Raymond J. de Souza: It's time to end the 'endless war' talk
President Donald Trump was positively exultant over the '12 Day War' in Iran. After being badly outwitted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and maneuvered into a war that the United States had sought to avoid for more than twenty years, Trump decided that it was his achievement all along.
Article content
An important achievement it was, and Netanyahu — often criticized in this space — deserves the credit that he is magnanimously sharing with Trump. After 46 years of spreading misery and mayhem, no tears are being shed for the mullahs in Tehran and their arc of mercenary proxies in the region.
Article content
Article content
The Americans were in Iran for less than twelve hours of the twelve days. They could have taken a more leisurely approach if they wished, the Israelis having cleared Iranian airspace of any potential incoming fire. After the stealth bombers did their business, the air force could have put on an aerobatic show. If it were a NATO exercise, the Snowbirds could have made an appearance. With defense spending set to rise to 5 per cent of GDP, the Snowbirds may well become ubiquitous.
Article content
Article content
The reason for the '12 Day War' branding exercise — Trump's commemorative crypto coin may soon be issued — is to answer the part of his MAGA coalition that in the name of opposing 'endless wars' seems to oppose all military action.
Article content
The folly of the folks who oppose 'endless wars' — does anyone support them? — is that they have misdiagnosed the problem, which is not that the wars are 'endless.' It is that the aftermath has no proper end in mind. War is usually the easier part; it is the post-war part that can be much more difficult.
Article content
Consider that last month, amidst celebrations of the 80th anniversary of VE day, no one lamented that American forces are still in Europe. Had in 1946 — the year Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Donald Trump were born — someone predicted that the president would command dozens of military installations in Germany even four score years later, it might have been considered that an 'endless war' was afoot.
Article content
Article content
The Korean War began 75 years ago this week. American forces are still there. Are Germany and South Korea not better off than Vietnam, which American forces departed from fifty years ago?
Article content
The reason that Trump is more exultant than Netanyahu is because the latter has a longer attention span, and also a better sense of history. Israel has won swift victories before. It won one in Gaza in 1967. But if there is no effective plan after the victory, a short war can give rise to endless turmoil. See also Lebanon 1982.
Article content
The spectre of Afghanistan and Iraq is the perfervid cry of the 'endless war' folks. Yet, in both cases the intensive war phase was relatively short. Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003 to declare 'major combat operations' in Iraq concluded. The fiasco that followed was not because the war was too long, but that the commitment to the aftermath was too short.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
17 minutes ago
- CTV News
Debate is underway in U.S. Senate on Trump's big bill. It may go all night
WASHINGTON —Debate is underway in the Senate for an all-night session Sunday, with Republicans wrestling President Donald Trump's big bill of tax breaks and spending cuts over mounting Democratic opposition -- and even some brake-pumping over the budget slashing by the president himself. The outcome from the weekend of work in the Senate remains uncertain and highly volatile. GOP leaders are rushing to meet Trump's Fourth of July deadline to pass the package, but they barely secured enough support to muscle it past a procedural hurdle in a tense scene the day before. A handful of Republican holdouts revolted, and it took phone calls from Trump and a visit from Vice President JD Vance to keep it on track. GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina announced Sunday he would not seek reelection after Trump badgered him for saying he could not vote for the bill with its steep Medicaid cuts. A new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law. It also said the package would increase the deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion over the decade. But other Senate Republicans, along with conservatives in the House, are pushing for steeper cuts, particularly to health care, drawing their own unexpected warning from Trump. 'Don't go too crazy!' the president posted on social media. 