Category: Politics

You might have heard the President and the Pope were openly feuding recently. Let’s observe factually what happened, then how it was covered. The main points?

• The United States and Israel engaged in offensive military operations against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
• The Pope gave his “Urbi et Orbi” speech.
• The President made several comments on TruthSocial disputing the Pope.
• The Pope responded to press questions about the President’s remarks.
• The President and Vice President made several more comments about the Pope’s comments.
• Several American Cardinals defended the Pope and further criticized the American administration.

These are simple statements of fact, without editorial comment. How they played out, and how they were played by the media, are more like a remake of Mean Girls. For reasons we shall see, the facts are important, because they show how the truth was distorted for various political perspectives.

From the top, the US and Israel engaged in offensive military operations against Iran. While they achieved surprise, it was neither a surprise attack nor the beginning of the war, which as I detailed in an earlier blog post, has been going on for forty-seven years. The fact the US never responded to Iranian provocations is the reason they were so surprised this time. Whether the war is just, and whether it is wise, are questions which can be debated.

Around Christmas and Easter every year, the Pope gives his state-of-the-world speech, entitled “Urbi et Orbi” (Latin for “to the city and the world”). The speech is actually a blessing, and the tradition goes back to the 13th century. In the modern era, Popes generally highlight the need for peace, as there are almost always some form of warfare afoot. Recent Popes even took to listing each and every conflict, specifically condemning such violence.

In a different take this year (you can read the whole message here, it’s quite short), Pope Leo XIV decried war in general without naming conflicts. Pointedly, he said, “Let those who have weapons lay them down! Let those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace!” and “We are growing accustomed to violence, resigning ourselves to it, and becoming indifferent. Indifferent to the deaths of thousands of people.” There is nothing in this statement that directly attacks the administration, and it is not political. In fact, by the standard of such messages, it was quite plain.

Interestingly, just after the Pope issued his message, a news story broke that the Undersecretary of War (a Catholic) had summoned the Papal Nuncio (the Pope’s Ambassador to the United States) back in January and threatened him to “get on board” with American foreign policy. I’ll skip detailing the reasons I called this one fake immediately, and sure enough, the participants quickly and totally demolished the “controversy.” Both the administration and the Vatican have termed the report “highly distorted” and a “fabrication.” Yes, they met, and yes, they argued. They even had a frank-and-earnest exchange as they say in diplomatic terms. This story died a quick death, but we’ll return to it later.

On April 7th, President Trump issued his infamous “a whole civilization will die tonight” text; the Pope responded the next day, calling the threat “truly unacceptable.” Once again, President Trump ignored the dictates of wisdom and decorum in issuing such a statement. It was unwise because it was flippant, and a leader should be unmistakably clear when issuing threats. For example, Truman and Churchill issued the Potsdam declaration in 1945, explaining what “unconditional surrender” the allies demanded of the Imperial Japanese regime, and they ended it with this statement: “The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.” In a historical note, Truman knew the atomic bomb had been successfully tested days earlier; this was no idle threat on his part. Nor is a threat a war crime, but that’s a blog for another day.

The Pope was of course correct in criticizing the President’s language, and the matter should have stopped there, as a ceasefire was shortly thereafter announced. But the Pope had also called for a Peace Vigil on April 11th, and there he sharpened his criticism, but still without naming President Trump or the United States. He did say, “Enough of the idolatry of self and money! Enough of the display of power! Enough of war!” and “Even the holy Name of God, the God of life, is being dragged into discourses of death” adding that God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.” Press and some Vatican sources highlighted that these last statements were directly targeted at comments from War Secretary Hegseth.

Never one to take a deescalatory ramp on social media, President Trump vented in full fury, first saying the Pope was “weak on crime” and “terrible” and suggesting Leo is only the Pope because Trump is the President. As if to move from the sublime to the ridiculous, Trump posed an AI-generated comic depicting himself in a pose eerily reminiscent of the Risen Lord, healing the sick and giving hope to all. After massive criticism from Christians of all stripes (including MAGA), he deleted it without apology, and said he thought it depicted him as a doctor (spawning even more great memes).

Not to be left out, Vice President Vance took up station as Trump’s “Catholic” wing-man, suggesting the Pope needed to be careful in talking about theology and should focus on morality rather than political strategy. All those involved would be wise to be careful in their pronouncements here, friend, but sadly that’s not the case. And all political strategy is eventually about morality, dontchano? And as if to prove both points, the three most-prominent American Catholic Cardinals suddenly appeared on 60 Minutes, defending the Pope and rebuking the US President and Vice President. But they couldn’t stop there, as Cardinal McElroy went on to declare the US action against Iran is “not a just war.”

Phew. And those are just the facts, with a few observations of my own thrown in. What are we to make of it? First off, all press coverage of the Vatican is highly suspect. Most of the media view religion as some sort of weird throwback, and they don’t even have the language to describe what is happening when they cover it. If you watch the press cover a Papal conclave, they treat it like a political convention, which is just odd. Second, the timing coincidence of the Pope’s messages, the manufactured story about a Pentagon confrontation, and the 60 Minutes follow-up are at the very least suspicious (I’ll explain). Finally, one would think political leaders would have learned by now it is unwise to mess with the Pope.

The Press. Media love confrontation, and they rushed back and forth between the Pope and President figuratively asking “did you hear what she said about you?” If you believe Pope Francis said “who am I to judge” about a homosexual priest, you probably fell for one of the media’s biggest mis-characterizations. Yet they continue to repeat it. They fanned this latest controversy and made it worse than it ever was. They are the ones reporting “Vatican sources” explaining what the Pope meant, when the Pope said what he said. You need only note that when things got really touchy, the Pope said he “never attacked the President” and “doesn’t do politics,” just “proclaims the Gospel.” Period. End of sentence. The Holy Spirit doesn’t need spin.

The Coincidences. It’s probably not a true conspiracy, but I would love for an investigative journalist to pull on these threads. The FREEP (Free Press) story about the Pentagon confrontation happened in January, but suddenly broke public right after the Pope’s Urbi et Orbi message at Easter. The story was flogged nationally by Christopher Hale, a proud Democratic National Committee member and former candidate for Congress with zero Vatican expertise, who nonetheless writes a blog entitled “Letters from Leo.” Oh, and those “Vatican sources” made sure and point out that the Pope had just met with David Axelrod, Obama’s eminence gris, before this current back-n-forth. It is not a secret there are those in the Curia (the Vatican permanent bureaucracy) and even the US church hierarchy who detest President Trump. It is not at all outlandish to suggest some of these coincidences were not, well, coincidental.

Which is not to say the Pope and the President don’t have real, serious differences of opinion. The Pope has remained non-specific, sticking to the Gospel, and avoiding direct criticism of the President or the specific US military activity. How do I know that? If the Pope had indeed determined the US action in Iran was an unjust war, he would be duty-bound to declare it as such. He would not be beating around the bush or speaking elliptically: prophets (ie., people who see and tell the truth) must do so. The Almighty does not take kindly to prophets who don’t do their job, Jonah! And that would entail the twenty-five percent of the US armed forces who are Catholic–including even more of the senior military and intelligence ranks–having to choose whether to refuse orders or violate their faith. It’s the theological equivalent of the nuclear option, and not only does the Pope solely wield it, he is required to use it. And he hasn’t.

Meanwhile, the press continues to beat the confrontation drum. Legacy media headlines (NYT: ‘Woe to Those Who Manipulate Religion,’ Pope Says Amid Standoff With Trump, Washington Post: Pope Leo decries ‘tyrants’ ravaging world, days after insults from Trump) highlight a few lines from an address the Pope gave to a war-ravaged area in Cameroon which has somehow found a way to make peace among neighbors. Again, he never mentions Trump or the US war in Iran. It’s another off-ramp, even if the press would prefer it was a crash test. Trump may take this off-ramp: today he said “I’m not fighting with him” about the Pope, while claiming he (Trump) is “all about the Gospel, I’m about it as much as anyone can be.” I guess that’s a Trumpian step in the correct direction.

Finally, the Apology. Back in Ye Good Ole Days, Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV got in a feud with Pope Gregory VII about who got to appoint bishops (Pope or King). Gregory excommunicated Henry (threatening his legitimacy and thus his crown), then made him wait in the snow barefoot for three days before pardoning him. In our era, asked whether he might do something for Catholics in the Soviet Union as a sop to the Pope, Josef Stalin asked, “The Pope? How many (military) divisions does he have?” Decades later, Pope (St.) John Paul II metaphorically answered the question by helping liberate Poland with nary a soldier, beginning the process that dissolved that “Soviet Union.” When Popes speak, they often do so gently, but that doesn’t mean they are “WEAK.” The Pope may speak softly, but he carries a big . . . cross.

I agree with Bishop Robert Barron, who said Trump owes the Pope an apology. I doubt it will ever happen. But that’s all there is to this in the end. The President thinks he’s ending a fifty year nuclear threat. The Pope wants all to live in peace, not war. Some people who don’t like Trump will do anything to poison the well, and some on the MAGA side would just as soon worship Trump as Jesus. The press loves a good fight. Are you not entertained?

