A potential first-of-its-kind fighter-jet purchase could be a sign Saudi Arabia isn't happy with what it's getting from the US


Paul Iddon
Updated Mon, August 21, 2023 

Royal Saudi Air Force F-15Cs fly with US Air Force F-15Cs in June 2019.

US Navy/Handout via REUTERS

Saudi Arabia is reportedly considering a large number of French-made Dassault Rafale fighter jets.


Such a purchase would be a break from Saudi Arabia's long history of buying US and British jets.


This suggests Riyadh doesn't think its traditional partners will be as reliable in the future.

Saudi Arabia has spent decades building an enormous air force composed exclusively of advanced US and British fighter jets. But Riyadh's reported interest in potentially purchasing a large number of French jets may be a sign it doesn't think its longtime patrons are as reliable as before.

In December, France's La Tribune financial newspaper, citing unnamed sources, reported that Saudi Arabia was considering acquiring 100 to 200 Dassault Rafale fighters. The report came amid developments suggesting that the US and other nations might not provide military equipment to Riyadh in the future.

After Riyadh cut oil production in October, US lawmakers proposed legislation freezing all American arms sales to the kingdom, which could have grounded most of the Saudi air force and would further fray already strained US-Saudi relations.

In July, Germany announced it would not allow additional Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets to be delivered to Saudi Arabia. The Saudi air force has 72 Eurofighters, second only to the number of US-made F-15s it has.

Saudi Arabia's neighbors in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar have built up large fleets of Western-made jets that include dozens of Rafales. The La Tribune report, while unconfirmed, suggests political and practical concerns are pushing the Saudis toward the French jet.
French appeal

A French Dassault Rafale flying near Salon-de-Provence in May 2022.Toni Anne Barson/Getty Images

Buying more Typhoons would be "the sensible move" since the Saudis have the infrastructure to train pilots and operate that jet, "but a German block prevents that," said Sébastien Roblin, a widely published military-aviation journalist.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is "not currently inclined to throw Washington any free bones by ordering F-15EXs," and despite an "about-face" by President Joe Biden, Roblin said, the Saudis know that future jet sales "could be disrupted by domestic political revulsion for Riyadh's actions domestically or the war in Yemen."

As bin Salman pursues a detente with his main rival, Iran, and improves relations with China, opposition to such sales may only increase.

Roblin noted that France has sold armored vehicles, helicopters, artillery, air-to-ground Damocles targeting pods, and SCALP cruise missiles to Riyadh and that French political culture values having "a diversified, independent defense sector" and is therefore "much less susceptible to human-rights-based misgivings, which has enabled sustained arms sales to a wider stable of clients in the Middle East."

Saudi Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets near Riyadh in January 2017.FAYEZ NURELDINE/AFP via Getty Images

Consequently, Saudi Arabia buying 100 or more Rafales would be a big "economic win" that would "score Riyadh an upgraded strategic partner outside of Washington or London," Roblin said, though he pointed out that Gulf states have a habit of hyping arms buys from new sources, including Russia or China, to elicit "jealous counteroffers from their 'main' strategic partners."

Ryan Bohl, a senior Middle East and North Africa analyst at the risk-intelligence company RANE, said Rafales could be an "attractive option" to Riyadh, considering the sanctions the US and Germany imposed on it after the assassination of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

French jets are also modern and built by a NATO country, potentially reducing issues with integrating the jets with the Saudis' other Western aircraft. France's less restrictive end-user agreements "underlines this attractiveness," Bohl added.

Riyadh's non-NATO options for jets are relatively limited, and buying Russian or Chinese jets would likely incur US sanctions, which makes Saudi interest in the Rafale seem "realistic," Bohl said. "Saudi Arabia wants to diversify its air force so that if it has an interruption with one of its arm suppliers, like the United States, its air wing doesn't grind to a halt."
Shifting US-Saudi ties

President Joe Biden and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in July 2022.Bandar Algaloud/Reuters

In the near term, Saudi Arabia may find Rafales more burdensome than beneficial, given its extensive investment in US and British aircraft.

