SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
donald trump
Trump's National Security Strategy Heralds a New Age of American Carnage
The Trump administration is rolling out a new imperial logic that harbingers chaos and violence.
Dec 17, 2025
The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy, or NSS, creates a basis for a more chaotic and violent American empire.
Already coming under heavy criticism, with Foreign Policy in Focus publishing warnings about its implications for global development and grand strategy, the strategy remains perhaps most dangerous for its imperious dictates to the world. Behind platitudes of peace and prosperity, it provides a crude imperial logic for violence and aggression, even gesturing at a need for military interventions.
“For a country whose interests are as numerous and diverse as ours, rigid adherence to non-interventionism is not possible,” the strategy notes.
The Trump administration tries to distinguish itself from previous administrations by criticizing foreign policy elites for seeking “permanent American domination of the entire world,” but it displays similar ambitions, even if framing them differently. Rather than making serious commitments to peace and democracy, the Trump administration is prioritizing national power, economic expansion, and military domination, going so far as to glorify its ability to kill people across the world.
“President Trump is hell-bent on maintaining and accelerating the most powerful military the world has ever seen, the most powerful, the most lethal and American-made,” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said earlier this month.
Imperial Logics
In the 21st century, the United States has presented multiple imperial logics to the world. Despite the fact that US officials have largely refrained from associating the United States with empire and imperialism, they have developed national security strategies that have rationalized the exercise of US imperial power.
After the terrorist attacks against the United States on 9/11, the administration of George W. Bush developed a NSS that provided a basis for the United States to wage wars across the world. Under a framework of a global war on terrorism, the Bush administration claimed a need to act unilaterally and preemptively against alleged terrorists anywhere on the planet, even in violation of international law.
For two decades, the United States carried out the Bush administration’s approach, wreaking havoc across the world, especially the Middle East. The United States directed major wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, spreading devastation and destruction. According to the Costs of War project at Brown University, the United States spent about $8 trillion on wars that destabilized multiple countries and killed millions of people.
The Trump administration is trying to shift the focus away from great-power competition to sell the public on a new imperial logic that rationalizes national power, economic expansion, and military domination.
Leaders across multiple administrations defended the approach, even when facing criticisms about endless war, but US strategists eventually began turning to a new logic. Calling attention to rising powers, such as China and Russia, US strategists started to argue that the United States must exercise its military might to defend a rules-based international order against rising powers.
During the 2010s, officials in Washington began embracing the new logic, gradually rolling it out to the public. They introduced it during the final years of the administration of Barack Obama and then formalized it during the initial years of the first administration of Donald Trump.
When the first Trump administration released its NSS in 2017, it declared that the United States was competing with China and Russia in a new era of great-power competition.
“This strategy recognizes that, whether we like it or not, we are engaged in a new era of competition,” Trump announced. “We accept that vigorous military, economic, and political contests are now playing out all around the world.”
The new logic marked a shift away from the global war on terrorism, but it presented new dangers. By adopting a logic of great-power competition, the United States positioned itself for confrontations with China and Russia, two nuclear powers with growing influence across their peripheries and the world.
The new approach increased tensions with China in the Asia Pacific and rationalized conflict with Russia in Europe, particularly over Ukraine. Perhaps the greatest victim of the new logic has been Ukraine, which has suffered tremendously since Russia’s invasion in 2022.
For years, the United States and its European allies have been exploiting the war in Ukraine for the purpose of weakening Russia. They have been providing Ukraine with just enough support to defend itself but not enough to expel Russia. Their approach has kept Russian forces “bogged down in Ukraine—at enormous cost,” as Jake Sullivan noted earlier this year, when he was still national security adviser in the outgoing administration of Joe Biden.
The war in Ukraine may have resulted in enormous casualties for Russia, but it has also been devastating for Ukraine, leading current Secretary of State Marco Rubio to describe the war as a “meat grinder.”
“On the Russian side, they’ve lost 100,000 soldiers—dead—not injured—dead,” Rubio stated earlier this year. “On the Ukrainian side, the numbers are less but still very significant.”
Now that a second Trump administration is in power, it is shifting to yet another imperial logic. Facing concerns about the war in Ukraine, including the US role, the Trump administration is trying to shift the focus away from great-power competition to sell the public on a new imperial logic that rationalizes national power, economic expansion, and military domination.
Following the thinking of President Trump, who prioritizes wealth, power, and domination, the second Trump administration is embracing a cruder imperial logic that revives classical imperialism, or the use of force to open markets, seize resources, and maintain spheres of influence.
The Trump administration’s new logic takes aim at Latin America, where the United States is directing a military buildup and threatening a military intervention in Venezuela.
The NSS cites the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 to provide a justification for the Trump administration’s actions. Introducing what it calls a Trump corollary, it calls for a reassertion of US military power, the control of key geographies, and the exclusion of competitors from the hemisphere.
“The United States will restore US military dominance in the Western Hemisphere,” Hegseth declared.
Critiques
Now that the Trump administration has introduced its NSS, it is facing strong pushback from multiple directions. Not only are people across Latin America condemning the United States, particularly its unlawful killings of alleged drug traffickers in the Pacific and Caribbean, but the Trump administration is fielding a great deal of criticism from establishment figures, both in the United States and around the world.
Several European leaders have been highly critical of the NSS, especially its plans for US interference in European affairs. They have expressed shock over the administration’s call for “cultivating resistance” to European leaders.
Another source of pushback has been the US foreign policy establishment. Although the foreign policy establishment shares many of the Trump administration’s imperial commitments, especially to the Monroe Doctrine and military domination, it fears that the administration is not showing enough appreciation for great-power competition.
At its core, the Trump administration is preparing the world for future exercises of American military power.
Earlier this month, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed displeasure with the new strategy. She criticized Trump for going easy on Russian President Vladimir Putin and questioned why he is pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into accepting a deal that would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future Russian aggression.
“I think that there’s a lot that needs to be reviewed and looked at from the perspective of what are the long-term consequences,” Clinton said.
But these establishment figures’ preferred framework of great-power competition has led to significant tensions with China and Russia, including great-power conflict. Several experts have argued that the expansion of NATO provoked Russia, an interpretation that President Trump has used to explain the war in Ukraine.
Another problem for the foreign policy establishment is that there is little agreement over how to characterize China and Russia. Although some analysts warn that Russia remains a rising power, making gains on the battlefield in Ukraine, others insist that Russia is a country in decline, as indicated by its inability to conquer Ukraine.
“I don’t think there’s any doubt that from a conventional military capability the Russians could not take on the United States or frankly many of the countries in Europe, for that matter,” Rubio said earlier this year.
Within the foreign policy establishment, there is just as much disagreement over China. Many analysts repeatedly sound the alarm over China, warning that the country is seeking global domination. Others dismiss these warnings, however, claiming that Chinese leaders are not seeking hegemony, despite their aspirations for world leadership.
“They really don’t seem to have an interest in being the hegemonic force that actually the United States has been in trying to maintain and enforce the rules-based order,” former Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said earlier this month.
Perhaps most awkward for the foreign policy establishment, however, is that the second Trump administration remains focused on great-power competition. Although its National Security Strategy does not define great-power competition as the definitive feature of international relations, as the foreign policy establishment prefers, the Trump administration is making hostile moves toward both China and Russia.
The Trump administration is keeping pressure on Russia, even while the president signals his willingness to sacrifice Ukraine as part of his vainglorious quest for a Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps most significant, the Trump administration is intensifying its economic war against Russia while pushing European countries to embrace militarization.
This past June, NATO members pledged at the Hague Summit to increase their military spending to 5% of GDP, despite Trump’s acknowledgments that Russia feels threatened by the military alliance.
“We just need to continue to get stronger and to make sure that we don’t demonstrate an inch of weakness, because we’re not weak,” US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said earlier this month. “As we continue to implement the 5% commitment from the Hague, I think we’re going to be, you know, really not only the strongest alliance in the history of the planet, but really a dramatic force to be reckoned with.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is making aggressive moves against China. Although the administration insists that it is not seeking conflict with China, it is overseeing a military buildup that poses a major threat to the country.