Whether you think it was inevitable (as I did), avoidable for the moment (as most do), or completely uncalled for (really? what was your solution?), the US is at war with Iran. If you follow the legacy media closely, you might think America is at the edge of disaster. If you listen closely to the Commander in Chief, you might think we won the war several times already. Here’s a steady assessment, with some historical perspective thrown in.

The US and Israel achieved strategic surprise. It’s amazing, given that the Islamic Republic of Iran declared war on both at its inception almost fifty years ago. But the Israelis focused on closer, more immediate threats and bided their time; the United States chose to ignore the bellicose language, the hostages, the terrorist attacks, as only a superpower can choose to do. It all became so routine that Tehran’s negotiators actually thought they could show up and figuratively tell the US to “shove it” and go home smiling. It didn’t work, and they were surprised. Not sorry.

The US and Israel made a conscious choice to fight this war alone. No one was warned, no one was consulted, no UN imprimatur sought, despite the fact a war with Iran has consequences all over the world. This was a not uncommon practice for the Israelis, who increasingly see a world antagonistic to their very existence (note the spread of “from the river to the sea” rhetoric). It was very unusual for the United States. Usually we at least give our friends and allies a heads-up. In this case, we expected them to take a pass on participating, so it appears we treated them as NPCs (non-player characters, as in video games). The President should not have been surprised when the allies he treated thusly chose to criticize the war and refuse to assist. However, I will add that in the long history of ruffled US-NATO relations, there is only one time NATO countries have refused the US overflight rights, and that was only France and Spain (both quasi-NATO members at the time) during Reagan’s Libya bombing in 1986. For so many countries to do so this time represents an escalation on their part, and will have repercussions. No one can fault a NATO member for refusing to let us use US bases for bombing runs, but to deny airspace? Too far.

The US and Israel have achieved air supremacy over Iran. We are flying hundreds of sorties a day, in daylight, with minimal losses. We have deployed airframes like the venerable B52 and the inestimable A-10, which should never be used where surface-to-air missiles systems are coordinated and integrated. During the search and rescue effort for the downed F15E crew member, there is verified footage of a US aircraft refueling two helicopters at low altitude over Iran. You don’t do that where there is any kind of remaining air defense threat.

But what about that F15E? The A-10 which limped home to a crash landing? The helicopters which took fire and perhaps casualties during the rescue? Air supremacy doesn’t mean “nothing bad can happen” (except perhaps in President Trump’s mind). In my days in camouflage, we used to joke that a well-placed rock can take down a Huey (helicopter), and it wasn’t really an exaggeration. And all militaries are familiar with something called small arms air defense: the notion you take all your various “guns,” aim at a single point in the sky ahead of an aircraft, and let the pilot fly into a wall of lead, where something bad will happen. “Big sky, little bullet” is a refrain every pilot hears and fears. What does air supremacy look like? Twenty thousand sorties and two aircraft shot down, that’s what. Comical fact: right now, the Iranians have tallied two kills, the US has destroyed two of its own, and Kuwait has three kills of US aircraft (apparently it’s quite easy when shooting at your own side)!

Iran’s missile launching and production capabilities have been greatly reduced. About a third of the launchers have been confirmed as destroyed, and another third are assessed as out of action/buried. The latter can be recovered, but it’s not like we aren’t watching and waiting for Iran to attempt to do so. So they have one-third as many launchers available as they did before the war. While there aren’t details out publicly on the missile production facilities, we have been hammering them for weeks now. Note this has little effect on the total number of missiles they retain. While we know where their largest stockpiles were, missiles can be temporarily hidden in many places, which is why it’s best to focus on launchers. Missiles without launchers are static displays, not weapons.

What about the Iranian missile attacks throughout the region? The last German V1/V2 rocket attacks happened in late March 1945, about five weeks before their surrender. You can keep firing rockets and missiles right up until the end. Look at the rate of firing, which has decreased about 90%. “Oh, but Iran is holding back, waiting for the US to exhaust its interceptors” some experts say. These same experts claim Iran is in an existential war. You don’t hold back in an existential war. More likely, their command structure is fragmented, and their targeting capability is limited or non-existent. Evidence of my assertion? They don’t fire salvos designed to overwhelm any site’s defenses, they fire small numbers of missiles at widely diverse targets, from Turkey to Saudi to Diego Garcia (note to those who claim Iran doesn’t have longer-range missiles: Rome is closer to Iran than Diego Garcia). They seems to be throwing a missile here or there, hoping one hits home. They don’t fire accurately: either we are spoofing their guidance system or it isn’t good. Look at what they hit: buildings in cities, or a sprawling petro-chemical complex, especially for their longer-range missiles. Even when we mistakenly bombed two schools, the missiles hit exactly where they were aimed.

If Iran wanted to send a war-winning message, it would salvo a hundred missiles from different launch sites at a single Arab petroleum facility on the Gulf, destroying it. That would be a message. They don’t, because they can’t. Their missiles, like Germany’s buzz bombs, provide terror, not military useful capability.

What about those drones? What role have they played? Attack drones weren’t much of a thing back in my days in uniform, but clearly they are a major combat factor today (see Ukraine). Like any applied military technology, drones are in the period where they seem unstoppable: cheap to build, easy to operate, difficult to defend against. The countervailing capabilities have not yet matured, but they will. In the end, drones may prove to be Iran’s most versatile and effective weapon. But that weapon is no guarantor of success, tactically, operationally, or strategically. Like their missiles, they have shown no operational plan for employing drones, nor a strategy.

Iran’s Navy is gone. Yes, they still have small speedboats they could use to attack undefended tankers, but those are suicide missions with any naval or air protection. They can lay mines, but that again becomes a suicide mission over time, and mines are only an obstacle, they don’t close the strait permanently. Iran has some area-denial capability with shore-based anti-ship missiles, which the US is apparently moving toward targeting. But that involves launchers and missiles and fire control, all very target-able assets. These small boats, mines and missiles are not insignificant capabilities, but they present a very routine challenge to naval operations, and I trust the US Navy is capable of confronting them.

Iran has established effective control over the Strait of Hormuz. As others have pointed out and I can confirm, this outcome was considered and planned for in every Iran scenario on the books. Why was the Trump administration then surprised by it? Simple. All those scenarios started with Iran declaring the strait closed with a missile strike on a tanker or by mine-laying. Then the US declares the strait closed to all Iranian fuel exports, and the Iranian economy collapses and the war is over. That is why closing the strait never seemed much of a real threat; it’s much like the sheriff scene in Blazing Saddles.

Why did it work this time? I don’t know whether whoever is remaining in charge in Iran just got lucky or was very shrewd, but the Trump administration never shut off Iran’s exports. Instead, they removed restrictions on the sale of Iranian oil, providing a temporary boon. Why? Because they feared the spike in oil prices that would result. Now before you climb high on your rhetorical horse and call this the stupidest thing you have ever heard, let me ask you this: who has the EU given more money to since Russia invaded Ukraine over four years ago: Russia, or Ukraine? In those four years, the EU has sent Russia over US$220 billion dollars for oil and natural gas, and sent Ukraine US $200 billion in all forms of aid. Oil and gas prices make nations do crazy things.

While the President has correctly insisted gas prices will return to normal once the war is over, there is little benefit in trying to hold them down while prolonging the conflict. Why he hasn’t taken (or destroyed) Kharg island or closed the strait to Iranian tankers is a strategic mystery.

Have Russia and China been the big-winners so far? No, and those suggesting so are practically cheer-leading for the mullahs. Could those countries benefit in the long run? Of course, if the US fails miserably. So far? Iran is probably not sending quite so many drones to Russia as it needs to keep them for itself. And their production facilities are under direct attack. Likewise, China provided Iran advanced military air defense equipment which has proven worthless. Neither China nor Russia can do anything to stop the American action, and much like the case with Venezuela, Xi and Putin are standing there with–ahem–their things in their hands, looking impotent, while a potential ally falters. And while the American campaign is no doubt straining our munitions supply, Ukraine indicates there has been no reduction from the US side to it thus far.

“War Crimes.” It’s perfectly normal for your enemy to claim your attacks are war crimes. It’s even normal for human rights experts to make the same claim. The first group wants you to stop, and the second views all warfare as inherently evil. It is permissible to strike infrastructure as a legitimate war target, as long as the strike has a military purpose. If we strike a hospital’s back-up generator, that would be a war crime, as its power is solely for a hospital, a protected target (unless of course the enemy builds a headquarters in the basement). If we strike the power substation that supplies power to the local IRGC unit and the hospital, that’s not a war crime. Finally, all war crimes require either intent (you meant destroy what you destroyed) or negligence (you should have known what you destroyed). A missile that misses its target or is targeted incorrectly is not a war crime.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions are real and even reinforced as long as the mullahs and IRGC remain in power, but their progress has been suspended. Here is the entire history of Iran’s nuclear ambitions in a nutshell: their Supreme Leader made a statement forbidding possession of a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, they engaged in decades of behavior that could only result in a nuclear weapon. When called out, they negotiated limits and inspections, then cheated, lied, and denied. They have been criticized, censured, embargoed, threatened, and expelled and still refused to stop (except vocally). They fully believe none of the current attacks would have happened if they had consummated their quest, and they are correct. For the time being, Iran’s nuclear countdown clock has been defused, but no one is sure how much time was left on the timer: it may have been weeks, it may have been a year. If they are forced to give up their enriched uranium and accept real inspections, the clock may be reset.

