war

Iraq War veteran slams Trump's Venezuela operation as 'forever war 2.0'

Iraq war veteran Paul Rieckhoff told MS NOW that he is catching War on Terrorism vibes from President Donald Trump’s recent invasion of Venezuela.

When asked by MS NOW anchor Katy Tur on Thursday how young people are viewing Trump’s invasion and claim of Venezuela’s oil assets, the founder and executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America said they’re expecting it "to suck.”

“They know what it's like and … they know their friends could die and come home wounded and their families will be destroyed forever,” said Rieckhoff. “This sounds like forever war 2.0. That's what we called [the War on Terrorism] after 9/11. We were in Afghanistan for 20 years.”

Rieckhoff said many of the major supporters of the invasion on social media and in press conferences have no personal skin in the game when it comes to battlefield danger.

“Everybody thinks that wars are easy and clean until they start, especially people who haven't fought them. And they're talking a lot about the return on investment and talking about what we're going to get [out of Venezuela]. Nobody's talking about what it's going to cost,” said Reickhoff. “How many American lives is it worth to get that crude oil? How many lives are we willing to give every year? Nobody's putting up their own kids. Barron Trump certainly isn't joining the military, and nobody's talking about what is actually going to happen to human beings.”

President Donald Trump, while pressing the invasion, personally avoided the Vietnam War in his youth thanks to numerous health deferments courtesy of his father and a ‘fake injury’ validated by a family doctor, according to reports.

Rieckhoff said this absence of personal danger from the president’s administration and his social media supporters indicated a whole new legion of safe, comfortable armchair warriors beating the drum for the Iraq War decades ago.

“There's a rise of a new generation of chickenhawks,” Rieckoff said. “It reminds me of 2003, 2004 and people who think war is going to be clean and easy. … [T]his is very early. I was on the ground in Iraq when people were calling it ‘mission accomplished.’ And I was still there when the insurgency rose.”

See the video below.

- YouTube youtu.be

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'At least we haven't invaded': White House officials say Trump nearly launched a war

President Donald Trump spent the Christmas holiday bombing Nigeria with overpriced and scarce long-range Tomahawk missiles — between social media attacks on Somali immigrants, rationalizing his attempted 2020 election steal and reposting calls to jail his political opponents.

But Zeteo reports Department of Defense officials were originally worried Trump’s attacks on Nigeria were going to be more of a protracted war, or worse.

“Two Department of Defense officials, one current and one former, tell Zeteo that at this point, they felt relieved that Trump’s Christmas bombing ended up being more targeted than it could have been, given how the president had previously dangled the possibility of sending US ground troops to Nigeria,” wrote Zeteo political Asawin Suebsaeng and politics Editor Andrew Perez.

“At least we haven’t invaded yet,” the current DoD official told Zeteo.

“Tonight, at my direction as Commander in Chief, the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries!” Trump announced on Truth Social.

“The bombing was conducted after he and his government spent weeks threatening military action – even possible invasion – in the African nation, claiming that the Nigerian government was failing to stop the mass murder of Christians,” Zeteo reports. “Nigerian officials and numerous others who have long monitored political violence in the country stress that the Trump administration is spreading misinformation, and that Christians actually make up a smaller percentage of the death tolls than Muslims.”

“But as the Trump administration and the MAGA movement enter an increasingly and openly Christian-nationalist phase,” reports Zeteo, “nuances and on-the-ground realities don’t necessarily matter much as Trump weighs what, where, or whom to bomb next.”

Zeteo reports Trump pitched himself as a “PEACE PRESIDENT” who would end “forever wars,” but this year alone Trump has launched airstrikes in Iran, Yemen, and Somalia, and his administration has carried out more than “two dozen illegal airstrikes against supposed drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, without providing evidence for such claims.”

Trump has also threatened to invade Venezuela in his bid to remove the regime of Nicolás Maduro.

Read the Zeteo report at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Insecure men are dangerous': Analyst says Trump may declare war due to 'sad-boy feelings'

President Donald Trump has apparently approved attack plans against Iran though has so far stopped short of officially giving the order, according to the Wall Street Journal. And one columnist thinks whether the president of the United States gets the nation involved in another foreign war could be decided by Trump's self-esteem.

In a recent op-ed for USA TODAY, columnist Rex Huppke posited that Trump's recent actions could be attributed to the world's most powerful man having a crisis of self-confidence. Huppke argued that the commander-in-chief's deployment of U.S. military personnel to the nation's second-most populous city ended in an anticlimactic fashion, and his sparsely attended military parade didn't move the needle either.

According to the columnist, a new foreign war is just part of "the quest to quench this man’s insecurity," opining that even being among other foreign leaders at the G7 summit in the Canadian Rockies didn't do enough to satisfy his ego.

Huppke pointed out that that Trump left the G7 summit before its official conclusion under the pretense that he had to return to Washington to address the escalating tensions in the Middle East between Israel and Iran after the former carried out a series of strikes on the latter. However, the USA TODAY columnist observed that Trump's response "seemed to largely involve posting unhinged comments on social media, bizarrely advising residents of Tehran to evacuate and, despite claiming the United States isn’t involved in Israel’s ongoing attacks on Iran, boldly proclaiming: 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.'"

"Trump is proving, as if we needed proof, that insecure men are dangerous," Huppke wrote after declaring that Trump's "sad-boy feelings will always override what's best for America."

"They act impulsively, with no focus beyond soothing their own tender feelings," he continued. "Dispatching troops against American citizens didn’t make Trump feel big. A military parade didn’t make him feel big. He didn’t feel big around other world leaders at the G7 summit, so he left and did some online hollering and saber-rattling.

"And now? We wait to see if our capricious president needs to drop a bunker-busting bomb on Iran to feel big," he added.

Click here to read Huppke's full op-ed in USA TODAY.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Fractured his base': MAGA activists warn Trump against 'catastrophe' of a new foreign war

The prospect of President Donald Trump entering the United States into another foreign conflict is a significant source of tension among his base of supporters.

The New York Times reported Wednesday that the interventionist wing of the Republican Party and the "America First" MAGA faction of the GOP have been increasingly combative with each other since Israel new offensive against Iran (and the resulting Iranian counterattacks). MAGA podcaster Candace Owens recently expressed concern that Trump was widening the rift in the party by flirting with a new foreign entanglement.

"Trump just fractured his base, I believe he just fractured his base," she said. "Effectively, MAGA was a declaration of war on neocons, right? On the people who always come up with a reason for us to send our sons and daughters overseas."

Recently, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) fired back at Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) after the latter raged against those in the GOP who were "slobbering" at the prospect of another war. The South Carolina Republican insisted that Iran was too dangerous to ignore, and that the U.S. had a responsibility to stand by its top Middle Eastern ally.

"I like Marjorie, but to be honest with you, she doesn't understand the threat, in my view," Graham told Fox News host John Roberts on Tuesday. "If you don't understand that Iran, a religious theocracy, religious Nazis, would use a nuclear weapon to kill all the Jews, you don't listen to what they say."

But the MAGA wing of the GOP has appeared to draw a line in the sand when it comes to the prospect of a new war with Iran. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) recently cosponsored a War Powers Resolution with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) with the intent of preventing Trump from unilaterally declaring war. Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk — an Arizona-based political organizer aligned with the MAGA movement — opined that "regime change in Iran would be a catastrophe." And far-right social media personality Jack Posobiec warned that Trump would no longer have the political capital to accomplish his domestic policy agenda if he committed the U.S. military to helping Israel topple the Islamic theocracy.

"A direct strike on Iran right now would disastrously split the Trump coalition," he tweeted.

Click here to read the Times' full report (subscription required).

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'If only more people would read it': Ex-GOP rep reveals tool Congress has to stop Trump

Even though President Donald Trump has been more frequently posting suggestions that the U.S. may be about to enter into another war in the Middle East, one former Republican congressman is calling attention to a power Congress can use to constrain him.

On Tuesday, former Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) — who served in the House of Representatives between 2011 and 2021 — posted a lengthy tweet about the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1550). He specifically called on Congress to pass the resolution in order to stop Trump from taking any military action for 60 to 90 days without express approval from the legislative branch. Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) are cosponsoring one such resolution, and are calling on their colleagues to support it.

"If only more people would read it," Amash tweeted.

Amash noted that even though the president of the United States is the commander-in-chief of all U.S. armed forces, the text of the War Powers Resolution explicitly states that a president's Constitutional authority over the military can be "exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." And he added that Article I of the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that only Congress has the ability to declare war.

