told Quinnipiac they are against military action against Caracas, which President Donald Trump has repeatedly declined to rule out, with just 25 percent expressing support. And 53 percent of respondents said they opposed the administration’s use of military strikes to kill alleged drug smugglers in international waters...

Americans also expressed concern with the president’s expanded executive authority, with 54 percent saying he has gone too far in wielding the power of the presidency, 37 percent saying he is handling it about right and 7 percent saying he has not been aggressive enough. The results were split along partisan lines: 96 percent of Democrats and only 11 percent of Republicans reported concerns regarding the president’s power.

If trump and his Republican buddies think that sparking an unwanted war is going to make most Americans line up and accept all the flag-waving and patriotic fervor, they're wrong. If anything this will divide the nation further, and spiral the Far Right demagogues into further anti-Latino hatred.

There are several reasons trump is doing is, not of them good (or lawful). This is trump doubling down on a questionable - and self-destructive - War On Drugs that's been in operation since the 1970s and solving nothing about our nation's drug habits; This is trump demonizing Latinos as criminals to justify escalating a mass deportation scheme that the courts keep finding as inhumane and illegal; This is trump seeking personal gratification as a "great military leader" to salve his wounded ego.

There is no sign that trump or his pro-war allies on this - Hegseth, Rubio, Miller, other chickenhawks among the GOP elite - have really thought out the long-term ramifications of this, of the global chaos this act of war will unleash and make worse.

Gods help us. Seriously. I know I keep saying this, but this is NOT GOING TO END WELL.

Monday, December 01, 2025

The Price of Arrogance Is the Blood of Others

"They're not confessing."
"They're bragging."
-- from The Big Short movie

Update: Many thanks to Steve in Manhattan for including this article at Crooks & Liars Mike's Blog Round-Up! I'd like to say Io Saturnalia but this is not a festive time is it. /rage


It's been reported earlier how our United States military is committing war crimes in the Caribbean by bombing civilian fishing boats claiming they're drug smuggling as part of trump's - and Hegseth's - desire to turn the War on Drugs into a hot war against half of Central and South America.

The horror of what they're doing came into sharper focus this weekend when the Washington Post picked up on how the decision-making into those boat strikes went, including the point where Hegseth pushed to "kill them all" including any survivors (via Alex Horton and Ellen Nakashima, there is a paywall):

The longer the U.S. surveillance aircraft followed the boat, the more confident intelligence analysts watching from command centers became that the 11 people on board were ferrying drugs.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. “The order was to kill everybody,” one of them said.

A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.

The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.

Hegseth’s order, which has not been previously reported, adds another dimension to the campaign against suspected drug traffickers. Some current and former U.S. officials and law-of-war experts have said that the Pentagon’s lethal campaign — which has killed more than 80 people to date — is unlawful and may expose those most directly involved to future prosecution.

What's at issue here are both the constitutional ideal of due process and the right of criminal suspects to face their charges in courts of law, and also the international laws protecting civilians from questionable military strikes. Summarily killing these boaters - and in spite of the analysts vibes, there's no viable proof they are smuggling drugs - increases the likelihood our nation is killing innocent people.

We're witnessing an escalation of war being pushed by unserious people obsessed - yet again - with body counts and the appearance of "rugged manly leadership". Hegseth and trump's behavior throughout this nightmare has gotten to the point where the partisan sides of the Senate are joining forces to condemn what's happening (via Jacob Wendler at Politico):

Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — both of whom sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — said Sunday that, if accurate, such orders would rise to the level of war crimes.

“If that reporting is true, it’s a clear violation of the DOD’s own laws of war, as well as international laws about the way you treat people who are in that circumstance. And so this rises to the level of a war crime if it’s true,” Kaine said in an interview with CBS’ Nancy Cordes on “Face the Nation...”

Bipartisan leadership of the Armed Services Committees in both chambers vowed to probe the matter, with Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) promising “vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances” on Friday.

Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) told Cordes on Sunday that “if that occurred, that would be very serious, and I agree that would be an illegal act,” and Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said on ABC’s “This Week” that “if it was as if the article said, that is a violation of the law of war.”

All of this is happening because a Far Right Supreme Court gave their seal of approval to the Unitary Executive theory where presidents can wield extensive and unstoppable powers to do whatever they want. They've granted these powers to a bullying, gaslighting sociopath in trump who's allowing the sociopaths among his lackeys to indulge in acts of cruelty towards everyone they fear and hate.

The arrogance of Hegseth is how he views the entire idea of War: That rather than play by rules and regulations designed to reduce risk of civilian casualties and even loss of our own troops to reckless acts, Hegseth prefers to grant soldiers full license to use excessive force (meaning "kill 'em all" and declare victory).

Hegseth is the kind of person who wouldn't have seen the ethical conflict surrounding My Lai. The need to avoid more bloodshed in war is meaningless to him. The concept of maintaining order through soft power is alien to the likes of him. He wants a body count and he wants to revel in it.

Hegseth's desire to "strike fast, strike hard, kill them all" echoes in the trumpian agenda of inflicting that firepower on our own communities, be it hunting down immigrants or threatening "woke" cities with occupation while militarizing our police into thugs.

The cruelty remains the point. Not only as policy but as an attempt to keep themselves in power through brutality and lawless indulgence.

This arrogance will turn allies into enemies soon enough. And the downward spiral into violence will speed up some more.

Gods help us.

Tuesday, November 04, 2025

The Shadow That Was Dick Cheney

The big news today has been the passing of former Vice President (and administrative tone-setter) Richard "Dick" Cheney.

The best thing I can say about this was already said back in 2014:

Considering the former Vice President's recent hypocritical and vile comments about Obama's handling of the Iraqi mess Cheney left behind, about the prolonged history of Cheney's lies and distortions, about the thousands of lives broken and killed under his orders, there is only one thing to say:

Arrest the son of a bitch for war crimes and shove his goddamn criminality back into his goddamn face.

That's all that needs to be said now and forever.  No more television interviews.  No more speaking events.  No more book deals.  Send him to jail, put him on trial.  Make him answer for the torture regime, the lies about WMDs, the war-profiteering, the folly of waging two wars with massive debt and without end.

I also said a few things in 2013, when I reviewed Bush the Lesser's presidential tenure, noting how the real power in that White House flowed through and from the Veep's office:

So if Bush the Lesser was really a Passive-Positive at heart, something that Ivins points to, why was Dean so convinced that Bush was really an Active-Negative?

Because much of the Bush administration was a disaster of obsessive secrecy, reckless war-making, and abuse of powers that one regularly sees in an A-N administration.

Mind you, Passive-Positives preside over scandal-plagued tenures - Reagan's was chock-full, as was Harding's and Grant's - but for different reasons than an Active-Negative's such as Johnson or Nixon.  Pass-Pos' scandals are due more to the nature of such Presidents allowing their cronies free range to embezzle and indulge, whereas A-N's scandals stem from the President's own personal faults and obsessions...

It might help to understand that a Passive-Positive President is by nature too trusting of his allies and cronies: Harding is a perfect example.  It's often noted in a Pass-Pos administration the tenor of the office defined more by an underling or group of underlings (much like Franklin Pierce's seemed more dictated by his Southern Democrat allies, and Reagan's with regards to the Iran-Contra scandal).  With that consideration, also note that during Bush the Lesser administration we had the most politically-powerful VICE President our nation ever saw in Dick Cheney...

Cheney was different.  Cheney seemed to dominate Bush the Lesser's administration the minute he was given any authority by Bush, and that even began during the 2000 campaign.  Entrusted as a family friend of his father's, Bush put Cheney in charge of finding his Vice Presidential ticket balancer.  There seemed to have been a review process but in the end the selection was... Cheney himself, which puzzled people then but makes more sense when you look at Cheney more closely...

This was a man who was perfectly willing to tell a fellow politician on the floor of the Senate to "go fuck yourself."  Granted, this wasn't a full-on assault with a walking cane, but certain rules of decorum apply (you're supposed to save that for the parking lot).  This was a guy who told a fellow Secretary of Treasury that "deficits don't matter (regarding more massive tax cuts that even the Secretary felt were unneeded).  This is our due."

This was a man who chaired the secretive energy policy meetings.  This was a Vice President who had his office and had his friends in the Defense Department set up a competing "investigative office" to undercut CIA intelligence that didn't fit their "Iraq Has WMDs" narrative.  This was a Veep whose Chief of Staff "Scooter" Libby was indicted for his role in revealing the classified identity of a CIA agent whose husband had publicly questioned the WMD story.

This was a Vice President who used his unprecedented level of authority to ignore standard procedures on a regular basis.  When confronted by the National Archives' Information Security Oversight Office - the ones who handle and store classified materials on a daily basis, mind you - about refusing to turn over materials starting from 2003 into 2007, Cheney did his best to eliminate that part of the National Archives altogether.  Cheney's argument?  As Vice President serving both Executive and Legislative duties (as President of the Senate), he was exempt (the "Fourth Branch" of government argument).  Basically claiming he didn't have to answer to anybody.  Not even to the President.

In short: Everything nasty, vulgar, illegal, and corrupt about the modern Republican Party evolved entirely from whatever dark template that spawned Dick.

That Cheney came to openly despise donald trump - his true heir to the Far Right regime Cheney engineered over the decades - is mostly due to how he viewed trump as too self-serving and stupid to be the Forever Dictator of a Republican-ruled America.

There are a number of obits today burying Cheney for the sins he'd committed while he sat in power, so I'll offer a number of links here so you can get a more informed understanding of how soulless that person was.

Mark Danner at Salon: Dick Cheney's Dark Legacy

David Frum at Atlantic: There Was Only One Dick Cheney All Along

George Chidi at The Guardian: Dick Cheney Remains Divisive In Death

Eoin Higgins at The Intercept: Dick Cheney Doesn't Deserve Your Heartfelt Eulogies

When you consider how the only one more hated was Henry Kissinger, Cheney is leaving a foul legacy indeed.

P.S. also sharing Stonekettle's simple observation on Bluesky:

Well, hell. Looks like I'm going to need to drink more coffee. Dick Cheney died and I'm going to need a full bladder for the funeral.

— Stonekettle (@stonekettle.bsky.social) November 4, 2025 at 8:44 AM


Just sayin', 2 liter bottles of Mountain Dew pass through much faster...

 

Sunday, November 02, 2025

A Truly Lawless War By a Lawless White House

I can't see how U.S. relations with other countries will ever get better whenever trump and his Republican lackeys are driven from power, as long as this corrupt administration is openly committing war crimes like bombing fishing boats in international waters (via Heather Parton at her Digby blog):

(Quoted from the Task And Purpose website) “Don’t let them make you break the law,” read new digital billboards on expressways near U.S. Southern Command headquarters in Doral, Florida, where the U.S. military’s ongoing operations in the Caribbean Sea are being overseen

The billboards were put up in response to the ongoing military strikes ordered by President Donald Trump’s administration, in what the White House and Pentagon have described as a concerted campaign against “narcoterrorists.”

The strikes are illegal and immoral. They aren’t even war crimes because there is no war. They’re just straight up mass murder.

The veterans behind the billboards at Win Without War and About Face: Veterans Against The War, describe it differently, calling them “ongoing lawless strikes on boats near the South American coasts...” 

It’s even worse than we knew. Per Politico:

Defense Department officials do not know precisely who they have killed in multiple military strikes against alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean that have claimed the lives of at least 57 people, according to Democratic lawmakers who attended a classified House briefing on the issue Thursday.

The meeting with members of the House Armed Services Committee — which comes amid bipartisan requests from members of Congress for more legal justification for the deadly strikes — was conducted by department policy officials but no military lawyers, who were pulled from the briefing shortly before it started.

Lawmakers at the briefing said they were not given an explanation for the change and were left frustrated over the lack of clarity on the justifications for the military actions...

They don’t know who they are murdering and they don’t care. And now we know that they’re killing them on the basis of some “connection” to a “terrorist organization or affiliate.” We have no idea how they define any of that. What’s a connection? What’s an affiliate? And what fucking authority allows them to kill people based on any of this???

I’ve seen the government use the U.S. military to do some heinous things in my time, but this may be the most blatantly illegal without even the fig leaf of a believable rationale.

We've had our leaders lie us into wars before - as far back as the Mexican-American War over the Texas border with Mexico - and we're still coping with the dissemblers from the 2003 Iraqi Occupation never held to account for lying about WMDs and then lying about their torture regime. 

But we're at the point where trump and his Far Right warhawks don't care what the facts are regarding anything. All they want is to justify their war on Latino immigrants, by tying it to a 50-year-old War On Drugs that would involve violating other nations' sovereignty - either with illegal missile/bomb strikes across their borders, or escalating further with "regime change" via a ground war - in such ways that even our closest allies in NATO and North America - if any remain by that point - would side against us.

Adding to the madness is how trump is doing this without the constitutional requirements that Congress has to sign off on any extended military action. Even Dubya had to lie to the legislature to get authorization to invade and occupy Iraq. With government officially in Shutdown mode thanks to Republican incompetence (AND arrogance, AND unwillingness to fund SNAP to feed our families, AND terrified of a pending House to release the Epstein Files exposing a lot of trump's sins) trump and his warmongering buddies like Hegseth and Miller believe they can do anything they want with our armed forces.

This is not a good thing if we're heading into war with Venezuela - or Nigeria, or Mexico, or Canada, or Denmark - much like the dangers of going into a war with Iran: Again, our nation is not unified to fight an overseas war (and with the Far Right insisting on absolute loyalty, they will turn violent against any anti-war protests that will rise up); we will not have allies siding with us and in fact will see other nations side against us; and the leadership that will put themselves in control of any planned war are buffoons and idiots who've convinced themselves they're military geniuses when they pretty much can't even plan out parades.

We're being led into an illegal unjust war at this point, where the only thing stopping trump is his own inability to focus on anything at any particular time. But sooner or later, that chaotic bubble he and his lackeys are in will pop, and then everything else will explode.

Gods help us.

Wednesday, November 29, 2023

No Nice Thing to Say: Kissinger Dead

It's a good thing I'm wrapping up my NaNo project because now I have time to go back to blogging just as this news alert broke tonight:

Henry Kissinger is (finally) dead.

The NPR report from Tom Gjelten is mostly hagiography - in that he describes Kissinger's public persona as a foreign policy giant - and it's not until halfway through the article that Kissinger's hard-line - bordering on war crimes - policies regarding Cambodia and Latin America are even mentioned.

This was what I wrote back in May when he turned 100:

There's a reason why whenever a beloved celebrity like Tina Turner passes away, the immediate social media reaction is "Why the fuck is Kissinger still alive?"

Kissinger still lives because he converted political connections into personal power, and because the United States refuses to hand him over for war crimes or any other crimes against humanity he clearly caused across his career (and the bloody legacy he left in his wake).

Kissinger defends himself to this day by arguing the global struggle against Communism required a "realpolitik" response: That is, to be as brutal and undermining as the Stalin-backed insurgencies had been in the 1950s across Eastern Europe and then the Third World. In this, Kissinger describes himself as a Machiavellian, in that "the ends justified the means" in ensuring American economic and political influence on the world stage.

