#military affairs | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

BuzzFeed published a report claiming that Tumblr was utilized as a distribution channel for Russian agents to influence American voting habits during the 2016 presidential election in Feb 2018.

reportwire · 1 year

Text

Hawaii remembrance to draw handful of Pearl Harbor survivors

PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii — A handful of centenarian survivors of the attack on Pearl Harbor are expected to gather at the scene of the Japanese bombing on Wednesday to commemorate those who perished 81 years ago. That’s fewer than in recent years, when a dozen or more traveled to Hawaii from across the country to pay their respects at the annual remembrance ceremony. Part of the decline reflects the…

View On WordPress

#Attack on Pearl Harbor #Bombings #General news #Government and politics #H #Military affairs #Military and defense #U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs #u.s. navy #United States government #United States military #Veterans #Veterans affairs #World War II

0 notes

compacflt · 4 months

Note

Would you ever consider writing about a different path Ice and Mav could take, one where they choose to leave the Navy and pursue a more open relationship and civilian life? Thinking it would be easier but maybe the sacrifice to their careers brings its own challenges?

(hi, jan 2024 me here, this was an ask that I answered when it was sent in in May 2023 & didn't post because I felt I actually answered it fictionally in the "icedad" one-shot the week after [and you can obviously see how these thoughts affected the writing of other pieces like "tremors & aftershocks"], but I still mostly agree with this take [though it's a little overgeneralizing] & I think it sums up a lot of my final "meta" modern-military-theory thoughts on ice & mav & their relationship, so im posting it now before I post the compacflt masterpoast)

see,… the thing is, i just… can’t see that happening!! i have no idea how to write that!!! Maybe i really do have a lack of imagination. But i can’t see that happening for a number of reasons. So short answer, no.

Long answer (and it’s long):

1. lame reason to start out, but it, uh, it’s canon that ice ends up at O-10 and mav ends up at O-6. not saying that im beholden to canon obviously (my mav ends up at O-7 and my ice ends up alive) but I do base my characterizations of them on the implications of the political struggles of both their careers so… taking away ice’s fourth star is basically starting from square one wrt my characterization of him. which is a lot of work. i could start from the beginning with a top gun 1986 ice who knows he’s gay—that would be a fun AU (i think other people than me have definitely done that better, though—I’m a one-trick pony). So if that’s what you mean then disregard the rest of this post. but if what you mean is a divergence from my existing work (i.e. homophobic/rank-climbing ice&mav) then… yeah, can’t see that happening, for further reasons below.

2. wrt my characterization of him: it’s based on a broad historical overview of armed service officers and the expectations of their careers. in my view, high-ranking officers aren’t after power—or maybe they started their careers wanting power, but somewhere down the line, it just becomes an expectation. if you do everything right and follow all the rules, you are expected by the institution to lead, whether you want to or not. That’s just the pipeline. at some point you start losing agency. which is what I mean when I keep saying ice doesn’t have a choice in advancing his career (besides the meta fact that this is fanfiction and canon demands that he have 4 stars lol)—high ranking military officers are continually and continually groomed for bigger and better positions; and the longer they spend in the military, the harder it is to leave that lifestyle for something else. And with ice’s canonical (and characteristically INTEGRAL, as I mentioned a week or so ago) refusal to rebel against the wishes of the navy as an institution, plus this historical expectation to lead placed upon the shoulders of excelling officers, I really do think ice is destined for four stars & nothing less, even if it gives him chronic depression. It’s his highest priority not because he wants it to be, but because…it just is. that’s how the institutionalized system of advancement in the military works. it just is. it has to be.

