Most frightening and/or depressing story: Some self-labeled “conservatives” in the United States want to do away with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Census Bureau, the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Education, and possibly even the Federal Reserve. All these are needed to have a competent, stable government and society and to be prepared to respond and recover from the shocks that are coming, so I would call this nihilist and not “conservative” at all. How is it conservative to want to destroy the institutions that have underpinned the success of our nation thus far? On the other hand, they also want to double down on the unimaginative pro-big-business, pro-war consensus of the two major parties over the last 50 years or so, which has also gotten us to where we are today. And it looks like the amateurs and psychopaths have the upper hand at the moment in terms of our November election. This is certainly not “morning in America”.
Most hopeful story: Computer-controlled cars are slowly but surely attaining widespread commercial rollout. I don’t care what the cynics say – this will save land, money and lives. And combined with renewable and/or nuclear energy, it could play a big role in turning the corner on the climate crisis.
Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: I had a misconception that if the world reduces greenhouse gases today, the benefits will not kick in for decades. Happily, scientists’ understanding of this has been updated and I will update my own understanding along with that. The key is the ocean’s ability to absorb excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere relatively quickly. (I am not sure this is good for the ocean itself, but it is somewhat hopeful for temperatures here on land.) And it is not all or nothing – any emissions reductions will help, so the failure to act in the past is not an excuse to continue to fail to act.
Originally published in 2007, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, provoked both howls of outrage and cheers of gratitude for challenging what had been a taboo issue in America: the impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. foreign policy. A work of major importance, it remains as relevant today as it was in the immediate aftermath of the Israel-Lebanon war of 2006.
Mearsheimer and Walt describe in clear and bold terms the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel and argues that this support cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds. This exceptional relationship is due largely to the political influence of a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. They provocatively contend that the lobby has a far-reaching impact on America’s posture throughout the Middle East―in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict―and the policies it has encouraged are in neither America’s national interest nor Israel’s long-term interest. The lobby’s influence also affects America’s relationship with important allies and increases dangers that all states face from global jihadist terror.
The publication of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy led to a sea change in how the U.S-Israel relationship was discussed, and continues to be one of the most talked-about books in foreign policy.
Second, a chart from the Council on Foreign Relations showing that since 1946, Israel has received close to double the amount of U.S. foreign aid compared to the next largest recipient, which is Egypt. The overwhelming amount of this aid has been military, which in practice often means the U.S. government buying weapons from the private U.S. arms industry to send abroad.
And this is one argument I have heard, that part of the solid base of political support for the Israel lobby is the U.S. arms industry, because a relatively small investment in lobbying yields a huge return in profits. Which you can say about any lobbying, but in this case it is compounded by the already strong ideological, geopolitical, and highly motivated lobbying efforts in Israel’s favor.
After my last story was “back to Somalia”, this story the U.S. moving back into bases in the Philippines. If we want China to feel surrounded and threatened, this seems like a pretty good move.
One thing I am willing to give Donald Trump some credit for is trying to end U.S. involvement in foreign wars. He tried unsuccessfully to withdraw from Syria, and he set the Afghanistan withdrawal in motion although it later became a debacle. Add to that an actual successful withdrawal from Somalia. This is from Middle East Eye, a publication I was previously unfamiliar with.
President Donald Trump’s administration moved to withdraw all 700 American troops from Somalia in 2020, after a three-decade presence in the country.
This does not mean drone strikes on targets in Somalia ended. They continued, and they are continuing now. And the Biden administration is sending a small number of troops back to Somalia. Apparently this is legal (ish?) – the U.S. is there at the invitation of the Somali government to please by all means attack its enemies. And the domestic justification supposedly goes all the way back to Congress’s approval of the global war on terror after 9/11.
It’s fun to watch construction cameras in fast forward. This is a ship being built at Philly Shipyard Inc. (and by way, you can argue whether it is lazy to use the abbreviation for Philadelphia and whether “ship yard” should be one word or two, but this is the actual name of the company.
I learned from this (paywalled) Philadelphia Inquirer article that U.S. shipyards are not competitive in the market for international oceangoing cargo vessels. However, there is something called the Jones Act that requires domestic trade to be done on U.S.-built and U.S.-crewed ships. So this includes trade between the U.S. mainland, Hawaii, and Guam for example. This seems a bit inefficient to me, but I can also see an argument to maintain the ability to build technology domestically with obvious military use. The shipyard also has military and government contracts which, and so sorry I just can’t resist the terrible pun, keep it afloat. I am a dad after all, and I have to keep my dad jokes at the ready.
So I saw Top Gun: Maverick. MINOR SPOILERS FOLLOW. I’ve read a few snarky reviews of it – it’s a recruiting poster for the military, an indication of the dying gasp of an empire, a throwback to the glory days that will never return, maybe even anti-Chinese. I thought it was a fun movie, though. Could we just not overthink it and let it be a fun movie? As a boy of the 1980s (when Top Gun came out) and 1990s (when it was on TV a lot), I do consider it a cultural icon that should not be messed with. So I was worried, but I heard the movie was good and decided to see it. And I thought it succeeded in not ruining the original for a couple reasons – first, Tom Cruise just doing his Tom Cruise thing in his Tom Cruise way. It wouldn’t have worked without him. Second, the eye-popping airplane action and the soundtrack, which were both in the spirit of the original. It just all worked.
Sure, it is a recruiting poster for the U.S. Navy. But this is a movie that is very clear and honest that it is a movie made by the U.S. Navy and glorifying the U.S. Navy. I am much more bothered by movies like the Transformers and Godzilla series that subtly target a younger audience with a pro-military message.