"I would be surprised if the Royal Saudi Air Force procured Rafale, given the size and well-established state of its F-15 and Typhoon fleets," Justin Bronk, an expert on airpower at the Royal United Services Institute, told Insider.

Such pragmatic concerns have kept Saudi Arabia from buying French fighters in the past. After all, Bohl said, it's much easier to build an air force with pilots who train on a single system or with systems from a single country of origin. And despite the sophistication of French military hardware, it hasn't been used in battle as much as US equipment has and therefore lacks a "combat record as a selling point" like US-made weapons, Bohl added.

Limits on the Rafale's technology and availability may also deter Riyadh.

A Saudi Air Force F-15 taxis for takeoff at King Faisal Air Base in February 2021.US Air Force/Staff Sgt. Katherine Walters

While the Rafale F4 is "one of the most advanced and versatile of the 4.5-generation fighters on the market," it is "not a true stealth fighter" with the advanced capabilities Saudi Arabia wants, Roblin said.

Even if Riyadh ordered Rafales tomorrow, they would take at least several years to arrive. "Right now, a big problem is Dassault's factory is already booked with orders for over a hundred additional aircraft for Croatia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Greece, and the United Arab Emirates," Roblin said.

The strength of US-Saudi relations has kept Riyadh firmly in the US camp for decades, but Bohl said that relationship has "fundamentally shifted" and the US is no longer "as expansive of a defense partner" as in the past, a trend that may add to the appeal of other countries' weapons.

"Under previous kings, Saudi Arabia saw the United States as a reliable protector of its security and was willing to do favors through energy policy and arms deals for Washington in exchange for this guarantee," Bohl told Insider. "That led to Riyadh being less willing to do special favors for the United States, like going to it exclusively for arms purchases."

Paul Iddon is a freelance journalist and columnist who writes about Middle East developments, military affairs, politics, and history. His articles have appeared in a variety of publications focused on the region.

Saudi Arabia sets its sights on Britain’s military jewel


Howard Mustoe
Sun, 20 August 2023 

Mohammed bin Salman is attempting to reinvent the petrodollar kingdom - /SPA/AFP via Getty Images

Oil pumps have long dotted Saudi Arabia’s desert landscape, but they could soon be joined by a raft of factories.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman wants to turn the country into the Gulf’s manufacturing powerhouse as it moves away from oil and gas.

The heir to Saudi Arabia’s $2 trillion throne wants to increase industrial exports to $148bn (£116bn) by 2030, tripling factory numbers to 36,000 by 2035 which will churn out everything from warships to cars.


So far, he has poured investment into Lucid, a US-based electric car maker which plans to build a factory in the country, while also striking a planned joint venture with Navantia, the Spanish state-owned builder of naval vessels.

Now, he has his sights set on another lucrative, albeit expensive and notoriously complex market – fighter jets.

It was announced last week that the controversial ruler is set to visit the UK in autumn, which came after a flurry of speculation around Saudi Arabia joining one of Britain’s largest military projects.

Downing Street reportedly wants to make the Kingdom part of the £72bn Tempest programme, initially, an Anglo-Italian effort which Japan joined last year.

Saudi’s deep pockets will be welcome, but industrial insiders are concerned about the nation’s technological offering, as well as its political baggage.

The Tempest project aims to bring a sixth-generation fighter jet into service by the middle of the next decade, replacing the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Notably, Saudi reportedly wants to become a formal partner in the programme rather than simply buying the finished product as a customer, as it has with the Typhoon.

Any partnership will need large capital investment, but it will secure Saudi new local jobs and a hand in designing Tempest, delivering the technological expertise the ruler craves.

Saudi Arabia’s bid to join the Tempest fighter jet programme as an equal partner are said to have unsettled Japanese officials - David Rose

However, speculation around the state’s involvement, alongside the planned visit, has reignited concerns over the Kingdom’s human rights record and its approach to gay rights.

