This is one where I’m not sure I see it the same way you do. I think Trump’s dismantling of military leadership has already been a serious threat to the stability of the country. He deliberately fired top JAG officers to weaken military accountability and internal checks and balances. Hegseth isn’t just some bozo; he’s part of this larger effort to shit on career military leadership and send a message: fall in line or face termination. The pushback we’re seeing from military leaders is an organized system trying to defend itself against toxic leadership.
And honestly, I think if these leaders believed they could reason with Trump, they would try. But at this point, it’s obvious to everyone involved that you can’t reach him. The more you challenge him, the more he doubles down or becomes inured to his approach. So there’s no point. This resistance and sabotage is the only tools they feel they have to stop him. And make no mistake. I truly feel that if he doesn’t get undermined by military leadership, there will come a day where he will ask the military to go against American people. Personally, I think he’s just waiting for that day.
As Ken already anticipates in this article, any sign that the military will resist Trump is desperately welcome news to liberals. Concerns about constitutionality and civilian control are complicated by the manifest fact that the Trump administration acts with complete contempt for the constitutional limits of executive power. The constitutional crisis is already here.
Could the Pentagon's resistance be due to many in the Trump Administration not rubber stamping every military venture the establishment wants to engage in? How does that blend with the "endless wars" crowd? Or, has the left become the defenders of the military establishment? I think it's the latter.
Of course there was once a 'real left' - and they had some political power at times too - in the USA. It has always been contemporaneously crushed, rooted out and sabotaged dating back to the early 1900s.
I think it’s gone. The Democratic Party has been pushed right and right over the past few decades. Think about how Obama handled defense and how Biden (actually) handled immigration. An actual left wing would have made reforms to reduce spending and dismantle ICE. The reason why we’re in this mess is because our last two Democratic presidents just carried the torch. If we had an actual left wing in the US, the Dems would be talking about open borders and decreased military presence.
I agree on some of what you say and will push back on some of it.
Dismantling ICE? I see that as a blatant attack on the lower middle class in the interests of the business class. Being for strong borders used to be a left-wing position. So was being against interventionalist foreign policy.
My belief is the left ceded many positions to the populist right. In that regard Presidents Obama and Biden did as you say. The left has become Bush era Republicans but still think they're hippies.
You’re absolutely right about the dismantling of ICE and how the left wing has changed. I’m kind of young so I don’t remember a day where strong borders were a left wing position. Thank you for pushing back; you gave me something I need to look into deeper! Also, I agree with you how Democrats are Bush-era Republicans now. I would say there are only a handful of Democrats in congress who are truly fully left wing.
Liberals are not the left. To equate the two is deeply insulting to leftists. And to suggest we are for the military makes no sense considering how most of us feel about Palestine.
Exactly. There is simply the narrowest of political range in America, but this conscribed view gets the same names as a truly far-ranging political arena. To paraphrase Richard Fariña, "been right so long it looks like left to me."
I've coined my own version of a common trope: The Overton Ratchet. It clicks to the right with every passing election and culture war fad. Class consciousness is snuffed completely out. Then again, who was it that said back in the day that every American is just a temporarily inconvenienced future (b)millionaire?
My understanding has been that the Pentagon brass and career military folks have been the people voicing dissent AGAINST the forever wars (including Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and a new one with Iran), favored by the political class. It would surprise me if these defections, dismissals and alleged refusals to abide by chain of (in Hegseth's case, civilian) command had to do with the career military types WANTING more wars, rather than wanting to END them. But these are strange times.
I was not thinking about Iran specifically. Rather, a hodge podge of things I've read in the recent weeks. The Signal chat leak showed a robust debate within the Administration on bombing the Houthis. VP Vance was against it. There's also the lack willingness to keep the quagmire going in Ukraine. I also read Hegseth and Gabbert were among the voices against attacking Iran's facilities. There is a serious non-interventionalist representation in the administration. There are also some traditional Hawks. However, the Hawks aren't a threat to the military establishment and our apparent need to always be engaged somewhere. Being against that used to be liberal position. I'm not so sure anymore.