Sure, the plot makes no sense. The enemy is a “rogue regime” building a uranium enrichment plant in a coastal, cold, and mountainous location. So in the real world, it can’t be China, North Korea, or Pakistan because they have had nuclear weapons for decades. And yet they have cutting edge advanced aircraft and air defenses. So maybe a mountainous area of Iran with military hardware supplied by China? Or some fictional island dictator or sultan, except that these tend to be in warm locations. Maybe Iceland – I’m going to go with a mad Bond villain taking over Iceland and seizing some kind of secret NATO R&D facility. There apparently is a purely military solution to the problem, and there apparently are no geopolitical implications of any kind that the moviegoer has to worry about. (In the original, the suggestion is that it was sort of an accidental United States and Soviet Union confrontation that both decide it is in their best interests to cover up. If the U.S. actually launched an unprovoked attack on China, I’m pretty sure China would publicize it.
But Hollywood doesn’t even try to develop characters or make plots that make sense any more. That seems to be a job for TV series these days. So let’s just let it be fun.
Two things did bother me though. One was the absence of Kelly McGillis’s character Charlie. As a boy of the 1980s and 1990s, 1986 Kelly McGillis is important to me. I looked her up – she is a handsome 64-year-old woman. I guess she just wouldn’t have worked as Tom Cruise’s love interest – Cruise is 59 but whatever they do to him through surgery, makeup, and/or computer graphics he looks about 35 in the movie. They should have at least given Kelly McGillis a cameo though – well, maybe they offered and she said no thanks. I was mildly disturbed by the actual love interest in the movie – they never explain anything about her and pretend we are supposed to know her from the first movie. I had to look this up – apparently her character is mentioned in passing in the original movie. They should have at least mentioned Charlie in this new movie or explained what happened to her. I will always love you, Charlie! (Oops, wrong song – I was supposed to say you take my breath away. Well, at least they had the good sense not to mess with that song in the new movie because that song was all about Charlie. And I’m not much of a romantic by the way, but like I say it’s a culture icon. By the way, they avoid having to pay Meg Ryan for a cameo by just telling us her character is dead, which is kind of cheap.)
And finally, I just want to make a pitch for motorcycle helmets. I get that the brash young balls-forward Maverick didn’t wear a helmet. The grownup, more responsible Maverick should have put one on. I suppose his character is marginally suicidal so maybe he gets a pass. He certainly should have put one on his love interest if he actually cared about her life and safety. So shame on Hollywood for this and I hope nobody imitates the movie and gets hurt. Incidentally, I looked up one other thing: you can go online and find a motorcycle helmet in the style of Maverick’s flight helmet. And that is pretty cool. Although remember motorcycles are not safe to begin with. I see some Top Gun-inspired bike helmets for children.
And finally, there are just certain iconic songs associated with certain iconic movies. Top Gun: Maverick goes to the danger zone (a lot), but it has lost that loving feeling.
We’ve heard a lot about the F-35 aircraft being a boondoggle. Apparently, the U.S. Navy has a boondoggle of its own called the littoral combat ship.
It has been plagued by problems since its conception in 2001. Uncharitably dubbed the “little crappy ship” by its detractors, the program has faced cost overruns, delays, mechanical failures, and questions over the platforms’ survivability in high-intensity combat. Each of the 23 commissioned littoral combat ships cost around $500 million to build, with astronomical operating costs adding to the program’s hefty price tag.
Knowing nothing about naval or littoral combat, building a bunch of small ships like this does seem like a better idea than a few multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers and battleships which can be taken out by missiles and mines. A half a billion dollars for one “crappy little ship” seems a bit steep though.
Yesterday I concluded the U.S. is not ready for a significant disaster. But one thing we commit plenty of resources to and are good at is fighting wars, right? In fact, we are so good nobody will even mess with us, right? Not so fast. There is buzz at the moment over a war game that supposedly showed the U.S. catastrophically losing a conflict over Taiwan. Communications were disrupted immediately by missiles, drones, and attacks on infrastructure like undersea cables, and without communications the U.S. forces couldn’t fight effectively.
I’m a little skeptical. Why would the U.S. military intentionally publicize something like this? I suppose scaring a domestic audience into committing even more resources is always one reason. A cold war with China is a good reason for our military-industrial complex to keep sucking up 5% or so of our economy, and Taiwan is the most obvious flashpoint that could go from cold to hot. If brinksmanship or bluffing to sustain military funding is the game here, the risks are too great to play the game. Seriously, let’s not let this happen.
Here’s a video about an armed drone that can track down and kill someone, supposedly in a fully autonomous mode. And here’s an article suggesting this may already have actually happened.
The U.S. Marine Corps is retooling to (be prepared to, but hopefully not) fight a war with China, according to Scientific American. Basically, this involves a focus on amphibious landings to take islands, and then defending them with lots of drones and missiles. The Army can fight big wars with lots of tanks, if needed.
This sounds like a fun video game, and it is good to be prepared, but please politicians let’s not let a world war happen. The drum beats are getting louder every day. I think we need some kind of peace group that meets regularly to define the issues and work on resolving them, or at least keeping them nonviolent. But the drum beating seems to serve domestic political purposes in many countries – remember a military-industrial complex needs an enemy so it can keep eating and growing, especially in countries with elected leaders. And as long as the military-industrial complex is eating and growing, it is willing to pretend it is under the control of elected civilian leadership, even though it could depose that civilian leadership at the drop of a hat. But threaten it or back it into a corner and there is no telling what will happen. So in the U.S. at least, no politician will threaten it (since, I don’t know, approximately November 22, 1963), or nobody willing to threaten it gets seriously close to power. But none of this has anything to do with fighting an actual war. Not even the military-industrial complex wants that, but they will beat their drums right up to the point of war, hoping their opponent will back off and make them look strong. It’s easy to see how this can lead to catastrophe.