3. I mentioned in this post that I can’t ever see a foot in the door with them talking about their relationship unless maverick dies and is resurrected, and I feel the exact same way about them & their retirement plans. There’s a lot that ice and mav don’t talk about: the biggest one is obviously Goose’s death, the foundation of their relationship; but also their love for each other obv, what they did to rooster, AND their careers, which have to end at some point. Them talking about everything is totally inevitable, it was gonna have to happen eventually before they died, and I think one foot in the door MIGHT have been them eventually talking about retirement (someone sent in a prompt asking for this exactly & i am brainstorming it furiously) but before the Navy FORCES them to retire… i think they would studiously avoid talking about it. For a couple reasons: a) what does retiring with each other mean? living in the same house until they die together? hard to do if you’re just good friends. talking about retirement is tantamount to talking about Them. and b) what are they gonna do outside the navy? Ice has a lot of options, as I mentioned in the slider one-shot—general/flag officers are SUPER sought after in leadership/intelligentsia/management positions post service, so maybe if he were offered a crazy cool civilian position somewhere in San Diego in like the 2000s he would quit the navy for it… but what about maverick? I have no idea what a non-navy mav would do. Civilian airline pilot? Hoo boy. I think he’d hate that. I could maybe see emergency helicopter pilot, lol, or race car driver (i just watched days of thunder can you tell?) but none of the above offers the institutionalized honor the navy does (that, as a reminder, he *killed people* to obtain in the first place). I suggested his test piloting expertise would make him an attractive technical advising candidate to A&D companies like Boeing, LockMart, GD, etc. so that might be one option. But it might have been kind of a touchy subject for him before he racked up the expertise he’d need for those high-level civilian positions… the navy was kinda his only option. So they wouldn’t talk about it because it might hurt his feelings.

4. The biggest reason: again… open rebellion like rocking the boat by quitting the navy to be in an open long-term gay relationship, in upper mil brass ranks, and even retired upper mil brass ranks, just… isn’t done. And REALLY wasn’t done in the 2000s, when i think the scenario in this ask is positioned. And it’s not like “oh but whatever who cares about the navy, ice and mav are in love, they deserve to be happy no matter what, they should do what they want, fuck the navy…” no. Ice and Mav care about the navy. Clearly. Canonically. By necessity. The military requires cohesion and on some level repression of individuality & personal expression to FUNCTION, even when you’re retired. Yes, maverick certainly strains against that repression (which is why you Could spin top gun as an anti-military franchise if you were desperate enough), but he rebels through his ACTIONS (stupid plane maneuvers) not through his personal IDENTITY. his personal identity (headstrong overtly masculine white male pilot, whether gay or straight who cares) is NEVER challenged throughout the franchise (i.e. no one really challenges his masculinity specifically) & his personal identity does not POSE a challenge to the navy. Both he and ice in their outward-facing personal identities really fit in quite neatly to the navy’s overarching identity & contribute to the navy’s cohesion in a way that is favorable to both their careers and the establishment. Lack of imagination or not… i can’t see a universe in which Ice and mav would actively WANT to rock the boat and wreck the navy’s cohesion and their reputations for an open relationship and definitively rebellious personal identities, with the obvious caveat being Maverick’s death recontextualizing both their priorities (yes we’re in love AND we’ve finally proven ourselves to be ultra-capable officers regardless of our sexuality so no one has a license to judge us anymore etc.).

And also, they’re not enlisted seamen. Nor are they mediocre officers who have the luxury of fading into obscurity. Things are different when you’re that high in the ranks, and when your job publicly matters more. sorry, but even post DADT (probably until about biden’s election), an open relationship would end their careers. They might not be fired, but they’d never be promoted again. Too much of a liability getting subordinates to still respect them, from the higher-ups’ perspective, especially if there are other qualified candidates who fit the navy’s core identity better. Like—sorry. This is such a jaded oversimplification. But if you rock the boat like that (i.e. break the service’s united front to be individualistic in a way that does not match the service’s overarching identity), from the perspective of your officer peers, you simply are a bad officer. Being an open individual in a job where you are required to fit in and represent your service is not your job. You are not doing your job well. Straight-up. Even if you’re retired. I met US Army 4-star gen. David Petraeus (retired obv) in February—he led the successful-ish surge in iraq and Afghanistan in the mid-2000s—and he’s STILL a laughingstock for his disastrous affair with his biographer a decade ago, even after he retired from AD service. That’s what people remember him for, not the fact that he was one of our only successful commanders in any of our Middle East campaigns.

