The white DEI hire at the Joint Chiefs of Staff might want to deny calling an Iran war "easy." But his job is to insulate Trump from blame for military debacles Edited by Sam Thielman AIR FORCE GEN. DAN CAINE, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should not have his job. He has it because President Trump and 'War' Secretary Pete Hegseth fired a Black officer, fellow Air Force Gen. C.Q. Brown, for reflecting on experiencing racism, including in the military, in a video Brown released after George Floyd's murder in 2020. For Hegseth, Brown's message—which was fundamentally about making the Air Force open to anyone serving in it—was just "DEI woke shit" that "made the race card one of his biggest calling cards." So the position of seniormost U.S. military officer went to a white yes-man instead—someone who had to be recalled from retirement, no less. Now Caine is caught in the trap of his position. Whatever he has actually advised Trump about a war with Iran, Trump has publicly hung the war's fortunes on Caine's shoulders. "General Caine, like all of us, would like not to see War but, if a decision is made on going against Iran at a Military level, it is his opinion that it will be something easily won," Trump posted. "He has not spoken of not doing Iran, or even the fake limited strikes that I have been reading about, he only knows one thing, how to WIN and, if he is told to do so, he will be leading the pack." Pause a moment to reflect on Trump denying that attacking Iran would involve only "limited strikes." That means we are talking about a war to overthrow or suborn the Islamic Republic. Trump has put us on the precipice of an epochal military misadventure and done so without experiencing any significant friction from the bipartisan congressional leadership or the mainstream media. Such are the wages of decades of presidential usurpation of warmaking (vice warfighting) authorities. I know I say this a lot lately, but I have more to say about this in a forthcoming piece for a certain outlet. Back to Caine. Caine's allies—possibly Caine himself, but these things usually work through aides—ran to the New York Times to insist that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs definitely did not say that an Iran war would be easy. The Times today prints that Caine instead advised Trump that even a "small or medium" strike carries a "potentially high risk of American casualties," and be much more difficult than the kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro, which Caine was very publicly on board with. But Caine's camp, likely anticipating the fallout of this piece, pumped the brakes on any suggestion the general is pushing back on Trump. "General Caine discussed what the military could do from an operational standpoint but declined, as he regularly does, to advocate a certain policy position," wrote the Times' Eric Schmitt. I wasn't in the Situation Room and haven't spoken to anyone who was. But it doesn't matter what Caine said. What matters is what Trump heard. And Trump heard Caine "not [speak] of not doing Iran." That is sufficient for the president Caine came out of retirement to serve. Now: It's charitable to Caine to presume that what his camp provided to Schmitt is more reflective of his military advice than Trump's account. Trump has previously attributed to Caine the claim that the Islamic State could be easily and rapidly defeated. Whether or not that was true, Caine's rise came through Trump associating him with the assurance that war is easy and victory assured. Raisin' Caine knows how to WIN, not like that Black guy. Whether Caine knows how to interpret a clue from his boss is a different story. During the very first month of Trump's first presidency, Trump authorized a special operations raid in Yemen that killed 25 civilians and left Navy SEAL Ryan Owens dead. Trump blamed the generals for the debacle. Caine cannot say he didn't see this coming. He might not like being set up to be the fall guy for how bloody the Iranian regime will make it when the regime is at risk of losing everything. But that's what his job entails. He also has no excuse not to know that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a position outside in the chain of command, is easier to replace than Adm. Brad Cooper at U.S. Central Command. (Though, depending on how bad the Iran War gets, Cooper shouldn't feel secure.) There used to be a term for understanding a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who insulated a president set on a disastrous war from the reality of the situation, a reality measured in blood. That term was Dereliction of Duty. Unfortunately, the officer who correctly applied that term ended up epically bed-shitting when it was time for him to serve Trump. Caine's willingness to ease the path for a war with Iran, a willingness made all the more egregious by the fact that Caine was serving back when his predecessors did the same thing for Iraq, is yet another symptom of the moral and professional atrophy within the Security State and, accordingly, the American empire. But look: at least Caine's not Black, right? DANIEL LARISON: "It’s important to remember that the president’s 'deal' rhetoric is nothing more than a smokescreen. He is setting it up so he can claim that he was prepared to make a ‘deal’ but the Iranians refused to cooperate. Trump is trying to make it look as if it is Iran’s fault if there is a conflict when it is 100% his doing. Trump has had at least half a dozen opportunities to change course since the start of the year, and each time he has chosen to keep heading for the edge of that cliff. It is always possible that he could veer away at the last moment, but at this point there is no reason to expect that he will do that." Something to keep in mind for Thursday. INCREDIBLE TIMES HEADLINE: "Anthropic Accuses 3 Chinese Companies of Harvesting Its Data." Sure sucks to have your data harvested for someone else's financial gain, huh? Especially by someone whose success is predicated on rendering you economically replaceable? OF COURSE ABETTING A GENOCIDE made many, many people unwilling to vote for Kamala Harris and makes many, many more enduringly contemptuous of the Democratic Party. That is what should result from abetting a genocide. There is a straightforward way for the Democratic Party not to face this problem—why, as it happens, there is a massive weapons delivery to Israel right now that congressional Democrats could attempt to obstruct and elected Democrats could denounce—only it's not the one the party leadership wants. They would prefer you to shut the fuck up and vote the way you're obligated to instead. Oh wait, 2024 gave definitive evidence of the electoral fortunes of that strategy? Then you understand why they're suppressing this report. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment