The most fascinating thing for me is the level of US / western cope: so many commentators simply cannot believe that Iran will win. My guess is that ultimately the narratives will blame Trump personally. This is just as he is blamed for the continued descent of the US political system. It avoids the need for difficult soul searching.
But, the underlying issues are structural; as they are for the rest of the West. Trump is accelerating most of the bad trends such as short termism, personal grift, authoritarianism, symbolism and spin. He is not the root cause though, more a symptom. The next administration will not be a reversion to some mythical “normality”. It will be another step on the way.
As others have pointed out, most Americans do not, and likely will not, recognize that we are not the most powerful military on the planet, at least not until it becomes undeniable when we get our asses handed to us on a platter.
The scary part is when that happens, what our reaction will be. I cannot believe that the US will accept this fact without throwing a tantrum and will likely respond by throwing nukes around.
I believe that the Chinese and the Russians know this as well. I read often how they should be more forceful in their resistance to the US, and the fact that they are not doing this is offered as proof that they are weak and scared of us.
I think they're being intentionally cautious so as to avoid the above outcome, which I think is the wise course. Our economic, political, and military systems are all crashing. The best outcome for everyone on the planet is that we slowly implode due to our own incompetence instead of being backed into a corner and bringing the house down around us.
I think the thrust of this essay has been misunderstood for a long time.
First, nobody (including influential political and military leaders in the West but also media types and think tankers) could get their head around the idea that the West was not all powerful. Despite a fair bit of evidence.
Second, even when lessons were learnt in real time (mainly in Ukraine but also Vietnam, Afghanistan etc) with evidence that new technology and doctrine had proved the first idea, nobody wanted to accept the facts.
This shows that the technological lessons in this essay are true. But also that ideas, imagination and mental dexterity are just as important as technique. Aurelian has also emphasised this as well as many other thinkers.
Michael Hudson constantly says that the lack of a different idea of economic organisation is an important factor in maintaining neo liberal thinking. That’s why University Economic Departments were purged of all but Hayekian disciples in the 70s in Chile, for example.
If you cannot imagine an alternative, there will not be one.
The easy domination of Western powers has led to complacency, not only in industrial policy but in doctrine.
That is a classic text book example of hubris in action I think. You end up getting whipped by the vassals. This is not the first time that has happened.
Well, my Feral friend it does not surprise me that you think that.
I do too, sort of. But thinking about it, Iran may even be able to survive that - At least it’s command structure. While Israel can be destroyed utterly by even an Iranian conventional response if they take the gloves off.
And that doesn’t even consider the total pariah status that nuclear use would bring.
The Samson option sounds like a strong response until you consider what would happen afterwards.
Excellent perspective. The changing nature of warfare has been discussed for decades and now here we are; a new paradigm emerges. The Iranians have proven with mass produced low cost technologies that they can go head to head against the Empire's tactical stand-off warfare. I wonder whether this is understood in Washington to a sufficient degree? I sincerely hope so. Looking strategically, Hormuz and the attack on the petrodollar has been very well played by Iran. Secondarily, the US bases in the Gulf have been turned into a liability. Finally the Gulf monarchies have been punished and are in an extremely vulnerable position thanks their allies short-sightedness. Difficult days ahead for us all by the look of it.
Difficult days ahead for the knot-heads in DC for sure, but far better days ahead for the rest of us. This Iran conflict has been a long time coming but it was totally necessary to dramatically demonstrate the Empire's utter impotence. In that sense, as much as I hate Trump and everything he represents, he's nothing less than an angel sent to earth to break the spell of US Judeo-Christian Zionist dominance. No irony whatsoever that it took certifiable mad man for the world and the remaining rational actors in the US to see it, but there ya go. We're finally taking a hard look in the mirror and seeing what a grotesque monster we've become and the reaction is sobering. Yes, the piper must be paid for all we've said and done already, especially in the aftermath of 9-11 (which will hopefully be fully examined again now too), but maybe, just maybe, we can at least stop digging our current hole any deeper in the coming years.
