#national defense | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

wartakes · 7 months

Text

Clear and Present Danger 2: Mr. Musk's Wild Ride

In this essay, we find that when it comes to U.S. National Security and asking the question of what the greatest threats to it are, the answer is the one comes up when asking most questions about problems when you're on the Left: "it's the Capitalism, dummy."

If you’re on the Left, you probably don’t need to be told that capitalism is the greatest threat to our collective survival and freedom. Even if the world isn’t going to “end” in the doomer sense of things, if immensely rich and powerful capitalists are allowed to continue acting with impunity to amass further wealth and power at the expense of all else (including our lives), the future we can “look forward” to is a truly grim and dystopian one, in which the planet and its climate have been significantly altered, countless people are dead as a result, and those who aren’t have their neck trapped under the metaphorical (or literal, in many cases) boot of authoritarianism.

That being said, that long-term threat is not the only thing we have to worry about. Aside from the long term threat posed by capitalists to the world and its people if they continue to get their way unimpeded, we’re now seeing more pressing and immediate threats to the lives and security of many around the globe from their actions more. I’m not just talking about exploitation through trade and industry or the more traditional ways in which capitalists threaten lives and livelihoods around the globe, but through the direct involvement of prominent capitalists into the business of war and statecraft in a way that hasn’t been seen before.

Even if I was not as far left as I am now, as a national security professional I would be hard pressed to look at billionaire capitalists like Elon Musk (who will be something of the main character for most of this essay), examine his involvement in US. national security, look at his actions to date, and not feel at least uncomfortable if not extremely concerned or even threatened. When I look at Elon Musk wearing my leftist cap, I see a threat to the world coming from a dipshit, self-absorbed, fascist megalomaniacal capitalist; when I look at Elon Musk while wearing my NatSec cap, I see a clear and present danger not only to the national security of the United States, but to the security of states and peoples across the world. In my world – the world of security or defense or war or whatever you want to call it – under the right circumstances, capitalists of an ilk like Elon Musk could make decisions and take actions that could kill and maim large swathes of people and devastate communities and lives.

Regardless of whether or not you call yourself a “leftist” and (if you are, in fact, a leftist) regardless of how you may feel about certain states and governments and the wars they are or may end up fighting, you should be worried about hyper-wealthy, hyper-ideological capitalists with questionable politics and ideology and allegiances getting close to the levers of military power in any substantial form. In the remainder of this essay, I intend to lay out why that’s the case.

Elon Musk The Strange Case of the World War III That Wasn't

Elon Musk has been having a bit of a time lately and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t enjoying it immensely and hoping it only gets worse for him.

Even when his bare minimum veneer of respectability began to scratch off years ago – even as his ideas became more and more dumb and outlandish and his opinions more and more questionable, he seemed shielded from any substantive negative consequences. He was surrounded by what I’ve heard referred to as “the Elon Musk reality distortion field.” It didn’t matter what he did; the money and adoration seemed to keep flowing from all corners with no end in sight, and he could convince anyone and everyone that he was a genius that could do no wrong.

That state of affairs now seems to be very gradually, tentatively, changing. Finally.

It seemed like it started going downhill the moment Elon Musk bought Twitter – something he was essentially forced to do legally after probably embarking upon it as a bit. As he’s proceeded to run Twitter (I refuse to call it “X”) into the ground while almost certainly mainlining ket and God knows what else, he only seems to have become more unhinged. Every action he takes seems to be based around appealing to the absolute worst kind of people from the darkest corners of Twitter: extreme libertarian venture capitalists, slimy right-wing grifters, foreign dictators and aspiring dictators, and out and proud fascists and anti-Semites.

It now appears that Musk’s desperate attempts to get the cross section of 8chan membership that actually pays for a Blue Check to like him may actually, potentially, have some real life consequences for him. And it all started several weeks ago, revolving around a snippet from the billionaire’s forthcoming biography revolving around the ongoing war against Ukraine by Russia.

In addition to aid of various types being provided by the United States and its allies and partners, Musk had been providing Ukraine with access to Starlink – the space-based internet service provided by SpaceX, which is perhaps his only company he’s currently involved in that is actually successful. Musk’s provision of Starlink to Ukraine (which began days after the war started in February of 2022) was not without controversy, with Musk essentially threatening to cut it off at one point due to lack of payment before later relenting (a deal was eventually struck for funding through DoD). But that turned out to only be the tip of the Ukraine Starlink iceberg.