If Kissinger truly is a Machiavellian, he overlooked one of the key teachings: In Machiavelli's question "whether it is better to be Loved or Feared," Machiavelli answered his own question by pointing out "It is more important to avoid being Hated" because in that moment you lose the Respect a Prince - or any leader - needs to keep himself in power.

In Kissinger's wake were dozens of nations broken, bloodied, left to suffer under dictatorial regimes backed by American muscle. The citizenry of those nations did not, will not forget that the United States - selling ourselves as a beacon of liberty and justice - became hypocritical monsters turning a blind eye to the suffering of those who begged for liberty and justice for their own.

Erik Loomis over at Lawyers Guns & Money shows less mercy:

One of the most vile individuals to ever befoul the United States, Henry Kissinger is dead. A man responsible for the deaths of millions of people around the world and yet the most respected man within the American foreign policy community for decades, Kissinger’s sheer existence exposed the moral vacuity of Cold War foreign policy and the empty platitudes and chummy gladhandling of the Beltway elite class that deserves our utter contempt...

When Richard Nixon became the Republican nominee in 1968, Kissinger immediately made a close connection with him. In fact, they had a lovely thing to bond over: committing treason in defense of Nixon’s presidential ambitions. After Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for reelection, he hoped to end the Vietnam War. Nixon feared doing this would undermine his chances to win that fall, especially after LBJ announced the moratorium on bombing Hanoi. Luckily for Nixon, Kissinger agreed. Kissinger was serving Johnson as his advisor on the Vietnam peace talks. He let Nixon know that a peace treaty was imminent. This allowed Nixon to use his own connections in the Thieu government in Saigon to tell them he would recommit the U.S. to the war and thus they should refuse to agree to peace. This worked. Thieu boycotted the peace talks and nothing happened. Saving millions of Vietnamese lives and tens thousands of American lives had little meaning compared to the noble goal of getting Nixon elected to the presidency. Nixon repaid him by naming him National Security Advisor. Between 1968 and Kissinger’s “peace at hand” statements shortly before the 1972 elections, 20,000 American soldiers died. Thanks Hank and Dick...

But let’s not overstate the positives of Kissinger. The man was an absolute monster. Kissinger was the architect of Nixon’s policy of bombing Cambodia and the 1970 invasion that led to the biggest protests against the war and the shootings at Kent State and Jackson State University. The bombings of Cambodia killed up to 150,000 people between 1969 and 1973 and destabilized that already struggling nation, helping to usher in the Khmer Rouge, while also not doing anything at all to win the war in Vietnam that we should not have been fighting in to begin with. Kissinger told his assistant Al Haig that Nixon “wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn’t want to hear anything. It’s an order, it’s to be done. Anything that flies on anything that moves.” And Kissinger and Haig made sure that happened. Kissinger then went on to be supportive of the Khmer Rouge! He saw Pol Pot as a counterweight against the real enemy: North Vietnam. He asked Thailand’s foreign minister to tell the Khmer Rouge, “we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them.” Luckily, the Vietnamese themselves finally put an end to the genocide in Cambodia, with no thanks to Henry Kissinger or the United States...

Kissinger committed massive crimes against humanity, even if you only consider his actions in Chile. First, Kissinger neither knew anything about Latin America nor cared. He thought the region utterly irrelevant. He once rejected the offer of a childhood friend who became an official at the Inter-American Development Bank to provide information about the region by responding, “If I need any information on Latin America, I’ll look it up in the Almanac.” He later stated, “Nothing important can come from the South. The axis of history starts in Moscow, goes to Bonn, crosses over to Washington, and then goes to Tokyo. What happens in the South is of no importance.”

In this worldview, Latin America only existed to serve U.S. interests. Salvador Allende’s socialist and democratic government was outraged Nixon and Kissinger. That Allende was elected democratically despite massive CIA interference in 1970 to defeat him only outraged them more. So they sought to undermine him at every opportunity...

When General Augusto Pinochet rose to prominence and eventually overthrew Allende in a violent coup, Kissinger was behind him every step of the way. The CIA and Kissinger knew of the coup head of time and had ongoing relationships with people such as Pinochet, not to mention had previously supported an attempt for a coup in 1970. The horrifying aftermath, with torture and killing abounding, hardly quieted Kissinger’s ardor for Pinochet. By 1976, Kissinger was Ford’s Secretary of State. When Pinochet ordered the assassination of dissenter and former U.S. ambassador Orlando Letelier on U.S. soil, blowing up his car in Washington, Kissinger was totally fine with it...

He took a similar role in Argentina as he did in Chile, supporting the 1976 coup that overthrew the elected government of Isabel Perón by a right-wing military regime that then disappeared its opponents through such lovely methods as throwing them into the ocean from airplanes. Kissinger was completely fine with all of this. He told them about murdering leftists, “the quicker you succeed, the better.” His primary admonition to the Argentine junta was to warn them that Congress might consider sanctions if they continued with these things and so advised them maybe to stop such obvious tactics...

On top of all of this, there is Pakistan. Kissinger completely supported the military junta in Karachi using extreme genocidal force to force East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, to stay in that nation. In 1971, the Pakistani military invaded its restive eastern province. The death toll was shocking. The CIA estimate is 200,000. The Bangladeshi government estimates the deaths at 5 million. The number is almost certainly closer to the Bangladeshi estimate. Ten million refugees fled into India. Kissinger and Nixon basically agreed to stand aside. They issued a couple of broad admonitions not to fire on civilians, but threatened no pulling of aid and used no leverage at all to ensure that Pakistan did not massacre people. Even after the massacres were known, Kissinger and Nixon threatened no sanctions, no loss of aid, no consequences at all...

All of these war crimes made Kissinger persona non grata, right? Of course not! Very little speaks more to the festering wound that is “respectable” Beltway culture than the bipartisan adoration to the monster that is Kissinger in his retirement. For decades, he appeared on Charlie Rose whenever he wanted. Hillary Clinton’s embrace of Kissinger during her campaign was utterly grotesque. In 1977, Kissinger was given an endowed chair at Columbia University, despite significant students protests against making the monster a home there. He taught at Georgetown for several years in the late 70s and early 80s as well. He served on the board of directors for a raftload of companies, all of whom use his endless connections to promote their business interests...

Kissinger’s late life continued to be a deep dive into supporting the scummiest leaders of the world. That included Vladimir Putin. Kissinger found the need to intervene in Putin’s imperialist war in Ukraine in 2022 to support the idea that the West should bully Zelensky into giving up a bunch of territory to the Russians. He used his typical language of realpolitik to do so and as usual, it demonstrated a complete indifference to justice and death in favor of playing up to one of the most violent leaders in the world...

That Kissinger remained feted and "respectable" among the Beltway Media speaks to the indifference - if not outright sadism - of those in the journalism profession who traded away any integrity and morals for "access" to the powerful, even when those "powerful" were utter monsters.

For everything Kissinger approved of, the juntas and dictators he supported eventually fell, their sins exposed, the damage done. For all his obsessions with defeating or containing Communism as a global threat during the Cold War, in the end it wasn't Kissinger's policies it was Soviet Russia's internal rot and Communist China's turn towards authoritarian capitalism. Millions of people died and suffered for nothing. And Kissinger openly supported the authoritarian powers - especially Putin - that rose to fill the void of the Post-Cold War world.

There is nothing nice to say about Henry Kissinger. His "successes" at foreign policy were failures of human dignity and common goddamn decency. If there is any hope for America and the world after all this, it's that every policy idea Kissinger ever promoted should be dumped into the scrap pile of history and every acolyte who still obeys his twisted agenda barred from any civil role at all.

Goddamn Kissinger forever.

