If any one instance can illustrate Washington’s deference to the military on U.S. foreign policy decision making, it’s an article from Politico reporting on reaction from the Pentagon to President Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan.
In fact, these assumptions are neatly packaged in the article’s title — “‘The Pentagon is not making these decisions’: How Biden’s team overrode the brass on Afghanistan.”
Yes, of course the Pentagon isn’t making these decisions. That’s because in our country we have this thing called civilian control of the military, and it’s the president — not the defense secretary, the joint chiefs of staff, or any other top military officer — setting the course of U.S. foreign policy.
So yes, Biden “overrode the brass” because he’s the commander-in-chief and that’s what he’s allowed to do if he so chooses. In fact, if one of the previous three presidents had overridden the military brass, we probably wouldn’t have been mired in an endless and extremely costly conflict in Afghanistan that those same military higher-ups often admitted behind closed doors could not be won.
That tone — incredulity that President Biden had the gall to overrule the generals — is distributed equally throughout the piece, as it relays anonymous concerns that “Secretary of State Antony Blinken and national security adviser Jake Sullivan who are truly ‘running the Pentagon,’” and quotes current and former military officials — for example, Jack Keane and David Petraeus — “have lingering concerns about the withdrawal.”
The reality is that we don’t really know how the Pentagon and the entire U.S. military feel about withdrawing from Afghanistan. But available evidenceshows that at least a majority support it.
How Washington reporters cover U.S. foreign policy issues contributes significantly to American militarism; look no further than the run-up to the Iraq war for direct evidence. But most often their coverage — as in this case mentioned above — is more subtle in advancing hawkish viewpoints. That, in turn, buttresses a mindset that defaults to the Pentagon in search of answers to complex challenges abroad that most often require painstaking diplomacy and other non-military means.
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
October of 2024 was the most militarily successful month for Russia since July of 2022. After months of sustained pressure, and mostly stagnant front lines, Russian troops have broken through and made significant gains in the Donbas region of Ukraine. According to the New York Times, Russian forces have secured more than 160 square miles there, and are capturing strategic towns along the way.
It seems as though the next goal for Russians in the Donbas is to take the strategic rail town, Pokrovsk, which would seriously inhibit Ukraine’s ability to resupply its forces in the region. Encirclement of this strategic city is likely as Ukraine has likely lost Selydove this week, a city which is only about 20 miles south of Pokrovsk.
Experts say Russia’s advances this past month are due to several factors. Analyst at the French Foundation for Strategic Research, Vincent Tourret, says that Ukraine is losing ground due to Russia’s use of powerful guided missiles, and Ukraine’s lack of fortifications in the region. According to Tourret, “Ukraine’s defenses are more and more battered, the terrain is more and more favorable for Russian offensives and, on top of that, the Russians have a better impact, the three factors combine to explain the increase in Russian gains.”
These losses, combined with reports that Ukrainian forces are overstretched, and the fact that North Korean soldiers are now present in the conflict do not bode well for Kyiv. Additionally, Ukraine is suffering from a lack of manpower, as well as low morale among its existing soldiers. To combat this, Kyiv has introduced a new mobilization drive, hoping to recruit an additional 160,000 soldiers.
Other Ukraine News This Week:
According to Reuters, the Pentagon has declared that Ukraine would not gain additional permissions for the use of American weapons as a result of North Korean soldiers being deployed to Russia. Pentagon officials said on Monday that 10,000 North Korean troops had been deployed to eastern Russia for training, up from an estimate of 3,000 troops last Wednesday.
“In response, allies must scale up military support for Ukraine,” Ukrainian Foreign Minister, Andrii Sybiha said. “Lift restrictions on long-range strikes. Start intercepting Russian missiles and drones over Ukraine. Extend invitation to NATO. Boost investment in Ukraine’s arms manufacturing.”
