Introduction
Donald Trump has no guiding domestic or foreign affairs philosophy. Trump is like an animal in the jungle: he moves cautiously, stops, listens, smells the wind for sources of danger, water, food; and moves in a direction he deems safe. In 2015/16, he smelled the political winds and detected an anti-war sentiment among Americans in general, and veterans in particular. Hence his debunked claim that ‘I did not support the war in Iraq.’ In 2023/24, he sniffed the winds and detected an anti-NATO and anti-intervention sentiment among Republicans and veterans; hence his anti-NATO outbursts. Democrats are the interventionist-militarist party. They are supported by a rump Republican element in Congress. ‘Neo-cons’—the ‘Kagan Klan,’ William Kristol, et al.—that once infested the ‘Grand Old Party’ of Ronald Reagan, Richard M. Nixon, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Abraham Lincoln in the 2000s, but switched to the Democrats.[1] The switch was discernible in 2016, where Hillary Clinton was the nominee of choice for ‘war-mongers.’
But why do many military and intelligence veterans support an American exit from NATO, and oppose American intervention in the Middle East and elsewhere? A brief backgrounder.
1. Human, Social, and Economic Costs of War
‘Blood and treasure’ is the operative phrase. Americans have sacrificed lives and limbs on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan for naught. Tens of thousands of Iraqi and American lives and trillions of dollars were lost in Iraq to hand Iraq to Iran and anti-American Shia and Sunni factions. Twenty years, tens of thousands of Afghan and American lives and trillions of dollars were expended to wrest Afghanistan from the Taliban, only to hand Afghanistan back to the Taliban. Both wars shape perspectives of veterans and Republicans. Both reflect the ineffectuality of U.S. Army war-fighting methods, and the serial incompetence of politicians and generals.
Human and economic losses are not limited to the battlefield. Far from it. More veterans have come home and died than did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many times more in fact; the leading cause is suicide (Veterans Administration report).[2] ‘Overall, the suicide rate among U.S. veterans in 2021 was 33.9 per 100,000, compared with the U.S. non-veteran population of 16.7 per 100,000.’ Suicides among veterans began spiking with the ‘Global War on Terrorism’ (GWOT; 2001–2021).
PTSD, homelessness, divorce, poverty, and drug/alcohol abuse cause considerable misery for veterans and families. Almost every veteran of GWOT knows a vet suffering from PTSD; drug and/or alcohol abuse; or who is homeless; is divorced or has lost custody of his or her children; or is experiencing difficulties in his/her relationships with spouses, children, or parents; or who has attempted suicide or committed suicide. Social costs of GWOT have turned veterans and their families and communities against commitments to distant wars.
Veterans hate ‘chickenhawks’—the draft-dodgers and non-veterans—who want to send American boys to die in distant wars; and neo-con ‘war-mongers.’ The two sets are not mutually-exclusive; for example, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Antony Blinken, Victoria Nuland, Fred Kagan, Robert Kagan, Joe ‘five Vietnam War deferments’ Biden, Chuck Schumer, et al.—did not serve in uniform. George W. Bush, an Air National Guard pilot, bravely defended the skies of Texas during the Vietnam War. John Bolton, war-monger extraordinaire, about joining the National Guard to dodge service in Vietnam: ‘I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy.’
2. The Parlous State of America
Before 9/11, U.S. national debt stood at $5.67 trillion, about 36.6% of GDP. Today, it stands at $34.266 trillion, or 120% of GDP—six times higher than 2000. A pre-9/11 budget surplus of $0.24 trillion is a deficit of $1.70 trillion (FYE 30 September 2023). Annual interest payment on debt is $659 billion, and rising to $2 trillion by 2030 at current interest rates.
Washington wasted trillions of dollars on faraway wars while neglecting development (‘nation-building’) at home. Tucker Carlson’s 14 February 2024 video report on the beauty, cleanliness, and safety of Moscow’s subway system caused a meltdown among Russia-haters. The Tehran Metro is also magnificently decorated, safe, and clean. The two most sanctioned countries on earth have far better infrastructure—bridges, tunnels, roads, railways, subways—than the ‘richest country’ in the world. About 10% of the bridges in my home state, New York, are ‘structurally deficient,’ including the iconic Brooklyn Bridge. NYC’s subway system is back to its 1980s level terror-inducing state of disrepair, grubbiness, and criminality.