You and I came away with very different interpretations of the leaked Signal chats apparently. I thought they all seemed cavalier and shallow in their thinking.
I have perused, but not read, the entire chat. I recall JD Vance making what I thought were good points on why engaging in the gulf are not in US interests. To me that was a welcome and practical assessment that at the very least should be seriously considered.
Based on decades of reading about this stuff, I would say "NO." Typically it's the military [Pentagon] agitating or dissenting against NEW wars. But who knows in this case. To me it looks like the people who were recently forced out or denied positions are the ones who have spoken or written unfavorably about Israel and war with Iran.
I have a dilemma. First, having a person like Hegseth as SecDef should have been foreseeable no-go territory. By most accounts, a very unserious person. Now this person gets to work with a collection of (I hope) some of the most serious people around. Second, most of those serious people are a different breed. They're doing what they are are doing to be a part of American history, not to take orders like trained dogs (though that comes with the territory). I believe most of their virtues like duty, honor, and courage are rooted a belief that our military can and has been a force for good. In short, they do not leave their morals at the door.
My dilemma stems from all that. Sure, in principle, the military must be under civilian control - the Constitution calls for it; it is essential. But in our current situation, who do I trust more? The current administration or the top brass? We are talking about the ability to launch nuclear weapons. Right now, these guys could be the only thing stopping them from dropping a nuke to "bring people to the bargaining table".
I appreciate the point, Ken. But this goes back to Ike's military-industrial complex speech from, 1960? In the present day, who is going to push back on Trump's adventurists when they get their 5 minutes in front of Trump's Putinist defeatists? Not the legacy media and not, who, Tom Cotton ? Institutional self-defense may not be a right, but I take it as a universal.
Ike is a conundrum. He may have given that famous speech, but he was the guy responsible for the creation and growth of the MIC in the first place, so the "warning" came a little late. Here's what ChatGPT has to say about it (since it's so difficult to find articles that aren't just about his speech).
🧠 Eisenhower Helped Build the Military-Industrial Complex—Even As He Warned Against It
In his famous 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned Americans to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence" by the military-industrial complex (MIC)—a powerful fusion of the military, arms industry, and government. The irony? Eisenhower himself was one of the key architects of that very complex.
While often remembered as a peace-preserving president who ended the Korean War and avoided full-scale conflict, Eisenhower dramatically expanded the reach and permanence of U.S. military and intelligence power, particularly through covert action and strategic partnerships with industry and academia.
🧱 1. Permanent Military Buildup and Defense Contracting
Eisenhower’s Cold War defense strategy, known as the “New Look,” emphasized nuclear deterrence over conventional forces. This meant a massive buildup of strategic weapons systems, which in turn drove massive defense contracts and long-term relationships with companies like Lockheed, Raytheon, and General Dynamics.
This strategy required:
Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)
Strategic bombers
Nuclear submarines
Expanding the U.S. Air Force and surveillance networks
This buildout laid the groundwork for the MIC by ensuring a constant flow of funding and influence between the Pentagon, private contractors, and Congress.
🧠 2. Rise of the National Security State Through Covert Action
Eisenhower was deeply committed to covert operations as a means of projecting American power without direct military engagement. Under his administration, the CIA grew in size, scope, and boldness, executing regime change and psychological operations around the world.
Key examples include:
Iran (1953): The CIA orchestrated a coup (Operation Ajax) to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadegh and reinstall the Shah.
Guatemala (1954): Another CIA-backed coup ousted President Árbenz, protecting U.S. corporate (United Fruit) and anti-communist interests.
Indonesia, Congo, Cuba: Covert operations, assassination plots, and influence campaigns defined much of U.S. foreign policy.
These operations avoided public debate, congressional oversight, and accountability, and they entrenched a culture of secrecy and executive power within the emerging MIC framework. They also deepened alliances between intelligence agencies and private contractors—many of whom would go on to dominate defense technology and security consulting.