Saturday, May 27, 2023

The Dark Machiavellian More Hated Than Feared: Kissinger at 100

If you want to know why Henry Kissinger is the most demonized motherfucker on the planet, read the quick historical rehash by Slate's Fred Kaplan of Kissinger's body counts while handling the United States' foreign policy efforts at the height of the Cold War between the 1960s through 1970s (with a dark realization his policy ideas lived on well into the modern-day War On Terror). 

Kissinger had his moments of triumph in his years of power, from 1969–76: U.S.–Soviet détente, the opening of China, and his shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East (though it was President Jimmy Carter who, a few years later, forged an enduring peace between Israel and Egypt).

Still, the dark side of Kissinger’s tradecraft left a deeper stain on vast quarters of the globe—and on America’s own reputation.

Chile is the darkest blotch on Kissinger’s legacy. He was the chief architect of the U.S. policy to destabilize the regime of Chile’s democratically elected socialist president, Salvador Allende...

This was not a case of Kissinger merely doing Nixon’s dirty work. In fact, Nixon was considering a proposal by a senior State Department official—one of Kissinger’s aides—to reach a modus vivendi with Allende. Kissinger postponed a White House meeting with the aide and convinced Nixon to crush the new government instead...

He did the same thing three years later, after the Argentine coup, whose military leaders were even more brutal and murderous. In fact, he berated an aide who suggested issuing a démarche to the Buenos Aires government. Instead, Kissinger turned a blind eye to Operation Condor, an assassination operation against left-wingers throughout much of Latin America. In that context, he told Argentina’s foreign minister, “Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed.” And he urged him to succeed—that is, to put down dissidents and critics—as quickly as possible. State Department officials and ambassadors started issuing protests to the dictators in charge of Condor. Kissinger put the kibosh on their efforts, demanding that “no further actions be taken on the matter.”

Kissinger also gave a green light to Indonesia’s 1975 invasion of East Timor, which resulted in the killing of more than 100,000 civilians. He told Gen. Suharto, Indonesia’s leader, that his use of U.S. weapons “could create problems”—that is, legal problems for Nixon and Kissinger—but added, “It depends on how we construe it: whether it is in self-defense or is a foreign operation.” An East Timor Truth Commission later concluded that U.S. political and military support for Suharto was “fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation.”

This was all of a piece with Kissinger’s actions, back in the spring of 1971, after the East Pakistan coup led by Gen. Agha Muhammad Yahya, which led to the deaths of millions of civilians. “To all hands,” Kissinger supported the coup, writing in a cable to diplomatic personnel, “don’t squeeze Yahya at this time.”

And, of course, dominating Kissinger’s entire time in power, there were the massive bombings of North Vietnam, which did nothing to turn or stop the war, and the secret bombings of Cambodia. The latter—a ferocious stream of aerial attacks that began in March 1969 and roared on for more than a year under the code names “Breakfast Plan” and “Operation Menu”—killed as many as 150,000 civilians. It also so destabilized the entire country of Cambodia that the Khmer Rouge moved into the vacuum and murdered at least 2 million more, roughly a quarter of the country’s population.

There's a reason why whenever a beloved celebrity like Tina Turner passes away, the immediate social media reaction is "Why the fuck is Kissinger still alive?"

Kissinger still lives because he converted political connections into personal power, and because the United States refuses to hand him over for war crimes or any other crimes against humanity he clearly caused across his career (and the bloody legacy he left in his wake).

Kissinger defends himself to this day by arguing the global struggle against Communism required a "realpolitik" response: That is, to be as brutal and undermining as the Stalin-backed insurgencies had been in the 1950s across Eastern Europe and then the Third World. In this, Kissinger describes himself as a Machiavellian, in that "the ends justified the means" in ensuring American economic and political influence on the world stage.

If Kissinger truly is a Machiavellian, he overlooked one of the key teachings: In Machiavelli's question "whether it is better to be Loved or Feared," Machiavelli answered his own question by pointing out "It is more important to avoid being Hated" because in that moment you lose the Respect a Prince - or any leader - needs to keep himself in power.

In Kissinger's wake were dozens of nations broken, bloodied, left to suffer under dictatorial regimes backed by American muscle. The citizenry of those nations did not, will not forget that the United States - selling ourselves as a beacon of liberty and justice - became hypocritical monsters turning a blind eye to the suffering of those who begged for liberty and justice for their own.

In this, the United States remains a target of hate across the Third World nations that we need to deal with in our ongoing efforts to maintain global political stability (which we've learned is a better way to maintain our interests through strong economies built on trade and cooperation).

Because of that legacy, Henry Kissinger remains a Prince more Hated than Feared, and clearly never Loved. I don't care what Jill St. John saw in him.

Monday, March 20, 2023

All That Rage: America's Failures With Iraq

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the official U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, launched in March 2003 as part of George W. Bush's attempt to avenge America after September 11... and personal revenge against Saddam Hussein's attempts to assassinate George's father.

There's a useful timeline with AP News for a refresher, in case you've already forgotten the rage and tears of those years.

There were a lot of failures: 

Failure by our intelligence community to drown out the noise of Neoconservatives eager for war and nation-building they were ill-suited to undertake; 

Failure by Bush the Lesser to contain his personal vendetta; 

Failure by a Congress too cowed by the passions of 9/11 to deny the fantasies of the Neocons and the Bush admin who believed they had an easy war to win; 

Failure by our national media outlets both print and televised who ignored the millions of Americans who protested an uncalled-for attack on a nation that had NOTHING TO DO with Bin Laden's attacks; 

Even further failures by our government to prevent the torture regimes that rose up in the shadows, committing untold war crimes that stained our nation's international prestige.

The start of the Second Persian Gulf War - do people really remember the first one in 1991? - all came about because there were factions in the Republican foreign policy ranks who really wanted to "democratize" the Middle East, but we couldn't do with our allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt because it would disrupt their totalitarian regimes, and we couldn't do with our enemies like Iran or Iraq unless we were directly provoked. But hey, somewhere had to pop up to build that Utopia, right?

Bush and his administration - especially his Veep Dick Cheney, who had profits in mind for his corporation and his business buddies - used the excuse of the 9/11 attacks to paint Iraq and Iran as part of an "Axis Of Evil" to justify going after them, and then used Saddam's quest for Weapons of Mass Destruction - with unproven allegations of Saddam getting materials to build nukes - to justify invasion.

We had a plan to invade, and we rolled it out to the dismay of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died in the "shock and awe" bombings and later on in the occupation.

Bush and Cheney kept justifying this all as "humanitarian" as though war ever was humane. Cheney himself claimed "We will be greeted as liberators."

These were all lies.

A lot of Americans still bought those lies, as we were still barely years away from the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. The pain and the rage were still raw and tangible.

We had a plan to invade, and also a plan to occupy and get out. Except the occupation was a disaster.

The search for Saddam's WMDs turned into a joke: Everything found were either rusted out, broken, or non-existent. Any evidence we had were either exaggerated out of proportion, or based on Saddam's own people lying about WMDs as a bluff (which didn't work). The justification for occupation faded away. Desperate to prove themselves true, our leaders signed off on extensive "enhanced interrogation techniques" better known as TORTURE to force people to confess where the (fake) WMDs went to. Our sins kept getting worse.

Anyone who criticized the WMD excuses were exposed and humiliated, which led to political and criminal scandals when Cheney's self-appointed intel office revealed an active non-official cover agent (Valerie Plame) and broke CIA protocols. The way Cheney and his people abused their access to big-press journalists also exposed how our national media outlets failed their ethical standards and the nation's trust.