Why does this matter? Even if Iran gets the bomb, and builds an ICBM, don’t we have sufficient forces to deter them launching one at the US? Yes, we do, and as we are the “Great Satan,” they have little doubt we will nuke the crap out of them if they try. But the problem is elsewhere: the Gulf Arab states, Europe, and especially Israel. If Iran goes nuclear, the Gulf states will insist on the same. Many believe Saudi Arabia already has a back-up plan with China or Pakistan or India to drop a line of credit and “buy” an instant nuclear capability. European countries are talking tough about defending against Russia, but they can’t even summon the will to ensure their oil and gas gets out of the Gulf; they would be open to Iranian intimidation. And that leaves Israel. I put the odds at fifty-fifty that some future Mullah Supremo in Tehran decides he will go down in the history books as the one who eliminated the Jewish race. What did the world mean when it said, “never again?”

The Middle East has been a thorn in America’s side for fifty years. A nuclear-armed Iran makes it a gaping chest wound, not a thorn. Which is why I think this war was inevitable. Inevitable doesn’t mean this was the right time to launch it, though. The necessity for surprise and the opportunity to kill the majority of Iran’s leadership in a single strike proved to be the driving force behind “why now.” Was that a good rationale?

Will the elimination of most of Iran’s leadership lead to an even worse set of leaders, or perhaps regime change? This really is the key question behind the war rationale. At its most basic, consider this: the current (dead) leadership killed more Americans, took more hostages, violated more international norms, ignored more American threats, sponsored more terrorists, suffered more international approbation, and killed more of its own people than any other country in the last fifty years. What exactly is going to come around that is “worse?” Just-as-bad is possible, maybe even probable, but worse? So a once-in-their-lifetime chance to send that top group collectively to Allah? Priceless.

What about a possible regime change? It’s not likely, at least in the short term. Everyone in the leadership pipeline is IRGC or radical mullah, so it’s naive to hope for the long-sought, never-discovered “Iranian moderates.” Tehran has proven capable of shooting unarmed female marchers in the head and hanging teenagers for protesting. They will not go down without a fight, because they know with certainty the retribution which awaits them. While a peace-loving, democratic Iran would be a wonderful thing, the US doesn’t even need that. We only need an Iran that fore-swears nuclear weapons (with requisite checks because of past bad behavior), does not sponsor terrorism, and does not threaten freedom of passage in the Gulf. They don’t have to like the Gulf Arab states or Israel, they just have to stop trying to kill them. That’s all the change we require.

What happens next? The war has plateaued just short of the “hell” President Trump twice (or was it thrice?) threatened. It will not resolve without some further escalation. To the regret of my air-power enthusiast friends, this war will disprove (one again) the idea you can win a war by aerial bombing. The slowest, safest next step is to establish a naval blockade of Iranian exports, seizing them à la Venezuela. The problem here is that it’s very slow and time consuming.

If the US chooses a slightly faster approach, we could use the Marines to conduct raids or clearing operations on the smaller islands in the strait, limiting-but-not-eliminating Iran’s control. It would also serve as a point of pride to occupy Iranian territory and take prisoners. These islands are sparsely inhabited and defended, so the Marines could make short work of them. The same can be said for raids on anti-ship missile locations on the Iranian mainland. Again, not completely decisive, but tightening the noose, so to speak.

The faster and most decisive move is to concentrate the Marines and airborne soldiers on taking Kharg island. The IRGC cannot hold it against those forces for long. Control of that island results in control of around seventy-five percent of Iran’s oil exporting capability. Iran could destroy their own infrastructure, but again, that’s suicidal. Likewise, bombing our forces there has the same result, as Iran’s missiles and artillery aren’t accurate enough to do otherwise. This option goes back to the “game-over” strategy that ended all those Iran wargames in the Pentagon. Our forces there could prove to be a magnet for Iranian drones, missiles, and artillery, but that of course means they have to come out and play in a fairly limited area of the Iranian mainland across from the island. Taking Kharg is messy (as in casualties and destroyed infrastructure) but it’s effective.

And of course a negotiated settlement is always available. But for the US to claim this “excursion” was worth it, we require an iron-clad “no nukes” pledge backed up by independent inspections, free navigation for the strait of Hormuz, and probably a commitment to stop supporting terrorist proxies. I say probably on the last one because the Israelis have gone a long way to ending this problem. If Iran wants a limited end to hostilities, these should be the terms. if they want more, like out of sanctions and back into the community of nations, ending their threats to the Gulf Arab states and Israel are also a must, as well as limiting their ballistic missile efforts and terrorist proxies.

The United States isn’t asking for much: stop acting like an unhinged death-cult. We really have few gripes with Iran, while they have many with others.

I have been “jonesing” to write about our current war with Iran. We’re still at sea, I have oodles of time on my hands, and the wonders of modern digital communications mean I can still be inundated with current information and commentary. But I waited, and waited. Why? Because first-takes are often the worst takes, war reporting is often just wrong (Clausewitz–that dead Prussian, called it the “fog of war”), and most of the commentary I have read thus far proceeds from an underlying political premise to a hasty conclusion. Of two stripes, both reminiscent of Trump Devotion/Derangement Syndrome (TD2S):

• Trump is a mastermind playing 4D chess (!?!) and all this will come out great for America, or
• Trump is an idiot and therefore the US is headed for a devastating failure, a quagmire, or both. And he only did it because (1) Putin told him to, (2) to distract from the Epstein files, or (3) because he suffers from third stage syphilis. No kidding. I have seen all three, sometimes in combination.

Now before I go any further, let me be clear: I haven’t made up my mind whether this particular Iran campaign is a good idea. It is simply too early to tell. Bad ideas can have good outcomes, and vice versa. But I can assure you this: if you have made up your mind already, it’s because you fell into one of the two mindsets described above. Because there is not enough evidence to do otherwise.

Which is not to say there are not criticisms (valid or otherwise) based on what we know thus far. And here they are:

“Trump has engaged in a war of choice.”

I regret to inform you that war always requires at least two parties, and both sides must opt “in.” If one doesn’t, the other wins by default. When the rebels shelled Fort Sumter, Lincoln had the choice to ignore them and let the South “go its own way” (cue Fleetwood Mac). Many of his advisors actually counselled him to do so, as most realized what a bloody mess it would be. He chose to resist. If you think there is something unique about the choice Trump just made, you’re wrong. It happens all the time. Yes, most Presidents provide much more explanation to the country before going into war, and what explanation Trump has provided has been inconsistent (I’m being diplomatic to a fault here, but more on that later). So complain about the explanation, but drop the “choice” argument. It only sounds impressive if you know nothing about war, politics, etc.

“This is an illegal war.”

Usually followed by reference to the War Powers Act (WPA). Very simply, no President has followed the WPA as it was passed by Congress since it was passed by Congress (overriding a Nixon veto). Why not? It is a law without any consequences. Commit treason, and you can look up the penalty. Violate the War Powers Act, and you’ll get a “harrumph” from the House of Representatives. They knew this when they passed it, and they knew it even better as each of the Presidents (yes, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush uno, Clinton, Bush dos, Obama, Trump, and even Biden) did what they wanted and “interpreted” it as compliant with the WPA. The only mechanisms for compliance are impeachment or cutting off funding for the military. Why doesn’t Congress do the latter if they feel so strongly about it? Because they fear some military unit somewhere will get attacked and be unable to defend itself because Congress cut off funds. So they “piddle, twiddle, and resolve.” Don’t be like Congress (which is a great life rule, really).

“The US engaged in bad faith negotiations” or “launched a surprise attack.”

This criticism often compares the US attack on Iran with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (no, really). Japan never gave the US an ultimatum, even their last communication (which was delivered late) was an ambiguous observation about ending negotiations, not war. Meanwhile, the US made clear that Iran had to renounce its nuclear ambitions. I understand they were confused when we attacked, as we had allowed them to obfuscate for literal decades, but that’s on them, not the US.

But the larger, even gaping hole in this criticism is this: Iran has been at war with the US for forty-seven years, since Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolutionary forces chased the Shah of Iran from power. His regime instituted barbaric penalties against women and minorities, sought ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, sponsored or protected numerous bloody terrorist movements, threatened to exterminate the Jewish people, attacked its neighbors, and acted in constant opposition to American interests. What country (excluding insurgent movements) is responsible for more American deaths over that period? Iran. They literally chanted “Death to America” every morning. I know one man who tied himself into knots claiming such chants were just words, and “never hurt anybody.” Okay. They also took hostages, blew up diplomatic buildings, tried to assassinate US officials, attacked warships, and lobbed missiles indiscriminantly. Their main protection was a sense that any attempt to reduce their capabilities or change the regime would be costly and difficult. That deterrence worked, until a few days ago.

So we indeed surprised them when we started fighting back, not when we started a war.

“This could go very wrong.”

Yes, indeed, this opertion could still “go south” as we used to say in the business, and may do so. But to ignore the fact it hasn’t yet? That’s just willful disregard for reality. The great Prussian strategist Carl von Clasewitz often gets cited for his maxims about the fog and friction of war (come to think of it, I did so earlier). If uncertainty is all one takes from Clausewitz, it is a thin strategic gruel. Uncertainty resides in all life’s actions: your next parent-teacher conference, your next plane trip, your next skin cancer screening. While war has its own risks, it never is certain. To whit:

Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.

