Latest news with #WesleyClark
USA Today
09-07-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Air Force mission in Iran was successful, but we must be clear-eyed as to why
Why invest in the U.S. Air Force? Look at the Ukraine-Russia war. The fact that neither side has air superiority is a significant contributing factor to the stalemate and death toll. The world recently witnessed a visceral demonstration of technological prowess, skill and courage when the U.S. Air Force dropped GBU-57 massive ordnance bombs within inches of their aiming points on Iranian nuclear facilities. As unquestionably successful as the mission was, we must be clear-eyed in how we view the implications. Our B-2 bombers, along with other aircraft, flew deep into Iranian territory without resistance. After suppressing surface-to-air threats ahead of the strike, not a single shot was fired against any of the aircraft as they operated in another country's airspace. In modern wars against adversaries such as China, we know the threat will be much different. In those cases, we know there is no guarantee of the 'air superiority' our crews experienced during Operation Midnight Hammer without significant investment in air power. To understand what it means, and why every American should care, turn your attention to Ukraine, where neither Ukraine nor Russia has superiority in the air. When juxtaposed against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine, the Iranian strike offers an important lesson for national leaders: We never want to fight without air superiority. Despite 1.4 million casualties, Ukraine-Russia war is a stalemate The 3-year-old conflict in Ukraine has settled into a brutal slog as the two nations measure success in incremental gains on the ground and by the unfortunate data point associated with the worst part of war ‒ casualties, both military and civilian. Russia and Ukraine have failed to turn any territorial gain into a strategic victory despite a death and casualty rate approaching 1 million for the Russian military and 400,000 for Ukraine. The fact that neither side has air superiority is a significant contributing factor to the stalemate and death toll. For the United States, by contrast, almost every theory of prevailing in conflict, no matter the circumstance or scale, starts with having – and holding – absolute or near-absolute air superiority. Gen. Wesley Clark: Trump needs to push Putin hard to end war in Ukraine – now Our ability to fly around the globe, enter enemy airspace with multiple aircraft, precisely strike multiple targets and return home without injury to American personnel exists because of air superiority. However, the ability to maintain this condition over a battlefield comes at substantial cost. Built into the cost is the reality that every nation understands how essential air superiority is, which is why ensuring that the United States achieves it and holds it has never been more difficult. US aircraft fleet is the smallest and oldest it's ever been The technology associated with the B-2 stealth bomber is over 30 years old, and we are only able to maintain a fleet of 19 of them due to their cost. A strike like the one against Iran would be hard if not impossible to repeat at scale in a larger campaign, or in a fight against any of our peer or near-peer competitors. Victory would almost assuredly require multiple strike packages. Equally important is this: Technology alone is not a guarantor of success. The men and women who carried out the strike in Iran are the best trained pilots on earth. They don't get to be the best without exquisite training that includes thousands of hours in both advanced simulators and actual aircraft. Those flight hours require fuel, wear and tear on the aircraft, proven instructors and time. Technology without investment in training will nullify the advantage that tech offers. For America to truly take advantage of its hard-earned advantages in technology and training, the Air Force must also recruit the best and brightest our nation has to offer. This isn't just about coming up with trendy slogans that catch the eyes and ears of would-be aviators; it's much harder than that. It's a large organization communicating its value proposition to smart, young Americans who have career options in a competitive job market. We must continue to invest to create a quality of life that inspires those aviators, as well as their families, to continue to serve ‒ not only because it's smart human resourcing, but also because it's the right thing to do for these patriots. We want and need patriots, but patriotism alone will not earn us control of the skies. Your Turn: What is patriotism? Here's what readers told us. | Opinion Forum The Air Force, like our fellow military services, needs sufficient funding. Without enough dollars, the best people and aircraft are not enough. Unfortunately, the Air Force has been underfunded for decades. The aircraft fleet is the smallest and oldest it's ever been. This status raises obvious – and ominous ‒ questions as to whether air superiority is achievable against an advanced, determined adversary. Again, we would be wise to pay close attention to Ukraine and the horrific number of casualties in that war to get an idea of the result if the advantage the United States has historically held in the air begins to shrink. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. The latest budget released by the White House recognizes the need. It includes investment in the F-47, the Air Force's first sixth generation fighter, among other Air Force critical funding initiatives, all of which contribute to maintaining dominance in the sky. These investments are necessary even at a time of difficult budget choices. To maintain global peace and stability, the Air Force needs to own the skies in a manner that our adversaries understand ‒ like we did in Iran but against much tougher opposition. That is the foundation of deterrence. It is the operational centerpiece of a military service designed to give the president valid and credible options for any circumstance. The cost is high, but so are the risks if we fail. The war in Ukraine highlights this truth every day in a vivid way that is impossible to ignore. Brig. Gen. Allen Herritage is the director of public affairs for the Air Force and Space Force. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
Yahoo
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: A refresher course in American truths
Is it possible, at this deeply ideologically divided time, to articulate a set of principles of American constitutional democracy that those across the political spectrum can agree upon? This was our goal in creating, along with Drexel University law professor Lisa Tucker, a project we titled, 'We Hold These Truths.' Our objective was to have a diverse group of individuals draft these principles, to release them on the Fourth of July, and to use them for public education. The first step was to recruit about 20 prominent individuals from across the ideological spectrum to volunteer their time to be part of the drafting effort. As we reached out to people, we were delighted at the enthusiastic response. The drafters included former Republican Govs. Christine Todd Whitman and Brian Sandoval. It included prominent Democrats such as Stacey Abrams, Pete Buttigieg and Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin. Retired four-star Army Gen. Wesley Clark and civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill were among the first to agree to participate. We recruited a conservative former U.S. Court of Appeals judge, Thomas B. Griffith, and a liberal one, David Tatel. Best-selling author Brad Meltzer joined the drafting group. We added prominent law professors, former Yale Law School dean Harold Koh and New York University professor Melissa Murray. And we succeeded. In a little over a month, we were able to come to unanimous agreement on a set of basic principles of American constitutional democracy. We hope these principles remind us that what unites us as a country, our deeply held underlying values, is greater than what divides us. We decided early on to focus on five areas: the rule of law, democracy and elections, separation of powers, personal freedom, and equality. We divided into five subgroups to work on these topics and to propose principles to the entire drafting group. There then was the opportunity for responses and revisions. The key, of course, was to make the statements sufficiently specific so they were not platitudes, but also general enough to be articulation of basic values. For the rule of law, we stressed that to preserve liberty, fairness and the stability of our democratic society, the power of government and other actors must be limited by law and they must be accountable. All people, no matter their station, must stand equal before the law, subject to the same rules, protections, privileges and sanctions. The rule of law demands due process, that before the government may deprive any person of life, liberty or property, the individual must have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the deprivation before an independent and neutral adjudicator. Law enforcement — investigations, prosecutions, adjudications and pardons — must be conducted according to law, with respect for human dignity and without regard to the personal or political interests of the executive. And the rule of law cannot be preserved without an independent judiciary that is neither subject to intimidation by the executive or legislative branches of government, nor beholden to the demands of political parties. For separation of powers, we stressed that a fundamental structural feature of the Constitution, and its chief safeguard of our liberty, is separating and placing limits upon the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government such that they check and balance one another's power. For democracy and elections, the crucial point is that the one depends on the other. We elect representatives to make the laws we must abide by. To succeed, elections must be transparent and fair. A democratic society enfranchises voters to the fullest extent possible, makes elections accessible and refrains from erecting unnecessary barriers to voting. Voter suppression is antithetical to democracy, and it exists when eligible voters are unable to register to vote, cast a ballot or have that ballot counted. Also, our constitutional republic depends upon our shared commitment to the peaceful transfer of power, to accepting, honoring and respecting election results regardless of whether our preferred candidate wins. The personal freedoms accorded throughout the Constitution and its many amendments are an essential protection against government tyranny and reflect the inherent rights of every person in the United States. Democracy depends on freedom of speech and the press. The government has no right to intimidate or punish anyone simply on the basis of their views and ideas. The Bill of Rights protects those suspected and accused of crimes with provisions that limit police searches and arrests, ensure the privilege against self-incrimination and provide for fair trials. Our society respects fundamental aspects of autonomy, including the liberty to make important decisions about one's life. Finally, equality is a precondition of freedom. We all are free only when each of us, not just some of us, is free from discrimination, exclusion and threat. Our differences are our strength, not our weakness. Where autocracy and authoritarianism demand allegiance to uniformity, democracy demands the opposite — differences of people and opinion. Every person's voice is of equal worth in the workplace, the public square and the voting booth. Equality of opportunity — in education, employment and participation in our democracy — is a right, not a privilege regardless of color, ethnicity, religion, poverty or wealth. The government's decisions about our lives must be free of discrimination, racism, prejudice, and favoritism. Readers can find the principles, beginning July 4, at 249 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Our hope is that Americans of every political persuasion will reaffirm these values, acknowledging that government of, for and by the people — not monarchy, autocracy or religious rule — is the best way to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are not naive about what can be achieved through this effort. But we strongly believe that there is value in reminding ourselves, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, of the truths that we hold to be self-evident. Erwin Chermerinsky is the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and a contributing writer to Opinion Voices. J. Michael Luttig served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit from 1991 to 2006; he was appointed by President George H.W. Bush. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Express Tribune
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Israel's dangerous delusions
Listen to article Israeli leader Netanyahu launched the war he has been planning for the last 20 years against Iran on 13 June. This aggression is a critical part of his ambition for a "Greater Israel", the Zionist project for regional hegemony. His collaborators are Western countries, in particular the US, since they are all under the overwhelming influence of their domestic Jewish lobbies. But such Israeli ambitions are a dangerous delusion, creating greater insecurity for its people, and ensuring a perpetual state of war in the region. When Netanyahu became Prime Minister in 1996, he immediately launched the Zionist agenda of rejecting the Two-State Solution to the Palestinian issue and creating a "Greater Israel" by expanding Israeli territory over occupied Arab lands while promoting settler colonialism by illegally occupying Palestinian properties. Moreover, with the support of American Neo-Cons, Christian Zionists and the all-powerful Jewish American lobby, he instigated American regime change operations in countries opposing his agenda. Former US General Wesley Clark has stated publically that shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the US initiated plans for wars against Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Iran. Fast forward to the present and the only country remaining on the Israeli-American hit list was Iran. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority has been reduced to a cypher, Hamas and Hezbollah have been battered, and wars for regime change have taken place in all the other targeted countries. These were ideal conditions for the Israeli aggression against Iran. Netanyahu's stated objectives are to replace the Khamenei government and destroy Iran's alleged nuclear weapons capability. But his real agenda is promoting Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. However, Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, air defences, critical infrastructure, military leadership and nuclear scientists have neither brought about regime change nor destroyed their nuclear assets. Instead, the robust Iranian military response has surprised Israel and broken the myth of Israeli invincibility. The war is now a stalemate in which Netanyahu's objectives have not been achieved, even though Israel is in a stronger position militarily with continuous American supplies of weapons and funds. Highlighting this situation, Israeli paper Haaretz has written that "Netanyahu might be bumbling into a war of attrition" from which he has no exit strategy of his own. Netanyahu, therefore, became desperate for direct American involvement. Only the US has the B-2 Stealth bombers to drop bunker buster bombs like the GBU-57B to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities such as in Fordow and Natanz. Even then, experts acknowledge that the damage could be repaired in 3 to 6 months and that there is no knowledge of the whereabouts of the enriched fissile material already produced. There is also the danger of nuclear radiation from the damaged sites. Besides, American intelligence and nuclear experts are not convinced that Iran has the intention or the ability to make nuclear bombs, an allegation that Netanyahu has been making for the last 20 years. For regime change, impossible through aerial attacks alone, American boots on the ground will be needed. This poses a dilemma for President Trump whose MAGA support base is opposed to American involvement while the powerful Israeli lobby is pushing for intervention. The lessons of the misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan also weigh heavily on the Americans. After procrastinating for a week, Trump succumbed to Israeli pressure and ordered American strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities on 21 June. The much-dreaded bunker buster 30,000 pound bombs were dropped on Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear site by Stealth bombers. While Trump claimed that these facilities have been "obliterated", no reliable evidence has emerged so far to justify this claim. Trump has also threatened more attacks if Iran does not "surrender". In turn, Iran threatened further escalation and immediately attacked Israeli targets. The danger now is whether Trump would risk a ground invasion for regime change which would be extremely perilous. Now that Israel and America has played their trump card, Iran can respond by rejecting nuclear negotiations with the US, exit from NPT, renounce Khamenei's 2003 commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons and conduct a nuclear test. It can also blockade the Persian Gulf and attack US bases in the region, apart from intensifying attacks on Israel. Iranian allies, Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis, whose capabilities have been degraded but not destroyed, could also intensify attacks on the Israelis and Americans. This would not only be counterproductive for Israel and America but also dangerous for the entire region. Russia and China have fully supported Iran and condemned Israeli aggression. They have also joined other states in the UN to call for de-escalation, restraint and immediate ceasefire. More importantly, neither power would want to see their interests in Iran compromised by the Israeli-American aggression and would act accordingly. As a friend and neighbor Pakistan has strongly supported Iran. In this volatile situation, Pakistan can play a constructive role by initiating joint efforts for an early ceasefire, de-escalation and resumption of Iran-US negotiations on the nuclear issue in conjunction with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia. Even the US, despite the rhetoric in Israel's favour, recognises the merits of a peaceful outcome to this crisis. At the same time, Pakistan must be wary of Israeli and Indian machinations. In the past both countries have collaborated to plan attacks on Pakistan's strategic assets. Netanyahu has also publically stated his opposition to Pakistan's nuclear capabilities on several occasions. But both countries also know that Pakistan is fully capable of deterring any threat to its national interests, as was amply demonstrated last May. Indo-Israeli subversion and terrorism, as demonstrated in Iran, also poses a threat to Pakistan's security since the BLA has links with both countries. Our border regions with a destabilised Iran could become even more volatile and, therefore, urgently need to be sanitised. To conclude, while Israel may presently have the tactical military advantage over Iran, it is in a strategic no-win situation. Its dangerous delusions of regional hegemony are doomed.
Scoop
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Why Asia-Pacific Should Be Rooting For Iran
Setting aside any thoughts I may have about theocratic rulers (whether they be in Tel Aviv or Tehran), I am personally glad that Iran was able to hold out against the US-Israeli attacks this month. The ceasefire, however, will only be a pause in the long-running campaign to destabilize, weaken and isolate Iran. Regime change or pariah status are both acceptable outcomes for the U.S-Israeli dyad. The good news for my region is that Iran's resilience pushes back what could be a looming calamity: the U.S. pivot to Asia and a heightened risk of a war on China. There are three major pillars to the Eurasian order that is going through a slow, painful and violent birth. Iran is the weakest. If Iran falls, war in our region – intended or unintended – becomes vastly more likely. Mainstream New Zealanders and Australians suffer from an understandable complacency: war is what happens to other, mainly darker people or Slavs. 'Tomorrow', people in this part of the world naively think, 'will always be like yesterday'. That could change, particularly for the Australians, in the kind of unfamiliar flash-boom Israelis experienced this month following their attack on Iran. And here's why. U.S. chooses war to re-shape the Middle East Back in 2001, as many will recall, retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, was visiting buddies in the Pentagon. He learnt something he wasn't supposed to: the Bush administration had made plans in the febrile post 9/11 environment to attack seven Muslim countries. In the firing line were: Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, Gaddafi's Libya, Somalia, Sudan and the biggest prize of all: the Islamic Republic of Iran. One would have to say that the project, pursued by successive Presidents, both Democrat and Republican, has been a great success – if you discount the fact that a couple of million human beings, most of them civilians, many of them women and children, nearly all of them innocents, were slaughtered, starved to death or otherwise disposed of. With the exception of Iran, those countries have endured chaos and civil strife for long painful years. A triumph of American bomb-based statecraft. Now – with Muammar Gaddafi raped and murdered ('We came, we saw, he died', Hillary Clinton chuckled on camera the same day), Saddam Hussein hanged, Hezbollah decapitated, Assad in Moscow, the genocide in full swing in Palestine – the US and Israel were finally able to turn their guns – or, rather, bombs – on the great prize: Iran. Iran's missiles have checked U.S.-Israel for the time being Things did not go to plan. Former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman pointed out this week that for the first time Israel got a taste of the medicine it likes to dispense to its neighbours. Iran's missiles successfully turned the much-vaunted Iron Dome into an Iron Sieve and, perhaps momentarily, has achieved deterrence. If Iran falls, the U.S. will be able to do what Barack Obama and Joe Biden only salivated over: a serious pivot to Asia. Could great power rivalry turn Asia-Pacific into a powderkeg? For us in Asia-Pacific a major U.S. pivot to Asia will mean soaring defence budgets to support militarisation, aggressive containment of China, provocative naval deployments, more sanctions, muscling smaller states, increased numbers of bases, new missile systems, info wars, threats and the ratcheting up rhetoric – all of which will bring us ever-closer to the powderkeg. Sounds utterly mad? Sounds devoid of rationality? Lacking commonsense? Welcome to our world – bellum Americanum – as we gormlessly march flame in hand towards the tinderbox. War is not written in the stars, we can change tack and rediscover diplomacy, restraint, and peaceful coexistence. Or is that too much to ask? Back in the days of George W Bush, radical American thinkers like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld created the Project for a New American Century and developed the policy, adopted by succeeding presidents, that promotes "the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces". It reconfirmed the neoconservative American dogma that no power should be allowed to rise in any region to become a regional hegemon; anything and everything necessary should be done to ensure continued American primacy, including the resort to war. What has changed since those days are two crucial, epoch-making events: the re-emergence of Russia as a great power, albeit the weakest of the three, and the emergence of China as a genuine peer competitor to the USA. Professor John Mearsheimer's insights are well worth studying on this topic. The three pillars of multipolarity A new world order really is being born. As geopolitical thinkers like Professor Glenn Diesen point out, it will, if it is not killed in the cradle, replace the U.S. unipolar world order that has existed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Many countries are involved in its birthing, including major