In the segment quoted from Musk’s biography, Ukraine had been purportedly planning a sneak attack on the Russian Navy’s Black Sea Fleet at its home base in Sevastopol in Crimea (which had been annexed illegally by Russia from Ukraine back in 2014). This attack was to make use of seagoing drones, the control of which at a distance would be enabled by Starlink. These small, hard to spot, remotely operated vessels would get the drop on the Russian warships – with Russian vessels already having been damaged by Ukrainian maritime drones on several occasions. A cunning plan.

There was only one problem: Starlink wouldn’t actually allow that to happen.

Initially, Musk’s Biographer – Walter Isaacson – asserted in the Washington Post (which was then later quoted by CNN) that Musk had Starlink “turned off” for the Ukrainians on purpose as the attack was undertaken, making their subs lose connection offshore of Crimea and be rendered useless. Since the initial bombshell, there’s been a series of denials, excuses, and ass-coverings from both sides of the story that has only muddled it further. Musk asserts that Starlink was never activated over Crimea to begin with and he had simply denied an emergency request from the Ukrainian government to extend Ukraine’s Starlink coverage. Issacson then walked back his claims in line with Musk’s, instead saying the Ukrainians only thought that Starlink was enabled out to Ukraine and then asked for it to enable their attack after finding out it wasn’t – only then to be denied by Musk. Most of the mainstream media coverage has since been edited to reflect Issacson’s claims (while still making reference to the original assertions in some cases), but I feel like things have only been made more confusing and contradictory than clear.

Regardless of which side of the story on the Ukraine Starlink debacle that you believe, there’s one aspect that is present in both the original and walked-back versions of the tale: Musk specifically denied Ukraine the ability to use Starlink in their planned surprise attack because he feared that the attack would be the equivalent of “Pearl Harbor”, potentially leading to World War III (with SpaceX being partially responsible, in his eyes). Musk was so concerned about this potential World War III sparking attack, that he not only made calls to the Ukrainians and to US. President Joe Biden’s national security advisor Jake Sullivan, he also apparently was in contact with the Russian government – something that I’m sure had a great many Western intelligence agencies pricking up their ears when they found out.

The fear of Russia’s war against Ukraine sparking World War III is reflective of Musk’s adherence to his own form of “longtermism” – an ideology common among hyper-rich (and hyper-weird) capitalists of his type that centers on ensuring the long term survival and happiness of the human race (at least, its long term survival in a way its adherents find acceptable). Such a worldview no doubt dovetails well with Musk’s own personal “only I can fix it” Messiah complex. At any rate, his fears of the Ukrainian “Pearl Harbor” attack causing a major war between the United States and Russia turned out to be (surprise surprise) complete and utter bullshit after Ukraine launched a different kind of surprise attack on Sevastopol, making use of British-supplied Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missiles that all but destroyed both a Russian Navy landing ship as well as a Kilo-class diesel attack submarine (one capable of firing Kalibr cruise missiles back at Ukraine, no less). As you’re guessing by now, since no nukes have popped off since that attack, no World War III broke out as a result of that attack.

Since we haven’t all died in an Oppenheimer style nuclear firestorm (yet), and even as the story about the denial of Starlink coverage has been walked back, Musk has now faced increasing criticism and scrutiny from not just from online commentators, but from the US. government itself. The Chair of the US. Senate Armed Services Committee – Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island – announced not long after the Ukraine Starlink bombshell dropped that his committee would be “aggressively probing” Musk’s and SpaceX’s “outsized role” when it comes to providing space services to the US. government and warning that no “private citizen, can have the last word when it comes to US. national security.” I mostly agree with Senator Reed here (though my reasons for thinking the same thing as him would only partially overlap with his reasons and I think we’d both be worlds apart in what we ultimately want and how far we’d be willing to go for it, but that’s neither here nor there and I can get into that more later).

Will this Senate probe go anywhere and lead to any meaningful consequences for Musk? Has his reality bending force field finally weakened enough to the point he may actually have to experience the “finding out” end of “fucking around?” I’m still somewhat skeptical but I’m not prepared to say “no” because stranger things have happened and we’ve already been seeing a wave of “finding out” lately. It’s not implausible Musk may finally face some real consequences of some kind for something he’s done, even if those consequences aren’t as harsh as any of us would like and aren’t for EVERYTHING he’s done as opposed to only some things that make the state feel uneasy. All I know is no matter how it turns out, it’ll be funny to watch – kind of like with Trump’s numerous indictments and trials.

Likewise, regardless of what happens with Elon Musk in this specific case, the right questions are not being asked about the potential threats that individuals with outsized power and influence – coupled with questionable political viewpoints – could have not just on US. national security but on international relations and international security as a whole. When those questions are examined in greater depth and breadth, the threats both at home and abroad become far more stark.