The Bush Plan A for ending the war revolved around propping up an Iraqi ally puppet Ahmed Chalabi as Saddam's replacement, hold elections with a pro-American government, announce victory and get out. But the nation-building plans proved more complex, and Chalabi turned out to be an unreliable ally that neither the Iraqis nor Americans could trust in power. When Paul Bremer issued a controversial order to disband the still-needed Iraqi army and Ba'ath Party, it sparked an uprising that turned the occupation into an almost decade-long quagmire. Bremer's action, and the failure by the Bush administration to control such miscues, pointed out clearly that there was no Plan B dealing with Iraq.

And the poor citizenry of Iraq paid the price for it. They're paying it still, as the chaos of those years allowed sectional factions like ISIL to rise up and spill more blood well into the 2010s.

So here we are, 20 years later. Have we - the United States - learned from our failures?

Arguably No. 

We still have Far Right elements of our government still eager to start opportunistic invasions and occupations wherever they want (except for helping out Ukraine, because they don't want us facing off against Putin). 

We never held any of the architects of that godless torture regime - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld (RIP), John Yoo, Jay Bybee, several others - accountable for their human rights and Habeus violations. There are nations - not just Iraq but also our NATO and regional allies - still calling on us to do so.

We never fully repaid Iraq for the damages we inflicted, an insane amount of money meant for that nation's rebuilding efforts that literally disappeared into rich people's vaults.

Shocking for us at home has been the mistreatment and neglect given to our military veterans who served in Iraq (and Afghanistan) who have not received proper psychological, physical, and economic support from our VA and other federal agencies. Where are the funds to provide housing, medical care, educational opportunities? An entire generation that had been sent off to a decade-long war still ignored, still struggling to rebuild their own lives while Iraq rebuilds their own.

Our (mostly Republican, but even Democratic leaders from that period share the blame) political leadership failed us repeatedly, driven by blind rage and mindless ideological fantasy. Those failures keep happening, as the lack of accountability by all of them - Presidents and Congresscritters, Generals and Analysts, Media Elites and Corporate Criminals, all of them honorable bastards - haunt us to this day.

Sunday, December 18, 2022

Putin's Mistakes

The New York Times published a massive report on the failures and destruction of Putin's ill-advised invasion of Ukraine. The article itself may disappear soon behind a firewall, so there's not much time to read it all at leisure. So here's some of the highlights written by Michael Schwirtz, Anton Troianovski, Yousur Al-Hlou, Masha Froliak, Adam Entous and Thomas Gibbons-Neff:

President Vladimir V. Putin’s war was never supposed to be like this. When the head of the C.I.A. traveled to Moscow last year to warn against invading Ukraine, he found a supremely confident Kremlin, with Mr. Putin’s national security adviser boasting that Russia’s cutting-edge armed forces were strong enough to stand up even to the Americans.

Russian invasion plans, obtained by The New York Times, show that the military expected to sprint hundreds of miles across Ukraine and triumph within days. Officers were told to pack their dress uniforms and medals in anticipation of military parades in the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv.

But instead of that resounding victory, with tens of thousands of his troops killed and parts of his army in shambles after nearly 10 months of war, Mr. Putin faces something else entirely: his nation’s greatest human and strategic calamity since the collapse of the Soviet Union...

The Times investigation found a stunning cascade of mistakes that started with Mr. Putin — profoundly isolated in the pandemic, obsessed with his legacy, convinced of his own brilliance — and continued long after drafted soldiers like Mikhail were sent to the slaughter.

At every turn, the failures ran deeper than previously known:

In interviews, Putin associates said he spiraled into self-aggrandizement and anti-Western zeal, leading him to make the fateful decision to invade Ukraine in near total isolation, without consulting experts who saw the war as pure folly. Aides and hangers-on fueled his many grudges and suspicions, a feedback loop that one former confidant likened to the radicalizing effect of a social-media algorithm. Even some of the president’s closest advisers were left in the dark until the tanks began to move. As another longtime confidant put it, “Putin decided that his own thinking would be enough.”

The Russian military, despite Western assumptions about its prowess, was severely compromised, gutted by years of theft. Hundreds of billions of dollars had been devoted to modernizing the armed forces under Mr. Putin, but corruption scandals ensnared thousands of officers. One military contractor described frantically hanging enormous patriotic banners to hide the decrepit conditions at a major Russian tank base, hoping to fool a delegation of top brass. The visitors were even prevented from going inside to use the bathroom, he said, lest they discover the ruse.

Once the invasion began, Russia squandered its dominance over Ukraine through a parade of blunders. It relied on old maps and bad intelligence to fire its missiles, leaving Ukrainian air defenses surprisingly intact, ready to defend the country. Russia’s vaunted hacking squads tried, and failed, to win in what some officials call the first big test of cyberweapons in actual warfare. Russian soldiers, many shocked they were going to war, used their cellphones to call home, allowing the Ukrainians to track them and pick them off in large numbers. And Russia’s armed forces were so stodgy and sclerotic that they did not adapt, even after enduring huge losses on the battlefield. While their planes were being shot down, many Russian pilots flew as if they faced no danger, almost like they were at an air show.

Stretched thin by its grand ambitions, Russia seized more territory than it could defend, leaving thousands of square miles in the hands of skeleton crews of underfed, undertrained and poorly equipped fighters. Many were conscripts or ragtag separatists from Ukraine’s divided east, with gear from the 1940s or little more than printouts from the internet describing how to use a sniper rifle, suggesting soldiers learned how to fight on the fly. With new weapons from the West in hand, the Ukrainians beat them back, yet Russian commanders kept sending waves of ground troops into pointless assaults, again and again. “Nobody is going to stay alive,” one Russian soldier said he realized after being ordered into a fifth march directly in the sights of Ukrainian artillery. Finally, he and his demoralized comrades refused to go.

Mr. Putin divided his war into fiefs, leaving no one powerful enough to challenge him. Many of his fighters are commanded by people who are not even part of the military, like his former bodyguard, the leader of Chechnya and a mercenary boss who has provided catering for Kremlin events. As the initial invasion failed, the atomized approach only deepened, chipping away at an already disjointed war effort. Now, Mr. Putin’s fractured armies often function like rivals, competing for weapons and, at times, viciously turning on one another...

People who know Mr. Putin say he is ready to sacrifice untold lives and treasure for as long as it takes, and in a rare face-to-face meeting with the Americans last month the Russians wanted to deliver a stark message to President Biden: No matter how many Russian soldiers are killed or wounded on the battlefield, Russia will not give up.

One NATO member is warning allies that Mr. Putin is ready to accept the deaths or injuries of as many as 300,000 Russian troops — roughly three times his estimated losses so far...

The more setbacks Mr. Putin endures on the battlefield, the more fears grow over how far he is willing to go. He has killed tens of thousands in Ukraine, leveled cities and targeted civilians for maximum pain — obliterating hospitals, schools and apartment buildings, while cutting off power and water to millions before winter. Each time Ukrainian forces score a major blow against Russia, the bombing of their country intensifies. And Mr. Putin has repeatedly reminded the world that he can use anything at his disposal, including nuclear arms, to pursue his notion of victory...

The article goes into greater detail about how Russian folly, under-planning, lack of flexible battlefield command, and straight-up hubris exposed both Putin and his military for the empty shells they are. Putin in particular gets raked over the coals regarding his disgust of Western nations as "weak and broken" alongside his paranoia those same Western nations were plotting Russia's utter ruin. Well, congratulations to Mr. Putin: It's not the West that's ruining Russia, it's himself.

Mr. Putin rose to power as a deft politician. He could flash charm, humility and a smile, painting himself as a reasonable leader to Russians and foreigners. He knew how to control his facial muscles in tense conversations, leaving his eyes as the only guide to his emotions, people who know him said.

