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
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.