A couple hours before I began writing this column, I drove from Irvine up the 405 to the VA Long Beach Healthcare System for a routine appointment. At the hospital I saw two veterans in their 40s in wheelchairs. Although it’s possible they suffered civilian accidents, more likely their legs were blown off by IEDs — improvised explosive devices — in the Iraq War two decades ago.
I backed President Donald Trump in three elections because I hoped he would end such senseless “regime-change wars,” as Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called them. He promised to be a “peace president.”
Instead, recently he perpetrated the nonjudicial killings of 76 “narco-terrorists,” who could just be fishermen given the lack of actual information, in violation of international law. In a chilling statement, he said he didn’t need a declaration of war from Congress: “I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK? We’re going to kill them, you know. They’re going to be, like, dead.”
Yet the main reason for a war, that Caracas under President Maduro is a “narco-terrorist state” is, to use a Trump term, fake. CNN reported, “The United Kingdom is no longer sharing intelligence with the U.S. about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in U.S. military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal.” The UK is our closest ally. And the New York Times reported Nov. 19, “Venezuela Doesn’t Produce Fentanyl. Trump Is Targeting It Anyway.”
Then there’s his saber-rattling director against the Maduro regime. The Economist reported, “Is Donald Trump preparing to strike Venezuela or lining up a deal? The answer is both.” An attack would not be easy.
Global Defense News tallied how local militias number in the millions. The regular military is armed with Russian Su-MK2 fighter aircraft and S-300VM air-defense systems, “considered among the most advanced strategic assets in the region.” The Chinese supplied C-802A anti-ship cruise missiles. The U.S. military likely could brush these aside. But at what cost? How many American troops would come home in body bags?
A war also would send many thousands of refugees fleeing to the United States — even as Trump has been deporting Venezuelans. It would be a massive human rights crisis broadcast to the world on the cell phones of 28 million people.
And for what?
Worse is his inability to end the Ukraine War “in 24 hours,” as he promised. He could have done so by accommodating Russia’s demands, especially its insistence, since the Soviet Union broke up in the early 1990s, that Ukraine never join NATO. Instead, the slaughter continued another 10 months.
The situation is fluid. On Oct. 22, Trump lifted restrictions on Ukraine using long-range missiles to attack Russian military targets. On Nov. 19, the Wall Street Journal reported, Ukraine began striking Russia with U.S.-supplied ATACM missiles, ranging up to 190 miles. Reuters reported Nov. 21, his administration “presented Ukraine with a 28-point plan, which endorses some of Russia’s principal demands in the war, including that Kyiv cede additional territory, curb the size of its military and be barred from joining NATO.” To cajole Ukraine, Trump threatened to cut off weapons and intelligence. Without an agreement, Moscow is set soon to settle the matter with victory on the battlefield.
In addition to the deaths of more than 1 million Russian and Ukrainian young men, the war has preoccupied two U.S. administrations and cost U.S. taxpayers at least $183 billion, although Trump now has the Europeans paying the bill. And a year ago the Nation reported how the war’s disruptions in global supply chains contributed to inflation. For example, “Fertilizer prices shot up between 27 and 53 percent over the conflict’s first five months, putting a strain on US farmers.”
Peace earlier this year would have set up a return to arms-control talks. At Trump’s June summit in Alaska with President Putin, I was hoping for an extension of the New START Treaty for a year beyond its expiration date on Feb. 5. Nothing. That means both sides will begin building above each side’s current 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads. As if those weren’t enough to blow up the world.
The Ukraine War pushed Russia closer to China, with its vast industrial base. China is increasing its nuclear arsenal from 600 to 1,000 by 2030. The Nov. 16 Wall Street Journal noted, “But unlike during the Cold War, the U.S. must prepare for two peer rivals rather than one — at a time when it has lost its clear industrial and economic edge.” Trump also ordered a resumption of nuclear testing.
Nuclear weapons cost trillions of dollars. Add to that all the new conventional spending to keep up with Russia’s AI-driven drones and Trump’s Golden Dome defense system, which won’t work any better than President Reagan’s 1980s Star Wars dream. This is money that has to come from somewhere: cutting domestic spending, tax increases or, most likely, more borrowing.
Then there’s the Middle East. Trump, without authorization by an AWOL Congress, bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities, followed by Iran bombing vacated U.S. bases. On the positive side, that seems to have been a tit-for-tat to end the Iran-Israel 12-day war. But now we’re rearming Israel, a nuclear power. Russia is rearming Iran with the world’s best missiles and air-defense systems, aided by China. A new war would be far nastier for both sides.Maybe the peace Trump arranged will last, as well as peace in Gaza, despite ongoing violations. Maybe not. But at a minimum, all these wars and rumors of wars are incredibly costly, at a time when the $38 trillion debt is rising at $2 trillion a year.
As I drove home from the VA, I couldn’t help wondering if, at my next appointment in May, I would see a new cohort of wounded veterans from an attack by Trump on Venezuela — or someplace else.
John Seiler is on the SCNG editorial board