Homosexuality is still a criminal offence punishable by death, while the country is also involved in a years-long war in Yemen.

It will also be Mohammed bin Salman’s (MBS) first UK visit since the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was killed and dismembered on the orders of the Crown Prince, according to analysis by the CIA.

He has denied any involvement.

From a financial perspective, the huge cost of building ever more complex military hardware makes the country an attractive bet with its wealth and keen stance.

But bringing on such a controversial partner has already caused reported discomfort among Japanese officials.

Another question raised by insiders is what the country can add in terms of high-end jet design, with only a handful of countries in the world capable of building supersonic aircraft.

Under MBS, however, Saudi Arabia has supercharged its investment and ambitions in industry, technology and defence as part of the Vision 2030 programme, as the ruler aims to wean the country off oil.

“Through the national industrial strategy and in partnership with the private sector, the Kingdom will become a leading industrial powerhouse that contributes to securing global supply chains and exports high-tech products to the world,” MBS said last year.

The brutal murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 still casts a shadow onto perceptions of the Kingdom today - MOHAMMED AL-SHAIKH / AFP

The country already has a manufacturing champion in Saudi Arabia’s Basic Industries Corporation, known as SABIC.

With prominence in the chemical sector, it also makes car parts, cosmetics ingredients and metals, bringing in $53bn in sales last year.

The country is also liberalising at pace, says Roxana Mohammadian-Molina, a former investment banker and finance technology entrepreneur, who has done business in Saudi Arabia.

“When you go there it is completely unexpected compared to the preconceived idea that people have,” she said. “It is very open. I have travelled there alone many times, you really feel very safe.

“They are very open to doing business. They are really keen to partner with other countries, particularly the UK universities that can attract talent.”

She pointed to the recent success of Tamara, a payment platform based in Riyadh which picked up a $150m loan from Goldman Sachs in March.

“Ambitions are very high. I think this is a very long process, you’re not going to become a tech hub overnight,” she says. “But the thing is in Saudi Arabia, things move very quickly.”

Liberalisation is among the changes taking place in the country, she added.

“You have big cities like Riyadh that are very advanced and progressive and have a young population, but you also have smaller cities and towns that are still very traditional, it is a fine balance for those interests.”

Women are playing a greater role in the Saudi economy as efforts to liberalise the Gulf state gather pace - FAYEZ NURELDINE/AFP

Saudi Arabia is likely to employ a broad spread of investments before focusing on areas it can excel, said Ayham Kamel, head of Eurasia Group’s Middle East and North Africa research team.

“I think it requires them to have experimented with different sectors for a while before they double down,” he says. “It’s really a wide net. I would expect it to be more focused in the future, but we are not there yet.”

The country’s investments today range from stakes in Nintendo, Uber and Boeing, to Newcastle United FC and its controversial takeover of Golf’s PGA tour through its LIV Golf rival.

Saudi also wants to become a leader in artificial intelligence and is hoovering up the specialist computer chips necessary to develop an AI economy, according to recent reports

Mr Kamel says Riyadh is “ambitious to get into the high-tech industry and migrate part of the production in Saudi Arabia”, he adds.

Riyadh’s plan to increase its defence industrial knowledge is already underway.

In December, the Kingdom signed its deal with Spanish shipbuilder Navatia to form a joint venture to build warships. The final details of the deal will be ironed out next year, but the agreement allows for all of the construction to be done in Saudi shipyards.

The deal allowed the country to “localise military industry” defence minister Prince Khaled bin Salman said at the time.

UK investment chiefs are now keen to snap up more of Saudi’s income rather than see it go to rivals like Spain.

One City veteran who has experience investing in the country expressed frustration about the poor perception of Saudi Arabia in press coverage.

He said: “Saudi Arabia is changing for the good at a stunning speed and to be honest the parts of the press coverage here have been almost profligate in their jaundiced, biased reporting.