'REMEMBER, you still have to get reelected.' All told, the Senate bill includes some $4 trillion in tax cuts, making permanent Trump's 2017 rates, which would expire at the end of the year if Congress fails to act, while adding the new ones he campaigned on, including no taxes on tips. The Senate package would roll back billions in green energy tax credits that Democrats warn will wipe out wind and solar investments nationwide, and impose $1.2 trillion in cuts, largely to Medicaid and food stamps, by imposing work requirements and making sign-up eligibility more stringent. Additionally, the bill would provide a $350 billion infusion for border and national security, including for deportations, some of it paid for with new fees charged to immigrants. If the Senate can push through overnight voting and pass the bill, it would need to return to the House. Speaker Mike Johnson has told lawmakers to be on call for a return to Washington this coming week. Democrats ready to fight all night Unable to stop the march toward passage of the 940-page bill, the Democrats as the minority party in Congress is using the tools at its disposal to delay and drag out the process. Democrats forced a full reading of the text, which took some 16 hours, ending Sunday afternoon. Then senators took over the debate, filling the chamber with speeches, while Republicans largely stood aside. 'Reckless and irresponsible,' said Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan. 'A gift to the billionaire class,' said Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Sen. Patty Murray, the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, raised particular concern about the accounting method being used by the Republicans, which says the tax breaks from Trump's first term, in 2017, are now 'current policy' and the cost of extending them should not be counted toward deficits. 'In my 33 years here in the United States Senate, things have never -- never -- worked this way,' said Murray, the longest-serving Democrat on the Budget Committee. She said that kind of 'magic math' won't fly with Americans trying to balance their own household books. 'Go back home and try that game with your constituents,' she said. 'We still need to kick people off their health care -- that's too expensive. We still need to close those hospitals -- we have to cut costs. And we still have to kick people off SNAP -- because the debt is out of control.' Sanders said Tillis' decision not to seek reelection shows the hold that Trump's cult of personality has over the GOP. 'We are literally taking food out of the mouths of hungry kids,' Sanders said, while giving tax breaks to Jeff Bezos and other wealthy billionaires. GOP leaders unphased Republicans are using their majorities to push aside Democratic opposition, and appeared undeterred, even as they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. 'We're going to pass the 'Big, beautiful bill,' said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the Budget Committee chairman. 'And President Trump is going to sign it.' The holdout Republicans remain reluctant to give their votes, and their leaders have almost no room to spare, given their narrow majorities. Essentially, they can afford three dissenters in the Senate, with its 53-47 GOP edge, and about as many in the House, if all members are present and voting. Trump, who has at times allowed wiggle room on his deadline, kept the pressure on lawmakers to finish. He threatened to campaign against Tillis, who was worried that Medicaid cuts would leave many without health care in his state. Trump badgered Tillis again on Sunday morning, saying the senator 'has hurt the great people of North Carolina.' Later Sunday, Tillis issued a lengthy statement announcing he would not seek reelection in 2026. Democrats can't filibuster, but can stall Using a congressional process called budget reconciliation, the Republicans can muscle the bill through on a simple majority vote in the Senate, rather than the typical 60-vote threshold needed to overcome objections. Without the filibuster, Democrats have latched on to other tools to mount their objections. One is the full reading of the bill text, which has been done in past situations. Democrats also intend to use their full 10 hours of available debate time, now underway. And then Democrats are prepared to propose dozens of amendments to the package that would be considered in an all-night voting session -- or all-day, depending on the hour. GOP senators to watch As Saturday's vote tally teetered, attention turned to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who was surrounded by GOP leaders in intense conversation. She voted 'yes.' Several provisions in the package are designed for her state in Alaska. A short time later, Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., drew holdouts Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming to his office. Vance joined in. The talks dragged on. Then Vance led them all back in to vote. Later, Scott said he had met with the president, adding, 'We all want to get to yes.' Lee said the group 'had an internal discussion about the strategy to achieve more savings and more deficit reduction, and I feel good about the direction where this is going, and more to come.'
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
U.S. Supreme Court ruling jeopardizes birthright citizenship
An explosive constitutional battle broke out over the weekend in the U.S., as the country assessed the impact of a Supreme Court decision that jeopardized the notion of 'birthright citizenship' and inflamed all the passions of the Donald Trump era. The high court ruled Friday that lower courts could not 'stay,' or delay, the implementation of executive orders or laws. The decision has immediate implications beyond ending nationwide injunctions, which has been used against executive-branch policies of both Republican and Democratic administrations but came into full flower in the Joe Biden and Trump years. The lower courts had questioned the constitutionality of Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship policy, announced the day he returned to the White House on Jan. 20. So the Supreme Court's decision opened the way, if only temporarily, to permit the administration to deny American citizenship to some people born in the U.S. It's an initiative by the Trump administration that has roiled American politics and has the potential of altering the composition of the country's population. Until Friday's ruling, it was a common assumption that the 14th Amendment's provision granting citizenship to all born in the U.S. was beyond debate. But, as it has done in a full gamut of areas, the Trump administration has taken what was a settled matter and, in the process, unsettled American politics. Trump administration ends legal protections for half-million Haitians who now face deportations The Supreme Court's decision spurred fresh determination from the Trump camp to expand its drive against migrants, prompted indignant howls of protest from migrant-rights activists. It triggered yet another national debate on the Constitution, the prerogatives of the executive branch, and the policies of the President. The Trump offensive against all the assumptions of American civic life took special aim at the very first sentence of the post-Civil War amendment, passed by Congress in 1866 and confirmed by the states two years later: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' For 157 years, the interpretation of that language was largely immune to challenge, even though the context was the granting of citizenship to the enslaved persons who had been freed in the aftermath of the Civil War. The meaning was clear: Those born in the U.S. were, by definition, Americans. Even an earlier Supreme Court, in 1898, affirmed that notion, and for more than a century and a quarter, it seemed unassailable. But the new focus on immigration, and what the Trump administration considered the promiscuous conferring of American citizenship on the children of those residing in the country illegally, transformed a given to a right that the President and anti-immigrant activists wanted to take away. Many legal scholars doubt the Trump tactic, and argue that what the words say is what the amendment means. But the Trump administration argues that the context of the 14th amendment – part of a flurry of changes in American life after the Civil War that tore the country apart geographically, culturally, economically, and morally – means that the language reflected a specific moment in time and a specific circumstance. They argue that the 19th-century amendment doesn't apply to far different 21st-century circumstances. The irony is that many of those who support that position also embrace a 'strict constructionist' view of the Constitution, urging in other cases that the words of the founding American document (which includes the 25 amendments that followed) are to be taken literally, shorn of context or interpretation. The Supreme Court's decision actually said nothing about birthright citizenship. It merely argued that, as Justice Amy Coney Barrett put it, excesses by the executive branch can't be stanched by excesses of the judicial branch. That means that lower-court judges skeptical of, or opposed to, Trump policies cannot invalidate those initiatives. The fact that the court test involved the Trump birthright citizenship case opened the administration to pursue its original intention, the denial of citizenship to some children of migrants and to make them vulnerable to deportation. This was an especially important target to the administration because of its view that large numbers of migrants were having children in the U.S., or coming to the country, for the express purpose of rendering their children American citizens. A May study by the Migration Policy Institute at Penn State University found that, if Mr. Trump prevailed, about 255,000 children born on U.S. soil each year would be denied American citizenship. The Supreme Court likely will rule on birthright citizenship in its next term, which begins in October, though it is possible some of the suits already filed may prompt it to make a swifter ruling. Opinion: The missing pieces migrants leave behind The Trump administration must wait about a month before taking action in the 28 states that haven't challenged the President's order. Opponents of the policy didn't wait to take legal action. The court challenges came first from New Hampshire and New Jersey, but other states likely will follow, taking advantage of the fact the Supreme Court's decision offered another opening for action. It's an analogue to the opening granted to the Trump administration. The Supreme Court ruled that class-action suits could be filed in federal district courts that might, in specific geographical areas, bar enforcement of the Trump order. This issue has been confined thus far to the executive and judicial branches. But shortly after the Trump executive order, legislation was filed on Capitol Hill that would grant citizenship only to children born to a parent who is a U.S. citizen or national, to a lawful permanent resident living in the country, or to a non-American legally admitted to the country performing active service in the armed services. No congressional action has been taken.
The Province
an hour ago
- The Province
What is Canada's digital services tax and why is it infuriating Trump?
Trump abruptly cut off all trade negotiations with Canada, citing Ottawa's DST for the decision U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington on June 27. Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP U.S. President Donald Trump abruptly cut off all trade negotiations with Canada on Friday, citing Ottawa's Digital Services Tax (DST) for the decision. The tax, enacted last June, targets U.S. technology companies that operate in Canada but pay little tax here. Under the new tax regime, the first payments are set to be collected on Monday, June 30. The Financial Post breaks down what you need to know about the DST and why it is infuriating Trump and Americans. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government enacted Canada's Digital Services Tax Act in June 2024, with the rules coming into effect the same month. The federal tax is applicable to large businesses — both foreign and domestic — that meet two specific criteria: a total global revenue of €750 million and up, and over $20 million of profits earned in Canada annually. The legislation levies a three per cent tax on digital services revenue over $20 million, and is retroactive to Jan. 1, 2022, meaning Ottawa could stand to gain billions in DST revenue, according to some estimates. Taxable revenue includes those of online marketplaces, digital advertising, social media, and user data — which will primarily affect American Big Tech giants such as Inc., Apple Inc., and Meta Platforms, Inc. Essential reading for hockey fans who eat, sleep, Canucks, repeat. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Under the DST, companies were required to register with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) by Jan. 31, 2025 and are obligated to file their first DST returns on June 30, 2025. The CRA has said that more than 500 companies have already applied to register for DST purposes, and expects more than 100 companies to pay the tax. If applicable companies fail to register with the agency, they could be fined $20,000 per year. If they fail to file a DST return, Canada could dole out a penalty equal to five per cent of the unpaid tax for the year, plus one per cent of the unpaid tax for the year for each month, not exceeding 12 months, in which the return hasn't been filed. Why is it controversial? According to the government, the goal of the DST is to ensure that major technology firms are taxed appropriately in the country. The legislation however, has come under fire from business groups on both sides of the border, with critics warning that the rules could further inflame Canada-U.S. ties. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has argued that the tax could increase costs for consumers and risks 'damaging our beneficial and lucrative trade relationship with the U.S.' The U.S. meanwhile, has long denounced Canada's proposed rules, claiming that they unfairly discriminate against American firms. Last August, under the former Biden administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) launched dispute settlement consultations with Ottawa under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement over the DST. The U.S. has said that American companies are on the hook to pay Ottawa US$2 billion under the DST. 'Only America should be allowed to tax American firms,' Trump said in a February statement. Tech giant Google LLC responded to Canada's digital services tax rules by introducing an additional 2.5 per cent fee for ads shown in Canada starting in October 2024. Called the 'Canada DST Fee,' Google said the surcharges will 'cover part of the costs of complying with DST legislation in Canada.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Other countries have enacted their own digital service taxes. Around half of all European OECD countries have announced, proposed, or implemented a DST, according to the Tax Foundation Europe. The U.S. has met those proposals with threats of retaliatory tariffs. Some countries' DST regimes could be on the chopping block. France's Council of State, which advises the government on the preparation of bills and other matters, recently referred the country's DST to the Constitutional Council for review, marking the first constitutional challenge to the DST since the legislation passed in 2019. Will Canada maintain it? For months, executives of U.S. tech giants have pressured American policymakers over Canada's DST. Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Canadian business groups have also pressed the Carney government to abandon the DST. And while businesses and industry groups were holding out for a last-minute suspension of the DST, finance minister François-Philippe Champagne reconfirmed last Thursday that Canada is 'going ahead' with the tax. 'The (DST) is in force and it's going to be applied,' he said. Parliament Hill's firm stance on maintaining the DST comes despite a recent Group of Seven (G7) agreement that succeeded in axing the Section 899 'revenge tax' provision from Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' that would have taken aim at businesses from countries that the U.S. views as unjustly targeting American firms. Ottawa hasn't ruled out shutting down DST discussions completely. 'Obviously, all of that is something that we're considering as part of broader discussions that you may have,' Champagne said last week, suggesting that the DST could be renegotiated given the ongoing trade talks between Canada and the U.S. Read More • Email: ylau@
