The Autocrat’s Excuse

Posted: March 5, 2026 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

“Some of you may die, but it’s a sacrifice I am willing to make!” Lord Farquaad in the animated movie Shrek (2001).

“The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war.” Trump on 28 February announcing the attack on Iran. He later that day held a million dollar a plate dinner at Mar-a-Lago.

As I write, we are in day six of Operation Epstein Files Epic Fury, the U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran. At this point, we still do not know why the war had to start right now and we still do not know the desired end state. As I explained in my post prior to the attack, without a stated end state, no one knows when we have “won”. So far, the Trump administration has posited multiple and often conflicting reasons for the attack and cannot seem to get their story straight. Key leaders such as the Secretary of Defense still talk in tactical terms rather than strategic. They cannot articulate what winning looks like and what the overall goal is for governing in Iran.

Before I go further let me say that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, and those that supported his regime while suppressing the aspirations of everyday Iranians was an evil man. I do not defend him or his regime in anyway. They have been bad actors for decades. I also commend our women and men in uniform whose professionalism and expertise has again demonstrated that the U.S. military is the best of the best. Our service members have preformed admirably and courageously.

Neither of those facts, however, justify this attack on Iran.

Why not Russia, China and/or North Korea? Let’s look at the rationale behind the war — and I will return to that momentarily but the Trump administration is calling it a “war.” Comparing the reasons given for attacking Iran and comparing them to our relations with the Bush era defined “Axis of Evil” does not explain why Iran or why now. Stalled negotiations. Check. Might be pursuing a nuclear weapon. Check. Promotes terrorism. Check. Has ballistic missiles that threaten the U.S. and our allies. Check. Everything that Trump and his cabinet say are our reasons for launching the war is the same, or poses an even greater threat from Russia, China, and North Korea. No one is arguing that we attack them. Indeed, Russia’s assault on Ukraine is ongoing after four years and this administration barely acknowledges the atrocities committed by Russians. Russia invaded a democratic Ukraine and all that Trump does is berate the Ukrainian leadership and pester them into giving in to Russian demands. Nothing is asked of Russia.

Maybe we struck Iran because we could and Trump likes to act the part of the tough guy Commander-in-Chief. Or maybe it is because Trump is beholden to Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and to Mohammed bin Salman al Saud of Saudi Arabia. Netanyahu has been warning for thirty years that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon “any day”. Maybe Trump believed him, because he certainly did not believe his own intelligence agencies that were telling Trump that there was no imminent threat of Iran developing a nuclear weapon and that they had no means of weaponizing one. It is known that Mohammed (aka MBS) was calling Trump repeatedly over the last month telling him that Iran needed to be taken care of. Let’s speculate a bit. Netanyahu knows how to play Trump like a fiddle and Trump dances. But that may not be enough. It may be just a coincidence but when Trump left office after his first term, Jared Kushner his son-in-law got a two billion dollar investment from the Saudis. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the past year bought a 500 million dollar stake in the Trump family crypto venture called World Liberty Financial. Qatar gave Trump — personally, not as president — a luxury Boeing 747 with an estimated worth of 400 million dollars. Oman is working with the Trump family to develop properties in their country. Saudi Arabia is also working with the Trump family on developing real estate such as Trump Tower Jedda and Trump Plaza Riyadh and a 63 billion dollar project in Diriyah. All of these Arab countries have competing interests opposed to Persian Iran. Could that be why we took out Iran? Just asking.

I am not even sure that Trump knows why he ordered the operation. In a press gaggle at the White House he stated that he had a feeling that Iran would attack first so he got the jump on them. He decided instinctively that he should go to war rather than listen to advisers (he doesn’t) or believe the intelligence presented to him (he ignores it). In a way this fits with Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s explanation of why now. It was convoluted as many of his statements are in trying to explain yet another poor decision. He claimed that the the Israelis were going to attack Iran anyway, and since the Iranians were going to respond across the region, then the U.S. had to strike first to stop Iran’s response to an Israeli attack. In other words, Israel can decide when the U.S. goes to war. Speaker of the House “Lil Mikey” Johnson gave the same explanation as did Rubio. Rubio later walked it back but it makes about as much sense as any other explanation the administration has offered.