players like India and Brazil and all the countries that are part of BRICS. Three countries, however, are central to the project: Iran, Russia and, most importantly, China. All three are in the crosshairs of the Western Empire. If Iran, Russia and China survive as independent entities, they will partially fulfill Halford MacKinder's early 20th century heartland theory that whoever dominates Eurasia will rule the world. I don't think MacKinder, however, foresaw cooperative multipolarity on the Eurasian landmass – which is one of the goals of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) – as an option. That, increasingly, appears to be the most likely trajectory with multiple powerful states that will not accept domination, be that from China or the U.S. That alone should give us cause for hope. Drunk on power since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has launched war after war and brought us to the current abandonment of economic sanity (the sanctions-and-tariff global pandemic) and diplomatic normalcy (kill any peace negotiators you see) – and an anything-goes foreign policy (including massive crimes against humanity). We have also reached – thanks in large part to these same policies – what a former US national security advisor warned must be avoided at all costs. Back in the 1990s Zbigniew Brzezinski said, "The most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran." Belligerent and devoid of sound strategy, the Biden and Trump administrations have achieved just that. Can Asia-Pacific avoid being dragged into an American war on China? Turning to our region, New Zealand and Australia's governments cleave to yesterday: a white-dominated world led by the USA. We have shown ourselves indifferent to massacres, ethnic cleansing and wars of aggression launched by our team. To avoid war – or a permanent fear of looming war – in our own backyards, we need to encourage sanity and diplomacy; we need to stay close to the U.S. but step away from the military alliances they are forming, such as AUKUS which is aimed squarely at China. Above all, our defence and foreign affairs elites need to grow new neural pathways and start to think with vision and not place ourselves on the losing side of History. Independent foreign policy settings based around peace, defence not aggression, diplomacy not militarisation, would take us in the right direction. Personally I look forward to the day the US and its increasingly belligerent vassals are pushed back into the ranks of ordinary humanity. I fear the U.S. far more than I do China. Despite the reflexive adherence to the US that our leaders are stuck on, we should not, if we value our lives and our cultures, allow ourselves to be part of this mad, doomed project. The US Empire is heading into a blood-drenched sunset; their project will fail and the 500-year empire of the White West will end – starting and finishing with genocide. Every day I atheistically pray that leaders or a movement will emerge to guide our antipodean countries out of the clutches of a violent and increasingly incoherent USA. America is not our friend. China is not our enemy. Tomorrow gives birth to a world that we should look forward to and do the little we can to help shape. Eugene Doyle
Yahoo
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Results of US mission in Iran need more assessment: Wesley Clark
(NewsNation) — Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, former head of NATO in Europe, praised the 'flawless' execution of U.S. pilots who bombed three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend but agreed with observers who say it's too early to say Tehran is out of the atomic weapons game. The New York Times reported the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency determined the bombings set back Iran's nuclear program by a few months instead of delivering the virtual knockout blow described by President Trump. Clark said initial intelligence reports can be wrong and tend to change over time. There's no way to know for certain, he added, until independent observers can see for themselves. Former Special Forces operators blast Iran bombing assessment leak 'What we have, I'm afraid, is a wounded tiger. We don't know if it's going to turn on us or not,' Clark told 'Elizabeth Vargas Reports' on Wednesday. As for the B-2 stealth bomber mission that delivered the strikes — dubbed 'Operation Midnight Hammer' — he praised all aspects of the operation. 'It was a brilliant operation. Brilliant in conception, obviously flawless in execution,' Clark said. Ali Vaez, Iran project director for Crisis Group, agreed that observations must be made on the ground in Iran to determine 'the extent of the damage and account for the nuclear material which is now missing.' He said more than 800 pounds of near-bomb-grade uranium are unaccounted for in Iran, and the country stocked hundreds of advanced centrifuges separately. 'That provides it with a pathway to dash towards a nuclear weapon,' Vaez said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