🧪 3. Integration of Science, Technology, and Academia
Eisenhower strongly promoted federal investment in science and technology, but often with defense applications in mind. His administration established:
ARPA (now DARPA), to advance military tech post-Sputnik
NASA, initially overseen by defense-minded figures
Defense-funded university labs (MIT Lincoln Lab, RAND, SRI)
This wove together government, universities, and corporations into a technocratic, militarized research complex, a key part of the MIC.
🚨 4. Normalization of Interventionism and Empire Management
Despite Eisenhower’s aversion to full-scale wars, his administration entrenched interventionist policies that required ongoing military and covert capabilities:
He expanded U.S. global military presence, establishing long-term bases in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
Through alliances (like NATO, SEATO) and nuclear umbrella guarantees, the U.S. was effectively committed to worldwide security management.
His policies encouraged an enduring logic of preemption, secrecy, and centralized power, the same logic that sustained and empowered the MIC.
🪖 5. The Paradox of the Farewell Speech
Eisenhower’s warning wasn’t hypocritical—it was the self-aware reflection of a man who had built the machine and knew its dangers. As a five-star general and Cold War president, he understood:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence... by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
His legacy is paradoxical: he avoided war, yet militarized foreign policy; he warned of the MIC, but enabled its rise; he privileged covert action, while cautioning against government secrecy.
Well done recap on Ike. Putinist defeatist refers to the Trumpist faction that wants to sell out Ukraine and, my guess, the Baltic states, and whatever else about NATO they despise.
Sell out Ukraine? Please read the 2019 Rand Corp. report outlining in detail the plan to use regime change in Ukraine (mission accomplished through the neocon/CIA 2014 Maidan coup) that would lead to Ukraine's request to join NATO, which request (provocation) would trigger phase two, the Nordstream blowup and the sanctions against Russia that would "weaken" Russia and cause its people to rise up and oust Putin. The West's naivete regarding everything Russia, in particular why its people are devoted to Putin and support his fearless (albeit over-patient at times) struggle to stave off the takeover of Russian assets by the West (an attempt that was tried and failed thanks to Putin in the 1990s) knows no bounds. But the media is complicit in the plan described in the Rand report. Their role too is described in detail. They, like our politicians, are bought and paid for by giant U.S. corporations and their globalist instruments, the Fed, the IMF, the World bank and so on. That no mention is ever made of BRICS, whose members represent half the world's population and whose values are the opposite of ours (multipolarity and peaceful trade) misrepresent to Americans the real shift in global power and the real reason why the West is in disarray. It is not because of tariffs. These are too little too late. Unlike Russia and China, we have no vision whatsoever beyond protecting Israel and the interests of our billionaire class. Trump's commitment to "the working people" was just a campaign promise. He doesn't mean it. His $1 trillion defense budget proves my point, as well as his obsession with rare earths and his flip-flopping on everything.
"Sell out Ukraine" is a very troubling turn of phrase. The US has been meddling in Ukraine since the Cold War and even more disturbingly since the end of the USSR to the tune [at the time] of Vicky Nuland's $5Bn as stated in early 2013 pre-coup. If the US and NATO hadn't been fucking around in the first place, Ukraine wouldn't have found out.
Let's not forget that President Eisenhower was General Eisenhower before becoming president. That is not to say that having the generals in charge of the government is a good thing, or a constitutional one. It just means that we were lucky with the times we had generals as presidents, including Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower, all of whom left office, there were 8 others as well. Probably our best luck was the first one, the general who could have taken over to begin with, but didn't, George Washington.
If three times is the charm, then we are seriously close to having totally run out of luck.