For its part, the DPRK is defending its decision to assist Russia militarily. At a U.N. Security Council Meeting on Wednesday, DPRK Ambassador Kim Song asserted the nations’ right to “develop bilateral relations in all fields.”
South Korea has begun to strengthen its ties with Ukraine as a response to North Korean support of Moscow. Reuters reports that the countries are stepping up cooperation and intelligence sharing to develop future countermeasures against Pyongyang. This comes after weeks of increased hostility between the two Koreas, with North Korea demolishing connecting roads to its southern neighbor earlier this month. In addition to intelligence sharing, South Korea is contemplating sending weapons to Kyiv for the first time, which could transform the Ukrainian battlefield into a proxy conflict between Pyongyang and Seoul.
The United States unveiled a new round of sanctions on Wednesday, focusing on almost 400 individuals and entities who were accused of aiding Moscow’s war machine. According to the Agence France Presse, Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo said, "the United States and our allies will continue to take decisive action across the globe to stop the flow of critical tools and technologies that Russia needs to wage its illegal and immoral war against Ukraine.”
Spokesperson Matthew Miller was asked about the reports of North Korean soldiers in Russia, and if he knew how close they were to Kursk. Miller said that they were aware of around 10,000 soldiers who were sent to Russia but could not disclose if they knew how close they were to Kursk. He did say, however, that, “we have over the last few days seen a portion of those 10,000 groups move west, closer to Ukraine, In terms of an assessment, we’re concerned that they intend to use them to fight or to support combat operations against Ukrainian forces in Kursk.”
Spokesperson Miller confirmed that the State Department believed that Russia was violating international law by training North Korean troops, even though the nations have a mutual military treaty. Miller said that the United States and its partners will be evaluating the potential for new sanctions and that US delegations will continue to be sent to Kyiv.
A reporter asked Miller if the US had any concerns over China’s lack of response to North Korea’s sending troops to Russia. He said that ultimately Chinese officials can speak for themselves, but that “we have engaged directly with officials with the Government of China to make quite clear our concerns about this deepening military relationship between Russia and North Korea, and to make clear that we think this ought to be a source of concern for China as well as other countries in the region.”
The Spokesperson also said that North Korean troops in Russia did not “complicate the situation” for NATO and its allies, but that that some allies, specifically South Korea, were concerned about the development.
When asked about Ukrainian President Zeleneksyy’s claim that only 10 percent of a promised aid package had arrived, Miller directed reporters to the Pentagon, saying that he could not comment on the topic.
Victoria Nuland, whose infamous words “f-ck the EU” epitomized American primacy as it worked to mold the Ukrainian government after the 2014 revolution and helped to set up the country for a brutal showdown with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, now says that Russia is trying to elect Donald Trump, again.
"He's at it again!" Nuland told Rachel Maddow, the MSNBC host whose red string conspiracy board was a regular feature for years during Trump’s tenure and Russiagate, until she wasn’t. Now she is back, and hosting the old gang.
“It’s good to be back with you Rachel to talk to you about this as we did in 2016 as well as 2020,” said Nuland, without a trace of irony. She retired this year from the State Department.
"And (Putin) has more sophisticated tools... He's got a brand new, very powerful tool, which is Elon Musk and X. In 2020, the social media companies worked hard with the U.S. government to try to do content moderation, to try to catch this stuff as it was happening. This time, we have Elon Musk talking directly to the Kremlin and ensuring that every time the Russians put out something, it gets five million views before anyone can catch it."
Nuland was talking about a report in the New York Times on Tuesday that said that Russia, China, and Iran were all meddling in the presidential election. It said their tactics have “matured into a consistent and pernicious threat, as the countries test, iterate and deploy increasingly nuanced tactics, according to U.S. intelligence and defense officials, tech companies and academic researchers. The ability to sway even a small pocket of Americans could have outsize consequences for the presidential election, which polls generally consider a neck-and-neck race.”