The Real Threat From Within

It is commonly said by various foreign policy officials and talking heads that the world is entering or risks entering a new Cold War, centered on the United States and China. I would argue we’re entering less of a Cold War in the sense of how the last one went, and more of a new era of multi-polar great power competition that is more similar to the decades prior to World War I (I’ll leave it to you whether that makes you feel better or worse about our current situation). No matter how you look at it, we’re entering a period of far more tense relations and mutual suspicion among great powers and their respective bloc, with coinciding arms races and military buildups.

Be it a Cold War or Edwardian Era-style competition, these periods always come with worries not only of the threat of foreign adversaries, but also of “threats from within”; individuals and entities with loyalties to foreign states and groups that seek to deliberately undermine and weaken the country that they’re living in to the advantage of that country’s adversary or adversaries. Such fears are almost always both overblown, but also usually tinged with some form of racism or other prejudice in search of a convenient scapegoat – be it the antisemitism of the Dreyfus Affair in pre-World War I France, the internment of Japanese Americans after the Attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, or the recent dramatic spike in hate-crimes in the United States against Americans of Asian and Pacific Islander descent. As tensions with China rise, the old and ugly question of “dual loyalties” is raised from xenophobic right-wingers, essentially suggesting that not only any American of Chinese descent but any American who is not sufficiently white and European enough in their lineage has an unspoken loyalty to the country of their ancestors over any to the United States.

Obviously, anyone who actually has more than two lonely brain cells knows that the idea of dual loyalties is patently bullshit. Albert Dreyfus turned out to be falsely accused of spying for Germany, only being exonerated and reinstated in the French Army after years of protests on his behalf; the Japanese Americans interned in concentration camps in the American Southwest were just normal people, who were deprived of their property and livelihoods baselessly despite the fact their family members were also fighting and dying on the front lines in Europe, then going without so much as an apology from the US. government for years. Yes, an AAPI American could turn out to be a spy or a saboteur acting on behalf of a foreign government, but literally anyone could could turn out to be a spy or saboteur or insider threat; ethnic, racial, or religious background could have next to nothing to do with it. After all, the recent perpetrator of one of the largest US. intelligence leaks in modern history wasn’t Chinese or Russian or Iranian or Korean, but was in fact a 21-year old white dipshit Airman First Class in the Massachusetts Air National Guard of Portuguese descent.

Now, you may be asking yourself, “KD why are you going on about this in an essay that’s supposed to be about billionaires and capitalists and Elon Musk?” Well, part of if is just that it pisses me off in general and I wanted a chance to rant about it and this was as good an opportunity as any. However, I do have a point I’m trying to make here that brings us back to the main theme of this essay: there is a threat from within, and its capitalists like Elon Musk. The real “threat from within” isn’t based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin, but is instead based around money, self-importance, narcissism, and the bizarre and harmful ideas that come from being online far too much and not having anyone around you ever tell you “no” or that you’re wrong. The whole Ukraine Starlink debacle is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the threat that Elon Musk-style capitalists could pose to US. national security – and however you feel about it, to your own security depending on where you live. Capitalists like Elon Musk not only are more likely to have the intent to embark upon the kinds of actions (and more) that those going on about racist “dual loyalties” assert, but they’re increasingly in a far better position to be able to act on that intent in a major way and cause serious harm. In my business, intent plus capability to act on it equals threat; you do the math.

For the longest time, weird billionaire capitalists like Elon Musk were confined to their more traditional domains of tech, finance, business, and so on. Their involvement in international affairs was mainly through a lens of investment, trade, and – of course – economic exploitation, but less through one of war and security (although Musk has dipped his toe in before). But over the years, Elon Musk and those of his ilk have increasingly latched on to the national security apparatus in the United States.

When it comes to the Defense Industrial Base – or DIB (this is what people in my profession call the “Military Industrial Complex” in polite company), its still mostly dominated by the kinds of companies you’d expect: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, BAE, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman – you know, all the superstars of companies that love selling weapons to some of the worst people you know (with the US. government’s blessing). Aside from building weapons and munitions, these companies often also provide direct services to the US. government through contractors. Search for job listings in the Washington DC. area and you’re sure to find a whole host of various shades of “intelligence analyst” positions for one of these companies working in support of some part of the Department of Defense or the Intelligence Community.