Something like that might be one of ice and mav’s worst fears—being known for their affair/scandal instead of the institutionalized honor they’ve fought and killed for. That kind of thing just Isn’t Done. It's bad taste. You have to keep it quiet. If you’re an officer representing the service, you have to represent it well & according to the service’s preconceived identity, even in retirement. (see, for another shitty example of "not fitting in" even in retirement, Lt. gen. Mike Flynn [his whole scandal is actually kinda geopolitically relevant to my fic if you squint lol] whom everyone fucking hates)

To summarize: i hope I’m not mischaracterizing your ask when i reframe it like this—would you ever write ice and mav without the institutionalized pressure to advance in rank and conform to institutional norms?

and yes, I would (and will if you ask—it looks like this: ice & mav meet & fall in love & it’s boring and fine. end of story), but I guarantee you someone else already has. I’m all about interrogation of institutional norms here. And i think until maverick dies & comes back from the dead, there is absolutely no *REALISTIC* incentive for ice & mav to leave the navy and/or have an open relationship. Like it’s just not possible. Idk how else to say it.

#which is like the whole point of my fic right. this is exactly what im trying to say with the story as a whole #these are flawed institutions stuck in their ways and ice as an officer REPRESENTS that flawed institution stuck in its ways #until real life (maverick dying) gets in the way and makes him reevaluate his priorities #and the truth is—his 1st priority (loving maverick) is absolutely incompatible with his 2nd priority (advancing his naval career)#for the reasons listed above #so he quits!#but just because he quits doesn’t mean he doesn’t still represent the navy! that’s the curse of officership #per the slider oneshot: You can’t ever retire once you get any stars.#unfortunately in a realistic world Ice really DOES owe the navy his discretion. that’s how it works.#tom iceman kazansky #pete maverick mitchell #top gun #top gun maverick #icemav #asks #edts notes #the thing with petraeus though is that his affair was notable bc he leaked a bunch of classified info to her #so not the best example but it was still cool (in like a oh you’re a historical figure sense) to meet him so I’m bragging abt it #(see tweet I just added)#additionally: the military is changing! in this universe it would be young upstart officers like rooster/hangman who contribute #to the liberalization of military officer culture!#but that kind of change Is Not happening in the 50s-60s cadre of upper level officers. At all. Ice included.#anon let me know if this wasn’t what you meant in your ask.#& feel free to disagree/argue with me this is just my view #lol the DOD just banned drag shows in the military #^ these tags are 7 months old now

36 notes · View notes

workersolidarity · 6 months

Text

🇺🇸🚨 UNITED STATES MARINE COMMANDER GENERAL ERIC SMITH HOSPITALIZED AS A RESULT OF A MEDICAL EMERGENCY

In a statement by the United States Marine Corps. the Commandant of the US Marines, Eric Smith was hospitalized Wednesday for a medical emergency.

"Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Eric M. Smith experienced a medical emergency on the evening of Oct. 29, 2023, and has been hospitalized," the statement reads.

No reason was given for the hospitalization in the statement from the US Marine Corps. on the incident.

According to the statement, US Marine Corps. Lt. Gen. Karsten Heckl has assumed the duties of the hospitalized Commandant.

The statement said, "due to the vacancy in the Office of the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 8044, the most senior officer of the Marine Corps in the Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Lt. Gen. Karsten Heckl, is performing the duties of the Commandant."

A second statement from Lt. Gen. Karsten Heckl says the Lt. General has assumed the duties of the Commandant as he recovers from his medical emergency and offers her thoughts and prayers to the family.

The statement goes on to say, "In typical Marine fashion, I am the next Marine up. This is what we do, as so many have done before us throughout the history of our Corps. We must continue the march forward on behalf of our fellow Marines and Nation, regardless of the situation or the uncertainty that we may face. That is what our Commandant wants, and what the citizens of our Nation require of each and every one of us."

