Following the June 17 vote to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq in 2003, the House is doing a bit more cleaning, sweeping out other “zombie laws” on the books that have authorized such militarism in the Middle East for 30 years — and more.
Today, under a suspension of the rules — meaning no amendments — the chamber is expected to pass a measure led by Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.) to repeal a Cold War era law on the books that found “the preservation of the independence and integrity of the nations of the Middle East vital to the national interest and world peace.”
This law — codified in section 1962 of Title 22 of the U.S. Code — has authorized the President since 1957 “to use armed forces to assist any such nation or group of such nations requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism … consonant with the treaty obligations of the United States and with the Constitution of the United States.” The short law also authorized the executive branch to provide military assistance to any nations of the greater Middle East who want it.
In further House cleaning, a resolution led by Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) will repeal Congress’ 1991 authorization for the U.S. military to wage war against Iraq over its invasion of Kuwait.
The Heritage Foundation has been pressing for repeal of these old provisions. It feels odd to say this, but ‘well done!’
At the same time, however, Congress is also expected today to pass a measure to deepen U.S. efforts to counter politically motivated violence in the Sahel region of Africa. HR567 would make it the “policy of the United States to assist countries in North and West Africa, and other allies and partners active in those regions, in combating terrorism and violent extremism through a coordinated interagency approach.” The U.S. has supposedly had a coordinated, interagency approach to combatting terrorism in this region for nearly two decades. This move comes as the French are stepping away from their leadership of counter terror train and assist efforts in the region.
Pope Francis drew sharp backlash this week for a comment calling on Ukraine to demonstrate “the courage of the white flag” and enter into negotiations with Russia.
“When you see that you are defeated, that things are not going well, you have to have the courage to negotiate,” the pope said in an interview recorded last month but only publicized this week.
European leaders quickly rebuked the pontiff, and Ukrainian officials summoned the Vatican’s envoy to Kyiv for a diplomatic dressing down. “The head of the Holy See would be expected to send signals to the world community about the need to immediately join forces to ensure the victory of good over evil,” Ukraine’s foreign ministry said in a statement.
The Vatican subsequently insisted that Pope Francis meant that both sides should lay down arms and come to the table, not that Ukraine should unilaterally surrender, as the “white flag” comment suggests. “First of all it should be the aggressors who stop firing,” said Cardinal Pietro Parolin, a top Holy See official. “The same human will that caused this tragedy also has the possibility and the responsibility to take steps to end it and to open the way to a diplomatic solution.”
This back-and-forth says a lot about Europe’s rose-tinted views on the war. Many Western officials and commentators suggested that the pope was taking Russia’s side, but they ignored the meat of his critique: The war is going badly for Ukraine, and it does Kyiv no favors to delay negotiations as momentum shifts in Moscow’s direction.
Simply put, Ukraine now faces a mix of political and military challenges that make near-term battlefield success unlikely. On an annual basis, Russia now makes three times more artillery shells than NATO can send to Ukraine, giving Moscow a major advantage in what many experts now describe as a war of attrition.
And there’s little chance of this changing soon. The U.S. Congress is unlikely to pass new aid for Ukraine in the near future, according to Punchbowl News. Ukraine’s congressional backers have pitched last-ditch efforts to get a spending package through the House via a special procedure that bypasses Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) — a prominent Ukraine skeptic who has blocked previous attempts to get a vote on new spending. But disagreements over whether to include U.S. border security measures — and the fact that Ukraine aid is tied to new funding for Israel — make this moon-shot effort that much more difficult.
Kyiv has already seen the consequences of delayed aid on the battlefield, according to the State Department. “We have seen Ukraine suffer battlefield losses in recent weeks that either they would not have suffered, or would not have been as severe, if they had the U.S. support, the U.S. ammunition that we [...] have committed to provide them,” argued Matthew Miller, a State Department spokesperson.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is struggling to keep morale high at home after replacing Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, a highly visible and popular leader of Ukraine’s defense who is now being shipped off to London to serve as the Ukrainian ambassador to the United Kingdom.
All of this helps to make clear why, especially outside the U.S. and Europe, the pope’s comments sound closer to reality than a lot of the pontification coming from European capitals. The question facing Western leaders is simple: Are you willing to bet on a sudden reversal of battlefield momentum even if it risks the collapse of Ukrainian forces and, thus, Ukraine’s future as an independent state? If not, then maybe it’s time to start pushing for talks before a bad situation gets that much worse.
In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:
— Former President Donald Trump will “not give a penny” to Ukraine if he wins reelection in November, said Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban following a meeting with Trump last Friday, according to Reuters. “If the Americans do not give money and weapons, and also the Europeans, then this war will be over,” Orban said over the weekend. “And if the Americans do not give money, the Europeans are unable to finance this war on their own, and then the war will end.” While Trump has long argued that he could end the conflict rapidly if given the chance, he has yet to publicly confirm that he would cut off all funding for Kyiv.
— Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country is “ready” to use nuclear weapons if necessary but added that he sees the possibility of a nuclear exchange over Ukraine as unlikely, according to CNN. The comment comes on the heels of new revelations about U.S. estimates that Russia was considering using a nuclear weapon in late 2022 if Ukrainian forces breached Russian defenses and made a run toward Crimea.
— Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told Zelensky that he is ready to host a peace summit between Ukraine and Russia, according to AP News. “Since the beginning, we have contributed as much as we could toward ending the war through negotiations,” Erdogan said. “We are also ready to host a peace summit in which Russia will also be included.” The Turkish leader reiterated later in the week that “peace plans excluding Russia will not yield any results.”
— In Foreign Policy, Harvard professor and Quincy Institute board member Stephen Walt made the case that NATO should not bring Ukraine into its alliance. Walt’s argument focuses on the fact that NATO states have already made clear that they are not willing to enter a direct confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. “If we were willing to do so, we would have troops there already. Does it make sense to tacitly promise to fight for Ukraine five or 10 or 20 years from now, if you’re unwilling to do so today?”
“Ukraine’s supporters in the West need to think creatively about alternative security arrangements that can reassure Ukraine in the context of a postwar armistice or peace agreement. Kyiv needs to be secure against Moscow renewing the war; it cannot agree to be disarmed or be forced to accept de facto Russian domination. Figuring out how to provide sufficient protection in ways that won’t provoke Moscow into renewing the war will not be easy. But rushing into NATO is not the best route to a safer Ukraine; it is more likely to prolong the war and leave that long-suffering country worse off than ever.”
U.S. State Department news:
In a Monday press conference, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller reiterated U.S. support for Ukraine’s peace plan, which Russia has rejected. “We support [Ukraine’s] peace formula, and we would support its efforts to peacefully end this war, but that requires Vladimir Putin to stop attacking, to stop trying to take and claim and hold Ukrainian territory, and to agree to negotiations – and he has so far not been willing to do so,” Miller said.
keep readingShow less
Personnel board the U.S. Army Vessel (USAV) General Frank S. Besson (LSV-1) from the 7th Transportation Brigade (Expeditionary), 3rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command, XVIII Airborne Corps as it departs en route to the Eastern Mediterranean after President Biden announced the U.S. would provide humanitarian assistance to Gaza by sea, at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia, United States, March 9, 2024. US CENTCOM via X/Handout via REUTERS
The Pentagon’s plan for floating piers and a causeway to surge humanitarian aid into Gaza is drawing fire from military experts for its lack of detail, potential danger to U.S. troops, and risk of mission creep. Bottom line, it’s a bit of a head-scratcher.
“Biden is committing the United States military to conducting a highly complex, very expensive, low-production operation to bring food into the strip — when Biden could massively increase the amount of food into the strip with far less effort or expense: demand that Israel merely open the damn gates and roll the hundreds of trucks awaiting entry right now. Today,” exclaimed (Ret.) Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, senior fellow at Defense Priorities, in an exchange with RS.
“This is an absurd idea, on so many levels,” Davis added.
The Pentagon said Tuesday that five Army cargo and support ships have left their base at Fort Eustis, Virginia, to assist the building of “roll on-roll off pier capability” just off the Gaza shore in order to begin a mission of injecting “two million meals a day” into the starving strip. The efforts, as announced Friday, will take an estimated 60 days.
These massive ships will be able to carry the enormous amount of materials and personnel needed to construct what the Pentagon says will be a floating pier to which aid loaded at Cyprus will be taken. That aid, according to Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder, will then be moved by Navy logistic support vessels to a floating causeway — about 1,800 feet long with two lanes and anchored to the beach of Gaza — that will also be constructed by the U.S. military as part of the mission.
Questions remain how the aid will get to the beach (the Pentagon insists it won't be via U.S. military) and to actual Gazans, given the intense Israeli security there, and ongoing shelling, bombings, and other combat activity inside the strip. As to the delivery and security questions, Ryder said in his Friday briefing that "we're continuing to plan and coordinate with partners in the region."
Much of the criticism about this plan points out that there there has been plenty of aid waiting at the borders already, but Israeli inspections and the lack of security — including incidents where Israel has been accused of attacking aid workers and Palestinians forming up for aid — has prevented critical deliveries.
According to reports Friday a new inspection process will supposedly take place in Cyprus, the starting point of a new maritime corridor just established by the U.S., United Arab Emirates, and European countries. This may have all been Bibi Netanyahu's idea (reportedly, based on a single source), but there has been no official confirmation from Israel that it has agreed to allow aid into Gaza from the beach.
Furthermore, this U.S. effort is expected to involve “more than 1,000 U.S. forces” — quite a fungible number — between the Army and Navy. Michael DiMino, a former career CIA military analyst and counterterrorism officer who is now a program manager at Defense Priorities, notes that Ryder did not have much to say Friday when asked about the potential vulnerability of troops, and how much role they might play in staging aid operations.
“It is a non-trivial concern that troops may come under attack,” by militants, particularly Hamas, DiMino said. “That is shocking to me that there is no real explanation about what the contingency plans are. How are we going to respond if our troops or government personnel come under attack?”
The hackles were raised when Ryder was asked two key questions in the DoD briefing room. One, if the U.S. has received assurances from Israel that it will not fire on Palestinians seeking to retrieve the aid, and the second, whether there is concern that U.S. troops could be fired upon by Hamas.
On the first, Ryder said, “look our focus is on delivering the aid, I’m not going to speak for the Israelis.” On the second, he said, “that’s certainly a risk, again if Hamas truly does care about the Palestinian people then one would hope that this international mission would be able to happen unhindered.”
DiMino says his “Spidey senses are tingling,” as there is “no such thing as zero risk.”
“I think the biggest potential problem is mission creep,” he said, noting we have no guarantee that this won’t go from “one pier to two piers, to beach head, to forward operating base — in for a penny, in for a pound.”
Ultimately, DiMino said, “you’ll now have a fixed U.S. presence in the warzone, in what is probably the most unstable place in the world right now."
He said the lack of detail from the Pentagon (Ryder said Tuesday that, for operational security reasons, they would not say exactly where the construction would take place) on the size, scope, and manpower, and most importantly, what the beach operation would look like and who would secure deliveries there, is raising serious questions.
The Wall Street Journal published an article Sunday that suggested that the administration was in talks with private contractors specializing in humanitarian aid missions in conflict zones. The one named is Fog Bow, which is run almost entirely by former U.S. military and intelligence officers, including Mick Mulroy, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East under Trump, U.S. Marine, and 20-year veteran of the CIA. The administration has not yet entered into any formal arrangements, according to the paper.
Fog Bow has quite a bit of cross pollination with the Lobo Institute, a consulting firm which also counts former military and intelligence officials, along with diplomats and humanitarian experts, among its expert ranks. The institute says it advises on current wars and “how to end conflicts and prevent their recurrence, and how to help those most affected,” but it also provides tactical training “to prepare intelligence and special operations units for both current and future irregular warfare operations.”
Using private contractors to deliver the aid from causeway to beach and beyond could be a gambit to put a “non-military face” on these military operations, as (Ret.) Col. Doug Macgregor points out to RS, and there are plenty of former Special Operations forces ready to earn a paycheck. It was also suggested in the WSJ article that Fog Bow has already offered to begin delivering aid by sea before the pier is built and to start dredging a corridor on a “private beachfront” to allow barges to land close to shore.
The WSJ also confirmed that the Qatari government has already offered $60 million for Fog Bow's efforts. This begs the question of how much this has already been spelled out and greenlighted, in addition to the ultimate cost to U.S. taxpayers. That angle has yet to be revealed, but considering the heavy lift of ships, materiel, fuel and labor, this is going to run into the hundreds of millions, at least, say experts.
Lt. Col. Davis said he is incensed with what he said is a needless burden and potential risks. “Instead of using the powerful leverage we have — plane-loads of military kit and ammunition daily to Israel and diplomatic resources at the UN Security Council — Biden is leaving all the tools unused and is instead allowing (Israeli prime minister Benjamin) Netanyahu to fully run the show, and Biden is spending millions of American dollars and diverting U.S. military assets to do what Netanyahu could do for free."
“It is shameful at every level,” he added. “There's nothing good for the U.S. in this, and it won't even do much to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians.”
The Pentagon released its proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2025 this week. There were no major surprises, unless you’re shocked by the fact we are continuing to over-invest in a strategy and a military force structure that is making the world less secure.
If this budget goes through as requested, the Pentagon and related activities like work on nuclear warheads at the Department of Energy will come in at $894 billion. That’s slightly less than the number being debated for this year, but far more than the levels achieved at other major turning points like the Korean and Vietnam wars or the peak of the Cold War. Meanwhile, Congress has shown little ability to provide adequate input or oversight of these huge figures. Over five months into the new fiscal year, it has yet to even pass a 2024 budget.
What could possibly justify devoting these enormous sums to the Pentagon at a time of urgent national need to address other threats to our lives and livelihoods, from climate change to epidemics of disease to rampant inequality? The primary answer is the same one we have heard repeatedly in recent years: China, China, and China.
But as I have noted in a recent paper for the Brown University Costs of War Project, by any measure the United States already spends two to three times as much on its military as China does, and outpaces it by far in basic military capabilities like nuclear weapons, naval firepower, and modern transport and combat aircraft. In the areas where there is room for doubt about the relative military power of the two rivals, from emerging technology to the likely outcome of a war over Taiwan, dialogue and diplomacy offer a far better chance of reaching a stable accommodation than spinning out scenarios for “winning” a war between two nuclear-armed powers, or by running a costly new arms race.
Unfortunately, the rhetoric and resources underpinning the new Pentagon request are more consistent with arms racing than accommodation. The department remains firmly committed to its plan to build thousands of “autonomous, attritable systems” by August 2025, with the express purpose of developing the ability to overwhelm China in a conflict in Asia. In plain English, this means building swarms of drones and other high-tech systems controlled by artificial intelligence. And the plan is for these systems to be cheap and readily replaced if large numbers are destroyed in battle.
The idea that the U.S. arms industry can produce large numbers of new systems quickly and affordably, and build replacements on short notice, runs contrary to the experience of recent decades. It’s an exercise in wishful thinking that could result in the worst of both worlds — spurring China to increase its investments in next generation military technology even as it is unclear whether the United States can develop and integrate it successfully in any reasonable time frame.
Far from increasing our security, once these new systems are developed and fielded they will almost certainly make the world a more dangerous place. This point is underscored in a new report from Public Citizen which notes that “[i]ntroducing AI into the Pentagon’s everyday business, battlefield decision-making and weapons systems poses manifold risks.”
For example, although current Pentagon guidelines pledge to keep humans in the loop in decisions to engage in lethal force, once autonomous weapons are produced on a large scale the temptation to use them without human intervention will be great. This in turn will have a cascade of potential negative effects, from dehumanizing the targets of these systems, to making it easier to contemplate going to war, to risking mass slaughter caused by a malfunction in one of these complex systems.
And as Michael Klare has written in an analysis for the Arms Control Association, the dangers of AI and other emerging military technologies are likely to “expand into the nuclear realm by running up the escalation ladder or by blurring the distinction between a conventional and nuclear attack.”
Klare also rings the alarm bell about the real risks of technical failures involving next generation technologies:
“Non-military devices governed by AI, such as self-driving cars and facial-recognition systems, have been known to fail in dangerous and unpredictable ways; should similar failures occur among AI-empowered weaponry during wartime, the outcomes could include the unintended slaughter of civilians or the outbreak of nuclear war.”
These are all strong reasons to go slow and evaluate the consequences of applying AI to military operations, not engage in uncritical cheerleading that gives lip service to risk assessment while moving full speed ahead towards deployment of autonomous systems. To his credit, President Biden has pledged to promote talks with China on “risk and safety issues related to artificial intelligence.” An analysis by Sydney Freedberg of Breaking Defense points out that “the Chinese have been showing signs they are receptive, particularly when it comes to renouncing AI command-and-control systems for nuclear weapons.“ More discussions of this sort are urgently needed before moving full speed ahead on AI-driven weapons.
The urge to deploy AI and other emerging military technologies without adequate deliberation or scrutiny is just one of the troubling elements to come out of this week’s Pentagon budget release. Staying the course on the Pentagon’s plan to build a new generation of nuclear weapons and continuing to subsidize a policy of global military reach that has helped spark the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are more likely to fuel future conflicts than prevent them. And despite President Biden’s recent, tougher rhetoric in response to Israel’s slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, the White House fact sheet issued in conjunction with the Pentagon budget release provides a whitewashed, wildly misleading description of the U.S. role in enabling Israel’s brutal attacks:
“After Hamas’s horrific terrorist attacks against Israel, the President has led the United States to support Israel’s right to defend its country and protect its people in a way that upholds international humanitarian law, while ensuring the Palestinian people have access to vital humanitarian aid and lifesaving assistance.”
It is impossible to square these claims with the actual situation in Gaza, and attempting to do so makes a mockery of the administration’s repeated references to supporting a “rules-based international order.”
The bottom line is that the United States is spending far too much on the Pentagon, much of it in service of goals that are likely to cause far more harm than good. It’s time to reverse course, but neither the White House nor a majority in Congress are likely to do so of their own accord.
We must pay closer attention to the consequences of the massive military spending and widespread military activities being carried out in our name, and stand up for more realistic policies that can set the stage for a future free of unnecessary conflicts and dangerous arms racing. We can’t afford to let the Pentagon and the policies it underwrites continue on autopilot, promoting military approaches to problems that don’t have military solutions, all too often with disastrous results.