— Text prepared by General Eisenhower in case the D-Day landings failed

We all know how D-Day came out. If it had failed, the Iron Curtain would have descended on the Rhine, or the English Channel, instead of central Germany. But Ike didn’t know for sure, and had to prepare that note. If today’s media had covered Normandy, the slaughter at Omaha Beach might have convinced the American public it wasn’t worth it. Missed assault landing zones, paratroopers drowned in marshes, guns without ammo, you name it, it happened. But this was an amazing success story, not a failure. The most complicated over-the-beach invasion in military history put ashore a fighting army in days, all the trauma aside.

Set down your dog-eared (hopefully) edition of “On War” and watch, not pontificate.

“There is no plan.”

This is one I can definitively refute. From all the way back to the creation of US Central Command, they have had a OPLAN (Operational Plan) for war with Iran. It once was OPLAN 1001, and later 1025. There are also various CONPLANs (Contingency Plans) for specific scenarios of hostilities. These are the ones each President has to approve, and there are extensive war-games, reviews, and constant updates. Trump doesn’t show up at “the tank” (the Joint Chiefs of Staff conference room) and say, “go kill the ba@st@rds!” Well, maybe Hegseth did. But what the War Department does is execute a plan. Because there is one.

Related to this is the claim the administration “was surprised” by something the Iranians did. Again, I can confirm that nothing the Iranians have done so far was not already in the planning documents. When commanders or civilian officials say they “didn’t anticipate Iran closing the strait of Hormuz” they are saying they knew it was possible, but considered unlikely because it’s a losing proposition. Closing the strait means nobody’s oil gets out, not just the Arab states. That ticks off countries who might otherwise look favorably on Iran, like China. And Iran can’t make the closure permanent: they only have so many mines, so many boats, so many anti-ship missiles. And each time they come out, they’re vulnerable to US air power. They can wreak havoc for sure, for a time. But if they do, the US still retains the option to destroy (or better yet) occupy Kharg island, the main point of loading for Iranian oil. No oil, no money for the IRGC or the mullahs. This is why the closure of the strait was seen as an option for Iran, but a bad one: we can escalate to cause more pain for them then they can cause for us.

“This war is a disaster.”

This is especially offensive. Couching the war as “leading to a disaster” is at least a hedge. But look at the results thus far. Iran’s blue water navy is unintentionally sub-marine. Their air force is a series of chalk outlines on the tarmac. Missile launches are down 90%, as are drone attacks. Perhaps they are holding back, but that leads one to ask: for what? The US and Israel are flying over Iran unopposed and blowing up targets at a record clip. That does not equal victory, but it can’t be characterized by a rational mind as a disaster (I’m talking to you, Senator Murphy).

As positive as the US results have been, Iran’s responses have been pathetic. While they have had some limited success against military radars, for the most part they have lobbed missiles and drones at hotels, refineries, our embassy in Baghdad, and anywhere in Israel, resulting in limited damage. Military planners considered this too as an option for Iran, and again, decided it was a bad one. Yes, they can cause some damage. No, they don’t have the targeting or missiles/drones to make an operational difference. The only effective measure by the Iranian regime thus far is the threat by the Basij militia to shoot any protestors in the head. Tough guys.

If this were a prize fight, the ref would have stopped it. But it’s not a prize fight; it’s a war. Meaning round one is just that, and no one knows how it will turn out yet. But if you think the US is behind on points in the early rounds, you might have been a Soviet Olympic judge.

“No one has explained why this war, why now.”

I’m a little sympathetic with those who are exasperated by the ever-changing comments by Trump about the goals, activities, and length of this war. But only a little. After ten years of Trump, who says whatever is on his mind without any filter, why does anybody still parse his words and complain about their unreality, their mutual incoherence, or their flat-out distortion? Why? If you look to what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says, or the CENTCOM Commander, or even Secretary Rubio, you’ll find the clarity you crave. Note I didn’t include War Secretary Hegseth, who seems to act more and more like a Marvel comics character every day. Trump and Hegseth have all the message discipline of two adolescents babbling-while-high on their sugary Halloween take.

But the American people deserve a better explanation. The funny thing is, they have had it for forty-seven years. All those Presidents have held that Iran could not be allowed to achieve nuclear weapons, had to stop killing or taking Americans hostage, had to stop fomenting terrorism. At times, some Presidents acted on those demands; other times, they negotiated, while realizing that the Iranian regime has a perfect record of not complying with any of their negotiated limitations. Sadly, the Trump administration is unwilling to make the case that this attack is a response completely in accord with decades of US policy. But it is.

Whatever you feel about it, the US is at war with Iran. If you want to make a case against the war, do so, but remember to address the problem, not the President. How does your criticism or policy alternative eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, missiles, or terrorist proxies? That’s the problem. This war may not solve it either, but you don’t have to be a Clausewitz scholar to understand how it might.

Would I like to see the Islamic Republic flushed down the toilet bowl of history? Yes, yes I would. Would I settle for them being neutered back into the Stone Age they seem to revere? Probably. Strategy in war is all about adjusting your means to accomplish your ends. I’m reminded of another statement by Lincoln:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

An Iran whose missiles no longer threaten the entire Middle East, who no longer threatens to choke off the Strait of Hormuz, who no longer funds terrorism or seeks nuclear weapons, is a goal worth fighting for, whether the President can string the subjects and verbs together or not. Finally, as we are at war, never fail to realize all our efforts must be toward victory. If you–even for a moment–think a negative result on the battlefield serves some partisan political purposes, shame on you. Few regimes have been as unceasingly evil as the one in Tehran. That doesn’t justify anything or everything the US does (just war and justice in war, as they say), but we should all be clear what we’re fighting against. And it’s not each other.

I won’t spend as much time analyzing the shooting death of Alex Pretti as I did previously with Renee Good. One colleague criticized my approach as “frame-by-frame” as if more detail and thoughtful analysis was unnecessary. It’s a sad commentary on where we are when otherwise rational people take such a position. Instead, I recommend you read/view this New York Times analysis which does a fair job of analyzing the scene. But I will add some thoughts in general.

1. Continuing the theme that our national derangement has left folks unable to think clearly, gun-restriction enthusiasts are now championing the dead man’s right-to-bear-arms in a confrontation with law enforcement. And Second Amendment absolutists are questioning it. Foolish (key word) consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. These role reversals denote no minds at all.
2. I see nothing in the Times’ analysis which suggests a deadly threat. Pretti could barely be described as impeding, as he backs away from one agent and only briefly touches him when that agent pushes a woman over a snowbank. This is a normal reaction for anybody in such a situation. He does then resist, as it takes six agents to take him to the ground, and even then he remains on his knees, not prone (which would be the position law enforcement would be placing him in for detention). But resistance is not a threat. The discovery of his weapon amidst the scrum is handled by one agent removing it, yet another then opens fire. While the Times makes much of the number of shots subsequently fired, I will point out again that once an officer makes the decision to use deadly force, that officer (and others) are authorized to continue firing until the target is completely neutralized (ie, dead or incapacitated). If you want to make the case for warning shots or shooting people in the legs or whatever, you’re in the realm of TV, not the real world. Those are the rules established (repeatedly) by the Supreme Court. The issue here is the lack of a reasonable cause for deadly force in the first place, because there probably is none. I only say “probably” because we don’t have all the video and audio.
3. Mr. Pretti’s right to carry a weapon is undeniable. His duty to be responsible when doing so can be questioned. The fact he went to the trouble of getting a concealed carry permit suggests he was a serious, law-abiding person. We don’t know whether he had his permit and identification on him, as required by Minnesota state law, but even if he didn’t, it’s a misdemeanor punishable by a minor fine and can be remediated simply by showing one has a valid permit. As a serious, law-abiding citizen, he no doubt knew that Minnesota is a duty-to-acknowledge state with respect to carrying weapons. Some states require those carrying weapons to announce so to law enforcement (called duty-to-disclose). Minnesota only requires one to acknowledge carrying a weapon “if asked” by law enforcement. However, nearly all gun-rights organizations have training (real and online) telling in detail exactly how to disclose your carry status when dealing with law enforcement, explaining it is always best to do so, because the sudden discovery of a concealed weapon can become deadly. Needless to say, engaging in a scrum is not a responsible way to conduct your right to concealed carry.
4. The immediate overreaction by those vilifying the agents involved is expected, if unfortunate. Even if the crticis are ultimately justified, they were wrong to jump to conclusions. I am more offended by the similar over-reaction by ICE and DHS officials. Immediately declaring the victims were “domestic terrorists” is beyond the pale, especially given the lack of a formal investigation in the Good shooting, and the lack of a completed one in the Pretti shooting. Standing up for your agents can be accomplished with tact and not at the expense of the reputation of American citizens. President Trump should fire DHS Secretary Noem, as she lacks all public credibility at this point. Border Patrol Commander Bovino merits the same treatment.
5. Both shootings merit full, independent investigations. Of the orders given, the actions taken, and the motives involved. On all sides. ICE needs to assess its use-of-force criteria, especially when dealing with citizens rather than illegal/undocumented persons. Telling people that ICE agents have no authority to arrest US citizens is not only wrong, it’s deadly. Suggesting impeding them is some type of game should likewise be treated as a criminal activity.
6. The propaganda from both sides has to stop, as it fuels the tension. If states or cities don’t want to cooperate with ICE, that is their prerogative. So don’t ask your criminals about their immigration status, or don’t notify ICE when such people are released. Fine. But providing local police to create a perimeter where ICE is conducting an ERO is NOT cooperating with ICE: it’s doing your job, protecting your citizens. Watch the Good video. Watch the Pretti video. What’s the one thing you don’t see in those videos? Local police doing what they did under the Obama and Biden and even the first Trump administration: creating a buffer between people and ICE agents doing their federal job. Your Governor or Mayor does NOT get to determine whether (or even how) the federal government enforces immigration law. You don’t have to cooperate, you do have to render assistance, because that’s in the best interest of your citizens. Just Do it!
7. The Trump administration blundered badly when it veered from nationwide immigration enforcement and started a targeted operation in Minnesota because of the extensive federal funding fraud there. You don’t fight fraud with ICE or Border Patrol. While ethnic Somalis were involved in the fraud, there isn’t a nexus to the same persons being here illegally. The full weight of the DOJ (FBI) and Treasury (IRS) needs to be brought to bear on the situation. Mixing in DHS/ICE and Border Patrol only confused the situation.
8. Let’s stop arguing about the “worst of the worst,” shall we? First off, there are over one-million people in the country who have received final deportation orders. This means they have attended all the hearings, applied for every type of relief, and been denied. They have exhausted all due-process. And when they were called to report for deportation, they simply didn’t show. Some have been here for decades. They are not guilty of any other crime, but they have no legal recourse to stay in the country. If you’re arguing they get to stay, you’re saying the law does not matter. Second, while the administration argues the vast majority of those it is deporting are criminals, they play fast and loose with the statistics. They include people who have been convicted along with people who have only been charged, not convicted of a crime. Oh, and they even include people who have had previous convictions or charges dropped or erased from their records through remediation, including sealed records. Some people recoil at this. I only point out that all these things (convictions, charges, and even remediated cases) ARE specifically permitted to be used in determining whether to deport someone. Once again, the rights of a citizen are not the same as those of someone trying to become a citizen or resident. Finally, the illegal alien detained by ICE at the scene where Mr. Pretti was killed was a man previously charged by state and local officials for domestic assault and disorderly conduct. Yes, state and local police. You and I may argue whether those charges are enough to deport someone, but you can’t make up the idea the detentions are random. Last year, there was a major increase in non-criminal removals as a result of “collateral arrests,” where ICE agents executing a warrant for one individual also arrest everyone else present at the scene who lacks legal status. That is not random, either.