Earlier this month, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth declared that China must respect US interests in the Asia Pacific, including the ability of the United States to project military power across the region. He explained the Trump administration’s approach by quoting a well-known imperial aphorism of former US President Theodore Roosevelt.
“We will speak softly and carry a big stick,” Hegseth said.
The Fundamental Problem
The fundamental problem, of course, is that the Trump administration is rolling out a new imperial logic that harbingers chaos and violence. Given all the harm the administration is already causing around the world, such as its crackdowns on immigrants, killings of alleged drug traffickers, and facilitation of genocide in Gaza, the new NSS indicates that the administration is just getting started in a new age of American carnage.
At its core, the Trump administration is preparing the world for future exercises of American military power. It is glorifying military domination, even preparing for military interventions for the purposes of seizing resources and maintaining spheres of influence.
At the same time, the administration is upending popular forms of politics and international relations. Its NSS displays contempt for democracy. Not only does it confirm the administration’s preference for monarchy in the Middle East, but it signals ongoing support for right-wing movements in Europe, which are positioning themselves to revive fascism.
Perhaps most dangerous, the strategy disregards existential threats to the planet. It embraces fossil fuels, the primary cause of the climate crisis. It even defends nuclear weapons, despite the extraordinary danger of nuclear war.
What the Trump administration is doing, in short, is laying the groundwork for a more volatile American empire. Rather than making genuine commitments to peace and democracy, it is introducing a crude imperial logic that makes the United States into a greater menace to the planet, with more horrors to come.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Assange Sues Nobel Foundation to Stop War-Promoting Machado From Receiving Peace Prize Cash
"Alfred Nobel's endowment for peace cannot be spent on the promotion of war."
Dec 17, 2025
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Wednesday filed a complaint against the Nobel Foundation to stop its planned payouts to Venezuelan opposition leader and 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado, who has backed US President Donald Trump's campaign of military aggression against her own country.
According to a press release that WikiLeaks posted to X, Assange's lawsuit seeks to block Machado from obtaining over USD $1 million she's due to receive from the Nobel Foundation as winner of this year's Peace Prize.
The complaint notes that Alfred Nobel's will states that the Peace Prize named after him should only be awarded to those who have "conferred the greatest benefit to humankind” by doing “the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
In an interview that aired on Sunday on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” Machado praised Trump’s policies of tightening economic sanctions and seizing Venezuelan oil tankers, acts of aggression that appear to go against Nobel's stated declaration that the Peace Prize winner must promote "fraternity between nations."
“Look, I absolutely support President Trump’s strategy, and we, the Venezuelan people, are very grateful to him and to his administration, because I believe he is a champion of freedom in this hemisphere,” Machado told CBS News.
Trump’s campaign against Venezuela has not only included sanctions and the seizing of an oil tanker, but a series of bombings of purported drug trafficking vessels that many legal experts consider to be acts of murder.
In his complaint, Assange claims that Machado's gushing praise of Trump in the wake of his illegal boat-bombing campaign is enough to justify the Nobel Foundation freezing its disbursements to the Venezuelan politician.
"Alfred Nobel's endowment for peace cannot be spent on the promotion of war," Assange states, adding that "Machado has continued to incite the Trump Administration to pursue its escalatory path" against her own country.
The complaint also argues that there's a risk that funds awarded to Machado will be "diverted from their charitable purpose to facilitate aggression, crimes against humanity, and war crimes."
Were this to happen, the complaint alleges, it would violate Sweden's obligations under Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute, which states that anyone who "aids, abets, or otherwise assists" in the commission of a war crime shall be subject to prosecution under the International Criminal Court.
Trump in recent days has ramped up his aggressive actions against Venezuela, and on Tuesday night he announced a "total and complete blockade" of all "sanctioned oil tankers" seeking to enter and leave the country.
“Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. “It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mark Kelly Is Right: Military Members Have the Power to Resist What They Know Is Wrong
When military members have claimed such power and refused blind military obedience, it has had a significant impact on this country’s politics and policies, as well as on individual lives.
Dec 17, 2025
Any story about resistance within the military must begin by recognizing that it’s not an easy thing to do. Apparently, that’s true even for a much-decorated retired Navy commander, former astronaut, and sitting United States senator. I’m talking about Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly. He was one of six Democratic legislators, all military veterans or former intelligence officers, who, on November 18, released a 90-second video reminding members of the military that the oath they took on enlisting requires them to refuse illegal orders. The implicit context was the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops to American cities, but their message took on added urgency after the Washington Post published an exposé about an order coming from high up to kill survivors of an airstrike in the Caribbean Sea.
Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, who served in the CIA, on the National Security Council, and at the Defense Department, and had three tours of duty as a CIA analyst in Iraq, spearheaded the action. She was joined by Kelly; Pennsylvania Reps. Chrissy Houlahan (former Air Force captain) and Chris Deluzio (former Navy lieutenant with one tour in Iraq); New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander (Navy Reserve lieutenant, intelligence); and Colorado Rep. Jason Crow (Army Ranger, three tours in Iraq).
Speaking directly to the camera, their voices imbued with sincerity, the six stated their affiliations, noted the precariousness of what the military is being asked to do in the second presidency of Donald Trump, and repeated their duty-to-refuse refrain, ending with a rousing, “Don’t give up the ship!” It was pretty straightforward stuff and, except for a few digs at the administration, an accurate statement of legal fact.
On enlistment, everyone in the military takes an oath of loyalty not to a person, a party, or any form of politics, but to the Constitution. Enlistees in all branches also pledge to obey orders from their officers and the president. As stipulated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), it’s clear that this means only lawful orders. Officers take a slightly different oath: They, too, swear to support and defend the Constitution, but their oath doesn’t include anything about obeying orders from their superiors or the president, presumably because they’re responsible for giving orders and ensuring that those orders are lawful. Officers reaffirm their oath whenever they’re promoted. Across the board, the UCMJ, the Nuremberg Principles, and the US Constitution establish the right and responsibility of servicemembers to refuse illegal orders or to refuse to participate in illegal wars, war crimes, or unconstitutional deployments.
The Straight-Speaking Six
Never one to bother with legal niceties, Donald Trump (commander-in-chief, no military service) quickly denounced the video on Truth Social as “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” adding, “Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.” He also posted: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” He then backtracked on the death threat on Fox’s “Brian Kilmeade Show.”
Members of his administration followed Trump’s lead with ever more strident outrage. Within days, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (former Army National Guard major, one tour each in Afghanistan and Iraq) called the lawmakers the “Seditious Six.” He then began to investigate Kelly, threatening to recall him to active duty so that he could be court-martialed for misconduct.
He went after Kelly because, as a retired military officer, he’s the only 1 of the 6 who could still fall under the military’s jurisdiction. Nonetheless, it’s unusual, to say the least, for a secretary of defense (oops, war!) to think about punishing an officer so long after he has retired. Meanwhile, the FBI began investigating all six of those legislators. (Consider it unlikely indeed, however, that the FBI will also investigate the death threats the six have received.)
If the courts and Congress can’t figure all this out, imagine the risk for servicemembers, especially in the lower ranks, trying to do so on their own.
Less half-baked responses came from places like Military.com, which criticized the legislators for attempting to politicize the military by bypassing the chain of command and speaking directly to the troops, while not citing specific examples of illegal orders and so potentially confusing them. If true, this wouldn’t be the first time this country’s troops were confused by orders. As a Marine sergeant testified at the 2008 Winter Soldier hearings, “During the siege of Fallujah [in Iraq], we changed rules of engagement more often then we changed our underwear.” As for politicizing the military, you need look no further than the Trump version of political theater—National Guard deployments to Democratic-run cities on his shitlist.
The straight-speaking six and their supporters were anything but cowed by the accusations. In a joint response to the president, they proclaimed their love for this country and fealty to the Constitution before concluding, “Our servicemembers should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders. It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty… This is a time for moral clarity.”
In a town hall in Tucson, Kelly said of Trump and Hegseth, “They’re not serious people and I’m not backing down.” At the University of Pittsburgh (repeatedly designated a Military Friendly School), someone projected pictures of the six legislators onto its landmark 42-story Cathedral of Learning under the message, “This is what courage looks like.”
It might normally seem unlikely that Kelly could be punished for such constitutionally protected speech, a protection particularly robust for members of Congress. Unfortunately, “unlikely” could be considered the Trump administration’s middle name and, by now we should have learned that, in this political moment, anything is possible.
Playing armchair psychologist, I have no idea if Trump really believes that video to be seditious or if he even knows what actually constitutes sedition. I doubt it matters to him. For whatever reason—distraction? attention-grabbing? meat for his base? unbridled id?—he used that video to effectively change the subject, while a pliant media and public largely went along with him. In the process, he managed to refocus attention (yet again) on himself and his minions at the—yes, War, not Defense—Department, and the Department of (In)Justice, and on protected versus seditious speech, as well as courageous versus outrageous politicians. Take your pick, just don’t talk about what members of the military are being asked to do these days and how they might themselves think about such orders.
Worth the Risk?
Joy Metzler, a 24-year-old graduate of the Air Force Academy, left the military as a conscientious objector this past April. She credits two required courses on law and ethics at the academy for leading her to first question and then conclude that she couldn’t support her country’s role in the then-ongoing genocide in Gaza. “The thought of being given an order that was illegal or unconstitutional was almost unthinkable to me at the time, I just didn’t think it happened,” she emailed me recently. “Line officers, low ranks, sure—from people who didn’t understand the law—but I never imagined one would come from the president or the secretary of defense.”
How much time and attention are given to the legal and moral intricacies of war making no doubt varies from branch to branch, unit to unit, commander to commander of the military. Whatever enlistees or officers are taught about resisting illegal orders is, of course, wildly outweighed by what they’re taught about the need to obey orders, which is inculcated into them until it becomes a reflexive response. Military units aren’t debating societies for good reason, and military training strongly discourages disobedience of any sort, but even more to the point, what is or isn’t legal isn’t necessarily clear-cut.
Military law can hold servicemembers accountable for participating in illegal actions, even if they were following orders. Nonetheless, a recent survey found that, while 4 out of 5 active-duty troops understand their obligation to disobey illegal orders, they are far less clear on what orders they would disobey. “Starving [a] civilian population” or “shooting unarmed civilians” were cited most often as orders “so obviously unlawful” that they would be disobeyed, but by only 43% and 45% of those responding to each possibility. Yet, when asked if they would follow an order “to shoot into a crowd of unarmed civilians protesting US government policy and refusing to disperse,” 59% said they would.
Civil courts have waffled and disagreed about whether recent orders to the military are legal, and the Trump administration has been known to ignore rulings that go against it. For instance, assessments of the legality of sending National Guard troops from different states into Chicago, Los Angeles, Memphis, Portland (Oregon), and Washington, DC have changed almost weekly. And while legal experts generally agree that the airstrikes on what may or may not be drug-running boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean are illegal under international law, Congress is just beginning to dip its toe into the issue. If the courts and Congress can’t figure all this out, imagine the risk for servicemembers, especially in the lower ranks, trying to do so on their own.
Ready Response Team Veterans
While in uniform, service members have limited speech rights and the military generally suppresses dissent, so veterans are in a far better position to question military policy. Veterans For Peace (VFP) used the uproar over the lawmakers’ video to reinforce its opposition to the murderous airstrikes in the Caribbean, genocide in Gaza, and the deployment of troops to American cities. They and other veteran-related organizations have long been pushing back at iffy, illegal, or immoral orders, often by committing disobedience of the civil kind. Here is a distinctly incomplete rundown of some of their actions.
On Easter Sunday 2024, VFP member Larry Hebert, an Air Force senior airman then on active duty in Spain, began a hunger strike in front of the White House to protest US support for Israel’s war in Gaza. He was inspired by the resolve of Aaron Bushnell, also an active-duty airman, who had set himself on fire at the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC the month before to protest that nightmare. When Hebert was ordered back to his base, two VFP members took his place. As the barbarity in Gaza progressed, anti-war veterans continued their opposition in the People’s Arms Embargo, a series of protests blocking entrances to Travis Air Force Base in California, where planes were taking off to deliver weapons to Israel. Twelve people were arrested at a protest there on April 9 of this year.