The cost of living in the United States, despite claims by the Biden Administration, is unbearably high for the middle- to lower-income strata of society. Foodstuffs that we purchase in London cost from 100% to 200% more in NYC. Tucker Carlson’s second video report, of him shopping in a supermarket in Moscow, where despite sanctions imported goods were readily-available along with domestically-produced foodstuffs—all at lower average prices than in the USA— generated more hysteria among Russia-haters (Carlson’s two reports, and the liberation of Avdeevka, Russia, led to neo-cons and their liberal allies having a terrible week). Dining out, even a modest meal of sandwich and fries, is a luxury for a majority of New Yorkers: ‘[a]s food prices rise at the fastest rate in decades, it’s become more expensive to eat and drink in New York City.’[3] Two cheeseburgers, fries, large Coke, and chocolate cake at an ersatz McDonald’s in Moscow,[4] Carlson showed, cost $7. One Big Mac in NYC is $6–7; fries, Coke, etc., cost more. The S&P 500, Dow, NASDAQ, are near historical highs, but wealth generation on Wall Street does not translate into higher incomes and prosperity for the majority of Americans, where ‘about 61% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.’ Rising inflation and soaring rents have led to high levels of homelessness in NYC, which, in 2023–24, ‘reached the highest levels since the Great Depression of the 1930s.’ Homelessness is on the rise in America. Drugstores like CVS and Walgreens lock-up household and personal care items to prevent shoplifting. Theft is not unexpected given the high cost of basic items like toothpaste, shampoo, and feminine care products.
The Ukraine War and Washington
Antipathy toward Washington and its pursuit of endless wars derives from the factors noted: (1) the human and economic costs of war; and (2) the parlous state of America. Most, or all, military and intelligence veterans served in Afghanistan, Iraq, other GWOT theaters. Their antipathies have faces: the Americans fomenting war with Russia and Iran. Neo-cons—not some nebulous community or ideology—but specific persons: Victoria Kagan (née Nuland), husband, Robert Kagan, his brother and sister-in-law, Fred and Kim Kagan; William Kristol, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, et al.; organizations like the American Enterprise Institute (home to Wolfowitz ) and the Kagan family’s Institute for the Study of War (ISW). These neo-cons, with notable exceptions (e.g., Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Hillary Clinton) are Jewish. This neo-con subset are fervent supporters of Israel, and hate Iran and Russia. Antony Blinken and Victoria Nuland, apart from being Jewish, are of Ukrainian descent. They are virulently anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox Christianity, which has led to speculation that they are using NATO to settle an ancient grudge against Tsarist Russia, Russian Orthodox Church, or perhaps Stalinist Russia. Who knows what goes through their minds? One person wagged online (in gangsta-speak) about Nuland, ‘dat bitch be crazy, yo.’
Washington has billions to waste on Ukraine and Israel but does zero ‘nation-building’ at home. America is falling apart, metaphorically and literally. NATO and Israel are the reasons for past and future expenditures of ‘blood and treasure’; and the further impoverishment and indebtedness of the American people. Previously, comments like ‘Iraq was a war for Israel’ were confined to dark corners of the web, but since 7 October 2023, they have erupted into the open. Once it became clear that Benjamin Netanyahu, his Likud allies, AIPAC (Israel Lobby), and their senile puppet in the White House intend to use the Gaza crisis to precipitate an American-led war against Iran, the imperative to end U.S. support for NATO and Israel has increased among intelligence and military personnel. Due to space limitations, I shall focus here on Russia and NATO.
An Anachronism Called NATO
Dwight D. Eisenhower, first NATO commander and a general still loved and respected by soldiers past and present, said that ‘[i]f in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed.’[5] A U.S.-led NATO, coupled to the Marshall Plan, was intended to allow Europeans time to develop and recover from WWII, before ‘we’ went home. But Europeans had other plans, viz., to ‘keep Americans in, Russians out, and Germans down.’ Even after the demise of the USSR, NATO continued to exist and to expand. George Kennan called it ‘A fateful error.’[6]
Why is Montenegro in NATO? Why is Albania in NATO? Why are the three Baltic states in NATO? These are some questions sensible analysts have asked. Albania (pop. 2.8 mil), Latvia (pop. 1.8 mil.), Lithuania (pop. 2.8 mil), and Estonia (pop. 1.3 mil.) can each barely field a division, while Montenegro (pop. 633k) fields just one brigade. Should Russia ‘go walkabout,’ Americans will have to fight for countries that are economically, culturally, politically, and geographically irrelevant for Americans. How many Americans even know that Montenegro exists? Or care? Yet American soldiers have been committed by Washington to dying for turf that cannot be located on a map without a microscope. At minimum, the scope and size of NATO is long overdue for evaluation. But for many, a clean break with NATO is seen as the only way to avoid being sucked into another war. The Ukraine War is not seen as ‘unprovoked,’ but a direct result of NATO expansion. Quite a large number of military and intelligence veterans of the Cold War and GWOT see Russia’s actions as wholly-justified. After all, would the U.S. have allowed Soviet or Russian troops to park themselves in Mexico, Latin America, the Caribbean, or Canada? The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) proves that Washington will never allow Soviet/Russian MRBMs to be situated within range of the U.S. Yet, Americans naïvely believe Russia should shut-up and tolerate the expansion of NATO, including the addition of Ukraine to NATO.
A U.S.-led NATO, apart from costs to U.S. taxpayers and risks to Service personnel, also generate bad attitudes from NATO members who know they can ‘poke the bear’ because America ‘has our back.’ The Baltic States are known in social media as ‘Baltic chihuahuas’ because they yap like chihuahuas about Russia, but absent U.S. military support, would be hors d’oeuvres for the bear. If America quits NATO, their overall attitudes toward Russia will improve. They will be compelled to diplomatically engage with Russia, which will yield for the Baltic States and Russia better diplomatic and economic relations. Should they fail and war with Russia ensues, what does it matter for Americans? Baltics states, like Ukraine, are irrelevant to U.S. national interests.