If you want to go all-in on abolishing ICE or promoting MAGA, you probably don’t like my analysis, and frankly, yours is a tired take. If you want to argue a point or an opinion, have at it. There are other ways to parse the data, or make the case for or against immigration enforcement /reform. I’m interested in solutions, especially those that fix an immigration mess decades in the making and recently resulting in American citizens dying at the hands of federal agents.

For a moment, set aside the moral arguments that it’s wrong for a big, powerful country to simply take territory from a weaker one. Several Catholic Cardinals in the United States have adequately delineated that argument. Set aside, too, the political arguments that it is short-sighted to antagonize one’s friends simply to acquire something which is essentially already under one’s control. Many European leaders have pointed this out. What about the strategic argument that the continent-sized island called Greenland, an autonomous constituent country within the Kingdom of Denmark, is essential to the future and even present security of the United States of America?

Let me be clear: there is no rationale for the strategic argument, either. None. Zilch. Nada. Get out your brooms and let’s take a whack at that strategic straw-man.

First, Greenland sits atop the world, astride the sea lanes which are gradually becoming free of ice as the globe warms. This new sea route, the famed “Northwest Passage” which European adventurers searched for in vain during the period of the 15th-19th Century, would greatly shorten the trade/sea-travel time between Europe and Asia. Forgotten is the fact that this same maniacal quest cost many lives and in the end made no difference, a point moderns might want to recall. Doesn’t the control of sea lanes equate to strategic dominance?

While there is an argument to be made in favor of strategic sea power, it’s not the 1600s any more. One can’t wait for the Spanish Treasure Fleet and steal all the wealth of the New World (alas). Trade routes are useful as long as they remain free. Here’s the little secret: The United States doesn’t need this route, as we have shorter routes to both Europe and Asia. It’s important to Europe, important to China, and would be important to Russia if they ever make anything anybody wants to trade for. The great American naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan was quite correct for his time (19th Century). Some things have since changed.

Back in the day, Henry Kissinger was asked about the strategic importance of the nation of Chile. He responded, “Chile is a dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica.” When I hear about Greenland’s alleged strategic value, I wonder what Henry would have thought.

What if it’s not all about trade, but defense? Okay, let’s go there. Who are we defending against? Neither Russia nor China has any ability to project land forces into Greenland, nor could they sustain them if they did. If they landed, they would quickly become the world’s largest voluntary prisoner-of-war camp, and a miserable one at that. Basing air forces there is even more out of the question for either. And while there are some ice-free ports available, by themselves they don’t control anything. Greenland is part of the famous GIUK gap, a naval defense and warning line that runs between Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom. But the US and NATO have controlled this path for half a century, and have laid the sensors to even track (Russian) submarines that dare to pass through.

Missiles and missile defense, that’s the reason! The US and Canada have established a missile tracking capacity in this region since the first Soviet ICBMs were fielded in 1959; it’s still there, still working. One of our key bases is the former “Thule” (pronounced Too-ley) base, now Pituffik Space Base. Under full US control. If we needed to put more radars or missiles in, we may do so. Now.

Which leads to another observation: under the 1951 US-Danish treaty governing the defense of Greenland, the US can pretty much move any military forces it wants to Greenland, simply by notifying the Danes and the Kalaallit (Greenlanders, as they call themselves). No prior approval necessary. If President Trump foresaw an immediate threat, he could deploy as many forces as he desired, in full compliance with US treaty obligations. So let’s put the whole “strategic threat” argument to bed. There is no threat, and if there were, we could respond immediately as we wished.

Maybe it’s about strategic minerals? Greenland has many unexploited mineral reserves, so that is tempting. And they have some rare earth minerals, which the US and the West crave for advanced computer electronics, but the available supply of which is currently under China’s control. So ask yourself this: if these rare earth minerals are so valuable, why hasn’t anybody exploited them in Greenland? Several reasons! First, rare earth minerals aren’t “rare” at all: they’re everywhere! They are called rare because unlike gold or silver or copper, they aren’t found in dense, exploitable veins. One basically scoops up megatons of dirt and refines it with several caustic, expensive chemical processes (which are environmentally destructive) to get usable rare earths. Second, Greenland’s minerals lie deep under an ice sheath, so first you have to drill through that before you can start scooping. Oh, and third, there are no roads and no infrastructure where the minerals are. So despite having some valuable minerals, mining Greenland is about as logistically challenging as mining the moon. Except there’s also those pesky locals who don’t want their pristine Arctic wilderness to look like West Virginia (no offense to any Mountaineers out there!).

We are rapidly running out of reasons to take Greenland. Perhaps we should trust the President when he was asked this question, point blank: Why does the United States need to own Greenland? “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success.” He even texted the Norwegian Prime Minister that, in light of his Nobel Peace Prize snub, he saw no reason to “think purely of Peace.” You have to admire the man for saying the quiet part out loud. He wants it, period.

Now there’s nothing crazy about seeing Greenland as potentially important (if not strategically vital). The United States has been after it for some time. President James Monroe’s eponymous doctrine explicitly included Greenland, since it lies in the Western Hemisphere. Andrew Johnson considered buying it, Woodrow Wilson offered to trade for it, Harry S Truman made a formal purchase offer. After Truman, the Danes got tired of all the US interest and negotiated the 1951 treaty which gives America vast and exclusive rights in the land. They thought that ended the issue. Until President Trump came along.

Perhaps he’s trying to burnish his legacy. Perhaps he’s flush with the (very real) success of taking down Maduro and “running” Venezuela. Perhaps he’s reverting to his real estate developer mindset and looking for a signature deal. Whatever deep-seated need he’s trying to address, it is not one of America’s vital national interests. I trust cooler heads to prevail, and some compromise agreement to be inked which papers over the very real differences. But Trump is still looking for a signature “win,” something he can claim and market and slap his name (metaphorically) on in history. So this won’t be the first, nor last, crisis like this.

By now, everyone in America has seen multiple videos of the ICE agent shooting Renee Good on January 7th in Minneapolis. Many folks (including administration figures) jumped on single initial videos on Bluesky or X to rush to judgment. Almost all of them are wrong: wrong about the facts, wrong about the law, just plain wrong. I’ve taken a few days to capture the most important video elements, create a timeline, and clear away the bulls!t* both sides have been spewing. I will attempt to show (1) what happened, (2) why (where we can tell), and (3) what does not matter to the story.

Let’s start with the background. On the day in question, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE, along with allied federal agencies) was involved in an Enforcement and Removal Operation (ERO) in the Minneapolis area. These are targeted raids wholly within the legal duties of ICE. While many Americans don’t agree with the policy ICE was enforcing, there is no legal basis for any citizen to impede the actions. In this instance, it is no different from deciding the bank robber is innocent and tackling the police officer arresting him. It will not end well, regardless of your intentions.

According to her spouse, Renee Good was a member of an online community called ICE Watch, which coordinates protest activities against ICE ERO. This is legal. Watching where ICE agents are, showing up and protesting with signs, whistles, or car-horns, and even following them are protected activities under the First Amendment. However, most of these actions are profoundly ineffective: ICE targets still get detained, arrested, and deported. Which makes the protesters angry, and wanting to do more. Anytime the protest crosses over into actively or passively interfering, it becomes illegal. Yet many such illegal activities do not result in arrest. ICE agents detain people who are interfering, and after completing the operation, release them without pressing charges. They do this in order to complete their daily mission, and to recognize the fine line between legal and illegal behavior, whether you believe that or not. In fact, all law enforcement officers exercise the same restraint: ever had a cop let you off with a warning when the radar gun got you “dead to rights?”

By all accounts, Renee Good was a very nice person. A great neighbor, a loving spouse, a kind mother, a committed member of her community. This would all be relevant character witness if she were charged with a crime. She is not; she is dead. Morally, it is a tragedy that she was lost to the community. Legally it matters not at all. What matters is what she did that morning, and although she is not there to tell us, why?

Renee Good dropped off her child at school around 9:00 AM. At 9:37 AM she was shot. We don’t yet know what she did between the time she dropped off her child and when she parked her car laterally blocking a two lane street. We do know that ICE was completing a mission in the area and one of their vehicles, which had pulled off the street to park, was stuck in the snow at the same location. Some other cars did pass by, but Good remained in the driver’s seat with her window rolled down and her engine idling. Her spouse, Becca Good, exited the passenger-side of the vehicle and began filming with her phone the collection of ICE vehicles that had arrived on the scene to extricate the trapped vehicle. ICE agents in two vehicles (one in front of Good’s car, one behind) also exited their vehicles and approached her car.

These videos contain important audio explaining several aspects of the incident. Renee Good can be heard saying “That’s fine, dude, I’m not mad at you.” The agent who approached from the passenger side is filming the encounter, and he comes face-to-face with Becca Good as he moves to the rear bumper. He does not speak, but he is walking around Good’s car, filming the license plate and circling around to the front of the car. Becca Good can be heard saying, “That’s okay. We don’t change our plates every morning. Just so you know. . . . It will be the same plate when you come talk to us later. That’s fine. . . . US Citizen!” Then a moment later, “You want to come at us? You want to come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy.” The agent continues toward the front of the car as Becca returns to the passenger door. As she reaches for the passenger-side door handle to open it, the two agents approaching her car from the driver’s side shout, “out of the car” “get out of the f*cking car” and “get out of the car” in overlapping succession.

While the two agents continue to approach Renee’s car door, the other (filming) agent moves to the front of her vehicle, holding his cell phone in his left hand. Becca tries to opens the passenger door, but it is locked. She says “Drive. Drive, Baby drive!” One of the agents arrives at the driver’s door and attempts to open it from the outside; he fails. He then reaches inside, either to grab the steering wheel or unlock the door. Renee Good places the vehicle into reverse (the back-up lights come on) and the car moves a foot or two back, as the officer reaching-in staggers off balance with his arm still in the car. Renee Good places the car in drive, as indicated by the back-up lights going off and the vehicle moving forward slowly. The agent still has his arm inside the car.

At the moment the car begins moving forward and accelerating, the agent in front of the car is slightly in front of the driver’s side headlight. At that moment, he reaches for his weapon with his free (right) hand. Simultaneously, the agent with his arm in the car disentangles himself and staggers away from the car. Renee Good turns her steering wheel to her right as the agent in front fires one round through the front windshield. He fires two more rounds through the open driver’s side window. Becca Good never got back into the car before it accelerates away, crashing into a parked car down the street. Renee Good is dead from one or more gunshots to the head. Someone (certainly one of the ICE agents) is heard saying “F*cking b!tch.”

There are some opinions floating around which are not supported by the facts. Early BlueSky coverage indicated the ICE agents gave conflicting commands to “get the eff out of here.” There is no evidence to support this conjecture. All three commands heard, from two different voices, are to “get out of the car.”

Some have voiced uninformed opinions about the the rules for deadly force, and the fact three rounds were fired. To be clear, ICE agents are authorized to use deadly force if there is a threat to the agent or anyone else. Whether the shooting agent could evade the car or not is irrelevant, as the car is the deadly weapon in this case. To put it in perspective, imagine telling a police officer they can’t shoot back at a suspect if the suspect shot first and missed them! In this case, the officer with his arm in the vehicle was clearly at risk of being dragged. That is a deadly threat.

Were the three rounds fired excessive? A forensic analysis of the shots shows they occurred within a single second. The Supreme Court has held (Plumhoff v. Rickard) that an officer employing deadly force is within his rights to continue shooting until the threat is disabled. The shooter in this case had no time to stop and consider whether his first round had hit the target. In fact, at this time, we still don’t know whether the first round did hit or kill Renee Good.

Several former law enforcement officers have commented negatively on the fact the agent who fired his weapon “stopped in front of a car.” Their complaints cite the police rule that you never stand in front of a car. This is indeed a rule of policing, but the agent in question barely–if at all–stops in front of the car. He is circling the car, filming it as evidence. That’s why he is able to get out of the way. Cops walk in front of a cars all the time; it’s practically impossible to avoid doing so in a public environment. One doesn’t take up a blocking position in front of a suspect vehicle, or one might become a hood ornament. That wasn’t the case here.

What does the geography of the crime scene and videos show us? Renee Good was not attempting to run over the agent who shot her. Look at the video labelled #4 in this Washington Post coverage. Renee Good clearly looks forward at the agent in front of her car as her spouse commands her to “drive.” And her hands show her turning her steering wheel to her right to avoid the agent who is moving away to her left. There is a hidden clue here. When Renee looks forward at the agent in front of her car, she is no longer looking at the agent who has his arms inside her car door. She does not know it, but the agent in front of the car can see both her, and the other ICE agent about to be dragged.

Is it relevant that the agent who shot Renee Good had been previously dragged? Probably not. If opposing counsel in a hypothetical case could introduce other evidence that the shooting agent was mentally unwell, or unbalanced, hateful, or unfit for duty, that might be relevant. But the simple fact he was previously dragged does not by itself indicate anything. Likewise, the fact the alleged shooter was a member of a highly trained ICE element, and taught firearms safety, is not necessarily relevant. It does remove the possibility the shooter was untrained, but that is all it does. The decision to shoot is a split-second one where officers are supposed to let their training kick in. That is the purpose of training.

So what really happened here? Two women active in anti-ICE protests happened upon (or were notified of) some ICE vehicles in their vicinity. They decided to join-in the protest. If you listen/watch closely to the various videos, you’ll see a number of people gathering on the street, some filming, and unidentified voices (not the protagonists mentioned here) shouting epithets at the agents. For reasons known only to them, the women park their car directly across a street, blocking access. There is no legal reason on the planet to do so. Even a local police officer would have arrested them for blocking traffic.

According to Secretary Noem, the ICE personnel stuck in the snow were leaving after an earlier-morning operation. So the ICE agents were not involved in an active operation: they were headed home, or to the office for a debrief. They are not chasing a suspect. The verbal exchanges between the women and the ICE agents show a degree of hostility, but not malice. I would characterize them as taunting, and law enforcement personnel are trained to ignore such taunting. Furthermore, since they are not involved in an active operation, the ICE agents should be exercising maximum discretion toward any attempt to impede them.

Within forty seconds, the incident goes from ridiculous to deadly. Law enforcement personnel have the right to defend themselves, and are trained to do so. The protesting women do not evince any professional training in the fine art of legal non-violent resistance. They are treating this as a bit of theater to be filmed and disseminated for the cause. The officer filming circles their car to get full data on it; when he does, he ends up directly in front of the vehicle at the exact moment when the women decide they don’t have to obey the agents’ commands and attempt to flee (but not kill anyone).

Here is the split-second decision that agent has to make: he hears the engine revving and sees the car moving forward towards him. He can see both the car approaching him and he can see his associate struggling to get free of the moving car. He assesses deadly force is necessary and pulls his weapon. Self-preservation kicks in and he starts to evade the front bumper of the vehicle, which either brushes or narrowly misses him (someone, presumably the shooter, shouts “woah” at this moment), as he fires a shot that enters through the front windshield. As the car passes him, he fires two more times. All of this happens in under three seconds.

What’s important in all this?

An American citizen is dead, for no good reason. It’s not the shooting agent’s fault, he reacted as he was trained. It’s not the victim’s fault; she did not intend to injure anyone. ICE bears a responsibility to ensure its officers employ greater discretion when not involved in active operations. We entrust ICE with the difficult task of capturing and removing illegal aliens, and with the right to use deadly force. ICE should conduct a safety stand-down and remind its agents that conduct outside of operations is not the same as conduct during operations. If the Goods had been driving to block an imminent arrest, that would have been one thing. There was nothing in particular going on, and greater discretion was necessary.