“Saudi is far more than Khashoggi. And British business is considered good business. Saudi is the UK’s primary trading partner in the Middle East and the UK is Saudi Arabia’s closest European ally.”

The country was the UK’s 10th-biggest export customer for services last year and Britain enjoys a £7bn trading surplus with Saudi.

But in the eyes of outside investors and potential customers, its human rights record must improve. The country executed 196 people last year, the highest number since Amnesty International started recording the numbers 30 years ago.

Polly Truscott, Amnesty International UK’s foreign policy adviser, said MBS “must be properly held to account for abuses by Saudi officials, including Khashoggi’s murder, the widespread use of torture in Saudi jails and the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Yemen.”

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

Ukraine and the dark lessons of war: What does it mean to 'take' a country or a city?

Lucian K. Truscott IV, Salon
March 05, 2022

Ukraine Rebel troops (AFP)

Kherson, a port city in the south of Ukraine, has fallen to Russian forces. It is an important port on the Dnieper River delta, and military strategists say that now that the Russians have taken Kherson, they can turn their attention to Odessa to the west, Ukraine's third largest city, a major port and a center of tourism on the Black Sea.

This article first appeared in Salon.

Meanwhile to the north, Ukraine's two largest cities, Kyiv and Kharkiv, remain under siege, with Russian forces targeting civilian neighborhoods indiscriminately. According to the UN, the number of civilians killed by Russian bombs and shelling is approaching 1,000, but judging from what I've seen in television coverage, it's likely much higher. A video on the website of the New York Times on Thursday showed what appear to be projectiles fired from a Russian rocket launcher hitting a civilian neighborhood in Chernihiv, a city to the east and north of Kyiv. You can see civilian pedestrians on the street near where the rockets were about to hit, and then you can't see them. The video has red circles picking out six rocket warheads as they fly in and strike the street and surrounding buildings.

I've also seen a video showing cluster munitions striking an apartment complex in Kharkiv. Cluster bombs are anti-personnel weapons that are banned under international agreements that Russia and the U.S., among others, have not signed. There are no concentrations of Ukrainian army forces on battlefields in this war against which cluster munitions could legitimately be used. The fact that these bombs are landing in neighborhoods populated entirely by civilians suggests that Russian forces have been issued the munitions specifically to target civilian human beings.

Numerous photographs emerged this week of extensive damage to civilian neighborhoods in various cities in Ukraine showing the faces of apartment complexes entirely blown off, fires in what appear to be office and apartment buildings, and other damage to civilian areas.

What does it mean to "take" a city like Kyiv or Kharkiv or Kherson? Russian military commanders have clearly been ordered to "take" these Ukrainian population centers in the process of conquering and occupying the entire country. But from video footage of this war — and from the evidence of every other war in history — "taking" a city pretty much means destroying it, as in the famous GI saying that became a symbol of the Vietnam War: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

What is the purpose of an aggressor "taking" a city, or even the entire country, if in the process you are destroying the thing you say you want? If you are the one who ordered the invasion — in this case, Vladimir Putin — what do you do after you have "taken" a country you have destroyed, and how do you plan to deal with a population you have devastated by intentionally killing them with your military forces?

The contrast between "taking" a city or a country and what happens after that defines the essence of war. Look at Aleppo, for example, one of the Syrian cities the Russian air force was credited with helping to "take" from rebel forces opposing the Assad regime. Aleppo is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world and one of the capitals of the cradle of civilization. It has a history that goes back to a time before the Babylonian and Assyrian empires. Dozens if not hundreds of wars were fought over thousands of years between rulers of Aleppo and the kings and potentates of Ur and Babylon, in what is now Iraq, and the Egyptian empire. Aleppo was destroyed and rebuilt again and again. The ruins of Assad's and Russia's war on Aleppo sit on top of the ruins of one king's destroyed empire after another.