Just watched Col Doug MacGregor. He thinks if Hegseth goes, Trump might bring in Tom Cotton....the most evil, lying, warmongering Zionist next to Bibi. Heaven and GOD please NO!! 🙏 🙏
Ok, I had some schadenfreude here because I assumed I would be anti-trump administration on anything (imagine my surprise to learn I'm happy about Trump and Hegseth's position not to join Israel on one of their unhinged plans). But now I'm scared, and obviously it's always...um, more than worrying to be a country facing a military coup.
This and what Drop Site News reported prompted me to look up MSM sources and I'm thoroughly confused about what's happening and what the official plan is about Iran. I would love more of your reporting on this whole thing.
They wanted a celebrity as secdev and they got it. I think a lot of the push back from uniformed folks is that maga over promised and actual military planners cannot achieve their goals without tremendous loss of life or money. Trump will never fire him. Hegseths future entirely depends on his response to his first non signal crisis. Troops die, easy removal. Military operations succeed and trump becomes a genius for standing by him.
Thank you for reporting, this is a huge risk. And props for highlighting that this issue, like so many others we are facing, does not begin and end with Trump, but is driven by both parties.
Trump has openly fantasized about using the military to violently put down civilian protesters. Perhaps the military officers seeking to undermine him don’t want him to be issuing illegal orders and threatening the Republic.
This is one where I’m not sure I see it the same way you do. I think Trump’s dismantling of military leadership has already been a serious threat to the stability of the country. He deliberately fired top JAG officers to weaken military accountability and internal checks and balances. Hegseth isn’t just some bozo; he’s part of this larger effort to shit on career military leadership and send a message: fall in line or face termination. The pushback we’re seeing from military leaders is an organized system trying to defend itself against toxic leadership.
And honestly, I think if these leaders believed they could reason with Trump, they would try. But at this point, it’s obvious to everyone involved that you can’t reach him. The more you challenge him, the more he doubles down or becomes inured to his approach. So there’s no point. This resistance and sabotage is the only tools they feel they have to stop him. And make no mistake. I truly feel that if he doesn’t get undermined by military leadership, there will come a day where he will ask the military to go against American people. Personally, I think he’s just waiting for that day.
Why not to fire more? US military has at least twice the number of generals than needed
As Ken already anticipates in this article, any sign that the military will resist Trump is desperately welcome news to liberals. Concerns about constitutionality and civilian control are complicated by the manifest fact that the Trump administration acts with complete contempt for the constitutional limits of executive power. The constitutional crisis is already here.
Could the Pentagon's resistance be due to many in the Trump Administration not rubber stamping every military venture the establishment wants to engage in? How does that blend with the "endless wars" crowd? Or, has the left become the defenders of the military establishment? I think it's the latter.
IF you want to make a comment I would advise you: There is NO 'left' in the USA
What do you mean? What used to be considered left is now gone? Something else?
There has never been a 'left' in the USA.
Most of the time I watch your politics from another country.
Most Americans think that Liberals are the left!
IF you had a 'leftist' Govt. you would have:
Free Schools/free Healthcare/free Old people's homes and kindergaden for young kids.
YOU do not have any of this so please do not tell me you have leftists.
Everything (Political Party's) are owned by Zionist money!
Of course there was once a 'real left' - and they had some political power at times too - in the USA. It has always been contemporaneously crushed, rooted out and sabotaged dating back to the early 1900s.
Pshaw. When I look at EU government I could just as easily say there is no right in the EU.
I think it’s gone. The Democratic Party has been pushed right and right over the past few decades. Think about how Obama handled defense and how Biden (actually) handled immigration. An actual left wing would have made reforms to reduce spending and dismantle ICE. The reason why we’re in this mess is because our last two Democratic presidents just carried the torch. If we had an actual left wing in the US, the Dems would be talking about open borders and decreased military presence.
You summed this up perfectly! Thank you!
Glad you liked it, Carolyn!
I agree on some of what you say and will push back on some of it.
Dismantling ICE? I see that as a blatant attack on the lower middle class in the interests of the business class. Being for strong borders used to be a left-wing position. So was being against interventionalist foreign policy.