Nuland was right that the government warned about the same thing in 2020, and that social media companies “worked” with the government to address what they said was pernicious meddling. But she fails to mention (not surprisingly) that beginning in 2017 government agencies including the FBI, DHS, intel community, and yes, State Department, put these companies under tremendous pressure to “acknowledge” the meddling in 2016, forcing untold posts and accounts to be deleted and millions of dollars spent fo “due diligence” in monitoring posts and activity through the 2020 election. This was all in the Twitter files. It has been acknowledged as much by Mark Zuckerbeg, CEO of Facebook (now Meta), who reaffirmed the pressure not once but twice (the second time was more about COVID) since the last election.
But let’s talk about the meddling that did have an impact. Like U.S. government-led democracy promotion, and quasi-government efforts, including the National Endowment for Democracy (for which Nuland is a newly minted board member), helping to foment the anti-Russian Orange revolution, then Maidan revolution that overturned the elected government in Ukraine in 2014. Nuland was on the ground there and can be seen in photographs handing out sandwiches to demonstrators. As President Viktor Yanukovych was being tossed out, Nuland was recorded in a conversation with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, plotting who was in or out of the mix as a new Ukraine government was being assembled. This is where she made her infamous “you know, f-ck the EU” comment.
When Russia invaded Crimea and then Ukraine in 2022, rather than see this as dangerous escalation, if not blowback to the aggressive “democracy promotion” policies in the former Soviet sphere that she had supported, first during the Obama Administration, then under Biden, it was an affirmation. She has said only when Putin is gone will Ukraine be safe (a sentiment shared by Biden at the beginning of the war).
No doubt she feels the same way about Trump, telling Maddow, "Trump is taking Putin lessons, as autocrats around the world are." But meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are dead or wounded, the population has shrunk 25% and the war is not only far from over, Ukraine is by all metrics, losing. How many Ukrainians must fight for the crusades of ideologues thousands of miles away? Ask Maddow and Nuland.
They are stuck in the narratives of 2016 and 2020 because an election is just days away, and as I wrote back January, their Russian “malign influence” story “helped to get the public’s buy-in for a new Cold War with Russia by normalizing the idea that Russians not only helped to elect Donald Trump, but were actively trying “‘to destroy U.S. democracy.’”
We will have to decide whether it is in Americans’ best interest to indulge this again, given all that has happened in the last four years.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Lieutenant General Xavier Brunson speaks at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee at the U.S. Capitol in Washington.Michael Brochstein / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
The U.S. Senate recently confirmed Army Lt. Gen. Xavier T. Brunson as the new commander of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK). I know General Brunson only by reputation — stellar — and his impressive service record. Why would I presume to give unsolicited advice to the new USFK boss?
In 2008, I was almost in his shoes. Knowing that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was ready to nominate me as the first non-Army officer to command USFK, I gave deep thought to the challenges and opportunities on the horizon. However, as Gates noted in his memoir,, “Army chief of staff George Casey balked and made a strong case that the timing for the change wasn’t good, especially as we were negotiating with South Korea on a transfer of operational control of forces from the United States to the Koreans. He was right, so I recommended that the president nominate another Army general.”
I did not get the job and retired as a three-star that summer. I am still driven to make a difference for Korea on both sides of the DMZ. I cannot be comfortable with the unending state of war that has the standoff more dangerous than ever, nor can I ignore the decades of repression and privation faced by ordinary North Koreans.
My four years serving in South Korea in two Air Force assignments allowed me to witness the dual miracles of economic growth and democratization. Simultaneously, I saw North Korea descend deeper into decline as its government broke the bank developing a credible nuclear threat. There was a glimmer of hope during the Trump-Kim meetings in 2018 and 2019, but that was dashed when the Hanoi Summit collapsed. Something must be done, and General Brunson has a chance to make a difference.