While capitalists like Musk have not come anywhere near to shaking the hold the legacy defense companies have on the industry, they’ve managed to weasel their way in through various cracks and make themselves indispensable in unique ways. Musk’s SpaceX is the prime example of this, as if the United States wants to conduct a National Security Space Launch to put a sensitive military payload into orbit, its only two options are either SpaceX, or the United Launch Alliance – a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing (the US. is set to expand from two to three from 2025). While SpaceX itself may be the most normal and successful of Musk’s companies (it actually turned a profit this year, compared to say, Tesla), his influence and personality are still very much felt and subject to its whims – with SpaceX’s employees previously deriding their own boss as a “distraction” from their work.

It’s through SpaceX’s activities that we see capitalists like Musk don’t even have to take over the DIB to harm national and international security. Musk and those of his ilk only need to get enough responsibility and power in the right areas to have outsize impacts if they decide to go rogue. Ukraine was just a preview of what could happen on a larger scale. The United States military and other armed forces around the world have become increasingly dependent upon Musk as space has continue to grow in importance as a domain of warfare. In the case of Ukraine, Musk was quoted as saying “how am I in this war?” in addition to his concerns about a potential World War III, when it came to one Ukrainian attack on a Russian naval base; what about in other scenarios directly involving the United States? Musk has stated that he thinks Taiwan is “an integral part of China”; if the United States gets involved in a war with China to prevent it seizing Taiwan, would he then see fit to shut off all support to the US. military to prevent a nuclear war (admittedly, much more of a possibility here than in the Ukraine case, though not guaranteed to happen)?

In a more low stakes case than war with China, Musk has already put his relationships with various authoritarian and right-wing populist leaders like President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India on display for all to see, with questions have been asked by the US. government about investment from Saudi royals in Musk’s Twitter. If the United States went to war against a regional authoritarian power that Musk was financially dependent on or felt common ideological cause with, would he cut off support then because he disagreed with the US. attacking one of his fellow travelers and/or business partners? Musk’s actions on Ukraine opens up not simply a can of worms, but an CostCo sized value barrel of them.

Aside from potentially being able to take direct action in the form of denying services and capabilities to the military, Musk and those like him pose risks simply in having access to sensitive information – getting back to our espionage and “threat within” discussion earlier. As the head of a company with substantial DoD contracts, Musk holds a security clearance – one that has come under scrutiny twice now due to his drug use, but at time of writing he still has (full disclosure: I don’t think drug use in and of itself should deny you a clearance, but if we’re going to have all these rules about security clearances it’d be nice if they applied to all of us and not just all of us who aren’t a billionaire or the former President or someone else who’s “important”). I’m much more worried about an ideologically motivated billionaire capitalist with questionable loyalties and politics leaking large amounts of sensitive information, than I am some nobody. We’ve already seen how much classified material Trump was literally keeping in his shitter; what’s to say Musk and others like him wouldn’t do the same if they felt it in keeping with their worldview (especially if they also feel they have that aura of invincibility from their “reality distortion field” around them)?

I’ve mainly been using Elon Musk as my hobby horse throughout this essay because he’s the one that everyone is most likely to know about; but he’s far from the only one. Even if the big, traditional defense giants will continue to dominate the DIB, other Musk types are worming their way in and carving out fiefdoms that they could potentially do damage through. Another prominent example of this is Palmer Luckey (name alert). Prior to trying to break into the NatSec game, Luckey was best known for having founded Oculus VR and having designed the Oculus Rift, which he later sold to Facebook (now Meta) and became a key component of the Metaverse (which of course, as we all know – especially if you listen to Trashfuture – has been immensely successful and has moved everything we do into a virtual world with no legs).

Having moved on from Oculus, Luckey has now started and runs a startup/venture capitalist minded defense company known as “Anduril” that specializes in all the various flavors of the moment. Primarily, Anduril’s focus has been on autonomous systems (i.e., drones) of various kinds – as well as the means to counter them, but since its founding in 2017 its broadened its reach into areas such as solid-motor rockets (such as those used in hypersonic missiles), and command and control systems. As Anduril expands it operations and acquires other companies to facilitate these expansions, Luckey has made no secret of his goal of breaking into the top tier of defense companies, giving the giants mentioned earlier in this essay a real run for their money.

All of this hullabaloo about Anduril would be much of a muchness if Luckey wasn’t also a strident libertarian who donated to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign (Anduril later worked with the Trump administration on technology for its infamous “border wall”), who is also connected to infamous right-wing venture capitalist Peter Thiel (an early investor in Anduril). Luckey may very well be the ‘quiet’ Elon Musk that you don’t know about unless you’re a tech or NatSec person; the kind that only gets traction in Defense and tech trade publications and doesn’t end up as much in the mainstream news in comparison to Musk, but may very well just be just as ideological as Musk (if not more) and potentially just as dangerous under the right circumstances.

Potentially, Luckey and Anduril could be even more dangerous depending on how deep Anduril gets its tendrils into the DoD and in what ways). As mentioned before, Anduril is working on command and control (C2) systems for the DoD. Much like logistics is the lifeblood of any military, C2 is also extremely important. It doesn’t matter what fancy weapons you have or even what fancy intelligence collection methods you have (be it satellites, drones, or humans), but if you can’t information and intelligence back to the decision makers and then relay it to the units in the field, all the big guns and fancy drones you have are useless. If a company or companies like Anduril led by highly political leaders like Luckey in a highly polarized political environment like we have today become crucial to how the DoD plans to fight a war, you find yourself in another Elon Musk style situation where Palmer Luckey or someone like him could simply decide to shut off support to DoD if they do something he doesn’t like – or just being able to leak classified information should he choose to.

Before we move on, let me make something clear: I’m not saying the current situation with the big defense contractors dominating the DIB is good by any means. I don’t think private enterprise has any real role in national defense and if it were up to me all of those companies would be nationalized and replaced with Soviet-style design bureaus or something else entirely. What I’m talking about here, is the devil you know versus the devil you don’t. In terms of changing the world, until we can just nationalize the defense giants away or make them irrelevant in issues of national security, I’d prefer it be them doing what they’re doing than an Elon Musk or a Palmer Luckey doing it. For all of the faults of the big defense companies, they’re less likely to do something as crazy as Musk or someone like him is going to do. They’re going to be less personality driven and far more pragmatic in a way that is more manageable and also more predictable. While these companies may facilitate some awful shit, I feel like it pales in comparison to what Musk or those like him could wreak if they’ve given a bigger slice of the pie and more involvement in our national security. Musk has already proven he’s willing to torch large amounts of his wealth in the drug-fueled pursuit of his ideological and philosophical visions; don’t underestimate the capacity of him and people like him to fuck things up for everyone even more than they’re already doing.

The “Why You Should Care” Section (Yet Again)

I can understand why a number of leftists may read everything up until now (if they even still are reading) and at best wonder “why should I care”, or at worst thing “let them fight, this is good actually.” I can understand that impulse to a point – while I still disagree with it, but let me assure you and plead with you that you don’t actually want this state of affairs to continue and if its taken to its logical conclusion you’ll be sorry.

Billionaire capitalists like Elon Musk are already dangerous under “normal” conditions when they aren’t involved with waging war and they’re “only” dealing with electric vehicles that catch fire easily and run over people, space rockets that explode, bad transportation solutions, and etc. If you don’t think they could cause even more harm if they get involved in national security – both at home and abroad – you’re deluding yourself.

For someone who is stridently anti-war and fears for the state of the world, I can imagine there may even be some kind of an appeal to the idea of Elon Musk intervening in a war between the United States and some other power to stop it escalating to a nuclear exchange. But you have to understand, the interference of people like Musk in national security will never EVER be for the same reasons as you’d like, not even one bit; and the reasons he’s doing it will ultimately always contribute towards something making your life even more miserable. It’s either going to be done out of an interest to protect investments and markets, or out of an ideological or philosophical drive to protect their own twisted long-term worldview that still involves people like you and me being at best massively marginalized or at worst liquidated – or both!

The above all assumes if people like Musk makes more attempts like was done with Starlink in Ukraine on a larger scale in a more extensive conflict that it even accomplishes what was intended and doesn’t somehow backfire in a horrific way. Remember you’re dealing with cretinous man children who are often high out of their mind on ket or benzos or whatever, trying to post through their latest crisis, all while casually breaking laws left and right. You’ve seen the effects of Musk’s ownership of Twitter on the world at large; do you really think people like him getting more involved in matters of war is in any way good or helpful? That it wouldn’t potentially just make things even worse for everyone involved?

Admittedly, I may be making up someone to get mad at here (trying to anticipate “an anti-imperialist defense of Elon Musk” essay by some loser later on down the line). The real people I’m getting steamed at those who have promoted a Silicon Valley style “startup culture” mindset when its come to defense, hoping to invigorate a stagnant and stifled DIB leftover from the post Cold War era and the War on Terror and revitalize it for the new and multiplying security challenges the United States and the world now faces. Well, again, be careful what you wish for, I suppose.

I feel like many of those who had previously supported a startup/Silicon Valley style “disruption” of defense – in particular, those who don’t share Musk and Luckey’s ideological leanings – may now be starting to tentatively realize what many of us further on the Left have known for a while: billionaire capitalists are not a solution, they’re a threat. And they’re not just to our national security, but to all of the well being of everyone, everywhere. That second part of that point may still be a bit too much for some of these folks to swallow, but getting them to understand that first point about billionaires being a national security threat is a point that could serve as a useful wedge issue that has the added virtue of being true. If we can get security minded liberals or even so-called centrists to understand the security threats posed by this generation of extremely online right-wing minded billionaires we’ve been cursed with, maybe from there we can get them to see all the other problems they (and the system they’re a part of) can cause. More people need to understand that’s no room for ultra rich fascist-friendly freaks like Elon Musk in national security, and whatever perceived benefits they’ve deluded themselves into thinking those types bring to the table is heavily outweighed by the risks not only to US. national security but to international security and the lives and livelihoods of people across the world.

For too long, too many convinced themselves that the “disruptive” and “innovate” styles of start up entrepreneurs and tech bros would be a shot in the arm to a defense establishment trying desperately to retool itself for large scale conflict after twenty years of counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency with mixed to failed results. Now, they’re seeing what those of us on the Left have seen for ages: a threat – and a threat they’ve let into their home. While I wish they’d come to this realization sooner, it’s not too late to do something about it. Ultimately, the role of capital needs to be removed our defense and security entirely, but I’ll certainly take getting dangerous dipshits like Elon Musk out of it for a start before we move onto the more traditional ones.

On that note, I just looked at my word count for this one and went “holy shit” and have decided this is as good a place as any to wrap up (I could have gone on longer just about the more “traditional” capitalists in Defense, especially given news that Wall Street Executives are going to be doing a war game with Members of Congress – an announcement that made my eyes roll back up in my head), but I think I’m saving those rounds for another engagement. Until next time, stay safe out there, and peace.

62 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 3 months

Text

There's been another tranche of student debt forgiveness by the Biden administration.

The Biden administration on Friday announced another $5 billion in debt forgiveness for 74,000 student loan borrowers. Why it matters: Although the Supreme Court blocked Biden's signature student loan forgiveness plan, his administration has found alternative ways to provide relief to more than 3.7 million people.

The Republican Supreme Court has tried to block student loan relief, but the Biden administration hasn't stopped looking for legal ways around SCOTUS for specific groups of Americans burdened by such debt.

Since 1981 Republicans have serially backed enormous tax breaks for their filthy rich contributors, but they vehemently oppose loan forgiveness for middle class and poorer taxpayers.

House GOP advances bill to block Biden’s student loan repayment program

Supreme Court, Republicans to blame for lack of debt forgiveness, students say in poll

In general, Republicans oppose higher education. Their base is made up of dumbass morons who believe conspiracy theories and they need more voters like that who won't question the bullshit that comes out of the GOP.

The Republican jones for deregulation since the Reagan-Bush era has led student debt to spiral out of control. The vicious circle of more burdensome loans feeding ever-increasing tuition fits well into the GOP agenda. It's a system that discourages post-secondary education for anyone who isn't rich.

President Dwight Eisenhower was no radical. But he knew what made America strong. The highest federal income tax rate for the filthy rich during most of his administration was 91%. And it was universally regarded as a period of enormous economic growth and prosperity.

A portion of that tax revenue went into the National Defense Education Act which, among other features, provided for grants and loans for post-secondary education – particularly for STEM, teacher education, and foreign languages. That was the impressive start of the federal student loan program. It was never meant to be a permanent chain around the necks of college graduates.

National Defense depends on smart Americans. But certain Russia-friendly Republicans have no interest in standing in Putin's way.

#student loans #student debt forgiveness #biden administration #post-secondary education #national defense education act #national defense #dwight eisenhower #high tax rates on the filthy rich #republicans oppose debt forgiveness #house republicans #the gop us supreme court #election 2024

11 notes · View notes

ridenwithbiden · 8 months

Text

Democrats Get Shit Done

#National Defense

17 notes · View notes

pastpossum · 10 months

Text

dead ends

Oooh, another idea for a book that I will never ever write.

In the early years of the United States, Thomas Jefferson (or some similar morally dubious but notoriously inquisitive and scientifically/experimentally minded figure) sets up a supernatural system of protections for the new nation, possibly already including plans/provision for a ghost army. Years later, the emergence of the United States military cemetery system has been incorporated into this structure. Many years after leaving the service, a dead soldier is interred in a military cemetery, and finds themself recalled to duty in a spectral military operation.

#writing prompt #military #ghosts #story idea #novel idea #defense #national defense

4 notes · View notes

harvestheart · 1 year

Text

WE HONOR YOU ~ today and always

#Veteran's Day #military service #national defense

7 notes · View notes

redd956 · 1 year

Text

Ah yes the two most dangerous organizations to national defense

Gaijen and Wargaming

#gaijen #wargaming #world of tanks #wot #war thunder #wt #video gaming #belarus #terrorism #kgb #spy organizations #national defense #video games #video game #pc gaming

3 notes · View notes

defensenow · 2 days

Text

youtube

0 notes

sachyriel · 1 month

Text

‘Most bizarre order I’ve ever seen’: Lawyers were absolutely astonished by Mar-a-Lago judge’s latest move, and some are urging Jack Smith to seek ‘extraordinary remedy’

Lawyers were left scratching their heads over the Mar-a-Lago trial judge’s Monday order asking the prosecution and defense to propose jury instructions under the assumption that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) allowed former Donald Trump to unilaterally decide that classified documents were personal.

"This is my emotional support nuclear secret, you can't take it from me. I told them, I told them I told them if they took my emotional support secret I'd sue them so hard they'd end up underground. Next to my ex-wife Ivanka. I mean Ivana."

Unsurprisingly, the reaction to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s order was swift and unequivocal, with some pointing out that likelihood of acquittal has gone up. Conservative lawyer George Conway called the order the “most bizarre” he’s ever seen a federal judge docket, leapfrogging two other orders Cannon has already issued in the case.

George Conway, famous forbeing married to Kellyanne Conway. They've since divorced, but now that she's on the market Bil Maher isn't interested anymore. I could have done this in the Trump voice, like complaining about Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson. Too much Trump voice, gotta use it sparingly.

“In the decades that I have been a lawyer, this is the most bizarre order I’ve ever seen issued by a federal judge,” Conway said. “What makes that all the more amazing is that the second and third most bizarre orders I’ve ever seen in federal court were also issued by Judge Cannon in this case.” Conway’s criticism was in response to a post by former Obama administration “Ethics Czar” Norm Eisen, who wrote that the order was “clumsy & amateurish” and ignored the “different body of law” that governs classified documents, “including EO 13526.”

If it's stupid and works it's not stupid. For Cannon's purposes of getting Trump off the hook for his illegal actions she has to thread the needle of making it look plausible his defence found a way to argue their way out of trouble. The problem is we can see her signalling them what she wants them to do. If it's stupid and doesn't work then you can reduce it like a fraction where the denominator is one.

Since a motion hearing last week, Cannon has rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss on grounds of Espionage Act “unconstitutional vagueness” — without prejudice, meaning the defense can raise it again later and “as appropriate in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions.” But the judge has not yet ruled on the other argued motion to dismiss, under the Presidential Records Act (PRA).

"Only Trump is allowed to be unconstitutionally vague" rules Judge Cannon. On one hand yeah I'd also want the laws I'm being prosecuted under to not be vague, but on the other Trump's being constitutionally vague when he tries to argue that the President is not an officer of the USA.

When special counsel Jack Smith submitted his arguments, he, like Eisen, emphasized that executive order 13526 — “in force throughout Trump’s Presidency and through the allegations in the Superseding Indictment” — states that classified materials “can be accessed only by a person who an appropriate United States official determines is eligible for such access; who has signed an approved non-disclosure agreement; and who has a ‘need to know’ the classified information.” “Under the provisions of EO 13526, the Superseding Indictment alleges, once Trump left office, he no longer had authorization to possess classified information, he never received a waiver entitling him, as a former President, to possess it, and he stored documents at a location that was not an authorized location for the storage, possession, review, display, or discussion of classified documents,” the special counsel said, rejecting the notion that the PRA allowed Trump to declare, by fiat, that national defense information documents were merely personal belongings.

Donald Trump's Mind Powers Under The Microscope: Does this look funny to you? (I almost went with "do they pass the sniff test?" but what kind of microscope is that?).

Now, Cannon has ordered the defense and the prosecution to file, by April 2, “proposed jury instructions limited to the essential elements” of the 32 willful retention of national defense information counts Trump faces — but in light of the PRA. She ordered the two sides to “engage with” two “competing scenarios and offer alternative draft text that assumes each scenario to be a correct formulation of the law to be issued to the jury [.]” The latter scenario would plainly pave a path for acquittal:

I mean every hates that she's making Jack Smith dig the grave for his own case, but on the other people are in favour of making Trump dig his own grave. Trump has to pay his lawyers to seriously consider scenario (a), Judge Cannon probably-maybe won't sign off on sloppy work. But if Jack Smith submits his first, they may copy his homework. If they ask for (and likely recieve) an extension, he will have filed and they get like an extra week to cheat off him.

The attorney reactions only amped up from here, with some suggesting that Smith may have enough to seek the “extraordinary remedy” of a writ of mandamus from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, a court that has had to overturn Cannon’s decision-making before.

That's just confirming your Pryors.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s ex-top lieutenant Andrew Weissmann said that mandamus should be on the table for Jack Smith after Cannon’s latest bit of “legal inanity.” “This is the kind of legal inanity that could lead Jack Smith to seek to mandamus Judge Cannon- ie to get the 11th Circuit appeals court to hear this and reverse her for the third time- which could also be the proverbial three strikes and you’re out,” Weissmann said.

That's too optimistic, I want the threat of the appeal to keep Judge Cannon on the straight and narrow so we can get this done. If the threat of the appeal means she has to follow the actual law I think it's better than starting over from square one and delaying it longer.

Weissmann repeated this on MSNBC. “There’s a reason you’ve never seen anything like it,” Weissmann said, before dropping two M-words: the first was “meshuggenah,” describing the order, and the second was mandamus. noun

a person who acts foolishly

offensive

a person who has a mental illness

Collins English Dictionary.

“Please draft a jury instruction assuming that the earth is flat. And the second one is please draft a jury instruction that the earth is square,” Weissmann characterized the order. “And so, the second M-word is mandamus. Mandamus is the ability — it’s not an appeal. It’s for extraordinary actions by a district court that so clearly violate the law that you can appeal it right then and there.” “What she did today is so nutty,” he added.

Scenario (a) allows Trump to argue that it's still a personal document, scenario (b) says it is because he says it is. One is giving him a chance to earn it, the other is handing it to him. That's why the Earth is Flat not a Square.

National security lawyer Bradley Moss, also appearing on MSNBC alongside Weissmann, cautioned against seeking mandamus right away. “So, Jack Smith, if he doesn’t take Andrew up on his idea of seeking mandamus, and I actually don’t think they’re going to do that yet, I think they’re going to try to fashion a response to this to basically say ‘Alright, judge, I’m not sure where you were going with that, but um, no, that’s not how this works. If you think that’s the state of the law is what you put in that second line item, that’s fine. Issue a ruling, grant Trump’s motion to dismiss, as he outlined it under the Presidential Records Act, and will take it to the 11th Circuit,'” Moss said. “But that’s an issue of law for the judge, that’s not an issue for the jury.” “There’s nothing for the jury to do with that instruction. If that is what they went to trial with, I was Trump’s lawyers I’d sit there and take a nap through trial, play Candy Crush, and then the moment the government rested, ‘I move for a directed verdict for acquittal’ because you can’t lose,” he continued. “Because the jury instruction automatically grants you a win.”

"If you think that’s the state of the law is what you put in that second line item" is where I think it hinges, IANAL. Scenario (b) hands it to him but even considering scenario (b) is innapropriate because it's instructions to the Jury. Cannon should just decide on it herself, the fact she doesn't is her trying to look impartial when she's in the bag.

Skipping tweets

Smith has already threatened to appeal if Cannon separately refuses to reconsider a “clear error” that could out government witnesses through discovery, but the judge has not made a ruling on that issue either.

If Trump gets to have his emotional support nuclear secret he's going to want to show it to the witnesses personally.

The special counsel made waves once before by seeking a rarely granted writ of certiorari before judgment from the U.S. Supreme Court on Trump’s claims of “absolute immunity” from prosecution in his Jan. 6 case, so perhaps the Special Counsel’s Office wouldn’t shy away from pursuing similarly extraordinary relief.

Let me know what you think.

0 notes

parttimereporter · 4 months

Text

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin went into the hospital on Monday for complications following an elective surgery, the Pentagon announced Friday

The other startling part is that this was not released to the media until the end of the week when he was released..

#military #national defense #politics

0 notes

pauldelancey · 5 months

Text

1000th Post in a Row - Peanut Butter Armageddon

Simply squeeze Sometimes humanity does great things such as landing a man on the moon, building the Panama Canal, or making laptops. These projects helped us all immensely and caused us to swell with pride. Then there’s squeezable peanut butter. I mean, how hard is it to scoop peanut butter and spread it on a slice of bread? The simple amoeba could almost do it. All we’d have to do is make a…

View On WordPress

#aircraft carriers #amoeba #Armageddon #Comic Chef #cookbook #humanity #laptops #man on the moon #national defense #Panama Canal #peanut butter #squeezable #squeeze #surgeries

0 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