I watched “The Caine Mutiny” last night with a friend who had never seen it. I realized that I had written during Donald Trump’s first term about how the rebuke Navy lawyer Barney Greenwald (Jose Ferrer) delivers to the acquitted mutineers fit 2019’s “resistance” like the proverbial glove. It fits today’s Axis of Unethical Conduct even better. I’ll have some brief comments after the post.
* * *
Turner Movie Classics ran “The Caine Mutiny” again last night. It reminded me of what I wrote two years ago, when I really didn’t think that the “resistance” and the Democrats would continue on the destructive path they have for this long. I even wrote, foolishly, “This is the last time I’m going to try to explain why the fair, patriotic, ethical and rational approach to the impending Presidency of Donald Trump is to be supportive of the office and the individual until his actual performance in the job earns just criticism. Attempting to undermine a Presidency at its outset is a self-destructive act, for nobody benefits if a Presidency fails.” Of course, it was far from the last time I returned to the topic. In my defense, how could I know, at a point where the term “the resistance” hadn’t even surfaced yet, that the unparalleled assault on a President would not only continue, but escalate to the point where a newly minted Congresswoman would announce to a cheering mob, “We’re going to impeach the motherfucker!”?
Watching the movie, however, was striking. I know it well; I can recite many of the lines from memory. Yet the parallel with the Trump Presidency struck me smore powerfully than ever before, and sent me back to that previous post, in which I wrote,
“In The Caine Mutiny, a film version of the stage drama and novel “The Caine Mutiny Court Martial,” Captain Queeg (Humphrey Bogart), a man whose war-shattered nerves and self-esteem problems have rendered him an erratic and an unpopular officer, falters in his command during a storm. His officers, frightened and already convinced that their captain is unfit for command, mutiny. At their military trial, their defense attorney causes Queeg to have a breakdown on the witness stand, winning the case for the accused mutineers. Later, however, at the post trial victory party, the lawyer, Barney Greenwald (Jose Ferrer), shames his clients. He represented them zealously, but he tells them that they were, in fact, at fault for what occurred on the Caine:
Ensign Keith: Queeg endangered the lives of the men.
Greenwald: He didn’t endanger any lives.You did. A fine bunch of officers.
Lt. Paynter: You said yourself he cracked.
Greenwald: I’m glad you brought that up, Mr. Paynter, because that’s a very pretty point. I left out one detail in court. It wouldn’t have helped our case. Tell me, Steve, after the yellow-stain business, Queeg came to you for help, and you turned him down, didn’t you.
Lt. Maryk: Yes, we did.
Greenwald: You didn’t approve of his conduct as an officer. He wasn’t worthy of your loyalty. So you turned on him. You ragged on him, you made up songs about him. If you’d given Queeg the loyalty he needed, do you think all this would have come up in the typhoon? You’re an honest man, Steve, I’m asking you. You think it would have been necessary to take over?
Maryk: It probably wouldn’t have been necessary.
Keith: If that’s true, we were guilty.
Greenwald: Ahhh, You’re learning, Willie! You don’t work with the captain because of how he parts his hair…you work with him because he’s got the job, or you’re no good.
Exactly.
Or you’re no good.
Donald Trump is in over his head. He knows it, I think. Maybe, just maybe, with a lot of help, a lot of support and more than a lot of luck, he might be able to do a decent job for his country and the public. It’s a long-shot, but what’s the alternative? Making sure that he fails? Making him feel paranoid, and angry, and feeding his worst inclinations so he’s guaranteed to behave irrationally and irresponsibly? How is that in anyone’s best interest? That’s not how to get someone through a challenge, especially someone who you have to depend on.
My analysis is somewhat different after the events of the past two years. I think Donald Trump is in over his head, yes, but not as far in over his head as I thought he would be, and I am convinced that he doesn’t think he is in over his head at all. (I could also argue that with a few exceptions, every President in out history has been “in over his head.”) There is still no doubt in my mind that he would be a far better and less chaotic leader if he felt that he was receiving the respect, deference and support every other President has received as the automatic benefit of being elected.