"All orders remain in effect as we await General Smith’s recovery. Stay the course," the statement finishes.

According to the statement, more updates will follow.

#source1

#source2

@WorkerSolidarityNews

47 notes · View notes

krimsonrose · 1 year

Text

Azula, Ty Lee and Mai are Zuko’s three royal advisors. It puts the fire foursome together with the dangerous ladies as the people watching over Zuko’s rule. As in the three women who would want to see him succeed; besides his mom.

#ty lee needs to do something more then being a kyoshi warrior #azula would know the most about politics #and we know how protective mai is of zuko #azula; military affairs; ty lee: worldly affairs; mai: spymaster #fire foursome #dangerous ladies #ozai's angels #azula #ty lee #mai #zuko #atla #avatar: the last airbender #atla headcanons #my stuff

162 notes · View notes

clove-pinks · 8 months

Text

USS Constitution vs. HMS Guerriere by Michel Felice Corne (1752-1845). The two ships fought 211 years ago today on 19 August, 1812.

Constitution defeated Guerriere, but the American ship was also a much larger and more powerful 'superfrigate.'

An illustration showing the relative sizes of USS Constitution (top) and HMS Guerriere (bottom) by Florian Richter for Revenge in the Name of Honour: The Royal Navy's Quest for Honour and Vengeance in the Single Ship Actions of the War of 1812 by Nicholas James Kaizer.

Royal Navy frigate captains were warned not to challenge the enemy's heavy frigates alone, or "attempt to engage, single handed, the larger Class of American Ships, which through they may be called Frigates, are of a size, Complement, and weight of Metal much beyond that Class, and more resembling Line of Battle Ships."

The slogan Not the Little Belt on Guerriere's sails refers to an 1811 incident where the British sloop-of-war Little Belt was harrassed by the much larger frigate USS President in an hour-long naval battle that badly damaged the small sloop.

#war of 1812 #uss constitution #hms guerriere #age of sail #naval history #military history #naval battle #royal navy #us navy #little belt affair #maritime history #the sea #1810s #age of fighting sail

45 notes · View notes

lesbiansloveseokjin · 2 months

Text

day 68/548 of namjoon's military service

this selca was posted on 140203, with the caption:

I wore a Kangool hat to hide my hair, I worked hard.

(trans cr: Iraide @ bts-trans)

the Skool Luv Affair concept trailer was posted that day:

youtube

#namjoon #taejoon #140203 #rm military countdown #skool luv affair #Youtube

15 notes · View notes

lilafeuer · 1 year

Photo

Noriyoshi Ohrai

#blue #red #military #soldier #skeleton #m16 #war #military affairs #japanese art #noriyoshi ohrai #art

9 notes · View notes

reportwire · 1 year

Text

Body of Israeli teen, taken by militants, is returned

JERUSALEM — The body of an Israeli teen that was taken by Palestinian militants from a West Bank hospital was returned to his family on Thursday, the Israeli military said. Relatives of Tiran Fero, 17, said Palestinian militants in the occupied West Bank city of Jenin entered the hospital where Fero was seeking treatment after a car crash. They disconnected him from hospital equipment while still…

View On WordPress

#accidents #Accidents and disasters #Automotive accidents #General news #Government and politics #Israel government #Israeli armed #Military affairs #Military and defense #Military facilities #Military healthcare #Transportation #Transportation accidents

0 notes

politijohn · 1 year

Text

Source

US warmongering, with special guest: Israel

#politics #us politics #world affairs #Israel #Iran #Middle East #current events #news #important #military industrial complex

399 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 2 years

Text

The House of Representatives passed a bill to establish an Office of Food Security at the Department of Veterans Affairs, with 49 Republicans voting against the proposal.

The Food Security for All Veterans Act was passed by a 376-49 vote, sending the bill to the Senate for approval.