After his confirmation, NK News reported that promoting the general meant he would be tasked with “countering North Korea’s growing nuclear threat.” But the job is so much more than that, and the new four-star will hear all about that from the Defense Department, think tank influencers, South Korean counterparts and his new boss, Admiral Sam Paparo, commander of U.S. INDOPACOM.
General Brunson will not define the Korea policy of a Harris or Trump administration, but his role in implementation can shape the future. I offer my thoughts formed over the 46 years since I first landed at Osan Air Base in South Korea to the new commander in hopes that his tenure will help move beyond the dangerous standoff persisting since the Armistice was signed in 1953.
General Brunson, congratulations and best wishes. As you enter this important position, I recommend the following:
First, be realistic. Well-intended U.S. policies towards the “North Korea problem” since the collapse of the Soviet Union have failed. DPRK materiel and manpower support to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shows we have not deterred conventional provocation, and the North now has a credible nuclear threat despite the best efforts of multiple American administrations.
Congress passed the North Korean Human Rights Act 20 years ago, but the horrific repression of non-elites there has not been stemmed, if anything, it has expanded. Since the failure of the Hanoi Summit, U.S. and ROK engagement with the Kim government has ceased, increasing the danger of accidental or intentional conflict.
Second, consider your sources. As you transition into command, carefully examine the political, organizational and financial loyalties of those offering advice. I am unaffiliated, non-partisan and not paid for my advocacy. Others may be more entangled. The case of American policy influencer Su Mi Terry, the former CIA analyst and National Security Council official allegedly on the payroll of the South Korean intelligence service illustrates the complicated perspectives of those who will seek your ear. The undue influence of politics, ideology and money have not made for effective policy.
Third, set a command tone that is strong but not confrontational. When you assume the three command roles (United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command and U.S. Forces Korea), you will inherit some time-worn slogans that are overdue revision or replacement.
“Katchi kapchida” “같이갑시다” (we go together) is the catchphrase for the ROK-U.S. military alliance. We are allies and partners but we should not expect or attempt to do so in lockstep. “Partners for peace” or pyeonghwaleul wihan pateuneo (평화를 위한 파트너) is a better vision for the alliance.
American and South Korean leaders urge their charges to be ready to “fight tonight,” a slogan that headlines USFK’s official website. As real as the possibility of an outbreak of hostilities might be, the new commander should revise the slogan to: “Be so ready that you never have to fight.” Deterrence is the first goal, and that should be emphasized at every opportunity.
Fourth, fight for a lasting peace.As you deter, lead your command out of war. The Armistice paused the Korean War, it did not end it. You have a responsibility to honor the sacrifices of the past and secure the safety of the future by advocating for and facilitating a formal end to hostilities on the Korean Peninsula. If the next administration is serious about its Korea policy, yours will be a key part of any success because of the unique nature of your three roles.
As CINCUNC, you can initiate movement beyond the state of war by requesting an advisory ruling on maritime boundaries prescribed by the Armistice. North Korea will benefit, but not as a reward for bad behavior, rather as a demonstration of U.S. commitment to the rule of law.
As the leader of the military coalition (CFC), shift focus from countering a possible but unlikely DPRK invasion to a more imaginative all-domain strategy that is more effective and relies less on conventional land forces that require provocative and costly large-scale exercises.
In your U.S. role, make it clear to your South Korean counterparts know that you will not advocate for actions that have more risk than benefit such as strategic (nuclear) asset visits to the ROK. Such grandstanding does nothing to contribute to readiness and they inflame rather than reduce tensions with North Korea.
And finally, close the deal. That transfer of control referenced by Dr. Gates still has not occurred. I hope you will be the Army general who closes this deal in testimony to the strength of U.S.-ROK partnership and out of respect for our ally’s sovereign interests.
General Brunson, time in command will present great challenges but also an important opportunity. I hope you will seize the moment and be the leader who shifts the paradigm on the peninsula from confrontation to the aggressive pursuit of lasting peace.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.