My belief is the left ceded many positions to the populist right. In that regard Presidents Obama and Biden did as you say. The left has become Bush era Republicans but still think they're hippies.
You’re absolutely right about the dismantling of ICE and how the left wing has changed. I’m kind of young so I don’t remember a day where strong borders were a left wing position. Thank you for pushing back; you gave me something I need to look into deeper! Also, I agree with you how Democrats are Bush-era Republicans now. I would say there are only a handful of Democrats in congress who are truly fully left wing.
Liberals are not the left. To equate the two is deeply insulting to leftists. And to suggest we are for the military makes no sense considering how most of us feel about Palestine.
As it has been said, the left is always anti-war. Liberals hate the last war, but they love the next one.
Exactly. There is simply the narrowest of political range in America, but this conscribed view gets the same names as a truly far-ranging political arena. To paraphrase Richard Fariña, "been right so long it looks like left to me."
I've coined my own version of a common trope: The Overton Ratchet. It clicks to the right with every passing election and culture war fad. Class consciousness is snuffed completely out. Then again, who was it that said back in the day that every American is just a temporarily inconvenienced future (b)millionaire?
My understanding has been that the Pentagon brass and career military folks have been the people voicing dissent AGAINST the forever wars (including Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and a new one with Iran), favored by the political class. It would surprise me if these defections, dismissals and alleged refusals to abide by chain of (in Hegseth's case, civilian) command had to do with the career military types WANTING more wars, rather than wanting to END them. But these are strange times.
Do you think the drumbeat for war with Iran is originating from the military itself?
I was not thinking about Iran specifically. Rather, a hodge podge of things I've read in the recent weeks. The Signal chat leak showed a robust debate within the Administration on bombing the Houthis. VP Vance was against it. There's also the lack willingness to keep the quagmire going in Ukraine. I also read Hegseth and Gabbert were among the voices against attacking Iran's facilities. There is a serious non-interventionalist representation in the administration. There are also some traditional Hawks. However, the Hawks aren't a threat to the military establishment and our apparent need to always be engaged somewhere. Being against that used to be liberal position. I'm not so sure anymore.
You and I came away with very different interpretations of the leaked Signal chats apparently. I thought they all seemed cavalier and shallow in their thinking.
I have perused, but not read, the entire chat. I recall JD Vance making what I thought were good points on why engaging in the gulf are not in US interests. To me that was a welcome and practical assessment that at the very least should be seriously considered.
Based on decades of reading about this stuff, I would say "NO." Typically it's the military [Pentagon] agitating or dissenting against NEW wars. But who knows in this case. To me it looks like the people who were recently forced out or denied positions are the ones who have spoken or written unfavorably about Israel and war with Iran.
Who exactly are the "liberals." You have NO say in this because you are exactly the same as the Republicans.
Good question. I think not.
I have a dilemma. First, having a person like Hegseth as SecDef should have been foreseeable no-go territory. By most accounts, a very unserious person. Now this person gets to work with a collection of (I hope) some of the most serious people around. Second, most of those serious people are a different breed. They're doing what they are are doing to be a part of American history, not to take orders like trained dogs (though that comes with the territory). I believe most of their virtues like duty, honor, and courage are rooted a belief that our military can and has been a force for good. In short, they do not leave their morals at the door.
My dilemma stems from all that. Sure, in principle, the military must be under civilian control - the Constitution calls for it; it is essential. But in our current situation, who do I trust more? The current administration or the top brass? We are talking about the ability to launch nuclear weapons. Right now, these guys could be the only thing stopping them from dropping a nuke to "bring people to the bargaining table".
you know what, I'll allow it. let them cook.
I appreciate the point, Ken. But this goes back to Ike's military-industrial complex speech from, 1960? In the present day, who is going to push back on Trump's adventurists when they get their 5 minutes in front of Trump's Putinist defeatists? Not the legacy media and not, who, Tom Cotton ? Institutional self-defense may not be a right, but I take it as a universal.