One would hope that they have some strategic objective in mind as the war is beginning to spread out of the Middle East. A U.S. submarine sank an Iranian warship off the coast of Sri Lanka. Iran sent drones against a British base on Cyprus. The economic consequences are already being felt around the world. Where are we headed?

I am out of the prediction business, but here is what would not surprise me. One day, when it is clear that it is not going to be easy to clean up the mess he made in the Middle East, Trump will wake up and decide it’s over. Stop the fighting, go home and figure out the next country he wants to attack. (Cuba anyone? Earlier this week he raised the prospect of “a friendly take over” of Cuba.) Of course that will leave a huge vacuum in a volatile area of the world. It could leave behind the same conditions that led to the growth of ISIS and al-Qaeda in other areas of the region. It will also not rid us of Iranian meddling. They have a long history, a long memory and a willingness to retaliate on their own time and at a place of their choosing. Terrorism will not go away with a leaderless, devastated Iran. The threat may even increase if we just pack up and leave. So far, it doesn’t appear that he thinks much past day one of anything. Our assault on Venezuela was supposedly to eliminate the Maduro regime. The Maduro regime is still in power, still terrorizing their population and still making themselves rich. Nothing changed except that now Trump has access to Venezuelan oil. I surmise that he cares as much about the Iranian people as he does the Venezuelans or the populations of the other six countries he’s bombed in his second term.

Yesterday in the Senate, and soon in the House, Congress will again abdicate its power and responsibility under the Constitution and give in to the president by failing to pass a resolution under the War Powers Act. The two biggest responsibilities of the Congress are the power to declare war and to control the funding of the government. This Congress has shirked both obligations thus allowing a president that already acts like he can do whatever he wants, to, in fact, do whatever he wants, even starting a needless war. Many people point to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as precedents to Trump’s actions. That overlooks the fact that President George W. Bush built a case for war in both areas, went to Congress, explained the need, and acted in concert with the will of the American people at the time. Congress passed Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) acts for Afghanistan and Iraq. One can question whether that was wise and question whether it gave the president too much latitude. The point is, however, that he did consult with and get approval from, the Congress. Trump just ignores them. There is not any “wiggle room” either that this is just a “combat operation” or a “police action” or some other euphemism for “war.” Trump, his cabinet and others have specifically used the word war. I think they like the sound of it. However, contrary to his assertions, there was no imminent threat. He had time to build the case with the American people and to work with our representatives in Congress to justify his actions. He does not think that he has to do that or anything else that he perceives as limiting his power.

When things are going poorly, the aspiring autocrat looks outside of their national borders to create a new enemy and to turn the people’s attention away from what is happening at home.

Long live the king!

Business As Usual

Posted: June 8, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

It is with some disappointment, but little surprise, that I note that it appears this Congress is going to do no better than the last several in seriously addressing our nation’s needs.  The elements of a “do nothing Congress” remain in place.  Sadly, this seems particularly true in the Senate with 5 Senators running for president (currently one Democrat and four Republicans) portending that there probably will be more grandstanding and less legislating in the months to come.

Three examples (there are other similar cases) outline my pessimism.  They are the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Highway Trust Fund (part of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Authorization Bill, known as “THUD”) and the Authorization for the use Of Military Force (AUMF or “Anti-ISIS Bill”).

At this point let me do a quick refresher on spending bills 101 in the U.S. Congress.  Authorization Bills set policy and funding limits for an agency or program.  They do not allow for the actual expenditure of money.  An Appropriations Bill is needed to actually spend money and sometimes, although a program is authorized, it does not receive the money — or at least all of the money — they thought they were going to have.  Authorizations have no real Constitutional basis but are the result of the way Congress has handled such issues since roughly the Civil War.  Appropriations are necessary under the Constitution in order for the federal government to spend money.   Authorizations usually cover two years (except for the Department of Defense which is done every year) while appropriations for all agencies and programs are done annually.