The legislation, introduced by Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola, aims to establish a department to assist veterans facing food insecurity and lack of nutrition, such as providing them with information about food stamps and other programs.

Speaking on the House floor to advocate for what was her fist bill, Peltola said Alaska's high veteran population motivated her to push for the introduction of the department.

"There is nothing more important than ensuring our veterans and their families can enjoy a safe and healthy life after their service to our country," Peltola said.

The bill received overwhelming bipartisan support, with 49 Republicans being the only lawmakers who voted against the introduction of an Office of Food Security at the Department of Veterans Affairs, some of whom are military veterans themselves.

FULL LIST OF REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED AGAINST OFFICE OF FOOD SECURITY FOR VETERANS

Rick Allen, GA

Jodey Arrington, TX

Jim Baird, IN

Dan Bishop, NC

Mo Brooks, AL

Ken Buck, CO

Tim Burchett, TN

Michael Cloud, TX

Andrew Clyde, GA

James Comer, KY

Dan Crenshaw, TX

Jeff Duncan, SC

Jake Ellzey, TX

Pat Fallon, TX

Drew Ferguson, GA

Scott Franklin, FL

Matt Gaetz, FL

Louie Gohmert, TX

Bob Good, VA

Lance Gooden, TX

Paul Gosar, AZ

Mark Green, TN

Marjorie Taylor Greene, GA

Morgan Griffith, VA

Glen Grothman, WI

Andy Harris, MD

Diana Harshbarger, TN

Kevin Hern, OK

Jody Hice, GA

Ronny Jackson, TX

Jim Jordan, OH

John Joyce, PA

Debbie Lesko, AZ

Barry Loudermilk, GA

Thomas Massie, KY

Mary Miller, IL

Barry Moore, AL

Ralph Norman, SC

Steven Palazzo, MS

Scott Perry, PA

Bill Posey, FL

Matt Rosendale, MT

Chip Roy, TX

Steve Scalise, LA

Greg Steube, FL

Van Taylor, TX

Tom Tiffany, WI

Daniel Webster, FL

Newsweek has contacted several GOP lawmakers who voted against the bill for comment.

#us politics #news #newsweek #2022 #Food Security for All Veterans Act #Department of Veterans Affairs #Office of Food Security #us house of representatives #Rep. Mary Peltola #Republicans #conservatives #gop #republican hypocrisy #veterans #veterans affairs #military veterans

145 notes · View notes

wartakes · 9 months

Text

The Issue of “Negative American Exceptionalism” (OLD ESSAY)

This essay was originally posted on October 13th, 2021.

In this essay, I dig into the issue of how many other folks on the Left's foreign policy can best be summed up as "America bad" and absolutely nothing else and how that can be a problem in denying agency to other people and groups around the world who are trying to fight for better lives for themselves as well.

(Full essay below the cut).

I like to think I’ve been pretty consistent in drilling down my core beliefs in these essays since I started posting them almost a year ago. One of those central points I return to often is that war – while terrible – is sometimes unavoidable or even necessary. While I think I’ve had some modest success in convincing people of this, I am reminded daily that there is still a long way to go.

One of the common threads I encounter in the pushback to this principle is the sentiment that the United States is the root cause of essentially every military conflict, diplomatic crisis, or other negative event in international affairs – or can only make such conflicts and crises worse by its involvement. A common way you see this manifest is blaming every revolution or uprising against a government you like (or at least isn’t closely aligned to the United States) as being a CIA-backed coup, or writing off aggressive or violent acts by shitty regimes as long as they are anti-Western or anti-US and claiming that the only reason that problems are occurring is because of the United States. There are many other flavors of and spins on these types of opinions, but these two seem to be the two big ones that I run into a lot as I dredge through the morass of social media.

Now, I should say up front as always, that my goal here is not to absolve the United States of its many obvious failings and crimes throughout history. My country has indisputably done some awful, terrible shit in the past, is still doing it now, and will continue to do it into the future until we as Americans finally decide that “enough is enough” and do something to change that. My goal here is instead to show you that, while the United States obviously plays a central role in the world and its many issues – all of which are intertwined with one another – it is not the sole “protagonist of reality” when it comes to international affairs and war – rather, not the sole “antagonist of reality” in this case I suppose. Not everything begins and ends with the United States. Other countries, groups, leaders, and etc. have their own agency and exercise it upon one another and themselves, regardless of what the United States does or says. They have their own goals and interests, both for good and for ill, and will do their best to fulfill them.

I want to talk about this because the “everything is the United States’ fault” sentiments bother me for several reasons. For one, I just hate people putting out takes that are disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. But the primary reason I want to talk about them is because I think they are outright dangerous. To the extent that we are able to try and change things now, and with the hope we may be able to change things further in the future, trying to further these ideas could cause immeasurable harm down the line in multiple ways by way of our own misguided actions – or inaction. If one day we actually are able to change the system for the better, but instead choose to go down a road where we support the worst kind of regimes or simply choose to do nothing in terms of how we deal with the world, it could be a tragedy on a horrific scale. Specifically, as American leftists, we need to stop assuming attitudes that are essentially Negative American Exceptionalism, reducing every conflict in the world to something that is directly America’s fault with the solution being one that involves us either acting in a directly harmful way or not acting at all. While grappling with our country’s global legacy is no small task, it’s something we need to do thoughtfully and critically and not simply act in a knee jerk manner. Otherwise, to put it bluntly, many people will suffer or die.

You do not, in fact, have to hand it to the People’s Republic of China

A good contemporary example to use here for some context would be the current tensions that exist between the United States and its allies and partners and the People’s Republic of China. Depending on who you ask, the USA and the PRC are either in danger of falling into a new Cold War or are already in a new Cold War (I tend to believe the latter is already the case). This heightened state of geopolitical competition among great powers has made itself known in multiple areas (be they diplomatic, military, economic, legal, or what have you), and have risen over various different flashpoints and interests in Asia and beyond.

I think it’s safe to say that most regular people are not happy or excited about the prospect of a new Cold War – though I certainly know some people in my field that are seemingly drooling at the thought of it. It should be no surprise to most people that I’m in the “not excited” category. While I am no fan of the PRC and its policies towards its citizens and other countries and I also think we and others should be prepared to counter it should it act in a hostile way against its neighbors, I don’t think that stance necessitates the confrontational Cold War posture that has been assumed by the United States towards China.

But, with all that in mind, while I don’t think the United States is handling this properly, this does not mean I’m letting China off the hook for its own aggressive, hegemonic aspirations. However, other folks on the Left seem to be willing to do so, either out of a weird tankie fetishization of China, or a simple anti-imperialist “anything that owns the United States and the West is good” attitude. Too often, I see the sentiment that the reason this new Cold War has begun is entirely the fault of the United States – with no responsibility falling on China for its outbreak – and that if the United States were simply to leave Asia and let the PRC do whatever it wanted, then the region would be a freer and more peaceful place (I apologize for not really having any good sources to link back to here, but I feel like if you spend even just a little time wading your way through certain corners of Left Twitter you know what I’m talking about).

There are a lot of ways I could point out how this assumption is reductive and just plain wrong, and I struggle on where to start. So, I guess I’ll start with a good old-fashioned hypothetical. Let’s assume that tomorrow the United States pulled every last one of its troops out of the Western Pacific, closing all of its bases and ending all of its security agreements throughout the region. Following the logic of some people I see discussing this on the Left, then that would solve most if not all of the security issues that are going on in that part of the world. That the PRC would no longer have a reason to act aggressive (though some would characterize that more as an attitude of “self-defense”) and would become a benevolent, peaceful actor.