Putinist defeatists? What does that even mean?
Ike is a conundrum. He may have given that famous speech, but he was the guy responsible for the creation and growth of the MIC in the first place, so the "warning" came a little late. Here's what ChatGPT has to say about it (since it's so difficult to find articles that aren't just about his speech).
🧠 Eisenhower Helped Build the Military-Industrial Complex—Even As He Warned Against It
In his famous 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned Americans to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence" by the military-industrial complex (MIC)—a powerful fusion of the military, arms industry, and government. The irony? Eisenhower himself was one of the key architects of that very complex.
While often remembered as a peace-preserving president who ended the Korean War and avoided full-scale conflict, Eisenhower dramatically expanded the reach and permanence of U.S. military and intelligence power, particularly through covert action and strategic partnerships with industry and academia.
🧱 1. Permanent Military Buildup and Defense Contracting
Eisenhower’s Cold War defense strategy, known as the “New Look,” emphasized nuclear deterrence over conventional forces. This meant a massive buildup of strategic weapons systems, which in turn drove massive defense contracts and long-term relationships with companies like Lockheed, Raytheon, and General Dynamics.
This strategy required:
Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)
Strategic bombers
Nuclear submarines
Expanding the U.S. Air Force and surveillance networks
This buildout laid the groundwork for the MIC by ensuring a constant flow of funding and influence between the Pentagon, private contractors, and Congress.
🧠 2. Rise of the National Security State Through Covert Action
Eisenhower was deeply committed to covert operations as a means of projecting American power without direct military engagement. Under his administration, the CIA grew in size, scope, and boldness, executing regime change and psychological operations around the world.
Key examples include:
Iran (1953): The CIA orchestrated a coup (Operation Ajax) to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadegh and reinstall the Shah.
Guatemala (1954): Another CIA-backed coup ousted President Árbenz, protecting U.S. corporate (United Fruit) and anti-communist interests.
Indonesia, Congo, Cuba: Covert operations, assassination plots, and influence campaigns defined much of U.S. foreign policy.
These operations avoided public debate, congressional oversight, and accountability, and they entrenched a culture of secrecy and executive power within the emerging MIC framework. They also deepened alliances between intelligence agencies and private contractors—many of whom would go on to dominate defense technology and security consulting.
🧪 3. Integration of Science, Technology, and Academia
Eisenhower strongly promoted federal investment in science and technology, but often with defense applications in mind. His administration established:
ARPA (now DARPA), to advance military tech post-Sputnik
NASA, initially overseen by defense-minded figures
Defense-funded university labs (MIT Lincoln Lab, RAND, SRI)
This wove together government, universities, and corporations into a technocratic, militarized research complex, a key part of the MIC.
🚨 4. Normalization of Interventionism and Empire Management
Despite Eisenhower’s aversion to full-scale wars, his administration entrenched interventionist policies that required ongoing military and covert capabilities:
He expanded U.S. global military presence, establishing long-term bases in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
Through alliances (like NATO, SEATO) and nuclear umbrella guarantees, the U.S. was effectively committed to worldwide security management.
His policies encouraged an enduring logic of preemption, secrecy, and centralized power, the same logic that sustained and empowered the MIC.
🪖 5. The Paradox of the Farewell Speech
Eisenhower’s warning wasn’t hypocritical—it was the self-aware reflection of a man who had built the machine and knew its dangers. As a five-star general and Cold War president, he understood:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence... by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
His legacy is paradoxical: he avoided war, yet militarized foreign policy; he warned of the MIC, but enabled its rise; he privileged covert action, while cautioning against government secrecy.
Well done recap on Ike. Putinist defeatist refers to the Trumpist faction that wants to sell out Ukraine and, my guess, the Baltic states, and whatever else about NATO they despise.