In the modern context, that's exactly what is happening today in Ukraine. The Russian army has been ordered to "take" Ukraine, and in so doing it is destroying Ukraine's cities and killing its citizens. In the coming days, we will no doubt see the ruins of onion-domed Orthodox cathedrals that have been destroyed in Kyiv and Kharkiv. I looked at Google Maps to check out Chernihiv, the city mentioned above that was hit hard by Russian rockets and artillery on Wednesday and Thursday. Along with several elaborate Orthodox cathedrals, there is something called the Hollywood Mall in Chernihiv located next to the Hypermarket Vena and the city's Hospital No. 2. Already we are seeing videos and reading reports of hospitals and schools destroyed in Kyiv, and I expect that soon we will see the ruins of the Hollywood Mall in Chernihiv alongside a hospital battered by Russian artillery shells and rockets.

There is a contradiction between the orders given in wars and what those orders accomplish. When armies of aggression invade foreign nations, the homes and apartment buildings and hospitals and grocery stores don't belong to those armies, so they just follow orders and destroy them. Sometimes the destruction occurs by accident, but in the case of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it is being done on purpose on the orders of the Russian president.

You don't have to take the Ukrainians' word to understand that this is Putin's intent. All you have to do is see that he has issued rocket launchers with thermobaric missiles to his army, with the apparent intention of using them against Ukrainian cities. Thermobaric warheads, also known as "vacuum bombs," are not intended to destroy military fortifications. They have one purpose, and that is to kill human beings by exploding a gas cloud that sucks the oxygen from the air around the explosion, collapsing the lungs of anyone near it. There has been video footage that appears to show these missiles landing in civilian neighborhoods where people are walking down the street. The Russians are not even trying to hide what they're doing. They've allowed American TV reporters to film TOS-1 rocket launchers mounted on T-72 tank chassis as they cross the border into Ukraine on their way to Kharkiv. The only purpose of these rocket launchers is to fire thermobaric warheads.

The defenders of cities and countries under attack by invaders have only one order that they must follow: Defend their land and their homes and their country's treasures at all costs, with their lives if necessary. Their orders contain no contradictions at all. The cities and their buildings and their cathedrals and their homes belong to them. That's why they fight so hard, as the Ukrainians appear to be doing at this very moment. And that's why almost every time the invaders end up being driven away. In Aleppo, that's been going on for thousands of years. The people who live there today are descended from the ancient civilizations that defended the city from Hittites and Assyrians and Phrygians and Babylonians and Persians, and eventually the Macedonians and Byzantines. Now they are rebuilding their city, but if any lesson at all can be learned from history, they will one day be doing it again.

I've been watching the coverage of the war in Ukraine on MSNBC with great interest. One of the sharpest commentators has turned out to be Gen. David Petraeus, who had various commands in both Iraq and Afghanistan and was credited with the "surge" in Iraq that supposedly "won" that war, until it didn't.

As a reporter in Iraq in 2003, I was embedded in the unit Petraeus commanded, the 101st Airborne Division, in Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq. Mosul incorporates Nineveh, the ancient city that was first settled in 6000 B.C. and was the center of the Assyrian Empire around 2000 B.C. — yes, the same Assyrian Empire that included Aleppo. Mosul, which succeeded Nineveh, was conquered by Alexander the Great in 332 B.C. and was conquered by other armies along the way. When I was with Petraeus and his division in 2003, they were only the latest in that very, very long line of conquerors.

Petraeus was helpful to me as a reporter. He gave me the run of the region his division had "taken," including Mosul and Tal Afar and other towns his division "held." After I had been there for a while, I discovered something curious. Neither Petraeus nor his brigade commanders — three very talented West Point colonels — seemed to know what they were doing there. They established various base camps, both large and small, their units drove around in Humvees and the commanders flew around in helicopters, but they weren't really doing anything.