That would be great if that was the case, but I find all of that very hard to believe. The United States withdrawing from the region and writing it off wouldn’t change any of the PRC’s fundamental interests and goals, whether it be forcefully incorporating Taiwan, expanding control over most of the South China Sea, economically pressuring countries in the region and beyond, and more. The PRC would almost certainly still want to do all these things if the United States left the region. If anything, China’s leadership would likely feel that they’d have a freer hand to double down and seek these objectives with more gusto. I don’t want to go as far as to say the United States is the only thing keeping them from carrying out a lot of their plans – that would just be defaulting back to classic American Exceptionalism rather than the Negative form.

Again, I have to stress that my point here isn’t to go “see, things are better off when the United States is in charge or swooping in to be the world’s policeman” or anything along those lines because that’s just flat out wrong as well. The United States’ history in Asia is “colorful” to say the very least and we have many acts we’ll need to atone for there going into the future. My point here is to illustrate that the United States alone is not the source of all the region’s problems in this particular case. Hell, China isn’t even the source of all the region’s problems in this case (though between it and the United States they do make up a healthy percentage of them). Just based on discussions with people from the region, I’m guessing they’d prefer it if there was no hegemon at all imposing its will on the region writ large – and it is these points of view we need to be more cognizant of – which I’ll foot stomp towards the end of this essay. The main point here is that even if the United States were not involved and took a hands-off attitude, conflicts and crises would still exist independent of it. All security issues do not begin and end with the United States and its foreign policy. The world chugged along with its various problems before us, and if our country ceases to exist, it will continue to chug on without it.

Getting over and moving on

I find myself reaching the “so what”/”what can we do” section of this essay faster than I have in the last few essays (the point was fairly simple this time around I guess). So, how do we deal with this?

I feel like the answer is both very simple and also very difficult – simple in that the overall action is very straightforward, difficult in that the exact, best way to carry it out is less clear and easy.

The solution is that we – we specifically being American Leftists- need to get over ourselves and our country.

As I alluded to earlier, it feels like there’s a not insignificant amount of people on the Left in this country and elsewhere who have traded one American Exceptionalism for another. Instead of holding the traditional (flawed) view that the United States the greatest country in the world, capable of doing no wrong and essential to all things that are good and pure in the world, they believe the exact opposite (also flawed) view: that the United States is the source of all things that are awful and terrible and that the only way there can be peace and justice in the world is for us to cut ourselves off from it and/or destroy our country. These are of course, rough paraphrases and there is more nuance involved in some cases, but these are the overall sentiments as I see them (when I don’t have my head in my hands in dismay that is). I also recognize that these people are not the majority on the left and definitely not the majority in general, but they do have the potential to hold outsized influence in informing people’s opinions when it comes to foreign policy and international relations – especially if no one else is pushing back on it (hence why I think it was important enough to write about here).

Again, it is undeniable that the United States plays a central role in how the world functions – and the problems it faces. But if we’re ever going to have a constructive attitude towards the rest of the world, we need to recognize that whatever role our country plays, it is still only one part of a highly interconnected global system of various different actors. We absolutely should be critical of ourselves and definitely be critical of our government and actions overseas, but we cannot become so single minded as to think that is the only factor at play. We cannot let the attitude of American Exceptionalism that has been drilled into us since we were young simply be morphed into a new and twisted form that is just as harmful as the old – if not potentially worse. We need to assume a true spirit of internationalism and global solidarity that isn’t ethnocentric and egotistical – even if those attitudes are unintentional on our part. And this is all coming from the guy who, despite everything, holds out hope that maybe one day the United States can be a force for some kind of positive change in the world. If that day does come (and I sure hope it does and am going to try and make it happen), I don’t think that kind of change is possible unless we can act not as the exceptional, indispensable hegemon, but as one of many entities that is party of an international collaboration to better the world for its people.

And therein lies another key takeaway: the fact that we need to listen to and center the voices of people outside the United States or members of an affected diaspora when it comes to crises and conflicts throughout the world before we attempt to make a comment, pass judgement, or otherwise act upon a given situation. When talking about an issue such as the new Cold War, its easy for some to write it off by blaming the United States – or for others to put the blame entirely on China – but I only occasionally see people paying any attention to the voices of those who are caught in-between in places like Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, the nations of Southeast Asia, and more. When people look at protests and uprisings in places like Venezuela, Cuba, and elsewhere, I see a lot of ranting about how its all a CIA backed op, but little investigation of what actual people in or from these places (aside from talking heads with agendas) think or what systemic factors at play that may push people to protest, riot, and rise up.