But during his presidency, he increasingly wallowed in a swirl of grievances and obsessions: the West’s supposed disregard for the Soviet Union’s role in defeating Nazi Germany; the fear that NATO would base nuclear missiles in Ukraine to strike Moscow; modern-day gender politics in which, Mr. Putin often says, Mom and Dad are being replaced by “Parent No. 1 and Parent No. 2.”

There is well-known quote, misattributed to Abraham Lincoln but was really by Robert Ignersoll (who was talking about Lincoln at a speech in 1883), that goes "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." Putin was given power, and held onto it for thirty years, and it exposed his character as misogynist, mistrustful, and corrupt.

Once again, Mr. Putin seemed convinced that future generations of Russians could be threatened by the West. He had spent years preparing for precisely such a clash, devoting hundreds of billions of dollars to Russia’s military, supposedly to modernize it and strip out the corruption that had sapped it in the 1990s.

But while Russia made significant headway, Western officials said, a culture of graft and fraud persisted under Mr. Putin that emphasized loyalty above honesty, or even skill. The result was a hodgepodge of elite troops and bedraggled conscripts, advanced tanks and battalions that were powerful only on paper.

“Everyone was stealing and lying. This was a Soviet, and now Russian, tradition,” said Col. Vaidotas Malinionis, a retired Lithuanian commander who served in the Soviet military in the 1980s. Looking at satellite images of the army camp where he served, he said the old barracks and mess hall were still there, with no sign of modernization, and a few buildings had fallen down. “There has been no evolution at all, only regression,” he said.

European, American and Ukrainian officials warned against underestimating Russia, saying it had improved after its muddled invasion of Georgia in 2008. The defense minister overhauled the armed forces, forcibly retired about 40,000 officers and tried to impose more transparency on where money went...

Then, in 2012, that minister — in charge of dragging the military out of its post-Soviet dysfunction — became embroiled in a corruption scandal himself. Mr. Putin replaced him with Sergei K. Shoigu, who had no military experience but was seen as someone who could smooth ruffled feathers.

“Russia drew a lot of lessons from the Georgia war and started to rebuild their armed forces, but they built a new Potemkin village,” said Gintaras Bagdonas, the former head of Lithuania’s military intelligence. Much of the modernization drive was “just pokazukha,” he said, using a Russian term for window-dressing...

Potemkin Village is an old meme regarding things under both Tsarist and then Soviet (and now Putin) rule: A fake, pretty village built in a pretty part of Russia to show off to foreign dignitaries - and oft-times to Russian leaders who like to think everything under their rule is working - and to hide the reality of poor, rotting villages just out of sight. This manufactured self-delusion is such a part of the Russian psyche that they believe other nations do it as well. My dad - a Navy pilot for 20 years - would tell of a Soviet pilot who defected to the U.S. in the 1960s who ended up stationed at his base, and how that pilot visited the base commissary (grocery store) and couldn't believe it was really stocked with so many goods all the time. Dad would tell how that pilot would sneak back during the night to make sure it was real. I know I digress, but it's an anecdote I needed to share. 

Also hark back to the infamous 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, where the Russians were primed to host a glorious event, only to get caught with unfinished buildings, poorly designed rooms, unsafe water, and other logistical nightmares. That's what it's been like under Putin's rule as his oligarchical cronies pilfered and overbilled and underdelivered.

Here's a more relevant anecdote from Putin's deluded empire, how that corruption affected their own military preparedness:

Contractors like Sergei Khrabrykh, a former Russian Army captain, were recruited into the stagecraft. He said he got a panicked call in 2016 from a deputy defense minister. A delegation of officials was scheduled to tour a training base of one of Russia’s premier tank units, the Kantemirovskaya Tank Division, whose history dates to the victories of World War II.

Billions of rubles had been allocated for the base, Mr. Khrabrykh said, but most of the money was gone and virtually none of the work had been done. He said the minister begged him to transform it into a modern-looking facility before the delegation arrived.

“They needed to be guided around the territory and shown that the Kantemirovskaya Division was the coolest,” Mr. Khrabrykh said. He was given about $1.2 million and a month to do the job.

As he toured the base, Mr. Khrabrykh was stunned by the dilapidation. The Ministry of Defense had hailed the tank division as a unit that would defend Moscow in case of a NATO invasion. But the barracks were unfinished, with debris strewn across the floors, large holes in the ceiling and half-built cinder-block walls, according to photos Mr. Khrabrykh and his colleagues took. A tangle of electrical wires hung from a skinny pole.

“Just about everything was destroyed,” he said.

Before the delegation arrived, Mr. Khrabrykh said, he quickly constructed cheap facades and hung banners, covered in pictures of tanks and boasting the army was “stronger and sturdier year by year,” to disguise the worst of the decay. On the tour, he said, the visitors were guided along a careful route through the best-looking part of the base — and kept away from the bathrooms, which had not been repaired.

The punchline?

After the invasion started, the Kantemirovskaya Division pressed into northeastern Ukraine, only to be ravaged by Ukrainian forces. Crews limped away with many of their tanks abandoned or destroyed...

After the invasion, American officials noticed that much of Russia’s equipment was poorly manufactured or in short supply. Tires on wheeled vehicles fell apart, stalling convoys, while soldiers resorted to crowdfunding for clothes, crutches and other basic supplies as the war wore on...

Anybody with a basic understanding of military history will tell you that logistics matter. Your supply chain for your armies better be well-managed and well-stocked, otherwise you're screwed. It's a fact of warfare back to the days of Ancient Sparta well through the World Wars and into modern conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a lesson the Russians apparently failed to learn (again, because they had the same problems in World War I and their Afghanistan conflict of the 1980s) as their leadership's greed got the better of them.

Under Putin, the Russians had no other plan other than "March on Kyiv and claim victory" as their objective:

Unlike its more limited campaigns in places like Syria — or the big hypothetical war with NATO it had long planned for — the invasion of Ukraine was simply “not what the Russian military was designed to do,” putting it in a position it was probably “least prepared” to deal with, said Clint Reach, a researcher at RAND.

In other words, the Kremlin picked the “stupidest” of all potential military options by rushing forward and trying to take over Ukraine, said General Budanov, the Ukrainian military intelligence chief.

Russia had not trained its infantry, air and artillery forces to work in concert, move quickly and then do it all again from a new location, officials said. It did not have a clear Plan B after the march on Kyiv failed, and commanders had long been afraid to report bad news to their bosses...

The Russian Army - feared by Western powers for its size and mechanized armor - wasn't trained or prepped for any kind of occupation. The same kind of problem happened with American forces in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars of the 2000-10s, but in the U.S. case we at least had better trained troops, guys who had been drilled and prepped for anything and were able to adjust to battlefield conditions at a moment's notice. 

As a result, the American forces suffered fewer disasters and fewer casualties over a long period of time: About 15,000 troops lost over roughly 19 years.

Russia's forces, in nine months of fighting in Ukraine, have lost over 100,000 troops (the number can be even higher than that). 

I swear to God. If the United States had seen those kind of losses in the first nine months of fighting in Afghanistan in 2002 or in Iraq in 2003, not only would the anti-war protests in our streets continued non-stop, Congress itself - even with Republicans in control of both houses - would have started bipartisan impeachment hearings on Bush and Cheney. There's no way Americans would have accepted such bloody losses through such incompetence and disregard for our troops' lives.

When one Russian unit arrived in eastern Ukraine, it was quickly whittled down to a haggard few, according to one of its soldiers.

During fighting in the spring, he said, his commanders ordered an offensive, promising artillery to support the attack. It never came, he said, and his unit was devastated.

Yet commanders sent them right back into the melee all the same.

“How much time has passed now? Nine months, I think?” he said. “In this whole time, nothing has changed. They have not learned. They have not drawn any conclusions from their mistakes.”