Next came a 40-day Fast for Gaza, which ended this past Memorial Day. That protest grew out of a conversation between two veteran activists, Mike Ferner, a Navy corpsman during the Vietnam era, and Phil Tottenham, who had served in the Marines more recently. VFP took up the idea, and 38 other organizations joined in to demand full humanitarian aid for Gaza and an end to US weapons deliveries to Israel. About 800 people took part in the fast around the country, while a handful of regulars staged a hunger strike outside the US Mission to the United Nations. That fast culminated in a “die-in” at the Israeli mission in New York City, where 28 people were arrested, after which Ferner threw barely defrosted, bright red cow’s blood on a window at the American UN mission. He, too, got arrested.
Simply recognizing that you have the legal capacity to do what’s right is no small thing.
When Trump made good on his threats to send National Guard troops into American cities, these actions expanded to include resistance there. In September, aiming to speak directly to active-duty, reserve, and National Guard personnel, the progressive foreign policy coalition Win Without War launched a new project, Not What You Signed Up For. That project began with a mobile billboard and posters in Washington, DC, asking, “Is this what you signed up for?” and directing anyone with questions or misgivings to a website listing three counseling and support organizations: About Face: Veterans Against the War, the GI Rights Hotline, and the National Lawyers Guild’s Military Law Task Force. Billboards subsequently went up near Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune in North Carolina and near US Southern Command headquarters in Florida, among other places. In the project’s first month, the accompanying resource webpage got about 8,000 unique visitors. By November, it was nearly 20,000. About Face Organizing Director Brittany DeBarros says that she alone spoke with more than 100 active servicemembers looking for support this year.
In June, on the eve of the nationwide No Kings protests and the costly Trump birthday celebration (also known as the Army’s 250th anniversary parade), members of VFP and About Face, ranging in age from their 20s to 87, held a sit-in on the steps of the US Capitol to protest Trump’s National Guard deployments. About 60 of them were charged with crossing a police line and arrested, including that 87 year old.
Which takes us to this Veterans Day, when military-affiliated and labor union anti-war groups organized their own celebrations under the banner “Vets Say No,” as protests against the administration’s use (and misuse) of the military only continued to grow. Crowds gathered in cities around the country, including in Washington, DC and a frigid Boston.
While this isn’t yet enough to constitute a trend, let alone a movement of resistance within the military, it gives that controversy over the video of those Democratic legislators a necessary (and underreported) context. It also suggests at least one reason why President Trump was so eager to deflect attention from the import of their message.
Of course, what he said in response to them wasn’t just meant to change the subject. It was typical of his usual intolerance of any challenge to his version of authority. And I don’t mean to minimize the importance of what those Democrat politicians did either. Though they’re only a handful of the 98 veterans in Congress and in the minority party, they have the standing to be heard, including among their colleagues. It’s possible, for instance, that their outspokenness lent both cover and courage to other legislators on both sides of the aisle to question, as they recently did, the legality of the military’s murky and wildly destructive acts off the Venezuelan coast.
What I want to do here is refocus attention on the underlying message in that video from congressional representatives and its significance for enlistees, reservists, and part-time military members: that they have the power—as individuals and supportive groups —to resist what they know to be wrong. Admittedly, doing so will be anything but easy. It may be scary, confusing, and lonely. But simply recognizing that you have the legal capacity to do what’s right is no small thing. It may even help protect servicemembers against the soul-crushing transgression of one’s innate moral code that has come to be known as “moral injury.”
When military members have claimed such power and refused blind military obedience—during the Vietnam War and the post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—it has had a significant impact on this country’s politics and policies, as well as on individual lives. But of course, the responsibility doesn’t fall only to the people in our military. Maybe we could all join in on a chorus or two of doin’-the-right-thing rag.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular