Yves here. It is sobering to see what the Democratic party propaganda machine is cooking up and will probably succeed in selling. The messaging boils down to “War is love”. And that means you can expect a Kamala administration to be all in on the strategy of more military spending at the expense of social safety nets and domestic infrastructure.
Needless to say, this approach looks awfully late stage USSR, when the Soviets were faced with having to contend with both the US and China as hostile interests/strategic competitors. Except then, the US successfully cultivated China while the USSR failed to try to dial down China border tensions, while here, we worked hard to and prevailed at driving Russia and China into pretty tight mutual support on both the economic and military front.
By Peter Bloom, a Professor at the University of Essex in the UK. His books include “Authoritarian Capitalism in the Age of Globalization” (2016), “The CEO Society”, and most recently “Guerrilla Democracy: Mobile Power and Revolution in the 21st Century.” Originally published at Common Dreams
The Democratic Party’s attempt to associate militaristic policies with a campaign centered on hope and joy represents a dangerous conflation of progress and military power.
In an already historic presidential campaign featuring the rising threat of Christian nationalism, assassination attempts, and the sudden switch of a presidential nominee, one of the most under-the-radar but worrying developments has been how the Democratic Party has increasingly sought to associate its militaristic policies with a campaign centered on “hope” and “joy.” This strategic move, while politically savvy, raises profound questions about the nature of progress, the role of military power in shaping global politics, and the future of American democracy. As the United States grapples with the genuine threat of far-right extremism and the specter of Trumpism, it becomes crucial to critically examine the Democrats’ approach to national security and foreign policy.
The Democratic Party’s emphasis on hope and joy in their political messaging is not new. Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, with its iconic “Hope” poster and message of change, set a precedent for this approach. In the face of growing authoritarianism and global instability, the Democrats have doubled down on this strategy, presenting themselves as the guardians of democracy and harbingers of a brighter future.
However, this narrative of hope and progress is increasingly intertwined with a commitment to maintaining and even expanding American military dominance. Nowhere was this more evident than in Vice President Kamala Harris‘ acceptance speech, where she seamlessly blended aspirational rhetoric about preserving democracy and promoting economic opportunity with a promise to ensure that the United States remains “the strong, most lethal fighting force in the world.”
This juxtaposition of hope and militarism creates a troubling paradox. On one hand, the Democrats present themselves as champions of peace, multilateralism, and global cooperation. On the other, they continue to advocate for policies that perpetuate a cycle of global conflict and divert resources from pressing domestic needs.
The Democratic Party’s deep ties to the military-industrial complex cannot be ignored when examining their policy positions. Despite rhetoric about creating an “opportunity economy” and investing in social programs, the reality is that trillions of dollars continue to flow into military spending. This massive allocation of resources not only prevents real investment in creating a more equitable and sustainable society but also fuels global conflicts and instability.
The growing marketplace for surveillance technology globally further complicates this picture. As the United States seeks to maintain its technological edge in military and intelligence capabilities, it simultaneously exports these technologies to allies and partners around the world. This proliferation of surveillance tools raises serious concerns about privacy, civil liberties, and the potential for authoritarian abuse.
The Dangerous Conflation of Militarism with Progress and Democracy
One of the most concerning aspects of the Democrats’ approach is the attempt to link militarism with concepts of multilateralism and global cooperation. This rhetoric, championed by President Biden and his predecessors, suggests that a strong military is essential for maintaining international order and promoting democratic values abroad.
However, this conflation ignores the complex realities of global politics and the often counterproductive effects of military intervention, where even legitimate support for regimes can turn into a profitable opportunity for weapon’s makers. By framing military power as a tool for promoting democracy and human rights, the Democrats risk legitimizing interventions that may ultimately undermine these very values.
The focus on maintaining military supremacy comes at a steep cost, both domestically and globally. At home, the massive defense budget diverts resources from critical investments in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and environmental protection. This misallocation of funds perpetuates economic inequality and hinders efforts to address pressing social issues. Globally, the United States’ military-first approach to foreign policy has often led to unintended consequences. From the destabilization of entire regions to the creation of power vacuums that give rise to extremist groups, the track record of American military interventions is far from unambiguously positive.
Perhaps most troubling is the way in which militarism is being normalized and even celebrated within ostensibly progressive political discourse. By linking military power to concepts of hope, progress, and global cooperation, the Democrats are fundamentally reshaping the way Americans think about the role of force in international relations. This normalization process makes it increasingly difficult to question or challenge militaristic policies. When criticism of military spending or interventions is framed as opposition to “hope” or “progress,” it becomes easier to marginalize voices calling for a more peaceful and just foreign policy.