He recounted another battle in which commanders sent soldiers down the same path to the front, over and over. On each trip, he said, bodies fell around him. Finally, after being ordered to go a fifth time, he and his unit refused to go, he said.

In all, he said, his unit lost about 70 percent of its soldiers to death and injury, ruining any faith he had in his commanders...

The low morale is commonplace across Russia nowadays.

The resignation exists in Moscow, too, where opposition to the war is common, but rarely expressed above whispers.

“We’re giving each other looks, but to say something is impossible,” one former Putin confidant in Moscow said, describing the atmosphere in the halls of power.

Putin's autocratic grip on Russia seems unbreakable even as his people suffer. His delusions and hatred prevent him from admitting any truth that he's the one who screwed up.

In late November, at his suburban Moscow residence, Mr. Putin met with mothers of Russian soldiers. It was a distant echo of one of the lowest moments of his tenure: his encounter with the families of sailors aboard a sunken submarine in 2000, when a crying woman in a remote Arctic town demanded, “Where is my son?”

Twenty-two years later, the Kremlin was careful to prevent such outpourings of grief. Around a long table with individual teapots for the handpicked women — some of them state employees and pro-Kremlin activists — Mr. Putin showed no remorse for sending Russians to their deaths.

After all, he told one woman who said her son was killed in Ukraine, tens of thousands of Russians die each year from car accidents and alcohol abuse. Rather than drinking himself to death, he told her, her son died with a purpose.

“Some people, are they even living or not living? It’s unclear. And how they die, from vodka or something else, it’s also unclear,” Mr. Putin said. “But your son lived, you understand? He reached his goal.”

He told another mother that her son was not only fighting “neo-Nazis” in Ukraine, but also correcting the mistakes after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Russia “enthusiastically indulged in the fact” that the West was “trying to control us.”

“They have a different cultural code,” he told her. “They count the genders there by the dozens...”

Those words are not coming from a rational man. Putin is indulging in the fear-mongering common among Far Right apologists who view their Culture War bullshit as real, and are willing to sacrifice the lives of others to justify that fear. Look at how Putin rationalizes that the soldiers he sent to die in Ukraine "would have died some other way" like drinking themselves to death (which, by the way, is a serious problem in Russia already). The cruelty towards his own Russian people can't stay hidden.

The world has been debating Mr. Putin’s willingness to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. People who know him don’t discount the possibility, but they also believe he expects to defeat the West and Ukraine in a long-term, non-nuclear test of wills.

As one senior NATO intelligence official put it, Russian generals “acknowledge the incompetence, lack of coordination, lack of training. They all recognize these problems.” Still, they seem confident of an “eventual victory” because, the official said, “Putin believes this is a game of chicken between him and the West, and he believes the West will blink first.”

Personally, I doubt it. Too many Eastern European nations are willing to keep Ukraine supplied to ensure a revived Russian Empire doesn't come knocking at their borders. The fact that Russian's military might was never that mighty to begin with - and the reality that sooner or later Russia's gonna run out of missiles and tanks even with the equipment they're getting from their few allies in Iran and China - points to an eventual collapse.

Putin is behaving like he can outlive his enemies, but he's 70 years old and rumors abound he's suffering in poor health. Putin is behaving like he's got enough allies surrounding him to keep him propped up, but he really doesn't: Allies like Belarus, Iran, and China are facing their own problems at home.

Putin keeps making mistakes, trapped by the illusions every dictator suffers from: He believes he is the chosen Great Man of History, that he is the indispensable hero of his nation's story, that he will achieve glory through the sacrifices of others, and that he is never ever wrong.

Everyone else is dying for his mistakes. But it would be an even greater mistake to let him walk away unharmed from the suffering he's caused. Putin needs to answer for his sins, either in a war crimes tribunal or in a Ukrainian jail cell, or in a Russian hospital bed dying from the rot eating at his own body.

Sunday, April 03, 2022

War Crimes

Dear fellow Americans:

Do yourself a favor and go to the nearest city.

I'd suggest a place with a lot of towers, a mix of apartments and condos, a decent mix of residential housing and business places. If you're like me living in Florida, downtown Orlando would be an appropriate place, maybe Ft. Lauderdale along all those beach condos.

Take some time and just sit there, in the middle of the day, a busy day, maybe a Saturday with some planned activity taking place like a street fair or a party.

Take some time and look at all the people, the families, the crowds, the bustling humanity that makes up our communities, our cities, our states, our nation.

Once you've taken that all in, take another minute or two to picture that entire scene around you turned into a hellish warscape.

Think about what it would be like to have Putin's Russian armies roll up in their tanks and artillery and rocket launchers. Think about all the shelling and missiles blasting into the condo towers and the office spaces full of people. Think about the families on the streets around you, fleeing for shelter that they can't find because the debris is everywhere and there's no safe places left.

Think about a month of that hell, running out of food by the first week, fresh water all gone due to busted water pipes, sewage backing up, no electricity, no heat for the cold nights no air for the hot smoke-filled days.

Think about what it would be like living in an occupied city, even in the suburbs where all the homes and grocery stores are. About Russian checkpoints every other street intersection, where the troops can pull you to one side and shoot you if you're on their blacklists, or worse, if they just want to make an example out of you.

Think about what's happening to Ukrainian women getting targeted for rapes. Think about the children huddling in bombed-out buildings without any parents to watch over them or find food and water, all because the parents died first from starvation. Think about the sick and the aged who couldn't flee in time and are suffering to death because hospitals were targeted under Russia's inhumane refusal to respect such places as safe zones.

We can't comprehend just how hellish a world it could be, all safe and cozy here in the United States, so far away from war zones like Syria or Yemen or Libya or hell half of Africa... and now Ukraine.

And yet, war zones they are. The cities in Ukraine may not compare by population to the likes of Orlando or Chicago or San Antonio or Seattle, they were centers of life, large communities of families who never asked for their homes to be bombed out and never asked for their loved ones killed.

And as we get into one full month of Putin's bloody decision to launch a full invasion of Ukraine, we are starting to get reports of how violent and vile the Russian invaders are handling their victims. Adam L. Silverman's oft-updated reports at Balloon Juice provides links to all these other documenting the atrocities:


Silverman provides a definition of "zachistka":

The word “zachistka”, which literally means to sweep, is the term applied to Russian cleansing operations...

The zachistka embodied more than a military practice, however. It was a mind-set. And this was exemplified in the proliferation of the word itself. In the same way that the term ethnic cleansing (etnicko ciscenje’) was coined in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, the term zachistka found a distinct voice in the Russian popular vocabulary and in the official addresses and speeches of military and government personnel. By late 1999, the use of zachistka in the press and everyday speech had reached an infectious and alarming level. From September 1999 to 2005, zachistka appeared 787 times in the headlines of Moscow’s central newspapers in relation to the second war in Chechnya...

This is what Putin wanted. Ownership of Ukraine, and a cleansing of any Ukrainian who interfered with his dreams of a great Russian empire.

Everything Putin and his armies are doing in Ukraine are honest-to-God war crimes.

Can we Americans think of anything - outside of issuing our own declaration of war, of sending our armies in Ukraine to fight back - to force Putin to stop?

There still haven't been enough economic sanctions, for one. Putin/Russia is still making money off of oil/gas agreements, something the West ought to consider shutting down to take a serious hit at Putin's own wallet.

The international courts are investigating Putin's decisions and his army's actions as war crimes, but as Russia hasn't agreed to many of the treaties that define those courts, Putin would laugh at any attempts to bring him accountable before a court.

To hell with Putin. I would argue to go ahead and file those charges. Put that albatross around Putin's neck. Make Putin in the eyes of the law the war criminal his actions already condemn him as. 