This is an excellent article. I went to the US Naval War College and studied strategy. Aureilen gets it. While I largely agree with his conclusions about American incoherence , it remains possible that a US ground force can secure the Strait of Hormuz. This is a tactical-operational action and the US military is still capable. This outcome will become the defacto ‘strategic victory’ and it would establish a period of US power. However, the costs of keeping the strait controlled by a perpetual presence of tens of thousands of ground troops is not affordable unless the US collects a toll on shipping. Even then, I doubt the cost would return a positive net benefit. But we should give military power its due. It can impose new realities. I am thinking that the WW2 Germans took Europe even without a strategic concept because their military was superior. If they had not invaded Russia, the Germans may have remained in control of Europe for a very long time. In this opinion, I am a heretic. It’s a touchstone of strategic education that a superior strategy will overcome tactical power wielded without coherent strategy. That means my conclusion must be wrong! Trump is approaching a “double-down or back down” moment regarding troops. As an autocrat, he’s likely to value appearing strong and unlikely to value the opinion of experts (which is why we are in this war in the first place). We will see what American ground forces can do. One last note, time is on Iran’s side. The global economy creaks. Wall Street and the bond market are fragile. Trump must win quickly or he cannot win at all. A quick win is only possible if Iranian forces in the SOH collapse. Unlikely but possible. There’s really only one major highway connecting Iran to the SOH. It can be interdicted. On these opportunities, catastrophe or victory can be seen. Depends on whose eyes are doing the looking.
1. The US and Israeli goal in Iran is in fact quite plain. The goal ever always only was to turn Iran into a failed state on any pretext, much like what was done to Iraq, Libya and Syria.
Needless to say, this could not be said out loud, hence the self-serving bullshit about nuclear weapons, protesters, women's rights and so forth.
2. International law is simply victor's justice.
3. The Gulfie tyrants will not change their ways as long as their slush funds remain in western banks, as long as they own western trophy properties and western investments, all of which are liable to be seized, should the Gulfies fail to obey orders. "For where a man's treasure is, there his heart is."
I agree. There should be no “confusion about aims” or whether this is a “war” — the “goal” is quite plain to see. The near-term goal is the physical obliteration of the Islamic Republic of Iran through the overwhelming application of high explosives. The model is Raqqa, Aleppo, and Gaza. The ultimate goal is to eliminate the only credible threat to the total liquidation of the Palestinian people and the permanent occupation of their former homeland by settlers.
The open question is whether Israel and the U.S. possess sufficient delivery systems and high explosive projectiles to reduce to dust a nation of the size and population of Iran. My concern is that, for different reasons, the Israeli and American leaders are delusional about their capabilities and the ability of the Iranians to resist.
There is a disconnect in western thinking that fails to take into account Shi’a Islamic legal proscriptions against wars of aggression. The Iranians appear to have limited themselves to acting defensively, which I fear has led to the underestimation of their ability to retaliate. There may also be an element of Mutual Assured Destruction in play Iranian strategic thinking, as well as the rationing of their own high explosive capabilities.
I have to agree that current international law appears to have been crafted in such a way that there is no enforcement mechanism should the WW2 victors choose to violate it. Also agree that the Gulf princelings will cling to their western investments since they do not rule national entities as such.
The “wild card” is Pakistan. At some point the pervasively corrupt military leadership of that country might be shamed by a popular uprising into retaliating on behalf of their Iranian brothers. I still suspect that the 12-day missile war was related to India-Pakistan in Kashmir and Pakistan seeking a safe haven for some of their warheads in Iran.
Plan A was regime change (and maybe introduction of Shah or sbd else) that would serve USrael. They stated it plainly and Trump was actually spinning the current quagmire into a win, with the reference how there was a regime change, actually. Not the one they wanted, though. lmao
Also Levitt or whatever she is, said that US already won. It is just Iran that does not get it yet.
Of course, they will try to turn Iran into Libya or sth, but this time, at least for Israelis, there will be a payback time. Americans might have some mental breakdown with few body bags. After all one American is more precious than all of us are. Just priceless. But how many of the Americans really care or follow what is happening in Iran? And for how long would this attention span last?
For the gulfies, I would say it is more important to stay in power, because there is always a step-brother or a cousin in the wings waiting for an opportunity to take over. Which could literally mean the difference between life, prison or maybe even death. If all the infrastructure remained intact, they could have easily recuperated their slush funds in USA. If they wanted to move away from USA, of course. The most important aspect, for the ruling figures, is to have US cover their backs. But having US presence in your country, these ruling figures cannot go rogue on US. lmao
Agree on 1 and 3, mostly, but disagree on 2. UN international law was supposed to be established precisely to avoid what you say. And, to respond to Aurelien’s remarks on this point, you can call it whatever you want, but the US and Israeli attack on Iran is legally qualified as an act of aggression under art. 39 of the UN Charter. The fact that the Security Council can’t do anything about it due to the veto doesn’t change the reality. I believe that we cannot give up on international law just yet.
By the way, excellent essay, Aurelien, you gave me a lot to think about, thank you!
"UN international law was supposed to be established precisely to avoid what you say."
Mostly "UN international law" was honored with lip service. Otherwise, every American president going back to Truman would be in the dock at Nuremberg.
The reason that the Security Council cannot do anything is entirely intentional. Because nobody wanted to be obligated to face down the USSR or USA.
Excellent reasoned analysis as usual. Both currently active conflicts in Ukraine and Iran, have completely reshaped the modern battlefield space. I recently saw a comment that stated that the modern US military is built for spectacle but not resilience. Shock and awe, but unable to sustain long term engagement against asymmetric resistance. I don’t know the validity of this claim, but Iran will be the test of that theory.
From a pure platform perspective, both the Ukraine and Iran wars are putting a real point on cost/benefit analysis of multimillion dollar missile interceptors being overwhelmed by cheap drone swarms ahead of high energy missile strike waves. With the low replenishment rate of these weapons vs the quick fabrication rate of the drones, hard choices have to be made ultimately, by defending commanders, on what to save and what to let go.
Ultimately, however this ends, we are witnessing the death of the current global systems, and the emergence of something new. What this eventually settles into is up for grabs, with multiple regional forces vying for control. I look forward to your continuing insights on the future as it unfolds.
There is a cosmic glint in the way the pesky Chinese are "weaponizing rare earths", i.e. declining to sell us certain minerals without which it is impossible to make advanced weapons to point at them. I understand that refining these metals at home is virtually impossible without loosening Western environmental standards, which no sane person wants. It is a facile example of the point already covered by Aurelien's reference to a hard limit on military production. If, owing to its heavy reliance on advanced platforms for projecting power far from home, USA ceases to be a great military power, does the USA still make sense, or will individual states secede, as the member states of the Austro-Hungarian empire did in 1918?
Will individual states secede? In my opinion that would be a very good outcome, both for the world and for (at least some of) the States concerned. Possibly if the US Federal government lost all credibility as an effective ruling entity, that would suffice to tip some of them over. Maybe some US based commenters could opine? I believe that currently there are movements in Texas and California, but they don't seem very effectual so far.
Can’t really imagine a scenario where Gavin Newsom (a standard issue Machine Democrat) might steer California away from the federal system—particularly when you consider that there are currently 76 active military installations up and down the state—which, excepting the National and Air National Guard are directly under the authority of the Commander and Chief. Of these, 38 are naval bases while the other 30 represent the other branches, along with the Reserves (5 bases). So, unless there are wholesale mutinies…
Meanwhile, Texas secessionists partake of their own deep-fried origin myths, adding a unique favouring to their world outlook.
Whole heartedly agree. I visit several blogs where the commentary overwhelmingly agree as well. I think the collapse of the dollar will be the final death blow to DC hegemony. It's the only thing holding things together out west here now, where contempt for the Feds (other than those whose paychecks depend on it at least) is pretty much universal.
Really useful analysis. I just have the impression that the last word on drone warfare hasn't been spoken, and that there is a vast potential for creative inventions for anti-drone defenses.
"The Fuhrer Directives were generally negotiated between interested parties in the light of Hitler’s known opinions, and then presented to him for approval or modification."
----------
The more things change, the more they stay the same? Donald Trump is dyslexic/ADHD and according to those who know him, most definitely does not read books or technical presentations by choice.
Meaning whoever got the Fuhrer's attention last with the best verbal presentation effectively decided policy, much as is presently the case with Trump & his closest advisors/donors/Epstein club compradores
Trump isn't playing 5 dimensional chess. He's playing with 5 + different people yelling his next move in his ear alternately while doing the odd bit of Adderall & Xanax (much as Hitler was making life & death choices while doing Pervitin, Cocaine and a selection of other "prescription" pharmaceuticals).
You never mention public good as opposed to profit. The United States founding fathers had a concept they called Natural Law. The idea was that human beings, given the actual facts, have an internal mental ability arrive at a correct decision. Our jury system is about the only thing we have left of this concept. Twelve people in a room with actual facts can arrive at a twelve person public opinion based decision. The ability of human beings to do this is the basis of our democracy where sovereignty is extended to the individual. Our democracy is about implementing public opinion. Public opinion will always be about the public good as opposed to profit for the individual. The United States has traded public opinion for profit. Profit created the mess you describe. Our once brilliant idea of democracy is gone.
I'm currently reading "1876" by Gore Vidal. Have read lots of his books, great reads mostly.
I read this passage this afternoon, and I think it aptly describes what America is and has always been.
" ... this vigorous, ugly, turbulent realm devoted to moneymaking by any means. Certainly, if true justice were meted out to one and all impartially, most of the congressmen would be in prison while Mrs. Astor's parties would be decimated at the very least."
Corruption and bullshit, from day one! I'm amazed it has lasted this long!
"Our democracy is about implementing public opinion"
----------
Our "democracy" is presently window dressing. "Public opinion" is merely something to be sculpted (or outright manufactured) as needed, this is done via entire industries using well trained & amoral professionals- And has been for over a century now.
There are those at the apex of global political and financial systems, who are more than fine with global chaos as a perfect strategy for fun and profit; making the concept of Necropolitics, as described by Achille Mbembe, most useful to this ruling class mind set.
Excellent article. Thank you.
The most fascinating thing for me is the level of US / western cope: so many commentators simply cannot believe that Iran will win. My guess is that ultimately the narratives will blame Trump personally. This is just as he is blamed for the continued descent of the US political system. It avoids the need for difficult soul searching.
But, the underlying issues are structural; as they are for the rest of the West. Trump is accelerating most of the bad trends such as short termism, personal grift, authoritarianism, symbolism and spin. He is not the root cause though, more a symptom. The next administration will not be a reversion to some mythical “normality”. It will be another step on the way.
"another step on the way" - down, as I imagine a lot of us hope.
Very good essay, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
As others have pointed out, most Americans do not, and likely will not, recognize that we are not the most powerful military on the planet, at least not until it becomes undeniable when we get our asses handed to us on a platter.
The scary part is when that happens, what our reaction will be. I cannot believe that the US will accept this fact without throwing a tantrum and will likely respond by throwing nukes around.
I believe that the Chinese and the Russians know this as well. I read often how they should be more forceful in their resistance to the US, and the fact that they are not doing this is offered as proof that they are weak and scared of us.
I think they're being intentionally cautious so as to avoid the above outcome, which I think is the wise course. Our economic, political, and military systems are all crashing. The best outcome for everyone on the planet is that we slowly implode due to our own incompetence instead of being backed into a corner and bringing the house down around us.
Agree with the previous commenters.
I think the thrust of this essay has been misunderstood for a long time.
First, nobody (including influential political and military leaders in the West but also media types and think tankers) could get their head around the idea that the West was not all powerful. Despite a fair bit of evidence.
Second, even when lessons were learnt in real time (mainly in Ukraine but also Vietnam, Afghanistan etc) with evidence that new technology and doctrine had proved the first idea, nobody wanted to accept the facts.
This shows that the technological lessons in this essay are true. But also that ideas, imagination and mental dexterity are just as important as technique. Aurelian has also emphasised this as well as many other thinkers.
Michael Hudson constantly says that the lack of a different idea of economic organisation is an important factor in maintaining neo liberal thinking. That’s why University Economic Departments were purged of all but Hayekian disciples in the 70s in Chile, for example.
If you cannot imagine an alternative, there will not be one.
The easy domination of Western powers has led to complacency, not only in industrial policy but in doctrine.
That is a classic text book example of hubris in action I think. You end up getting whipped by the vassals. This is not the first time that has happened.
I suspect that the Americans and Israelis will not hesitate to go nuclear if need be.
Well, my Feral friend it does not surprise me that you think that.
I do too, sort of. But thinking about it, Iran may even be able to survive that - At least it’s command structure. While Israel can be destroyed utterly by even an Iranian conventional response if they take the gloves off.
And that doesn’t even consider the total pariah status that nuclear use would bring.
The Samson option sounds like a strong response until you consider what would happen afterwards.
I believe and hope that you are right. But let's also spare a thought for those 'innocents' who are caught up in this hell.
Excellent perspective. The changing nature of warfare has been discussed for decades and now here we are; a new paradigm emerges. The Iranians have proven with mass produced low cost technologies that they can go head to head against the Empire's tactical stand-off warfare. I wonder whether this is understood in Washington to a sufficient degree? I sincerely hope so. Looking strategically, Hormuz and the attack on the petrodollar has been very well played by Iran. Secondarily, the US bases in the Gulf have been turned into a liability. Finally the Gulf monarchies have been punished and are in an extremely vulnerable position thanks their allies short-sightedness. Difficult days ahead for us all by the look of it.
Difficult days ahead for the knot-heads in DC for sure, but far better days ahead for the rest of us. This Iran conflict has been a long time coming but it was totally necessary to dramatically demonstrate the Empire's utter impotence. In that sense, as much as I hate Trump and everything he represents, he's nothing less than an angel sent to earth to break the spell of US Judeo-Christian Zionist dominance. No irony whatsoever that it took certifiable mad man for the world and the remaining rational actors in the US to see it, but there ya go. We're finally taking a hard look in the mirror and seeing what a grotesque monster we've become and the reaction is sobering. Yes, the piper must be paid for all we've said and done already, especially in the aftermath of 9-11 (which will hopefully be fully examined again now too), but maybe, just maybe, we can at least stop digging our current hole any deeper in the coming years.
This is an excellent article. I went to the US Naval War College and studied strategy. Aureilen gets it. While I largely agree with his conclusions about American incoherence , it remains possible that a US ground force can secure the Strait of Hormuz. This is a tactical-operational action and the US military is still capable. This outcome will become the defacto ‘strategic victory’ and it would establish a period of US power. However, the costs of keeping the strait controlled by a perpetual presence of tens of thousands of ground troops is not affordable unless the US collects a toll on shipping. Even then, I doubt the cost would return a positive net benefit. But we should give military power its due. It can impose new realities. I am thinking that the WW2 Germans took Europe even without a strategic concept because their military was superior. If they had not invaded Russia, the Germans may have remained in control of Europe for a very long time. In this opinion, I am a heretic. It’s a touchstone of strategic education that a superior strategy will overcome tactical power wielded without coherent strategy. That means my conclusion must be wrong! Trump is approaching a “double-down or back down” moment regarding troops. As an autocrat, he’s likely to value appearing strong and unlikely to value the opinion of experts (which is why we are in this war in the first place). We will see what American ground forces can do. One last note, time is on Iran’s side. The global economy creaks. Wall Street and the bond market are fragile. Trump must win quickly or he cannot win at all. A quick win is only possible if Iranian forces in the SOH collapse. Unlikely but possible. There’s really only one major highway connecting Iran to the SOH. It can be interdicted. On these opportunities, catastrophe or victory can be seen. Depends on whose eyes are doing the looking.
1. The US and Israeli goal in Iran is in fact quite plain. The goal ever always only was to turn Iran into a failed state on any pretext, much like what was done to Iraq, Libya and Syria.
Needless to say, this could not be said out loud, hence the self-serving bullshit about nuclear weapons, protesters, women's rights and so forth.
2. International law is simply victor's justice.
3. The Gulfie tyrants will not change their ways as long as their slush funds remain in western banks, as long as they own western trophy properties and western investments, all of which are liable to be seized, should the Gulfies fail to obey orders. "For where a man's treasure is, there his heart is."
I agree. There should be no “confusion about aims” or whether this is a “war” — the “goal” is quite plain to see. The near-term goal is the physical obliteration of the Islamic Republic of Iran through the overwhelming application of high explosives. The model is Raqqa, Aleppo, and Gaza. The ultimate goal is to eliminate the only credible threat to the total liquidation of the Palestinian people and the permanent occupation of their former homeland by settlers.
The open question is whether Israel and the U.S. possess sufficient delivery systems and high explosive projectiles to reduce to dust a nation of the size and population of Iran. My concern is that, for different reasons, the Israeli and American leaders are delusional about their capabilities and the ability of the Iranians to resist.
There is a disconnect in western thinking that fails to take into account Shi’a Islamic legal proscriptions against wars of aggression. The Iranians appear to have limited themselves to acting defensively, which I fear has led to the underestimation of their ability to retaliate. There may also be an element of Mutual Assured Destruction in play Iranian strategic thinking, as well as the rationing of their own high explosive capabilities.
I have to agree that current international law appears to have been crafted in such a way that there is no enforcement mechanism should the WW2 victors choose to violate it. Also agree that the Gulf princelings will cling to their western investments since they do not rule national entities as such.
The Americans and Israelis will go nuclear if they must.
The “wild card” is Pakistan. At some point the pervasively corrupt military leadership of that country might be shamed by a popular uprising into retaliating on behalf of their Iranian brothers. I still suspect that the 12-day missile war was related to India-Pakistan in Kashmir and Pakistan seeking a safe haven for some of their warheads in Iran.
They won't. The United States has many areas of leverage over Pakistan, and the Pakistani leadership don't exactly like the Shia in the first place.
Plan A was regime change (and maybe introduction of Shah or sbd else) that would serve USrael. They stated it plainly and Trump was actually spinning the current quagmire into a win, with the reference how there was a regime change, actually. Not the one they wanted, though. lmao
Also Levitt or whatever she is, said that US already won. It is just Iran that does not get it yet.
Of course, they will try to turn Iran into Libya or sth, but this time, at least for Israelis, there will be a payback time. Americans might have some mental breakdown with few body bags. After all one American is more precious than all of us are. Just priceless. But how many of the Americans really care or follow what is happening in Iran? And for how long would this attention span last?
For the gulfies, I would say it is more important to stay in power, because there is always a step-brother or a cousin in the wings waiting for an opportunity to take over. Which could literally mean the difference between life, prison or maybe even death. If all the infrastructure remained intact, they could have easily recuperated their slush funds in USA. If they wanted to move away from USA, of course. The most important aspect, for the ruling figures, is to have US cover their backs. But having US presence in your country, these ruling figures cannot go rogue on US. lmao
Regime change would not please Israel.
Anyway, if polling is to be believed, few Americans outside the Trump Cult are on board with this war.
You are correct regarding the Gulfies.
New, more "democratic" regime could proceed with the balkanization of Iran into 8-9 new statelets. "Democratically", self-determination and all.
Just like they would proceed with it in Russia, in case they manage to achieve regime change there. They missed the opportunity in 1990s.
Managed, properly by the book, disintegration.
Agree on 1 and 3, mostly, but disagree on 2. UN international law was supposed to be established precisely to avoid what you say. And, to respond to Aurelien’s remarks on this point, you can call it whatever you want, but the US and Israeli attack on Iran is legally qualified as an act of aggression under art. 39 of the UN Charter. The fact that the Security Council can’t do anything about it due to the veto doesn’t change the reality. I believe that we cannot give up on international law just yet.
By the way, excellent essay, Aurelien, you gave me a lot to think about, thank you!
"UN international law was supposed to be established precisely to avoid what you say."
Mostly "UN international law" was honored with lip service. Otherwise, every American president going back to Truman would be in the dock at Nuremberg.
The reason that the Security Council cannot do anything is entirely intentional. Because nobody wanted to be obligated to face down the USSR or USA.
Excellent reasoned analysis as usual. Both currently active conflicts in Ukraine and Iran, have completely reshaped the modern battlefield space. I recently saw a comment that stated that the modern US military is built for spectacle but not resilience. Shock and awe, but unable to sustain long term engagement against asymmetric resistance. I don’t know the validity of this claim, but Iran will be the test of that theory.
From a pure platform perspective, both the Ukraine and Iran wars are putting a real point on cost/benefit analysis of multimillion dollar missile interceptors being overwhelmed by cheap drone swarms ahead of high energy missile strike waves. With the low replenishment rate of these weapons vs the quick fabrication rate of the drones, hard choices have to be made ultimately, by defending commanders, on what to save and what to let go.
Ultimately, however this ends, we are witnessing the death of the current global systems, and the emergence of something new. What this eventually settles into is up for grabs, with multiple regional forces vying for control. I look forward to your continuing insights on the future as it unfolds.
There is a cosmic glint in the way the pesky Chinese are "weaponizing rare earths", i.e. declining to sell us certain minerals without which it is impossible to make advanced weapons to point at them. I understand that refining these metals at home is virtually impossible without loosening Western environmental standards, which no sane person wants. It is a facile example of the point already covered by Aurelien's reference to a hard limit on military production. If, owing to its heavy reliance on advanced platforms for projecting power far from home, USA ceases to be a great military power, does the USA still make sense, or will individual states secede, as the member states of the Austro-Hungarian empire did in 1918?
Will individual states secede? In my opinion that would be a very good outcome, both for the world and for (at least some of) the States concerned. Possibly if the US Federal government lost all credibility as an effective ruling entity, that would suffice to tip some of them over. Maybe some US based commenters could opine? I believe that currently there are movements in Texas and California, but they don't seem very effectual so far.
Can’t really imagine a scenario where Gavin Newsom (a standard issue Machine Democrat) might steer California away from the federal system—particularly when you consider that there are currently 76 active military installations up and down the state—which, excepting the National and Air National Guard are directly under the authority of the Commander and Chief. Of these, 38 are naval bases while the other 30 represent the other branches, along with the Reserves (5 bases). So, unless there are wholesale mutinies…
Meanwhile, Texas secessionists partake of their own deep-fried origin myths, adding a unique favouring to their world outlook.
Whole heartedly agree. I visit several blogs where the commentary overwhelmingly agree as well. I think the collapse of the dollar will be the final death blow to DC hegemony. It's the only thing holding things together out west here now, where contempt for the Feds (other than those whose paychecks depend on it at least) is pretty much universal.
Individual states will not secede for as long as the local elites believe that the United States is more valuable as a going concern.
Thank you for making sense of this moment. You analysis is spot on.
The "plan" was to maximize profit for defense contractors. Platforms were designed for showroom floors. Projectiles were overpriced.
The idea was that the threat of these would make cowards of opponents. That idea is no longer viable.
Really useful analysis. I just have the impression that the last word on drone warfare hasn't been spoken, and that there is a vast potential for creative inventions for anti-drone defenses.
A very good analysis - thank you for sharing it. LF
(Quote)
"The Fuhrer Directives were generally negotiated between interested parties in the light of Hitler’s known opinions, and then presented to him for approval or modification."
----------
The more things change, the more they stay the same? Donald Trump is dyslexic/ADHD and according to those who know him, most definitely does not read books or technical presentations by choice.
Meaning whoever got the Fuhrer's attention last with the best verbal presentation effectively decided policy, much as is presently the case with Trump & his closest advisors/donors/Epstein club compradores
Trump isn't playing 5 dimensional chess. He's playing with 5 + different people yelling his next move in his ear alternately while doing the odd bit of Adderall & Xanax (much as Hitler was making life & death choices while doing Pervitin, Cocaine and a selection of other "prescription" pharmaceuticals).
You never mention public good as opposed to profit. The United States founding fathers had a concept they called Natural Law. The idea was that human beings, given the actual facts, have an internal mental ability arrive at a correct decision. Our jury system is about the only thing we have left of this concept. Twelve people in a room with actual facts can arrive at a twelve person public opinion based decision. The ability of human beings to do this is the basis of our democracy where sovereignty is extended to the individual. Our democracy is about implementing public opinion. Public opinion will always be about the public good as opposed to profit for the individual. The United States has traded public opinion for profit. Profit created the mess you describe. Our once brilliant idea of democracy is gone.
Alayna
It should be obvious by now that we are ruled over by full-blown Game Of Thrones sociopaths.
I'm currently reading "1876" by Gore Vidal. Have read lots of his books, great reads mostly.
I read this passage this afternoon, and I think it aptly describes what America is and has always been.
" ... this vigorous, ugly, turbulent realm devoted to moneymaking by any means. Certainly, if true justice were meted out to one and all impartially, most of the congressmen would be in prison while Mrs. Astor's parties would be decimated at the very least."
Corruption and bullshit, from day one! I'm amazed it has lasted this long!
@Alayna
"Our democracy is about implementing public opinion"
----------
Our "democracy" is presently window dressing. "Public opinion" is merely something to be sculpted (or outright manufactured) as needed, this is done via entire industries using well trained & amoral professionals- And has been for over a century now.
There are those at the apex of global political and financial systems, who are more than fine with global chaos as a perfect strategy for fun and profit; making the concept of Necropolitics, as described by Achille Mbembe, most useful to this ruling class mind set.
For the interested, a link, as always, is provided: https://criticallegalthinking.com/2020/03/02/achille-mbembe-necropolitics/
And lest anyone forget, the USA is now a full-on banana republic, with more nukes than god.