One day, when I was in Petraeus' headquarters in a former Saddam Hussein palace in Mosul (where I had gone to take a shower, because the palace had hot water), I asked the general what he was doing in Mosul. The way I put the question was, "General, what were your orders before you left Baghdad for Mosul?" He gave me a blank look, as if he had never been asked that question before. I then asked him, "Were you ordered to 'take Mosul,' for example?" He again looked at me blankly. It wasn't like I was asking him to divulge some top-secret piece of information. His entire division was up there in northern Iraq, right out in the open. The war was being widely covered on television and by newspapers. Everybody knew where the 101st Airborne was in Iraq. I was wondering what they were doing there, so I asked him a third time: "Were your orders, 'Go to Mosul?'" He didn't answer the question directly, but there was enough of a flicker of recognition on his face that I realized I had hit pretty close to the nub of it.

RELATED: Lt. Col. Alex Vindman: How Trump's coup attempt encouraged Putin's Ukraine invasion

An entire American infantry division had been ordered to go to Mosul and not told what to do when they got there, other than to do what they were now doing, which was driving around and defending themselves from insurgent attacks, but basically occupying space. Being there. You might say they were engaged in the occupation of Mosul, but that wasn't true, because you can't occupy a city or a country unless you've conquered it, and that wasn't what had happened with the 101st and Mosul.

Petraeus and his soldiers faced different reactions from the citizens of Mosul and northern Iraq. The Kurds were happy they were there. I visited a Kurdish unit at an outpost near the Turkish border, and they couldn't have been nicer to the brigade commander I was with. They served us a lavish lunch and took us all around and showed us their fortifications and told us what they were doing. The Shiites were less happy, but they weren't what you would call angry with Petraeus and his army, because they had been second-class citizens under Saddam and now that the Americans had come, they saw an opportunity to take over from the hated Baath Party of the Sunni tribes loyal to Saddam, who had run the country before the Americans got there. And then there were the former Baath party officials and Sunni commanders and soldiers of Saddam's army. They weren't happy at all, because they had been deposed from power, and they were probably the ones who were laying IEDs and shooting at American soldiers every time they got a chance.

And then it came to me: Petraeus and his division were waiting to be relieved by another American unit so they could go home. I soon discovered they were scheduled to return to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, about a month later. I asked who was coming to replace them and discovered it was a "Stryker" brigade from the 9th Infantry Division, which was downright astounding. Petraeus had about 30,000 troops spread over an area the size of Pennsylvania, and even he admitted he didn't have a large enough force to occupy this area that was full of insurgents who were fighting his soldiers and killing them. And now a unit one-third the size of his division was coming in.

I asked one of the brigade commanders who gave that order, and he answered, "General Rove." He was referring to Karl Rove, the Republican consultant who had run George W. Bush's campaign and was now a senior adviser to the president. The sarcastic referral to Rove as a "general" was because everything coming out of Washington to the American forces in Iraq was being done with an eye to Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. Orders had come down for the 101st and other units in Iraq to lower their casualty rates, because dead American bodies weren't exactly selling well to voters back home. Now "General Rove" was going to send a much smaller force into Mosul, perhaps in hopes that with fewer soldiers, they would suffer fewer casualties. Which was upside down and backward, of course, but then Rove wasn't really a general, so how the hell would he know?

The story of Petraeus and the 101st was essentially the story of America's war in Iraq. Units were sent over there and given tasks like occupying cities and training Iraq's reconstituted army while suffering as few casualties as possible, which was a contradiction in terms because they were in a war. And then those units were sent back to the U.S. and replaced with new units, and so on and so on.

Petraeus returned several times on other missions, and then he was sent to solve the hellish situation the U.S. had gotten ourselves into by 2007 when it appeared to be losing the war. He came up with the "surge" that suppressed opposition for a time and lowered casualties, but it didn't answer the question that I had way back in 2003, which was what the hell was America doing in Iraq?

Our military was also fighting a war in Afghanistan, and in 2010, Petraeus replaced Gen. Stanley McChrystal as commander of U.S. forces there. By that time, the U.S. had been rather unsuccessfully occupying Afghanistan for almost 10 years — or doing something anyway.