It has become clear to me that “the resistance” and Democrats are materially different from the Caine mutineers in ways I naively failed to discern before Trump was sworn in. The Caine’s officers only realized after the crisis that their actions undermining Captain Queeg pushed him to the breaking point and endangered the vessel. President Trump’s foes have been deliberately pushing him to snap, hoping that he would snap, risking a national crisis in order to remove an elected leader they don’t like “because of the way he parts his hair.” They are deliberately endangering the “ship,” the United States of America, to justify their mutiny.
In conclusion, I wrote,
“Either the Presidency will make Donald Trump a better man, or Trump will permanently harm the Presidency and weaken it, thus making the office less of an inspiration and source of strength for future occupants. (Nixon wounded the office; so did Carter, and Clinton.) It is absolutely in the nation’s best interests to seek the first result. That requires focusing on the office and its strengths, and uniting as a nation behind that office. The relentless, unprecedented assault on Trump since his election by Democrats and the news media may have already done irreparable damage.
I don’t think the Presidency has been harmed, and as long as Trump isn’t impeached and removed following what is increasingly appearing to be a long-standing plot to criminalize politics and poison public opinion that began even before the votes were in, I don’t see any lasting damage to the institution. I believe the two main groups of mutineers, the news media and the Democratic Party, will have been irreparably harmed because of their betrayal of the trust of the American public.
***
Back to 2026.
1. I now do think that the treatment of President Trump has permanently wounded the Presidency and the Constitution, and that the damage is probably irreparable.
2. If President Trump was “over his head” in his first term, he is not now, at least no more so than most Presidents. Recent Presidents who were more “over their head” than Trump II: Biden, Obama, both Bushes, Carter and Ford.
3. Being President has not made Trump a better man. It has made him a more confident leader, and a better one this time around.
Ethics Alarms 
Donald Trump is in over his head. He knows it, I think. Maybe, just maybe, with a lot of help, a lot of support and more than a lot of luck, he might be able to do a decent job for his country and the public. It’s a long-shot, but what’s the alternative? Making sure that he fails? Making him feel paranoid, and angry, and feeding his worst inclinations so he’s guaranteed to behave irrationally and irresponsibly? How is that in anyone’s best interest? That’s not how to get someone through a challenge, especially someone who you have to depend on.
I am surprised there is not more response on your blog to the depth of the issues that this nation is confronting. And each time I post something, and it goes against the grain of (I guess) “support” of Donald Trump (because the alternative is horrific) I feel actually guilty, like I have done something bad. I do not think I have, and perhaps my ideas are simply not “appropriate” for this blog.
In respect to your views, Jack, and given your background, I can only imagine how the (apparent) destruction of the unity of the nation must feel. I think I do understand your position, at least I have tried. It has always seemed to me to extend from the success of the WWll victory (on nearly all fronts) that your father participated in: brought about in fact. And from that historical point … to the present point … could only be distressing to a high degree.
But that is “the way of the world”, isn’t it? Isn’t decline a degradation the inevitable end of all human constructions?
At the very core of the leftist-radical ideology and the movement (I am thinking of Noam Chomsky’s writing), there is a desire, I think, to dismantle those “systems” that have been constructed. The “world order” established by the US after the WWll is that ‘order’. I may not have enough understanding of “geo-politics” to know everything in detail, but all construction involves use of power, and any use of power will always be resisted by some factions. The US is in a very unfortunate situation because it faces a power (China) that uses subtle techniques to challenge and undermine the US, that the tactics and strategy the US has at its disposal do not work. (Or are very likely not going to work).
So the very very most basic fact is just that: the US tries to recover power using tactics that seem to be bound to fail. As I understood MAGA it was to be an internalized movement of restoration, not a (blundering) attempt nicely symbolized by the sociopathic Hegseth (young, loud-mouthed, arrogant, extremely over-confident) to aggressively assert power in a brazen act of seizure. That is Donald Trump’s method. It is also his “tragic fault”. The World sees it, and the World will not accept it. Even if it somehow could be proved to them that a strong US might be better in the long run for them, for the World.
Frankly, the World hates the ‘face’ of America in the form of Donald Trump that it has taken. There is all kinds of complexity in these sentiments, and a lot is psychological, but this seems to be true: the World will not allow the US to act so arrogantly and so obviously, to recover its wealth and standing.