Throw on top of all of this that the Congress, and the federal government, are still operating under the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 — commonly known as “sequestration” or the draconian spending limits Congress set for itself to force a compromise, and then did not implement one, thus leaving those draconian cuts in place.

So what, you may ask?  First let’s take a look at the 2016 NDAA, and unfortunately, we must dig into the weeds a bit more.  In order to bypass the sequestration spending limits the Republican Congress proposes to put $38 billion into the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account.  The OCO is used to pay for war fighting and counter-terrorism operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Instead, the proposed bill directs the Defense Department to use the money (or at least a substantial portion of it) to pay for core costs that should be paid for under the regular budget accounts.  This is a direct attempt to over-ride sequestration for the Defense Department.  Why do this?  Because under the law, to increase Defense spending, cuts must be made in other areas of an already tight budget and the Republican leadership is not willing to do that.  Democrats are threatening to block the NDAA and the president is threatening to veto it for two reasons.  One, they think the hard choices should be made.  Two, and more importantly to them, they think there are domestic programs that need increases as well.  Part of the “deal” with the BCA was that all parties would suffer in order to force a compromise.  It didn’t happen and now, the Democrats argue, Republicans are trying to implement different rules for Defense than those that were originally agreed upon.  No one is sure what will happen in the coming days and weeks. Democrats do not want to look “anti-defense” and yet they cannot allow this budgetary legerdemain to stand as it will set a precedent that probably is not good for the long-term fiscal or policy interests of the U.S. And remember, this is just the authorization bill, they have yet to fully grapple with the appropriations bill that will actually spend money.

Similarly the Highway Trust Fund — used to build and maintain the nation’s federal highways, bridges and the like — is due to go bankrupt.  No agreement could be reached on how to fund it so for the thirty-third time (33!) in the past six years, a continuing resolution keeps it in operation until 31 July of this year.  The Highway Trust Fund was established with the Federal Highway Act of 1956 and resulted in the interstate highway system that became the backbone of commerce in our country. It gets its money from the federal fuel tax, which has not been raised in 22 years even though expenditures are outpacing income and our infrastructure crumbles. There is little agreement on how to continue to fund the program.  Many proposals made, none enacted.  There is little expectation that anything substantive will happen in July.

Besides being political footballs, these two bills represent many others that impact our economy and the ability to get things done.  Acquiring weapons, raising armies and navies and training the men and women to man them takes long-range planning, long-range contracts and long-range funding.  Building roads and bridges likewise takes long-range planning and funding.  When civilian contractors cannot expect to be reliably paid, they are reluctant to take on new work.  This hampers us all.  Most politicians agree that our defense is important (perhaps the most important thing that a national government does) and that our infrastructure needs significant upgrading and maintenance.  These programs also produce jobs, jobs, jobs, of which every politician of every stripe argues we need more. Just get on with it.

Not tied to spending is the dithering over the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) that President Obama sent to Congress in February to authorize our current military action against ISIS and other terrorist organizations.  It is now ten months since we began air operations against them.  Experts predict the AUMF will never come up for a vote. The most important role of Congress is to authorize the use of force by our military under the president as Commander-in-Chief and they won’t even take it up in committee, much less bring it to the floor for a vote.  I fail to understand why.  If the president’s proposal is lacking in some way — and several argue that it is — then fix it!  Pass your own legislation to authorize military force against ISIS and other terrorists.  Many (all?) of the fifteen or so (I lose track) Republicans running for president are critical of our current policies.  Four of them are Senators.  Bring up some legislation to get things moving.  To be fair, there is resistance on both sides of the aisle. Some Democrats complain that the proposal is too expansive and can get us involved in another Middle East war.  Some Republicans complain that the proposal is too restrictive and may preclude other courses of action should new developments occur. Okay — but I don’t see how doing nothing at all is productive. What it does do is allow the president to continue his current course of action — a good thing if one supports his policy.  Not so good if you don’t.  But the bottom line is the same either way — the Congress is abdicating its most important responsibility and has no immediate plan to do anything about it.

All I see is poor leadership.  All the way around.  Unfortunately, it is business as usual.