The US embrace of surveillance technology as a tool for local and national security raises serious questions about the compatibility of these practices with democratic values. While presented as necessary for protecting citizens from threats both foreign and domestic, the expansion of surveillance capabilities poses significant risks to civil liberties and privacy rights. Moreover, the export of surveillance technologies to other countries, including those with questionable human rights records, undermines the Democrats’ claims to be champions of democracy and freedom. This contradiction between rhetoric and action further erodes trust in the political system and reinforces cynicism about the true motives behind foreign policy decisions.
The Rising Threat of “Hopeful” Militarism
The Democratic Party’s approach to militarism presents a unique danger in American politics, one that diverges significantly from the overt hawkishness often associated with their Republican counterparts. While figures like Trump and the far-Right occasionally denounce “endless wars” – even as they continue to support the military-industrial complex – the Democrats have crafted a narrative that intertwines militarism with a vision of global progress and democratic idealism.
This rhetorical strategy embodies a distinct form of hypocrisy. By framing military interventions and the maintenance of global military supremacy as essential components of preserving and spreading democracy worldwide, the Democrats have effectively weaponized hope. They present militarism not as a necessary evil, but as an integral part of an optimistic, forward-looking vision for both domestic and international progress.
The risk lies in how this framing normalizes and even glorifies military action. When couched in the language of hope, democracy, and global cooperation, policies that perpetuate conflict and divert resources from crucial social needs become more palatable to a progressive audience. This rhetorical sleight of hand allows the Democrats to pursue interventionist policies while maintaining the moral high ground in the eyes of their supporters.
Furthermore, this “hopeful” militarism creates a false dichotomy: either support military action or abandon the cause of global democracy. By conflating military might with democratic values, the Democrats make it challenging to envision alternative approaches to international relations and conflict resolution. This narrative effectively silences critics, painting them as pessimists or isolationists who lack faith in American ideals.
The integration of militaristic policies into a discourse of democratic progress also serves to obscure the real-world consequences of these actions. When military interventions are framed as necessary steps towards a more peaceful and democratic world, it becomes easier to overlook the immediate human cost and long-term destabilizing effects of such interventions. The rhetoric of hope acts as a veil, concealing the harsh realities of war and occupation behind a facade of noble intentions.
This approach also shores up support for the military-industrial complex among those who might otherwise be its critics. By aligning military spending with progressive values, the Democrats create a cognitive dissonance that allows their supporters to reconcile their desire for social progress with continued investment in weapons and warfare. This effectively broadens the base of support for militaristic policies, making substantive changes to America’s foreign policy approach even more challenging.
The Democrats’ “hopeful” justification of militarism represents a sophisticated form of propaganda. It coopts the language of progress and democracy to serve the interests of the military-industrial complex, all while presenting itself as a force for global good. This approach not only perpetuates harmful policies but also corrupts the very ideals it claims to uphold, turning concepts like hope, democracy, and progress into tools for justifying military dominance.
Recognizing and confronting this rhetorical strategy is crucial for anyone seeking to challenge the prevailing paradigm of American militarism. It requires a willingness to question even those narratives that align with our values and to critically examine the gap between hopeful rhetoric and the often harsh realities of military action. Only by disentangling our aspirations for a more just and democratic world from the machinery of war can we begin to forge a truly progressive approach to global affairs.
Reimagining Security and Reclaiming Hope
As we confront the challenges of the 21st century, from climate change to global inequality, it is crucial to reimagine our approach to security and progress. True hope for the future lies not in maintaining military dominance but in addressing the root causes of conflict and instability.
Investing in diplomacy, international development, and conflict resolution could yield far greater returns in terms of global security than continued military buildup. Similarly, redirecting resources towards education, healthcare, and sustainable infrastructure could create genuine economic opportunities and improve the lives of millions of Americans.
Challenging the dominant narrative of militarism as progress will require concerted effort from civil society organizations, grassroots movements, and engaged citizens. By highlighting the true costs of militarism and presenting alternative visions for national security and global cooperation, these groups can help shift the public discourse.
The Democratic Party’s attempt to associate militaristic policies with a campaign centered on hope and joy represents a dangerous conflation of progress and military power. While the threats posed by far-right extremism and global authoritarianism are real, the answer does not lie in perpetuating a cycle of militarism and conflict.
True hope for the future lies in reimagining our approach to national security, global cooperation, and economic progress. One where movements social movements around the world can unite to support one another in resisting and replacing economic and political oligarchs locally and globally. By challenging the normalization of militarism within progressive discourse and presenting alternative visions for a more peaceful and just world, we can reclaim the concept of hope from those who would use it to justify endless war and surveillance.
59 comments
Comments are closed.
I feel like “hope” hasn’t really been a thing. It’s been “Joy” all the way.
Joyful militarism? No pretence of hoping to meet the surface or deeper needs of anyone. Just joy and war.
Joyful Genocide™.
The truth can be tragically humorous, I admit I had a good laugh, cheers!
Neocon Joy. ™
While most of the post is good, it should be said that this is not a unique danger. It is basically the “National Security State” as formulated for Latin American countries by the US government, in terms of which the core of the nation is the military (with the police, especially the secret police, as an essential adjunct). The military is also depicted as being more efficient than civilians, and therefore more appropriate to carry out the tasks of disciplining the populace. This has been a common trait of African dictatorships in the past (and the South African “securocracy” under President Botha and General Malan, with its emphasis on the “total strategy” of General Andre Beaufre, a notion developed with US assistance for the Algerian counterinsurgency war, was similar).
It is indeed terrifying. But neoliberalism has blown back in the faces of the American people. Why be surprised if neoconservatism does the same? “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag”, but it now appears that it will also be wearing a smiley face.
I’ll see your smiley face and raise you a laughing face. Kinda like positive liberty and negative liberty laughing at each other. Militarism hopes to keep the peace so that everyone has a degree of freedom. That makes sense because the thought that we go unrestricted and allowed to achieve our isolated goals at the expense of others and the environment is no longer acceptable. There are lotsa ideas out there that can be applied universally. One I really liked was Tim Chi (I think) on Nate Hagens outlining an idea that is capitalist and sounds like it would require many degrees of freedom to become effective globally – Chi basically says iirc that under best practices for sustainability the economy can make its investments and returns as long as some of the net benefit goes directly back to the environment. He set it at a mere 10% of profits. I would assume stg like this would require policing to become policy. So, kinda smiley face.
The Democrats’ “hopeful” justification of militarism represents a sophisticated form of propaganda. It coopts the language of progress and democracy to serve the interests of the military-industrial complex, all while presenting itself as a force for global good.
Most people I interact with do not have the capacity to combat “sophisticated forms of propaganda” let alone even know that it’s being deployed on them. The use of Neuro Linguistic Programming and all the advances that a integrated/wired technologically tethered world we live, one that bombards people not only with the powers that be “coopting language” but the use of music and images (Daniel Boorstin was writing on this subject decades ago), makes me less than optimistic.
Although “war is love” might be a stretch maybe, war is peace, hate is love, and slavery is freedom, has already been socialized in 2024 America.
That’s exactly where we, in the West, are going full-throttle. In many ways the UK is leading the way on this with its draconian laws and procedures against dissent. Fortunately, citizens in the US still have some agency the Brits and Euro people lack thanks to the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution.
I left a comment that fell in moderation because I had copy-pasted on it a translation of a text from Spanish. It more or less was agreeing with the paragraph you commented but using different words. Based on words used by a Spanish writer decades ago talking about the first cold war it was saying that even if there is some truth or sincerity on the beliefs or ideologies that are used to support militarism, once that path is chosen such beliefs/ideas/values one begs to defend stop being ends by themselves but instruments on behalf of militarism, weaponry, victory at all costs etc. Propaganda as the article states. It is not sophisticated but simply the logical outcome that one could expect when militarism is the path chosen. In this sense the culprits cannot be blamed of hypocritical thinking because they can justify their military ends by any means available, including propaganda. Propaganda and no other thing is what you can expect coming from the democrats, from now on, once they have turned so openly to be nothing but warmongers.
Maybe the Democrats think that it is still the 90s when the US had a much larger Army, Navy and Air Force because they were coming off the First Cold War. I doubt that we will see an Army like the US put together in the Gulf Wars as that was then and this is now. The US spent twenty years in the sand box and started to forget how to do combined operations. The doctrine, as far as I know, still depends on having aerial superiority. The present military is now incapable of even halting the Yemeni attacks on shipping and have pulled out of the area. Scott Ritter has said that the US does not have the numbers to mount an invasion of that country to put them down. Not possible. Too much has changed over the past twenty years but as I said, the Democrats still think that they have the military of the 90s. But that bit where Kamala was talking about “lethal” was not her but talk given from Pentagon types. The present Pentagon can’t even buy a gross of desk staplers without talking about how “lethal” they are.
(Amy Klobuchar has entered the chat)
Rev Kev,
Aside from their dividends and K St contributions from Lockheed, the Washington elite know only about the “spec sheets” for things like F-35, Patriot air defense, mechanized infantry brigades, etc.
They have no idea what the spec sheets says and what the things really do is vastly different. In not a good way!
This AM Simplicius gives a good accounting of an SU 34 surviving an attempted intercept by Patriot missiles!
The guy is better than Tom Cruise, in real life!
By now the resistance has seen most of what the pentagon can try to do!
I think this is about as even handed report as we can expect on how the US Navy fared in the Red Sea:
Admiral Tells the Real Truth About Battling the Houthis in the Red Sea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuiABhebAfQ
The Democrats favor a “notional” military the real military is just a con for contractors to steal money (more or less) from the Treasury or, these days, the notional Treasury. The Democratic Party itself is a kind of confidence game with only two goals, money and power since they threw what was left of the left aside in 2016.
That sure looks like what it all boils down to. Sadly, the R faction is in lock-step. As they say, “the Rs stab you in the chest, while the Ds stab you in the back” You can see the Rs coming, while their buddies sneak up from behind and finish you off.
For a long time the Democrats have been the more militarily illiterate ones, because for a long time they were the peaceniks, but now that they are the militarists, that illiteracy still shows. The Madeline Albright attitude of “what good is this big expensive military if we can’t use it?” seems to still persist 30 years later, regardless of intervening events.
Typified by humanitarian hawk Samantha Powers who justifies usa military actions by responsibility to protect.
But not Gaza where she is missing in action despite being in the Biden admin.
She is a manufactured fraud from day one, I just wanted to take this space to point out
So far, during the Biden administration, defense spending has increased by $149.6 billion yearly, from 898.6 to 1,048.2 billion:
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/?reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&categories=survey#eyJhcHBpZCI6MTksInN0ZXBzIjpbMSwyLDNdLCJkYXRhIjpbWyJjYXRlZ29yaWVzIiwiU3VydmV5Il0sWyJOSVBBX1RhYmxlX0xpc3QiLCI1Il1dfQ==
July 25, 2024
Defense spending was 56.2% of federal government consumption and
investment in April through June 2024. *
$1,048.2 / $1,863.8 = 56.2%
Defense spending was 21.0% of all government consumption and
investment in April through June 2024.
$1,048.2 / $5,001.2 = 21.0%
Defense spending was 3.7% of GDP in April through June 2024.
$1,048.2 / $28,629.2 = 3.7%
* Billions of dollars
The shrinkage and growing ineffectiveness of the US military is approaching a test sometime in the future, when the bluff will be called. That is the subtext of reports about the limited performance of the once-vaunted Patriot antimissile system, or the Abrams tanks being blown up, or the success of the Houthi attacks at Bab-el- Mandab.
The big test is likely to come sooner under a bellicose leader that believes their own propaganda, and maybe later under a cagey type that understands US vulnerability but gets boxed-in by events into a demonstration of credibility. You can just see it coming.
One company, Lockheed Martin,which was broke in 1971 and saved by the taxpayer, has received more money from the federal government over the last ten years, than the entire US department of Education….
Do you have a link for that because I would enjoy sending that to my reps in Congress.
Why bother? Unless you have lots of bribe money and “lobbyists” they couldn’t care less. They already know where the money comes from and where it goes.
I recognize that but still would be interested in the response from those that represent Vermont and are always fighting for us.
If Osama wanted to bankrupt the United States in perpetual war, he almost got it.
I have written before that the militarism or the MIC in the US is the tumour that keeps growing at the expense of the rest of the society and the rest of the world. I always recall a book by Rafael Sánchez Ferlosio who I think is widely ignored in the anglosphere titled “Sobre la guerra” (2007, “About War” though i believe it hasn’t been translated into English). I guess he is nearly impossible to translate because much of his writing and thinking is based on the very clever analysis of Spanish language he does when writing. He has written some other essays about war and I believe he was the first author I read who wrote that the only reason for the existence of NATO was to perpetuate itself.
One of the complex phrases he wrote when talking about the First Cold war (translated by DeepL and edited by myself was the following:
Translated with DeepL.com (free version, hey and modified by me hopefully improving DeepL).
This, IMO paints very well the militarism of the democrats and their use of “progress”, “democracy” etc as instruments at the service of weaponry, ambition of hegemony etc.
Thank you, Ignacio. Some “high-calorie thoughtfood” indeed!
I’m afraid he lost his argument in his first para by going TDS, Trump is worse, etc. oh. That’s exactly the fig leaf the Dem estab hides behind. Ergo, they aren’t forced to pay a political price for their war mongering. / my 2 cents
an aside: here’s an example of Dem voters being snubbed and still bending the knee to war mongering. Due Dissidence guys, utube, 14 minutes.
DNC SNUBS ‘Uncommitted’ Delegates, REJECTS Their Planned Speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l19I0UEeswU
Not that any current pres candidate will act differently in Isr., but still, ….
Here is another example of Democrats going over the top. Democratic strategist James Carville went on CNN and said about RFK-
Look, Bobby Kennedy had a parasitic brain-eating worm in his head and the worm died of starvation, okay….’if Bobby Kennedy lived in a more humane country, they would have him in a nice rubber room and you know, three hots and a cot and take care of this guy. He has no business being out on the street mixing and mingling with people. But this is where we are in this country. We have a mental health crisis and he’s at the top of it.’
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/08/26/he-has-no-business-being-out-on-the-street-carville-says-more-humane-country-would-have-committed-rfk-jr/
The 6:40 min video is worth watching.
CommonDreams kicked lots of us out of their comments threads, for speaking inconvenient truth & contradictory fact about DNC’s Lincoln & United Democracy Project’s blatant Likud & MICIMATT “soft” coup, way before Hillary’s goose-stepping 2016 Wells Fargo coronation? Kraft durch Freude (KdF) was the joyful program that bought us the Volkswagen & Sturmjugend indoctrination camps? It’s STILL wild to watch season 4 of Babylon Berlin & hear lines repeated, verbatim in Manhattan’s UWS, by liberals who’ve never watched, after Netflix DROPPED it like a hot potato?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gC_9lULJnCg
Indeed – they speak of “far right extremism” as if that isn’t what the Democrat party itself stand for with its wars, censorship, and general lack of democracy. The Democrat party of today looks remarkably like the Republican party during the 80s. We have had Obama invoke Reagan in a flattering way more times than I can count, and Chuck Schumer bragging about picking up the suburban Republican votes. How so may otherwise intelligent people don’t see the Democrats for who they really are is beyond me.
Thank you, lyman, for stating the necessary correction re “right wing extremism”. Democrats ARE everything they purport to hate.
I agree. Why was the “rising threat of Christian nationalism” conjured at the beginning of the piece? As usual, no definition, no elaboration, just a boogeyman under the bed.
If the conflation of war and “joy” is not classic fascist language, what is?
US-ians: They Thought They Were Free.
Indeed. Not merely fascist, but Nazi.
The slogan was ‘strength through joy’ (Kraft durch Freude), which was a key aspect of the labour movement, and instituted by the Nazi labour chief, Robert Ley, in 1933.
Deeply, and obscenely, ironic on at least several levels.
Ley, of course, hanged himself at Nuremberg.
Democrat post cold war militarism goes back to the Clinton era.
Madeline Albright to Colin Powell re. Bosnia: “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”
They never looked back.
Yes, the Clintons started the infection but there was still some anti-war voices on the Democratic Party left–now that left no longer exists such that the DP is now the true conservative party (i.e., conserving the status-quo flow of money to the billionaire class).
I want to remind people that one enabler of the move to militarism was the Telecommunications Act of 1996, if I have the title correct. Once that passed the elites had total control of the narrative, hence the shift over the years into the war and joy we live in today. Or is it the joy of war. I wonder.
Total control of the narrative – tightening the screws ever since.
Speaking of war, the latest from Gilbert Doctorow is concerning. I hope to see that discussed here.
We can go back to War is a Racket by Gen Smedley Butler, or even further to the American Anti-Imperialist League
and the deaths of half a million Iraqi children was “worth it”. Western, Judeo-Christian values and all that.
Hope and change got Qaddafi killed, Libya a mess and US troops stuck in Syria/Iraq keeping ISIS on ice for its next assignment.
Democrat expansion of NATO is cause for hundreds of thousands of dead mainly ethnic Slavs over a fiction created by Stalin.