There has to be “internal unity” for an entire nation to have a unified purpose. And certainly to be capable of fighting a war. And it is I think obvious that the world is at war, and definitely that the US is at war. But the war it is engaged in is a war primarily to protect and expand that faction in the US that is ‘neo-imperialist”. And here is the basic, truthful fact: the average citizenry of the US cannot “relate” to the fact that the U.S. is not a Republic like it might have been, or was, but is now an imperial-like power with ‘interests’ everywhere and an enormous military power that’s purpose is to defend those holdings. What is patriotism in this context? Patriotism cannot be invoked to cause people to rally behind the Israeli and US attack on Iran. Because they have already been through an entire generation of war propaganda that has resulted in complete failure, social breakdown in the US, the wasting of public funds, harming the people at an economic level, and little improvement of their material (or other) circumstances.
MAGA and the notion of America First are movements arising out of the Republic. In fact, they wished to restore the Republic (or in any case that was some part of the inspiring vision of republicanism).
But in stark and obvious contrast, it seems to me inarguably to be so, Trump’s projects do not serve those defined snd desired purposes, but rather the purposes and desires of those factions with world ‘interests’. So really, if there is a Swamp, it is obvious that the Swamp runs the show. And it is also obvious that the majority of people will not be able to get behind the power-adventures of those factions.
And internal divisions, therefore, will simply get worse and worse. What happens then is that ‘the people’ (their will, their aspirations, their needs) become the enemy that the Federal government must fight against, must defeat. And there you have it: the first signs are Trump turning violently and decisively against his supporters!
There is a reason Presidents run foreign policy: the public doesn’t know much in this area, and in the era of fake journalism, this is even worse than usual. The United States is “first” in many respects, and one is that it has an obligation not to let organized evil over-run the world, because it is first in ethical objectives and principles, not that this is a high bar to clear. A President also has an obligation to clean up metastasizing messes left behind by his predecessors. Terrorism, Venezuela, Gaza and Iran are excellent examples. MAGA has no business expecting fealty from a President, who is everyone’s President, not just theirs, when their position is ignorant and wrong. In foreign affairs, it is.
The problem here is that Trump, like Wilson in 1916, ran pledging to get us less involved in foreign wars. A year after that election, he decapitated the leadership of Venezuela, which is perhaps a bit more palatable since we were in and out and there was no possibility of a quagmire. and then plunged into a war with Iran that a lot of the population didn’t see coming, which is still ongoing and which the media is busily portraying as a failure.
Charlie Brown: Failure Face
At this point a lot of people including MAGA are like, wait a minute here, how’d we get here?
And that is because they are historically ignorant.
We “got here” because Iran committed multiple acts of war from 1979 on, and a series of US POTUSes were too busy, too foolish, too cautious, too irresponsible, or, in Trump’s case, too hobbled by deliberate efforts by the Axis to cripple his Presidency to take care of business. No President has ever been elected or re-elected on a promise to take military action where it was needed unless a war was already underway….maybe the closest was Polk, since his expansionist mission was guaranteed to need a military solution. Trump’s promise to end “forever wars” meant that the US would use its superior military power to win necessary conflicts as soon as possible, not get involved in “nation-building,” and not turn tail and run, like Biden in Afghanistan. More than half the US public thinks that “Imagine” makes sense. It took a lame duck President to overcome that.
Your position I have always understood. It has coherency if you accept its prior tenets. However: 1) this Iran war will not be resolved, only made quagmire-like. 2) will cost DT the support of a significant enough number of his supporters to effect the Midterms. (Likely to be list).
The analysis is therefore nearly absurd because so unrealistic!
Therefore: there had to be a smarter way to conduct all of these undertakings! And that is the issue: arrogance, brazenness, not to mention a crucial factor: apparent subservience to a ‘notable foreign power’.
1. All wars leave a quagmire; that’s a rationalization for avoiding all wars.
2. Unless MAGA voters are even more foolish than I think they are, they will not sit back and allow all of the vile policies Trump has stopped or weakened return because they are in a snit over Iran. Trump is not running in November. Even more than before, the Democratic Party has proven itself to be unworthy of power. With all respect, your analysis is distorted.