"Of the three cited authorities, not one indicates a presidential power to take unilateral (without Congress's approval) offensive military action," Amash wrote.

The former Michigan congressman explained that the three powers outlined in the resolution pertaining to a president's authority to deploy the military unilaterally require "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization or a sudden unforeseen attack on the United States (happening too quickly for Congress to meet) necessitating immediate action to protect Americans or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Absent those circumstances, the president cannot officially declare war.

"The War Powers Resolution does not confer any new authority on the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval — nor could it under our Constitution," he wrote. "It instead checks the president when, as the Framers contemplated, the president introduces our Armed Forces into hostilities to repel a sudden attack."

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Hard to come back from this': Trump's call for 'surrender' sparks fear US is going to war

President Donald Trump’s latest social media posts have many wondering if the United States is entering the war against Iran, and if so, what is his strategy?

At 11:55 AM, Trump posted to Truth Social, “We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn’t compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured ‘stuff.’ Nobody does it better than the good ol’ USA.”

Minutes later, at 12:19 PM, he added, “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

And then, at 12:22 PM, he demanded, “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”

To that last post, political scientist Ian Bremmer responded, “Hard to pull back from this.”

Barbara Starr, the longtime, now former CNN national security reporter, responded to Trump’s posts:

“Sometimes you want ambiguity some officials might say. But when it comes to nukes, clarity is vital to avoid catastrophic miscalculation. So there is no other conclusion…Trump is deep into a Middle East war. Just my opinion of course.”

Pointing to Trump’s social media posts, attorney George Conway, a top Trump critic, wrote: “Remember this moment. @realDonaldTrump is reveling in the narcisisstic [sic] and sadistic thrill of threatening others with violent death. He will start to crave that feeling.”

The Bulwark’s Sam Stein, also pointing to Trump’s posts, observed, “Just tweeting through the launch of another Middle East war. Treating the potential bombing of Iran by the U.S. as an episode of reality TV.”

Former Obama National Security Council staffer Tommy Vietor said of Trump’s posts, “The President of the United States can’t say s— like this and then pretend we are not an active participant in this war.”

Trump convened a meeting with his National Security Council (NSC), slated for 1 PM in the Situation Room. Notably, Vice President JD Vance, who ran defense hours earlier for Trump over the possibility of entering the war, was reportedly not in attendance.

“U.S. officials said Trump is seriously considering joining the war and launching a U.S. strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, especially its underground uranium enrichment facility in Fordow,” Axios reported.

Former Obama chief campaign strategist and Senior Advisor to the President, David Axelrod, laid out the scene:

“Amazing that in a matter of days we’ve gone from ‘this is not our operation’ to ‘we own the skies over Iran.’ With these proclamations, we also now ‘own’ what WAS an Israeli assault. We’re thoroughly in it now. What is the strategy here?”

CNN reports that “President Donald Trump is growing increasingly warm to using US military assets to strike Iranian nuclear facilities and souring on the idea of a diplomatic solution to end Tehran’s escalating conflict with Israel, two officials familiar with the ongoing discussions told CNN.”

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren noted that Congress, not the President, has the authority to declare war:

“Allowing Netanyahu to drag us into another endless war in the Middle East would be a catastrophic error by President Trump and Republicans in Congress. Every lawmaker needs to ring the alarm against U.S. military action in Iran. Only Congress has the authority to declare war.”

Many, including BBC Verify senior journalist Shayan Sardarizadeh, are pointing to Trump’s use of the word “we” in his posts. Military.com’s Pentagon reporter Konstantin Toropin suggested it would be difficult to not see the U.S. as involved.

“President Trump is using the term ‘we’ when referring to Israeli attacks on Iran, including a potential strike on the supreme leader, and calling for ‘unconditional surrender,” Sardarizadeh wrote.

“…and yet the US is not a participant in this conflict?” posited Toropin.

Pointing to polling that shows 60% of Americans oppose U.S. military becoming involved in the Israel-Iran war, former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul wrote: “If Trump is serious about bombing Iran, he’d be wise to declassify intelligence showing that the threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is imminent. The American people are not just going to take him at his word. Been there; done that (in 2003).”

Former Clinton Cabinet Secretary Robert Reich noted, “For Trump, a military conflict with Iran would distract from:
-Sinking poll numbers
-A devastating (and unpopular) budget bill
-Harmful trade wars
-Unleashing the military on American soil
-Millions of people protesting his authoritarianism
We must remain on high alert.”

U.S. Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) wrote: “Having seen some of the worst fighting of the Iraq War, I know the devastating toll of rushing into a conflict. I came back from Iraq angry at our government for sending us out to an illegal war. We must learn from our mistakes: no president should unilaterally deploy troops to the Middle East. Congress, not the President, has the sole power to declare war.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Not our war': GOP rep and Democrat join forces to stop Trump from going to war with Iran

This week, Congress may end up voting on a resolution that would constrain President Donald Trump's authority to declare war on Iran as tensions in the Middle East continue to increase.

Axios reported Monday that Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) are cosponsoring bipartisan legislation that would prevent Trump from unilaterally entering the United States into another foreign conflict. The move comes as both Israel and Iran have been conducting strikes on each other after the former bombed Tehran last week, killing several top Iranian military leaders and multiple scientists involved in its nuclear program.

"This is not our war," Massie tweeted Monday evening. "But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution. I’m introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution tomorrow to prohibit our involvement. I invite all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution."

Khanna also posted a statement to social media highlighting the bipartisan push to keep the United States neutral in the Israel-Iran conflict. The California Democrat tweeted: "No war in Iran. It's time for every member to go on record."

"Are you with the neocons who led us into Iraq or do you stand with the American people?" Khanna continued. "I am proud to co-lead this bipartisan War Powers Resolution with Rep. Massie that is privileged and must receive a vote."

In addition to the resolution cosponsored by Reps. Khanna and Massie, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) is introducing his own resolution in the U.S. Senate this week. In a statement posted to his website, the Virginia Democrat said the legislation "will ensure that if we decide to place our nation's men and women in uniform into harm's way, we will have a debate and vote on it in Congress."

"It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States. I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict," he stated. "The American people have no interest in sending servicemembers to fight another forever war in the Middle East."

Click here to read Axios' full report.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'War on due process': George Conway says there is 'no limit' to Trump’s 'moral depravity'

Attorney and activist George Conway warned a panel on "MSNBC Prime" that President Donald Trump will not stop at detaining legal immigrants like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who is currently held offsite against judicial order: He asserted that what the president truly wants is a change in U.S. law.

“When Donald Trump says something depraved, we should believe it and we haven't reached bottom yet with him because there is no limit to his moral depravity, "said Conway, "Listen, you have to take this seriously. This is not a war on terrorists. There's no evidence this man is a terrorist. This isn't a war or a battle on the college campuses against antisemitism. That's not what this is about. This is a war on due process. He wants to be able to dictate the fates of individuals, including American citizens, without having to go to a court.”

MSNBC host Symone D. Sanders-Townsend pointed out how pro-Trump, El Salvadoran leader Nayib Bukele is the country's president only because El Salvador's Supreme Electoral Tribunal ruled he could run for reelection in spite of constitutional term limits. Since then, El Salvador has accrued the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world as the Bukele administration has arrested more than 76,000 people with a lack of due process.

“This is who Donald Trump would like to be,” Townsend said.

Conway added that the Trump administration will only continue to defy district courts and the Supreme Court because “the courts can't enforce their own orders.”

“At the end of the day, they don't have soldiers. They don't have police. They do not have the mechanisms by which you enforce court orders, which sometimes involve throwing people who are disobeying court orders into jail,” Conway said. “But the people who do that on behalf of the courts ... work for the (U.S.) Department of Justice, who works with Pam Bondi. And Pam Bondi is sitting there while (Trump political advisor) Steven Miller is standing over his shoulder, lying his a-- off about what the Supreme Court did.”

Watch the video below or by clicking this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

This conservative writer actually used the history of American genocide to argue for endless war in Syria

Washington Post columnist Max Boot is trying to save face Thursday after an op-ed he wrote on Wednesday advocating for an indefinite military occupation of Syria and Afghanistan sparked a passionate backlash. While his conclusion was, in fact, the establishment's conventional view of the American presence in the Middle East, he invoked a disturbing analogy as he argued we should get used to the endless conflict: the Indian Wars.

Keep reading...Show less

Contact Advertise with AlterNet Privacy Policy Writer Guidelines Press Information About AlterNet Meet the AlterNet Staff Debug Logs