Groups which form to track ICE also shoulder blame. Law enforcement is law enforcement, whether you agree with the law being enforced or not. On Instagram, the account called MN (Minnesota) ICE Watch has a tab indicating “If you don’t have a crowd asserting pressure there may be some interference charges that come with blocking a police vehicle that may be more easily handed down for only one or two people blocking a police vehicle, but in many cases these are misdemeanor offenses and catch and release.” These anti-ICE groups even acknowledge what they are advising is illegal, but brush it off as a “misdemeanor or catch and release.” Law enforcement officers are authorized to use deadly force, and are trained to do so. This is not street-theater. It’s all fun and games until somebody gets shot in the face.

The whole situation reminds me of the countless videos of people detained by police who suddenly decide to flee, with predictable consequences. Even if the Goods had done nothing wrong up to that point (they had), when law enforcement orders you to get out of the car, you must get out of the car. Not “drive, baby, drive.”

If you jumped on the bandwagon of labeling the deceased woman a domestic terrorist, or ICE as trigger happy Gestapo: congratulations, you too share in the blame. Hyperbole never helps, and in this case you are not offering your opinion, you are factually wrong. People think it’s a partisan hoot when they post highly-provocative bullsh!t* on social media: it’s not. When you do so, you help raise the temperature, not lower it. For God’s sake, even Renee Good kept her commentary civil, although she did a make one tragic, fatal mistake.

Stop it. Just stop it, now. Or accept your part in the blame.

Post Script: It has only been days since the event. More evidence may come to light, and the FBI investigation will also provide more information.

*technical term I heard from Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. The opinion he voiced had the exact same stink.

I considered using “for Dummies” in the title but didn’t, because it’s a copyright and my friends simply aren’t dummies. After President Trump’s daring raid to capture Nicolas Maduro, I found myself in many online exchanges, only a few of which were interesting. I won’t bore you with all the details. Let’s just say some people can’t get past the notion “if Trump did it, it’s immoral, illegal, and doomed to failure.” As I said, not very interesting. But another point did pique my interest: a suggestion that I undervalued the international rule-of-law. That’s worthy of discussion.

The international rule-of-law is a global state of affairs where countries agree there are norms which they will abide by and not break when convenient. Throughout history, it has been the exception, not the rule. It greatly benefits the establishment of peace between nations and furthers business and travel. It’s generally good for everybody, except for peoples or nations who believe the system hasn’t worked for them, and therefore they don’t want to obey the rules.

The Pax Romana (Roman Peace) was an early example of such a system. Within the empire, subjugated peoples/nations had greater degrees of autonomy as long as they acquiesced to Rome’s oversight, adopted Rome’s state religion (which was pantheistic and broadened to incorporate their gods), and acknowledged the divinity and leadership of Caesar. As brutal and unfair as the Pax Romana was, no one was able to create another such system until Napoleon came on the scene.

As a result of the challenge presented by Napoleon’s (mass conscripted) Grande Armée and overthrow of established monarchies, the nations which exiled him decided to build a lasting peace in Europe around a set of international norms. Known as the Concert of Europe , it lasted almost one-hundred years. The major European powers generally avoided interstate conflict and suppressed the spread of revolutionary movements, creating the conditions for peace and stability. Sadly, the Concert met its end when technological advances and a rising Germany set off the Great War.

Immediately after that war, and spurred on by the internationalism of American president Woodrow Wilson, Europe tried to recreate a new set of norms based in the League of Nations. Military forces were constrained, unprovoked attacks outlawed, and diplomacy ensconced as the way to keep the peace. Alas, there were too many aggrieved countries (Germany again, now Italy & Japan) and too many extremist, expansionist ideologies (fascism, communism, racist imperialism). British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain wasn’t a stupid man; he just thought that under the rules-based international order he thought was in effect, his Munich agreement would keep Hitler in check. World War II was the result.

After that war, the United States parlayed its massive economic, military, and political power into a new system designed to create a modern-day Pax Americana. The US insisted on the global judicial trial of the war’s criminals, the forerunner of the International Criminal Court. It sponsored the United Nations and built a series of defensive alliances to protect against Communist subversion. And it created a series of global financial and trade regulations designed to foster free-and-fair trade. All this was not American largess: it was a system to create the conditions whereby the international rule-of-law made life freer, fairer, and more conducive to America’s view of how the world should be. America greatly benefited from this system, but so did other nations. Even the Soviet Union, which had little taste for the American system, found itself playing by American rules. No better example exists then when the Soviets walked out of the UN to protest an American effort to stop the seating of Communist China. The Soviet’s absence permitted the Security Council to give the US military mission to defend South Korea a UN imprimatur, meaning that to this day the defense of South Korea against North Korea exists under a UN flag (including Russia, China, and even North Korea!).

Why this history lesson? Some folks think that history is a one-way ratchet, always progressing toward more peaceful, more just outcomes. When it comes to the international rule-of-law, history is more cyclic: sometimes it works, mostly it fails. The Pax Americana was immensely successful from 1945 to the 1990s. Its ultimate exemplar was the global response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. But soon after, the consensus started to crack. Countries started to use the system, gaming it, or even flat out ignoring it. And those nations who still respected the system did not stay united to defend it.

The signs of this change were everywhere. Russia was clearly a rejectionist power. Under Putin, they acted to reject one international norm after another. They brutally suppressed insurgencies, hired out mercenary forces, conducted lethal attacks on dissidents in other lands, and ignored sanctions. I contend that the best date for the absolute end of the Pax Americana is 2014, when Putin invaded and occupied Ukraine’s Crimea Peninsula, to nothing more than diplomatic hand-slaps. The rest of the sad tale of the war in Ukraine is all tied directly to that event.

China played along with the game, but undermined it with relish. Recall it was the Chinese who demonstrated their willingness to ignore international outrage in 1989 when they massacred the protesters in Tienanmen Square. They agreed to join the international economic system, only to undermine it by unfair trade practices, state-supports, currency manipulation, extortionary lending, and pirating intellectual property rights. They remained respectful of military norms just until they were powerful enough to bully within their sphere of influence.

And the list includes states which sponsored terrorism as a political art, those that poisoned international groups like the UN Human Rights Commission, and those who simply shirked their obligations for defense or national security. In the end, an international rule-of-law order is only as good as those committed to maintaining it. And sometime in the last twenty years, the Pax Americana went away. To be clear, I am not celebrating the fact. I would much rather have a world still defined by international rule-of-law. But it is naive-bordering-on-negligent to suggest we still live in one, and must therefore abide by its rules.

Another history lesson. Franklin Delano Roosevelt clearly recognized that the nascent League of Nations had failed, and the world had reverted to a Hobbesian condition where might would define right. FDR went boldly about breaking all the rules–domestically and internationally–to support the floundering allied war effort. He ignored the international rule of law as it was defined at the time, “leasing” ships, planes, and even bases to a combatant during a conflict. He extended loans without authorization. He authorized US forces to engage hostile raiders at sea. None of this was legal under international law, but it was necessary, and he was right to do it. Not because he was a tyrant, or bent on getting involved in a world war, but because he correctly understood the nature of the international environment.

Now somewhere out there a friend is throwing his hands up, asking, “so we’re supposed to just let Trump invade Greenland next?!?” NO, No, no. Recognizing we aren’t in an international rule-of-law order is not carte blanche to behave like petty dictators ourselves. But it does require the US (and you, mis amigos) to think about how we respond. If you heard that an angry mob was headed to your children’s school, you wouldn’t accept the idea the Principal sent out the adolescent crossing guards to stop them. You would want the police on hand, if not the National Guard. Laws generally stop those who are law-abiding. It doesn’t mean the laws are irrelevant, it just means you have to assess whether you live in a law-abiding or law-breaking world. And act accordingly.

With respect to Venezuela, the Biden Administration had a US$ 25 million dollar bounty for the capture of Maduro. Was that just theater, not law? I might have missed where those objecting to his capture were protesting the bounty. Or are they only objecting to success?

Finally, I long for a world where respect for the international rule-of-law is restored. Today’s world is not it. Yes, that world will be ushered in by states like the US who recommit to its order. I pray I live long enough to see it. But pretending we still live in that world now? That indeed would be “for dummies.”

After much threatening and signalling, President Trump sent US military forces into Venezuela and arrested Nicolas Maduro, the man occupying the leadership position in the government there. He was a de facto, not de jure Presidente. For those unfamiliar with the terms, it means he was not the legitimate president (by law), but he did occupy the office. The Organization of American States did not recognize him. The United Nations (UN) recognized him as the de facto leader, while the UN Panel of Experts on election integrity found Maduro’s last election victory lacked “basic reliability.” Most impartial observers agree he lost the election.

Ostensibly, the administration conducted the operation to end Maduro’s facilitation of drug-trafficking, a claim that is much in doubt. There is no doubt he was a ruthless dictator, entirely corrupt, and a thug. Whether he actively ran a cartel or simply benefited from a cartel’s largess is the main sticking point, if that matters to you.

As I write this, the operation is less than twelve hours old, and as I like to remind folks, initial reports are often wrong. That hasn’t stopped many from hyperventilated critiques. Let’s start with the obvious one: did the US break international law? This may be technically true, but irrelevant. The UN Charter prohibits one nation from attacking another, with exceptions for self-defense and UN Security Council authorization. But there is no international enforcement mechanism recognized by the United States. There is the International Criminal Court (ICC) which can bring charges, but its status has been severely undermined by politicization, and the US does not recognize its authority anyway. While some will make a case that the US should be a beacon upholding international law, American leaders of all parties have routinely ignored the concept when American interests, or common sense, so directed.*

What about the War Powers Act? The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law, but its constitutionality has never been litigated before the Supreme Court. Why not? Because both sides fear they might lose. It stands as an informal agreement between the Executive and Legislative branches, regardless of which political party holds what offices (or even when they’re all the same partisan side!). The law requires “consultation in every possible instance” with the Congress before a military action. You don’t need to be Harvard Law-trained to see the loopholes in the vague words “consultation” and “possible.” Who in Congress must be “consulted,” and how many? Consultation is not the same as permission, is it? Does an emergency or operational secrecy undermine what’s “possible?” Presidents of both parties have interpreted this language to pretty much do as they please. After the attack, the law requires the President to notify the Congress of “the necessity, the legal authority, and the estimated scope of the conflict” within forty-eight hours. Presidents have taken to issuing a bland statement that the action taken “is consistent with” the resolution. There is also a sixty-day deadline to withdraw troops if the Congress hasn’t authorized the operation, but it too has had no effect, since Congress doesn’t want to be responsible for military casualties pursuant to a withdrawal they ordered. Long story short, neither side really cares about the War Powers Act, and neither should you.

What if all this goes wrong? Some will cite the esteemed Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz to remind those who engage in frivolous war that it often backfires. They are right to do so. Venezuela could descend into a mess. But Clausewitzian uncertainty cuts both ways: war can also go well. Carter’s Tehran hostage rescue effort turned into a debacle; many pundits predicted a US strike on Iran’s nuclear program would send the entire region into a conflagration, but . . . crickets. The duly-elected leader of Venezuela may emerge from hiding and come to power, or not. We can definitely say this: Maduro is no longer the thug-in-chief. If you’re not celebrating that fact, ask yourself “why?”

What if there were a precedent? On the same date thirty-six years earlier, US military forces captured Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega under the orders of President George H.W. Bush. Noriega was a corrupt thug who had trafficked with drug cartels. He suggested he might get cozy with Russia or China or Cuba. He was the de facto leader, and his chosen puppet as Presidente did not win the election fairly. We arrested him, tried him, sentenced him. Here are some of the reactions from Democratic leaders at the time:

• Speaker of the House Tom Foley said Noriega had engaged in “reckless incitement” and went on to say that when US forces are in the field, it is not the time for debate.
• Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell supported the action.
• Then Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Les Aspin said, “Finally, at last!”
• Senator Chris Dodd called the US action “legitimate” while Senator Alan Cranston said “the White House has done too little for too long.”
• Then-Representative Dick Durbin suggested it should have happened sooner.
• Representative Dave McCurdy cited Bush’s “wimp factor” and wondered why he waited to remove Noriega.
• Jesse Jackson and others called it a violation of international law and “gunboat diplomacy.”

Don’t take from this that I wholeheartedly support the action to take-down Maduro. It’s a judgment call and the final results aren’t in. We may say–like a football referee–after further review, not so much a good idea. But the reflexive backing into partisan corners? Ridiculous. In Iraq, we took down Saddam Hussein and tried to create a democracy. Bad idea. In Panama, we just lanced the boil (a near-perfect metaphor for the human pineapple, Manuel Noriega), and it went well. No one knows where this one will fit along the spectrum, so those proclaiming its immorality or stupidity are showing a lack of careful thought.

What should we make of this? First, the US military has the capability to snatch a foreign leader who is already on notice. That’s no small thing. It’s one thing to pinpoint target a bomb on a location a la Qasem Soleimani. Taking one out alive in one piece? Priceless. Others will take notice.

Second, Trump’s ad libbing about a “Don-roe” doctrine has some teeth. You never know with Trump when he’s talking off the top of his head, but that may be the point. When it comes to the Western Hemisphere, he clearly believes he has the authority to act, not just talk. Others have already noticed.

Third, perhaps it’s best to consider what’s happening from an American national security perspective, not a MAGA or resistance one. Oh, sorry about that last one, it’s the wide-eyed optimist in me!

*For examples, Reagan arming the Contras in Nicaragua (1986), Bush (Sr.) deposing Noriega (1990), Clinton bombing Yugoslavia in 1999, Bush (Jr.) invading Iraq (2003), Obama intervening in Libya (2011). And that’s just the greatest hits!

I just heard that some members of Congress are seeking to refer Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi for contempt because she did not release all the Epstein Files last Friday, as required by law. I’ll get to my thoughts about that in a few minutes. In the meantime, here’s a relevant story about my own dealings with Congress, lightly edited (in the spirit of the season) to obscure the main participants. You may find it enjoyable, ghastly, unsurprising, or all three!

During my last years for federal service, I occupied a position that was held in bipartisan regard for being nonpartisan and competent, not due to anything I did, but by virtue of the job. Around the same time, the Benghazi affair became a cause célèbre in partisan politics. To remind, in its most basic/factual form, a group of armed men took over an American compound in Benghazi, Libya, setting fire to it, which led to the death of the American Ambassador. The Obama Administration blamed an obscure anti-Islamic internet video for causing the event, and Democrats rallied around the theme the incident was tragic but unavoidable. Republicans called it a cover-up, suggesting it was a planned terrorist attack. Neither side was entirely truthful.

Congress asked the administration to present all it knew, including classified material, about the attack. Due to my position, I was tasked with writing the summary which was appended onto a massive report, including never-released video footage of the event. The entire effort was exhaustive and authoritative: once you read the report and see the video, you can come to only one conclusion. I can say that because I asked a staffer for one Senator–a man known for his fierce honesty who would one-day run for President–why the Senator did not watch the video, and the staffer told me “because if he did, he wouldn’t be able to keep going on television and saying the things he wants to say.” That passes for honesty in DC.

Which is to say partisans of one stripe or another were very unhappy with the report, and called it part of the cover-up. Anyone who knows my politics (which were publicly obscure at the time, as a federal civil servant) knows the likelihood I engaged in a cover-up to aid Secretary Clinton’s campaign was beyond fantastical. Still one Congressional staffer was so angry he requested I turn over all the raw material used to develop the report. I refused, citing the agreement between the Congress and the administration that the report answered the Congressional request, period, end of sentence. This enraged the individual so much, the staffer then spent the rest of the year developing language to be included in the appropriations (or was it the authorization?) law specifically targeting me (not by name, but by position) and my organization. My budget was cut by about twenty percent (if I remember correctly). The remaining amount was frozen until my organization’s leadership acknowledged I had been counselled and given a performance improvement plan (normally a way to redress serious personal under-performance in government). The staffer then tucked the provisions away in a classified annex to the law, which passed!

To say the least, I was shocked, and my organization’s leadership was outraged. I was asked to complete the original task as an honest broker, and was now being punished for doing so. When my boss asked a senior Senator why this language was included in the classified annex, she responded, “what classified annex?” Note I said “senior”; that’s a clue. The good news in all this is that the staffer had spent so much time completing his work of vengeance, the fiscal year was almost over. Meaning the law explaining what I was supposed to do came after I had already spent all the money.

My organization of course had to explain the discrepancy between what I had done and what the Congress had belatedly directed me to do. We dutifully responded with an official note that stated we would have happily acted in accord with the law, but the law came too late to do so. And my boss stated I had been counselled, without mentioning the counselling amounted to a perfect performance rating and sizable bonus.

All of which is to highlight that Washington is a place of strange goings-on, some partisan, some just plain silly. Congress can pass a law (signed by the President) that states “pigs can fly,” but gosh-darnit, Des Moines International Airport (DSM) need not worry, because your pigs will still not fly. Politicians say one thing and do another, or perhaps try even a third. There is always an element of show, or theater if you prefer. Take the Epstein files (please!). If the law says do something that you can’t possibly do (like review mounds of material) in time, it just won’t happen. In the rush to meet the deadline, the Department of Justice (DOJ) already posted some pictures that were not properly reviewed to protect the identities of victims. Not that that matters, apparently.

If Congress wants to refer charges on AG Bondi, it will refer them to . . . (wait for it), the DOJ. You know, the governmental department run by . . . AG Pam Bondi. I wonder what they’ll do with it? But wait, I hear there is a special provision in such circumstances where the Congress can make a referral directly to a federal judge. Who can try the case, and if convicted, refer the defendant for arrest by (wait a little longer) . . . the DOJ. That is so much better. No, that’s not it. Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie announced on Sunday that they are pursuing “inherent contempt”charges against AG Bondi, which requires no judge or trial. The House simply orders its Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest the offending figure. What do you think AG Bondi’s security detail will do? Enquiring minds want to know! Everybody involved with this issue in Washington knows all this is nonsense. Now you do, too.

What lessons shall we draw here? First, if you want to spend your Christmas season dreaming of incriminating Epstein photos, you have my sympathies. Sugar-plum fairies are a better option. Second, nothing in DC is as it seems. That is politics, and the sooner one learns that, the clearer one sees. Finally, while a wise mentor once told me “no good deed goes unpunished,” there remains a great deal of satisfaction for doing the right thing in the end.

*Apologies to A Christmas Story. At least no one got shot in the eye-glasses by a BB-gun in my story.