Something I am thankful as I’ve discovered myself more politically is being put into closer contact with folks overseas who bring their own perspectives to the issues that I study every day. Even when I don’t agree with them 100%, I’m thankful for the experience to help bring me out of my bubble and remember that the world does not begin and end with the United States and whoever its beefing with at any given moment. There are real people in real places caught in between in the new landscape of “great power competition” who face far greater stakes should things go pear shaped. More than anything, we need to remember that we should be striving to enable people across the world to have control over their own lives and the path that their countries and communities should take. In addition to recognizing that other states have agency and may have malicious intent separate from US actions, we need to remember the agency of nations and people who don’t wish to be subject to the exploitation and harm from any state or group – whether it be the United States, China, or whatever else.

Really, at the core of these issues, we need to recognize that the world is complicated and needs to be dealt with as such. That may be something of a cliché’, but just because something is a cliché’ does not mean its untrue (yes, that in itself is a cliché; bite me). As a country and a people, America has never been that great dealing with nuance. This is something we also need to finally get over – in addition to getting over ourselves. When I speak of this, I absolutely don’t mean seeing the world as being “complicated” in terms of who is “good” and “bad” or looking the other way when shitty things happen in the name of national interest because “the world isn’t black and white its shades of gray hurr hurr.” That’s fucking stupid; we should know bad shit when we see it. What I do mean is that when something happens in the world, we should be able to formulate a response to it that isn’t knee jerk or a binary choice between complete inaction or mounting a full-scale war. Those two options may in fact be options in some (rare) cases, but our ability to understand and response to things occurring in the world around us should not be limited to those and those alone. The answers to global issues – whether they be security related or otherwise – are rarely simple and we need to be able to work through those challenges and not reduce issues to the point they have no real meaning.

As someone who was raised in the United States and live and work here, I still sometimes fall in the trap of thinking that my home country – and by extension, myself – is the sole protagonist (or antagonist) of reality. But however key a component the United States is of the global system we live under today, as Americans we have to be able to push back on that assumption that has been instilled in us as we view the rest of the world and the events occurring in it. We need to remember that other states and nations and peoples have plans and goals – both positive and negative. As we grapple with the flaws and crimes that our country has committed and respond to what’s going on in the world around us, we need to make sure we reckon with our past in a way that isn’t harmful to the rest of the world through simplistic, reductive actions as a result of rigid ideological dogma. With how much damage one form of American Exceptionalism has already done to the world, it cannot afford to experience another.

24 notes · View notes

ivygorgon · 8 days

Text

AN OPEN LETTER to THE PRESIDENT & U.S. CONGRESS

Enforce Leahy! No funding to IDF troops who’ve committed human rights abuses!

354 so far! Help us get to 500 signers!

I’ve just learned from Pro Publica that “a special State Department panel recommended months ago that Secretary of State Blinken disqualify multiple Israeli military and police units from receiving U.S. aid after reviewing allegations that they committed serious human rights abuses.” But Blinken has failed to act on the proposal. This in the face of growing international criticism of the Israeli military’s conduct in Gaza.

I’m livid about this. We cannot keep sending unconditional military aid to anyone, regardless of whom, if they are committing human rights abuses. We have Leahy laws to prevent it, and they are not being enforced here. It’s unacceptable.

The U.S. government needs to stop giving the Israeli government a blank check. Israel has a right to defend itself, of course, but the abuses described in Pro Publica’s report can’t be defined as self defense under anyone’s definition of the term. They’re abhorrent and our tax dollars mustn’t be spent on them. Thanks.

▶ Created on April 17 by Jess Craven

📱 Text SIGN PLLLRS to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409