Follow us on social

Anton

'Flight 93' conservative warns national security state risking more war

Former Trump official Michael Anton tells National Conservatism conference that Ukraine and China strategies are not in the US interest.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

MIAMI — There is no reason to be so trustful of Washington’s national security establishment, according to Michael Anton, a conservative Republican, former national security official under President Donald Trump, professor, and author of “The Flight 93 Election.”

In fact, this blind trust and support have led to an unaccountable yet powerful bureaucracy, not to mention destructive forever wars and potentially more to come.

Anton delivered these remarks Tuesday at the National Conservatism conference, which, as I’ve written earlier, has been focused mostly on domestic issues. But Anton’s speech capitalized on the Right’s concern for the entrenched “deep state” — which he described as made up of pro-government, mostly Democratic status quo careerists sharing both spiritual and geographic space in the D.C.-Maryland-Virginia (DMV) metro area — to warn about the dangers of a foreign policy and national security on autopilot that serves only that deep state’s interests.

“We [conservatives] tend not to associate these doubts [about centralized big government] with the national security side of the bureaucracy, and sometimes we lionize the national security bureaucracy. We think of these people as great patriots keeping us safe — many in fact are,” he said.

However, while the president and revolving political appointees have “nominal control” over the national security state, it is clear that the careerists have more power than anyone gives them credit for. 

“I find this regime hard to understand. Who is in charge? Who’s to say? Who gets to make the final decisions?” he charged. Whatever the answer, it would seem that this auto pilot is wired to promote the existing internationalist order, and at this point it's resulted in “squandered resources.”

“Twenty years in the Middle East and we have nothing to show for it,” he said, except trillions in sunk taxpayer funds and untold numbers of civilian Iraqi and and Afghan lives.

When the establishment is pressured on this, they will “try to explain to you why this is so important; they will give speeches on the international order or rules-based order. They aren't very convincing, but what it comes down to is that the entire world order is a vital U.S. interest. There is no alternative.”

"Some friends of mine will say they are lying; they don't really believe it. But I've heard the speeches so many times I really do think they believe it," Anton said. Ultimately, "I don't think it matters whether they are being cynical or they are true believers, but they pursue the same politics every day."

In the meantime, "we are sending billions in dollars in lethal aid (to Ukraine)” and depleting our own military stocks, he added. “That causes a problem."

His remarks were some of the only ones on Ukraine given from the dais during the three-day event. Curiously, there have been no panels on this critical foreign policy issue. 

“We’re playing a pretty dangerous game in Ukraine,” Anton pressed. “Think about what we are doing from Putin’s perspective – we are his enemy. But where is the core U.S. interest?” (This was met with applause.) He warned that our policies toward China, too, were ignoring the very real risk of war.

“It worries me that we're playing this dangerous game that we don't know what we're getting into, and we may end up in a real dangerous fall.”

His solution to all this is more political appointees — "more adults in the room" — to oversee the careerists. Given the swings between administrations and the problems associated with inexperienced, ideological people typically put into these positions, that might not be the panacea Anton is looking for.


Michael Anton at the National Conservatism Conference, Miami, on Tuesday. (Vlahos)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Thomas Barrack
Top image credit: U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and U.S. special envoy for Syria Thomas Barrack speaks after meeting with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun (not pictured) at the presidential palace in Baabda, Lebanon August 26, 2025. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

Tom Barrack has an offer that Lebanon simply can't refuse

Middle East

A tale of two envoys recently unfolded in Beirut, encapsulating the crossroads at which Lebanon now stands. Tanned and sporting a pink tie, the U.S. Envoy Tom Barrack arrived with Deputy Special Presidential Envoy to the Middle East, Morgan Ortagus in mid-August. Their meetings with top Lebanese officials underscored Washington’s insistence that lasting stability in Lebanon depends on consolidating state authority, and disarming Hezbollah.

Days earlier, Ali Larijani, the head of Iran’s National Security Council, had departed, leaving a message equally blunt but diametrically opposed: Hezbollah’s arms are a red line and are necessary tools for its “resistance” to Israel. These visits represent the opposing magnetic poles pulling at the country.

Lebanon is reeling from a confluence of catastrophes. A devastating scuffle with Israel last year decapitated Hezbollah’s leadership and ravaged its strongholds. Compounding this military blow was a strategic amputation: the swift collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, which severed the critical land bridge that for decades funneled Iranian arms and support to Iran’s most prized regional proxy. Into this vortex has stepped Barrack, a 40-year friend of Donald Trump and a businessman by trade, embodying a U.S. strategy that is quintessentially Trumpian in its DNA.

keep readingShow less
Afghanistan withdrawal
Lloyd Austin, Kenneth McKenzie, and Mark Milley in 2021. (MSNBC screengrab)

Turns out leaving Afghanistan did not unleash terror on US or region

Military Industrial Complex

It will be four years since the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan on Aug. 30, 2021, ending a nearly 20-year occupation that could serve as a poster child for mission creep.

What began in October 2001 as a narrow intervention to destroy al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, and topple the Taliban government for refusing to hand over al-Qaeda’s leader, Osama bin Laden, morphed into an open-ended nation-building operation that killed 2,334 U.S. military personnel and wounded over 20,000 more.

keep readingShow less
Francois Bayrou Emmanuel Macron
Top image credit: France's Prime Minister Francois Bayrou arrives to hear France's President Emmanuel Macron deliver a speech to army leaders at l'Hotel de Brienne in Paris on July 13, 2025, on the eve of the annual Bastille Day Parade in the French capital. LUDOVIC MARIN/Pool via REUTERS

Europe facing revolts, promising more guns with no money

Europe

If you wanted to create a classic recipe for political crisis, you could well choose a mixture of a stagnant economy, a huge and growing public debt, a perceived need radically to increase military spending, an immigration crisis, a deeply unpopular president, a government without a majority in parliament, and growing radical parties on the right and left.

In other words, France today. And France’s crisis is only one part of the growing crisis of Western Europe as a whole, with serious implications for the future of transatlantic relations.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

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.