While DNC “our democracy” is gutting the 1st Amendment imposing the state religion of woke/anti Christian nationalist.
The arguments against a state religion included freedom of all beliefs!
Won’t merely be strong – our military will be lethal!
Who is meant to get this message? A joyful, murderous future.
The problem with this story is that it seems to imagine the US is interested in promoting “democracy” which has not been true at least since 1963. While some middle-management types in the security-state may have that hope the reality goes exactly in the opposite direction for the Uniparty. With the war-mongering nonsense of this administration and Trump’s clear move towards the necessary conjunction of the blending of right and left populists, we may finally have an opposition party emerge.
Democracy was never the goal of the framers of the Constitution, which they equated with “mob rule,” or what they conflated those who did not own land. But your placing “democracy” in quotes…
The US has NEVER been interested in promoting “democracy” “freedom” or whatever, that’s just a feel-good justification of naked imperialism and militarism. If you can provide some examples prior to 1963, I am open to revising my opinion. Mossadegh in Iran (1953); Arbenz in Guatemala (1954) ?
The RNC targets its messaging to Joe Sixpack. This is a guy who is married, is probably spinning his wheels in his career, likes to watch football and war movies, and is disgusted by the popular culture and also himself. To this person “MAGA” resonates. Make America Great Again means make him great again.
The DNC targets its messaging to Jane Xanex. This is a woman who is probably not married, and if she is the marriage is on the ropes, she is spinning her wheels in her career, likes to scroll Instagram and watching Boss Girl movies, and she is very sad and almost certainly medicated. To this person “Joy” resonates.
The post yesterday: Why US Belligerence Towards Russia Is Likely to Continue No Matter Who Is President was excellent. The US ruling class defines its interests in such a way that the behavior of USG is preordained. The messaging to Joe/Jane are obnoxious, but irrelevant.
In the end, we who can see are forever burdened with the numerical superiority of those who can not.
Neocons are a part of a duopoly.
The original “neoconservatives” were followers of Leo Strauss, and many joined PNAC. Now, the term “neocon” is used for any suit-and-tie wearing, pencil-necked coward who wants others to die, so they can enrich themselves and their bribe-masters. (aka MICIMATT)
Who are these people who Peter Bloom thinks are swayed by the Democrats “hope” and joy” nonsense? I’m certainly not swayed. Democrats are the party of war. That’s it.
Of course “the rising threat of Christian nationalism” is as fantastic a creation as the Polish Military Organization was in the 1930s, made by the same kind of people and for the same reasons.
There’s nothing really new here. During the Cold War, there was a whole swathe of intellectual, vaguely leftist, opinion that was blindly anti-military because they thought that the military were killing people they supported (the Viet Cong and others.) But they never bothered to find out anything about the military. After the Cold War they realised that the military could actually be used to kill people they disliked–Serbs, Iraqis, whatever–and so could be used for “good.” But they still didn’t bother to find out anything about the military. So we have a dominant caste eager to kill others for “good causes” but completely ignorant about the limitations of the military.
I think this works as long as it isn’t our own troops that are fighting and dying.
The GAE did seem to finally learn that lesson from its adventure in Iraq. Its subsequent wars, in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, have been fought with other people’s cannon fodder rather than its own.
I am replenishing my stash of popcorn and prepared to rewatch the Starship Troopers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film)
and was happy to see that there are several sequels including two American-Japanese anime ones. Yuppy!
The a bit of climate change and environmental doom: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13821126/?ref_=nm_flmg_t_5_act
I’ve also added Starship Troopers to my rewatch list!
Sequels are intriguing
It’s time to read or re-read Chalmers Johnson’s classic book “The Sorrows Of Empire.” In it, Johnson argues that empire and militarism are incompatible with democracy and a prosperous society. This is due to the inevitable shift in priorities such that the society comes to support the empire rather than the empire supporting the society. Are we not already far down that path?
George Orwell in the novel 1984 – War is Peace
The Democrat Party in 2024 – War is Joy
After hubris drove the British Elites into a war to save face in 1914 the nation faced paying 20% Governnment Spending to service Debt incurred before succumbing to another war which had 40% GDP devoted to military and complete bankruptcy by 1945 with rationing of essential goods into 1950s and Forced Repression keeping Interest Rates at 3% together with Exchange Controls until 1979 leading to impoverishment of those on fixed income and repeated financial crises
USA is going down the same path
I just want to say that I agree with this analysis.