Sell out Ukraine? Please read the 2019 Rand Corp. report outlining in detail the plan to use regime change in Ukraine (mission accomplished through the neocon/CIA 2014 Maidan coup) that would lead to Ukraine's request to join NATO, which request (provocation) would trigger phase two, the Nordstream blowup and the sanctions against Russia that would "weaken" Russia and cause its people to rise up and oust Putin. The West's naivete regarding everything Russia, in particular why its people are devoted to Putin and support his fearless (albeit over-patient at times) struggle to stave off the takeover of Russian assets by the West (an attempt that was tried and failed thanks to Putin in the 1990s) knows no bounds. But the media is complicit in the plan described in the Rand report. Their role too is described in detail. They, like our politicians, are bought and paid for by giant U.S. corporations and their globalist instruments, the Fed, the IMF, the World bank and so on. That no mention is ever made of BRICS, whose members represent half the world's population and whose values are the opposite of ours (multipolarity and peaceful trade) misrepresent to Americans the real shift in global power and the real reason why the West is in disarray. It is not because of tariffs. These are too little too late. Unlike Russia and China, we have no vision whatsoever beyond protecting Israel and the interests of our billionaire class. Trump's commitment to "the working people" was just a campaign promise. He doesn't mean it. His $1 trillion defense budget proves my point, as well as his obsession with rare earths and his flip-flopping on everything.
"Sell out Ukraine" is a very troubling turn of phrase. The US has been meddling in Ukraine since the Cold War and even more disturbingly since the end of the USSR to the tune [at the time] of Vicky Nuland's $5Bn as stated in early 2013 pre-coup. If the US and NATO hadn't been fucking around in the first place, Ukraine wouldn't have found out.
https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-articles/history-of-war-in-ukraine
Let's not forget that President Eisenhower was General Eisenhower before becoming president. That is not to say that having the generals in charge of the government is a good thing, or a constitutional one. It just means that we were lucky with the times we had generals as presidents, including Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower, all of whom left office, there were 8 others as well. Probably our best luck was the first one, the general who could have taken over to begin with, but didn't, George Washington.
If three times is the charm, then we are seriously close to having totally run out of luck.
Gawd I hope so!
Just watched Col Doug MacGregor. He thinks if Hegseth goes, Trump might bring in Tom Cotton....the most evil, lying, warmongering Zionist next to Bibi. Heaven and GOD please NO!! 🙏 🙏
Please no.
Man, I would just love it if people in positions of power were held accountable for what they do.
"Cutting through the crap!"
This is exactly what happens when Empires are in decline.
IF anyone takes time to 'think' in the USA............you see Hegseth/tatooed body.
What does the rest of the world think?
Idiocy.
Ok, I had some schadenfreude here because I assumed I would be anti-trump administration on anything (imagine my surprise to learn I'm happy about Trump and Hegseth's position not to join Israel on one of their unhinged plans). But now I'm scared, and obviously it's always...um, more than worrying to be a country facing a military coup.
I had schadenfreude and still do! Hegseth is a moron
This and what Drop Site News reported prompted me to look up MSM sources and I'm thoroughly confused about what's happening and what the official plan is about Iran. I would love more of your reporting on this whole thing.
Why exactly?
They wanted a celebrity as secdev and they got it. I think a lot of the push back from uniformed folks is that maga over promised and actual military planners cannot achieve their goals without tremendous loss of life or money. Trump will never fire him. Hegseths future entirely depends on his response to his first non signal crisis. Troops die, easy removal. Military operations succeed and trump becomes a genius for standing by him.
Ken, thank you for the reminder, civilians control the military! I needed this.
This is definitely concerning! Great article Ken! 💯
Thank you for reporting, this is a huge risk. And props for highlighting that this issue, like so many others we are facing, does not begin and end with Trump, but is driven by both parties.
Good story. Cant wait to read what Seymour Hersh's Pentagon sources say.
Trump has openly fantasized about using the military to violently put down civilian protesters. Perhaps the military officers seeking to undermine him don’t want him to be issuing illegal orders and threatening the Republic.