He might laugh it off but the rest of the world - the nations that adhere to the reality that wars are crimes - won't.

Make Putin a global pariah. Make it impossible for him to travel abroad for fear of getting arrested even in a nation he believes is an ally, make him paranoid enough to understand the rest of the world hates him enough to ignore any diplomatic protections he hopes to deploy.

Make it easier for every nation - even China - to ignore any diplomatic offers, any trade deals, any demands that Putin might insist of them.

Force Putin to hide in a fallout shelter for the rest of his miserable life, terrified of his own generals and political lackeys who might turn on him, no matter how cowed and boot-licking they may seem.

Putin and his handlers may try to twist the narrative, gaslight their Russian citizens that it's all Western propaganda, EU envy of their greatness, and assaults on Russian purity. But they won't convince enough of the Russians who are at heart desirous for world peace, and they'll lose more people over time whose BS detectors will get tired of the lies.

People are dying in Ukraine. Families are getting wiped out, entire cities destroyed. All for one man's criminal ego.

Putin has to answer for the crimes he's committed. Sooner or later, that must happen for the sake of our own nation's safety and future.

Sunday, March 20, 2022

Putin Has No Off-Ramp. He Wants Ukraine Dead

The constant chaos of war means a never-ending stream of bad news getting worse. This weekend, Russia made a harsh demand regarding one of the major Ukrainian cities under siege: Surrender Mariupol or everyone there dies. Via Adam L Silverman at Balloon-Juice:

There is only one real story from Ukraine to focus on tonight: the Russians have given the Ukrainian government an ultimatum. Surrender Mariupol and they’ll let the remaining 130,000 civilians, as well as Ukrainian forces that lay down their weapons leave. Everyone remaining will face Russian military justice...

Military Justice = Death by Bombs and Artillery

What the Russians are threatening to do is, essentially, reduce Mariupol. The Russian military has besieged the city and is fighting against Ukrainian forces inside the city that are trying to defend Mariupol. These forces are essentially fighting in close quarters to the civilian population. As such taking Mariupol by force will mean destroying as much of the city, its defenders, and the civilian population as necessary to achieve the objective.

The Ukrainian government has responded that they will not surrender Mariupol to the Russians...!

...All we can do now is wait and see if Putin is going to commit an industrial scale war crime while the entire world watches.

Ukraine has no reason yet to think the Russians are negotiating in good faith. Previous attempts to evacuate the civilians in Mariupol ended with the Russians shooting and bombing the escape routes anyway.

It should be noted Russia under Putin's rule has a terrible record of observing neutral zones and civilian areas. Even if Mariupol surrenders, there are no guarantees that the Russian troops won't come in, round up everybody they have on blacklists, kill enough civilians to try and scare the rest of the Ukrainian people into ending their resistance, and then lie to the world that they honored their "deal."

The Russians aren't even honestly dealing. For all their public proclamations that they want peace (and telling their favorable media allies that Ukraine is close to agreeing to a deal that doesn't exist), Putin's underlings are stalling and delaying for time. More from Silverman on that:

Earlier today, a few hours before Putin told Ukraine it was planning to commit an industrial scale war crime unless Ukraine gave him what he wants, the Russians managed to launder some more disinformation and agitprop regarding “peace” negotiations through the Turks who are hosting the talks.

Meanwhile Turkey, which is mediating alongside Israel between Russia and Ukraine, claimed the two countries were converging on key aspects. Turkey’s foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said “the parties are close to agreement on fundamental issues”. “It’s not that easy to negotiate while the war is ongoing, or to agree when civilians are dying. But I want to say that there is momentum,” he said. Kyiv and its western allies fear Russian president Vladimir Putin could be buying time in peace talks to replenish Moscow’s forces and launch a broader offensive.

Turkey’s pro-government Hurriyet newspaper reported that the two countries were edging towards agreement on Kyiv declaring neutrality and abandoning its drive for Nato membership, “demilitarising” Ukraine in exchange for collective security guarantees, what Russia calls “denazification” and lifting restrictions on the use of Russian in Ukraine. Two people familiar with the discussions said it was likely a compromise would involve token concessions from Kyiv on what Russia calls “denazification”.

This, like the same statements made last week, are bullshit...

If the Ukrainians agreed to what the Russians have told the Turks they want, then Putin despite not actually winning on the battlefield right now, would actually wind up winning the war. If Ukraine emerges from this war formally having abandoned its constitutional directive to seek NATO membership, as well as formally neutral and demilitarized, all it does is set the stage for Putin to rebuild his military and start all over again with a new made up pretext for having to liberate Ukraine from the Ukrainians...

I've said this back when the invasion started: The demands Putin are making on Ukrainians are ones that Ukrainians dare not give him. Even if Putin is talked into pulling back and stopping this bloodshed, there are no guarantees stopping him from finding another excuse five years from now to re-invade.

Putin's already made it clear: He doesn't think Ukraine exists as its own nation. He's bought into the myths of Imperial Russia thinking that they're all one big happy Empire and that Ukrainians better get used to being second-class citizens if they want to live.

Just asking Ukraine to roll over and play dead, just this once, isn't acceptable to them, because they know their own history under Russian rule: Misery, famine, and death. For Ukrainians, Putin wants to reboot another Holodomor, and there's no appeasing him on this matter.

(For all the Far Right wingnuts who yelled and screamed at Obama for every peace deal he made around the world, accusing him of pulling "another Munich" appeasing dictators, do YOU see the hypocrisy in YOURSELVES now begging Zelenskyy and Biden and the rest of the European leadership in appeasing with an openly brutal monster like Putin?)

The way the invasion is going right now - with Russian forces openly shelling and bombing cities and civilians with no concern for human rights, with Putin doubling down on his speeches accusing Ukrainians of being Nazis and justifying his atrocities back home - I can see it, even me as an amateur historian: Putin doesn't want a deal. He never wanted a deal.

Putin wants all of Ukraine. No half-measures or compromises. And not just because he has to (because by now after all the global humiliation Russia's army has suffered, any deal he makes will make him look weak). Putin wants his dream of Empire to become reality, and Ukraine is the key to that. If he takes Ukraine, he can reimpose a Russian presence on all of Eastern Europe again, from Poland to Slovakia to Czechia to Romania to Bulgaria, get back his influence over his buddy Orban in Hungary, even rattle the Central nations like Germany and Austria. He can threaten to retake the Baltics in spite of Estonia and Latvia and Lithuania's defiance. He'll even try to scare Finland and Sweden into giving up their recent petitions to join NATO (which they did before it's too late).

The thing about autocrats, about dictators, about their dreams and when they don't achieve them. Like spoiled monsters, they won't take the losses well. The way things are going, Ukraine will not surrender, they won't make any deals because Putin's not offering any. And without that, Putin runs the risk of wasting more men and weapons and other resources in a quagmire of a poorly-planned invasion/occupation, in which he can't find any Quislings to play his puppet on Ukraine's seat of power and in which his army will never see a moment of peace.

Putin's recent actions - the escalation of targeting civilians, in spite of the war crimes charges that would follow - underscore how he knows he can't win in Ukraine.

So he's going Scorched Earth instead. Old school, Cato the Elder "Carthage Must Be Destroyed" madness, only it's Kyiv that Putin wants to flatten and salt the Earth to prevent it from ever being rebuilt. 

If that means risking nuclear weapons, I do kind of doubt that. The risk of fallout from even a limited use of atomics would cross into Russia, condemning everything west of the Urals to a radioactive hell.

But Putin will not leave Ukraine, not until he owns it or ruins it.

And the Ukrainian people are sadly going to have to suffer for that violent bastard's ego.

Gods help them.