But I did not offer any ‘rationalization’, and there is at this point no clean and easy way to get out of the situation the US, and the World, is now in as a result of the standoff between the US and Iran. The ‘quagmire’ has, by some accounting, only just begun. And in larger geo-political struggles, there are many ways the US can lose and many who will exploit the situation so that loss occurs. For this reason, at this time, and in the way it was conducted, it now appears to have been a VERY BAD DECISION.
MAGA voters are composed of huge swaths of people who do not any level of skill to be able to understand the dynamics of power in their own country, nor really to express coherently how they, as an underclass, are abused in certain ways. They are really an ignorant mass. But the class that stands over them is not that much better. And at the top is the class of which you are a member. An elite in fact and in truth.
America, over time, and especially in the Postwar, created a huge class of moldable, badly educated, appetite-driven pseudo-citizens whose FUNCTION is to follow 1) orders given them and 2) the impulses of desire and acquisition that are foundational to America today.
In fact, that is your citizenry, if I had to be completely honest and to say politically non-correct truths.
But as Michael Moore quite nicely pointed out: They have one thing that you me and everyone has: One vote.
It is wise to take this into consideration since, as it appears, the next phases of American life will be neo-revolutionary. The fact is that people in many camps, in many stations, are genuinely getting fed up. The pressure in the cooker builds. Fact.
And you will see that I am right.
Better had it all been avoided.
But I did not offer any ‘rationalization’, and there is at this point no clean and easy way to get out of the situation the US, and the World, is now in as a result of the standoff between the US and Iran.
Of course there is. Crush Iran, and let its oppressed population start a new government if they can. Meanwhile, no more sponsored terrorism and nuclear threats.
First hard truth: You (i.e. the US and its commanding partner) cannot crush Iran. And if the opinions I hear are right, the Trump administration knows that it cannot. And now — again if the opinions I hear are right — the US is trapped. It is said to be a MAJOR LOSS for Trump and also the US.
It is not ‘Leftists’ or Democrats who say this, but non-partisan analysis’s: ex-gov officials, military men, analysis’s.
They may indeed be oppressed. And if that were the case there are ways that support can be given. But the option of destroying the infrastructure of the country, if that is the only option, the people will recoil against the US within Iran.
The opinions you hear, like your own, are delusional. Even if Iran is just 60% crushed, action was essential and non-action was unavoidable and irresponsible. Allowing a nation that has been calling for the US’s destruction for a half-century and Israel’s elimination longer than that to have nuclear weapon capability is insane, but that’s what Presidents Obama and Biden were willing to do…out of cowardice and incompetence. And that’s just the first justification. The other is that the rest of the world must believe that what the US says, threatens and demands is to be taken seriously, unlike Obama’s series of “red lines.” Had the US had that demonstrated credibility, Ukraine would never have been invaded. The opposition to the Iran operation is almost entirely based on disinformation and the bizarre desire to see Trump fail even if it is disastrous to the nation and the world.
Today Iran said it had “not yet begun to fight.” That’s hilarious. How can you, or anyone, think a nation like that is winning the war?
“Trump’s promise to end ‘forever wars’ meant that the US would use its superior military power to win necessary conflicts as soon as possible, not get involved in ‘nation-building,’ and not turn tail and run, like Biden in Afghanistan.”
I think that is correct. Trump’s America First policies assert U.S. national interests over a global “community of nations” idea that we are all in this together. Trump is a pragmatist and a capitalist. He sees China, and to a lesser extent, Russia, for the threat to U.S. primacy that it is on the global stage and is willing to take steps to reassert U.S. dominance in international affairs. The NATO fools and Western European supposed allies are simply too naive to understand that policy, perhaps because European power has been knee-capped for over a generation.
jvb
and then plunged into a war with Iran that a lot of the population didn’t see coming, which is still ongoing and which the media is busily portraying as a failure.
That statement is both true and false. The people who are explaining why the Iran adventure has resulted in failure, and that represents a stupid decision by DT, are not “the media” in the sense of news corporations parts of corporate conglomerates, but independent political analysts with significant background (in disciplines similar to Jack: working in politics, in the military, historians etc). I would say Mearsheimer is the best example. His focus is not ideological politics but political realism.
Should POTUS always keep pledges made during an election? Or are there situations where this becomes irresponsible, as the needs of the country dictate otherwise?
Assume that Iran had successfully developed nukes, and Trump does nothing against it, and then Iran uses that. Would the Trump administration carry the blame?
Part of the MAGA base has gone full isolationism, e.g. Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly. That foreign policy is as otherworldly as Charles Lindbergh’s position up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, given the almost fifty years of undeclared war on the USA by Iran.
Part of the MAGA base has gone anti-Israel; some of these follow the lead of Nick Fuentes and the groypers which are rabiate antisemites. They make common cause with the Democrats and the MSM who are actively rooting for Trump to loose the war in Iran. Maybe there is something to the horseshoe theory, in which the extreme right and left almost touch each other.
Most of the MAGA base and the MAGA press supports the war on Iran, with some critical notes here and there from National Review and the Federalist; and I am glad that they are critical but loyal.
We need to be careful with comparisons with Woodrow Wilson. The big failure of Woodrow Wilson was the USA was victorious in war, however the peace was lost in the treaties that followed. Wilson’s idealism played a role but also his health situation. He failed in his efforts to let the USA join the League of Nations; by that time isolationism had become the prevailing philosophy in Congress (Henry Cabot Lodge). Isolationism in the USA and pacifism is Europe helped pave the way for the aggressive designs of the Axis powers in WWII.
I understand that the USA is tired of decades long war efforts in Iran and Afghanistan with little to show for. But I do not think that the USA can afford to take a holiday from history in the mold of isolationism. That philosophy has failed miserably in WWII.
Part of the MAGA base has gone anti-Israel; some of these follow the lead of Nick Fuentes and the groypers which are rabiate antisemites. They make common cause with the Democrats and the MSM who are actively rooting for Trump to loose the war in Iran. Maybe there is something to the horseshoe theory, in which the extreme right and left almost touch each other.
There is a faction in the Dissident Right (ante-ceding MAGA) that is anti-Jewish. No doubt. But MAGA is not the Dissident Right (Greg Johnson etc.).
It is in fact a proper and necessary moral and ethical position to challenge and oppose 1) Israeli activities (as an invading power that attempted to uproot the population living there) and to oppose Zionism. There are a dozen Israeli intellectuals who have this position. I can only suggest to you that you listen to them and consider them.
It is entirely good, ethical and necessary for all Americans to question the USA-Israel association. I have no doubt that in this category I can present an argument and win that argument if it came to that. Zionism is an anti-Jewish ideology. It began in that mood. It is pathological. And Christian Zionism is an extension of the errors of Zionism made into religious doctrine. And this I can also demonstrate and prove. And I would refer only to Jews and Israelis who develop the idea.
American ‘anti-Semitism’ is to the largest degree a sound moral posture. But only when it is clearly defined as the collusion between mostly secular Jews and the State of Israel. Now that this collusion has been exposed, the term ‘anti-Semite’ becomes inaccurate. If there were no Israel problem — and Israel is an enormous and destructive problem that has harmed and will continue to harm many — there would likely be no American activism against Israel’s meddling in US affairs. These are facts Cees.
Most people are even unaware the degree to which secular Jews as a group, and as the majority of Jews, are in fact a problem for religious Jews. Religious Judaism is a very specific thing. Secular Judaism becomes something else altogether. For this reason “Jewish identity’ is actually a big problem FOR JEWS. And trust me here: Zionism is becoming a huge issue within Israel and among diaspora Jewry. You would do well to better understand this).
For Iran the USA is the Great Satan and Israel the Little Satan. So Iran is a declared enemy of the USA, and Israel is an ally of the USA due to mutual foreign interests.
Zionism as I understand it is for Israel the right to exist as a Jewish state. I consider that reasonable as Jews would not be welcome in a majority Muslim state. If Muslims are not antisemite, please explain violence against Jews by Muslims in Europe and the USA. Jews are fleeing Europe and moving to Israel to escape the violence and intolerance. Heck, many Europeans are emigrating to get away from from all those Muslims.
I do not understand the antizionists in Israel. Do they still believe in a two state solution? Or do they think they should open the borders for all who claim to be Palestinian, and have Israel become a Muslim dominated state? Both options are unrealistic and suicidal. Hamas and Hezbollah believe in Sharia supremacy and see Israel (which they call Palestine) as territory to be dominated by Islam.
Zionism as I understand it is for Israel the right to exist as a Jewish state. I consider that reasonable as Jews would not be welcome in a majority Muslim state. If Muslims are not antisemite, please explain violence against Jews by Muslims in Europe and the USA. Jews are fleeing Europe and moving to Israel to escape the violence and intolerance. Heck, many Europeans are emigrating to get away from from all those Muslims.
It is that and quite a bit more. Zionism is actually tied up together with anti-Semitism and it is an ideology of anti-Semites. The Nazis (and many other nations and factions) thought it a great ideas if their Jews would abandon their lands and go to Israel. In fact, the Nazis helped many Jews to migrate to Israel.
Christian Zionism as well is also tied to similar sentiments or views.
Be that as it may, Zionism has created problem after problem in the region. That is a simple fact. It is not accepted by numerous branches of Orthodox Judaism, and note that it was a secular ideology and political program.
I do not understand the anti-zionists in Israel. Do they still believe in a two state solution? Or do they think they should open the borders for all who claim to be Palestinian, and have Israel become a Muslim dominated state? Both options are unrealistic and suicidal. Hamas and Hezbollah believe in Sharia supremacy and see Israel (which they call Palestine) as territory to be dominated by Islam.
It is a curious problem. The most *progressive* idea is that Israel incorporate all residents in the entire region into one state: Palestine. (There are about 7 millions Jews and about the same of Arabs there now). The problem is sort of paralleled when South Africa is considered. The entire world advocated for the White minority of SA to incorporate everyone into one state. It was seen as the *right* thing to do. But if the same thing is said about Israel, it is as if no one can bend their minds to even consider it possible. But in a sense this is hypocritical.
Unfortunately, the founders of Israel were extremely aggressive, domineering men (those Ashkenazis have that reputation). They made many mistakes, not the least being their treatment of the Arabs. And they really did establish a colonial-settler state.
You would have to find out what the anti-Zionist Israelis think about the issue.
I consider that reasonable as Jews would not be welcome in a majority Muslim state.
Jews lived quite peacefully in Arab dominated states for centuries. There is a whole sub-population of such arabized Jews in Israel now. (Sort of an underclass) The story of how Zionist activists meddled in the relationships of Mizrahi Jews with their Arab neighbors is worth looking up.
Everyone must have a Satan! Who is yours? 🌺
This is why I say that my contributions are likely not of much use on your blog. In fact, they may not even be welcome. I don’t mean by you — I know that you allow contrary opinions — but I think that people tend to be attracted to certain environments where (as in an ‘echo chamber’) they get to hear their cherishes truths repeated and reenforced.
There is a reason Presidents run foreign policy: the public doesn’t know much in this area, and in the era of fake journalism, this is even worse than usual.
This is certainly true, but it does not fully take into account what I pointed out: there is a disconnection between what a popular faction need, want and hope for, and what the power-factions you are certainly aware of, intend to do and undertake. And there is certainly sufficient familiarity with the geo-political order (such for example that Israel has inordinate power over US policies, and that Israel has determined course of action over decades very detrimental to the US, and thus to people and also to the Republic).
And frankly, you will not even consider the view that I have just expressed. You dismiss it, and you have a strange set of reasonings why you do this. But here’s the thing: millions and millions now see and understand that this is so, and they 1) do not like it and 2) will not accept it.
You’ll have to tell me where I will find the ‘non-fake journalism’. I agree, there is much propaganda and LYING, but the issue is how the world is seen and interpreted.
The United States is “first” in many respects, and one is that it has an obligation not to let organized evil over-run the world, because it is first in ethical objectives and principles, not that this is a high bar to clear.
I have often believed that this case could be made. However, and as I pointed out in other posts (which I doubt anyone bothers to read), the US is a nation with a great deal of duality. On one hand, ultra-idealistic and ethically-oriented; but there is a darker side as well. And when the US feels full of itself ‘righteously’ it brings about terrible destruction that does not serve its purposes! And that is how Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran are seen (interpreted). And indeed the attack on Iran will 1) likely destroy the presidency of DT, 2) possibly drive the world into recession, 3) cause that much more anger and dissent among neutrals and also among allies (not to speak of enemies).
Terrorism, Venezuela, Gaza and Iran are excellent examples. MAGA has no business expecting fealty from a President, who is everyone’s President, not just theirs, when their position is ignorant and wrong. In foreign affairs, it is.
Rule Number One: The World will not allow any major power to simply invade and capture its president (to be brought back for a Show Trial). Rule Number Two: The extraordinary destruction of Gaza is seen and understood by the World for exactly what it is: an astounding act of ultra-violence that borders on genocide. It may very well be one of the causes of the destruction of the Israel state (and many are talking about this). That the US supported this, and that anyone in the US supported this, will recoil upon them. And if there is a moral God in this universe (or in the metaphysical order), there will be punishment.
MAGA may, according to you (!), have no business demanding that President Trump abide by his promises that he ran on interminably, yet it has made it its business. And as a result of this treason, Trump will lose support and cause as some say the House and possibly the Senate to be lost. These are facts not speculations.
Don’t blame me for simply telling you what people see and think!
when their position is ignorant and wrong
That is pure opinion. And there are dozens of people, with significant background (similar in studiousness to you) who are making their views very clear.
“This is why I say that my contributions are likely not of much use on your blog. In fact, they may not even be welcome.“
And
“However, and as I pointed out in other posts (which I doubt anyone bothers to read), the US is a nation with a great deal of duality.“
Well, we all know I’m not a major contributor to the comment section; it just isn’t my ambition to write, debate or argue. However, I do read all the comments and especially enjoy reading your point of view. I think I’ve benefited from reading your comments in various ways.
It’s obvious there are some commenters here that seem to “dislike” you but there are also those that appreciate your comments. Whether some readers consider your point of view or analysis or just brush it aside doesn’t matter. I mean, do people just want to read things that make them comfortable? I don’t, I want to read the different points of view.
I don’t read Alizia’s comments. Her innate anti-Americanism informs every single comment. I know what she’s going to say, so why should I take the time to read her comments. She’s simply going to take a lot of words to say in some ingenious new way that, in ways the EA commentariat is too naive to discern, the United States is terrible and the source of all misery in the world. Basically, she’s waiting for the restoration of the Spanish Empire, or something.
You sound like like Old Bill, did you find the fountain of youth?
As suggested by Jack, I changed my moniker and registered as a new commenter because Word Press wouldn’t let me in under my Old Bill account! No fountain of youth, yet. Although I did grow up in Miami near Coral Gables and Ponce de Leon Boulevard, which Miamians referred to simply as, “The Ponce.” Not Pone-say, just Ponse. Funny.
I don’t read Alizia’s comments. Her innate anti-Americanism informs every single comment. I know what she’s going to say, so why should I take the time to read her comments. She’s simply going to take a lot of words to say in some ingenious new way that, in ways the EA commentariat is too naive to discern, the United States is terrible and the source of all misery in the world. Basically, she’s waiting for the restoration of the Spanish Empire, or something.
Oh, so that’s what happened to Old Bill!
First, it is your opinion (or your perception) that I am anti-American. You should revise your opinion. Because it is not like that. Here’s the thing: Define for me what America, or what aspect of America, that is worthy of admiration. There are too many to list and I support them all. Where you veer into misunderstanding is to think that my critiques are grounded in a destructive impulse. It is in fact quite the opposite.
But the way that *American patriotism* (usually of the Boomer Truth Regime) sets it up is that any criticism is anti-Americanism. The fact is, I have a very good grounding in the positions of the Left (specifically Noam Chomsky) and for this reason I UNDERSTAND on what base the intellectual Left builds what you call their anti-Americanism. I understand why you see their views like that, but I also think you would do well to better understand their views. And, you would do better to understand the position of someone who is, to degrees, on the outside of America (as I am a naturalized foreigner). I use the term (playfully of course) that you-plural are American jingoists. Meaning, that you do not allow yourself to have any critical posture of American foreign policy.
But that is not intelligent. What I try to point out is 1) I am personally happy that Maduro was removed, but 2) I must report to you that a huge sector of Latin America, including their governments and their officials, does not at all receive well this sort of adventurism on the part of the US. Therefore: It is very bad PR to do things in that way. That is a constructive critique.
in ways the EA commentariat is too naive to discern
That is an unfair statement. Genuinely, you-plural are purposefully unwilling to understand how many foreign policy choices by your government have operated negatively for those on the receiving end. So, is the right word ‘naive’? No, it is even more than that. You do not care to know. It is not relevant to you to know. So, I focus on the immoral and unethical aspect of that stance. You (I mean you as your nation) do things and you never have to take responsibility. Because, weirdly, you associate the government with some aspect of your own person. This is very common possibly everywhere, but it is especially notable on this blog.
I think the USA is strangely dual in what it does, positively, and in what it also does negatively. I personally think that the US and many Americans would do well to see better and understand better that NEGATIVE aspect.
Finally, in a sense you-plural force me into these positions. Because just about all that you do here is to chime together all your agreements. And when someone with a contrary opinion comes along you come at them like a pack of wolves. “Evil has appeared among us!! Attack! Attack!”
I am one of those MAGA supporters, and I do not at all like the turn Trump has taken. There you have it. It is not anti-Americanism though.
I do read your comments. I don’t respond too often because (1) I don’t have much to offer, or (2) your comment may not necessarily be gerrmaine to the issue posed by our intrepid Ethics Alarmist and anything I could add would not be helpful.
jvb
Jack wrote: The opinions you hear, like your own, are delusional.
Thanks, Jack! 🙂 I actually think the same of yours!
You are wrong for one main reason: They are merely opinions that I have formed examining the wide range of material on the topic. Unlike your views — true believer Neocon ideology (and a type that has been very destructive to America) — my hope is that Iran NOT succeed and that its present regime is replaced.
However, I refuse to allow romanticism and hardened bias to determine my views, not so much on what *should* happen but about what is likely to happen. And so many of the points I make (80%) are simply ignored by you. Your view is simple and has no moving parts. And what do I say? I say it is likely that it proves not to be the most sensible and productive view to have.
But this will all become clear quite soon.
Even if Iran is just 60% crushed, action was essential and non-action was unavoidable and irresponsible. Allowing a nation that has been calling for the US’s destruction for a half-century and Israel’s elimination longer than that to have nuclear weapon capability is insane, but that’s what Presidents Obama and Biden were willing to do…out of cowardice and incompetence. And that’s just the first justification. The other is that the rest of the world must believe that what the US says, threatens and demands is to be taken seriously, unlike Obama’s series of “red lines.” Had the US had that demonstrated credibility, Ukraine would never have been invaded. The opposition to the Iran operation is almost entirely based on disinformation and the bizarre desire to see Trump fail even if it is disastrous to the nation and the world.
Sure, seeking paths to eliminate nuclear program is a good idea. I do not think there is anyone who disagrees there. But the present strategy may very well backfire.
As to what the rest of the world must believe, there are numerous problems there, and you do not consider them. I do not think you can. They do not fit in with your paradigm. The US can act aggressively and brazenly, of course. And there will be immediate results. But in the long run it may not be the best STRATEGIC PLAN to get what the US says that it wants.
Today Iran said it had “not yet begun to fight.” That’s hilarious. How can you, or anyone, think a nation like that is winning the war?
Study the theory behind Guerrilla warfare.
In any case my prediction is this: In relatively short while I believe that what I have said here will be made plain. (And believe me, I hope I am wrong.)
But the present strategy may very well backfire.
That’s your informed analysis? That a strategy “may” backfire? All strategies may backfire, especially military ones. You embody the stereotypical female attitude toward war and conflict: “Ew. Can’t we all get along?” History and human nature informs us: No. Not gonna happen. Wishing won’t make it true.
“seeking paths”? That’s like Chamberlain “seeking paths” to stop Hitler’s plan of European domination. There’s one path that will stop an aspiring, genocidal nuclear power governed by a theocracy based on killing infidels: that’s the path the US is currently taking. What else would you advise?
Sure, heading to the hills is always an option. Let them. Guerillas don’t make nuclear missiles. Unfortunately, I believe the Middle East is a lost cause. Hopeless. All the US can do is keep all of the rogue states weak and at bay. But it has to do that.