In keeping with the canine analogy, America’s ‘English poodle’ is a leading example of cockiness resulting from the ability to hide behind our skirts. Brits are always ready to bomb Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen whenever the ‘big dog’ asks them to join in, but Britain only does so because American military lives and tax dollars offer them cover. The British Army is in poor shape, struggling with a recruiting crisis and non-functional weapons systems. The vaunted Challenger, for example, of which the Brits have 227 on paper, has been reduced to 157 ‘due to cannibalisation of platforms for spares.’ The Brit Army got whipped in Helmand and Basra.[7] The Royal Navy is a bigger joke than the Army. Ships are de-commissioned due to the lack of sailors to crew them; HMS QE2 could not leave port to join a NATO exercise due to mechanical troubles. It was to be replaced by HMS Prince of Wales, but this, too, developed mechanical troubles. If the U.S. quits NATO, Britain will be forced to behave like the piddling power that it really is, and not join Washington’s misadventures. This will yield better results for the British people than funding wars in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, and Libya—and dealing with migrant crises after destroying North African and Middle Eastern societies and economies. Instead of spewing anti-Russian and anti-Iranian vitriol, Whitehall will be forced to act rationally, and forge profitable relations with Moscow and Tehran.
Conclusion
A Russian victory in Ukraine, former intel and military personnel believe, will lead to the demise of NATO. Hence their support—in public fora—for Russia. Popular social media and informational channels (Twitter/X, Telegram, Discord, TikTok, etc.) are filled with channels run by professionals. Their commentary leaves no doubt which side they favor in the Russia v. NATO contest. Admiration and respect for Russia/Russians have increased. Firstly, Russians are underdogs: western propaganda, economic, political, and military resources have been directed against Russia in a ‘hybrid war’—and Russia is winning. Its military, after some mistakes, is defeating NATO weaponry, generalship, and NATO personnel operating NATO equipment while pretending to be ‘mercenaries.’ Russian hardware—Kinzhal, Lancet, Kornet, Iskander, Alligator attack helicopter, etc.—and Iranian Shahid-136 loitering munitions, have proved superior to Challengers, Leopards, HIMARS, Patriots, Switchblades, etc. This has raised questions about the DOD’s weapons procurement system. This is debate started with Iraq, where soldiers were sent ill-equipped for urban warfare; for example, in thinly-armored HUMVEEs and Bradley ‘Infantry Fighting Vehicles.’ Today, the ballyhooed Abrams hides from the front because it needs up-armoring before it can be deployed to the frontlines. Trillions have been spent over the past decades on weapons that can be destroyed by a low-cost Iranian or Russian ‘kamikaze’ drone or missile. Major NATO weapons systems have been dismissed by experts as ‘crap.’ Russia’s industrial might—its ability to out-produce 31 NATO nations—in the manufacture of weapons systems, artillery shells (especially 155mm), and ammunition—has exposed the inherent weaknesses of NATO.
Once Russia’s victory is complete, the foolhardiness of having provoked Russia solely to advance a neo-con project—and in the process awakening Russia’s peoples and defense capacities—should lead to re-evaluations of NATO. Given current political trends in the U.S. (1) an American exit from NATO; or (2) a reduced U.S. role in a revamped NATO, are likely events.
[1] See, e.g., G. Greenwald, ‘With New D.C. Policy Group, Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons,’ The Intercept, 7 July 2017; and M. Auerback and J. Carden, ‘The Rotten Alliance of Liberals and Neocons Will Likely Shape U.S. Foreign Policy for Years to Come,’ Public Seminar, 1 September 2020.
[2] U.S. Veterans Administration, 2023 National Veteran Suicide Prevention Annual Report.
[3] Nicole Hong, ‘$15 French Fries and $18 Sandwiches: Inflation Hits New York,’ New York Times (8 August 2022).
[4] Ersatz McDonald’s: McDonald’s Corp. quit Russia due to sanctions; but outlets (like all other American investments) were taken over by Russians, re-branded, and continue operations. The profits are not repatriated to U.S. to benefit McDonald’s Corp. shareholders. Sanctions at work!
[5] E.J. Carroll, ‘NATO Expansion Would Be an Epic “Fateful Error”,’ Los Angeles Times (7 July 1997).
[6] G.F. Kennan, ‘A Fateful Error,’ New York Times (5 February 1997).
[7] ‘Britain suffered defeat in Iraq,’ BBC (29 September 2010). Gen. Jack Keane is quoted; so is Col. Pete Mansoor, a highly-respected U.S. Army officer now lecturing at Ohio State. See also, Theo Farrell, Unwinnable: Britain’s War in Afghanistan, 2001–2014 (Bodley Head, 2017).
Perspectives 
You must be logged in to post a comment.