RELATED: War is the greatest evil: Russia was baited into this crime — but that's no excuse

McChrystal is the other commentator on MSNBC who seems to be on the ball about what is going on over in Ukraine, and it finally dawned on me why these two former American generals understand the situation so well: because they did the same thing to Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. played the role of Russia in those two countries, invading them and trying to occupy them with forces that were too small to accomplish the mission, just as the Russians have. Now Petraeus and McChrystal can sit at home in their studies with a clear understanding of the problems the Russians face in Ukraine — because they faced the same problems themselves. They had to deal with populations that didn't want us there, and were bent on fighting us as fiercely as they could to drive us out. Iraqi and Afghan citizens who didn't want us invading their countries fired RPGs at our vehicles. They set up ambushes to trap our convoys. They fired AK-47s at our soldiers and killed them.

We fought the insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, but neither Petraeus nor McChrystal nor the soldiers they commanded did what the Russians are doing in Ukraine: purposefully targeting civilians and civilian neighborhoods and hospitals and schools with thermobaric missiles and cluster bombs. But thousands of civilians were killed in both conflicts. The Watson Institute at Brown University has attempted to count civilian deaths in its "Costs of War" study. According to the institute, civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan were caused by airstrikes, crossfire, IEDs, assassinations, bombings, night raids on suspected enemy positions, including civilian homes, and other causes. It is unknown how many civilian deaths are attributable to American forces, but the Watson Institute estimates that 71,000 civilians were killed in Afghanistan and somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 were killed in Iraq.

When I was in Iraq, I saw the discipline involved in keeping American soldiers who were under attack every day by an enemy they couldn't see from striking out indiscriminately against the neighborhoods from which hostile fire was coming. American forces made mistakes and civilians were killed, but they didn't launch a campaign of terror against a civilian population the way the Russians appear to be doing in Ukraine.

The Russians invaded Ukraine without provocation, and they are attempting to subjugate and occupy it by attacking not just its army, but its entire population. You would think they would have learned from what happened to them in Afghanistan in 1980 when they were driven out of that country in abject defeat, and you would think they would have learned from the way the U.S. lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They obviously haven't.

Petraeus and McChrystal understand exactly what's going to happen to the Russians in Ukraine, because it's the same thing that happened to our army in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Russians will end up being driven out of Ukraine by the people who live there, because the cities the invaders have been ordered to "take" belong to the people who are defending them. Like the Iraqis and the Afghans, the Ukrainians mean it, and that is why they will end up winning the war the Russians have brought to their country.

That is why the city of Mosul is still there and David Petraeus is gone, and it's why Kabul is still there and Stanley McChrystal is gone. The citizens of Mosul and Kabul meant it when they told the Americans to get the hell out of their cities and go home. That's why the city of Aleppo, damaged as it may be, is still there and will be rebuilt as it has been for thousands of years, and that's why the Russians who bombed it are now bombing other cities in another country. Aleppo has been destroyed and rebuilt for millennia by the people who fought to defend it and those who are descended from the defenders of the past. One of the apparent lessons of history is that wars will never stop being fought over land that one group holds and another group wants.

Wars and the reasons they are fought are stupid because the people who order them are stupid, and that truth hasn't changed for thousands of years. The Russian who ordered his army to "take" a neighboring country that doesn't belong to him will end up in his dacha somewhere in the Ural, just as the American who ordered his army to "take" countries far from his shores has ended up on his ranch somewhere in Texas.

It's always men, and they're always egomaniacal and arrogant and stupid. History marches on and there are ruins to prove it that you can visit all around the world, including right here in the good old U.S. of A. Syria has Aleppo and we have Gettysburg, and soon Ukraine will have Kyiv and Kharkiv and Kherson.

So where were the 'good guys with guns'? Standing around doing nothing, as usual

Lucian K. Truscott IV,

 Salon
May 28, 2022

Uvalde law enforcement officers (Photo by CHANDAN KHANNA for AFP)

Nearly 10 years have passed since the last school shooting that killed as many children as were murdered in Uvalde, Texas, on Tuesday. That shooting, at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, took the lives of 20 children and six adults. It was supposed to be the mass shooting that changed everything, remember? The killings were so horrific, most of the victims so young and innocent, that surely the House and the Senate could come up with some sort of "common sense" gun control measures that everyone could agree on.

This article first appeared in Salon.

Ha! Ten years have passed, and what has happened? Exactly nothing. Why? At least in part because within days of the Sandy Hook shooting, the National Rifle Association, one of the largest contributors to the political campaigns of (mostly Republican) politicians in the country, swung into action to stop any momentum for new gun laws before they could even get going.

Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, called a press conference in Washington and with a single sentence, began a refrain about guns and gun violence and gun control that is still with us today: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said that day. What we might call the LaPierre Rule has become gospel for gun owners, gun manufacturers, and the political party that opposes any sort of gun control, the Republican Party. LaPierre's Rule devolved into sub-rules, such as this gem: The solution to gun violence isn't fewer guns, it's more guns in the hands of more people.

RELATED: Uvalde shooting timeline exposes an ugly truth: Cops have no legal duty to protect you

The NRA began a campaign after Sandy Hook to put an armed police officer in every school and to push for "open carry" laws across the country. These are state laws that allow you to openly carry a gun — of any kind, handgun or rifle — on your person or in your car without a permit. At this point, 31 states have open carry laws on their books. Fifteen states require a permit to carry a handgun, and only five, including the District of Columbia, have laws that ban the carrying of handguns in public.

Last year, the state of Texas passed its own law allowing the open carrying of handguns and other firearms without a permit. That law was passed less than two years after mass shootings in El Paso and Odessa killed 30 people. The solution to bad guys having guns is more guns, see? Texans don't want to make guns harder to buy, or to limit the times and places citizens can carry their guns. They want to make it easier. They want more guns on the street, not fewer guns.

Figures on gun ownership in Texas vary. One study I saw, by World Population Review, says that 45.7 percent of Texas citizens over the age of 18 own a gun. Another study, by the Rand Corporation, says that 37 percent of adults in Texas live in a household with a firearm. A recent report on NBC said that Texas has the highest percentage of gun ownership in the country. After the shooting on Tuesday, a tweet by Gov. Greg Abbott from 2015 surfaced in which he said, "I'm EMBARRASSED: Texas #2 in nation for new gun purchases, behind CALIFORNIA. Let's pick up the pace Texans." The tweet was posted following a report in the Houston Chronicle that gun purchases in Texas had topped one million for the year.

In Uvalde, the "good guys with guns" wearing police uniforms stood around for almost an hour before storming a classroom and killing the murderer of 19 children and two teachers.

No matter which figure you use, that's one hell of a lot of "good guys with a gun" in the state of Texas, don't you think? If all that's necessary to take down a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, the question after the Uvalde shooting is, where were they? Even the good guys with guns wearing police uniforms, it was revealed on Friday, waited almost an hour before they stormed the classroom where the shooter was, and 19 of them waited until they could be backed up by a SWAT team from the Border Patrol before they finally used their guns to kill the murderer of 19 children and two teachers.

The shooter, an 18-year-old resident of Uvalde, had purchased two AR-15 semiautomatic rifles and more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition and 50 — fifty — high-capacity magazines only days after his birthday on May 16. Texas laws require only that you be 18 years old to buy a rifle in the state, but at that age, you can buy any kind of rifle, including a semiautomatic AR-15 style weapon. The shooter was able to buy two of the AR-15s in the days after his birthday when he was apparently already making plans to kill children at an elementary school in Uvalde. Much has been made of the fact that he was not old enough to buy a beer, but he was old enough to buy a rifle capable of firing two to three bullets per second. He was also able to buy the seven 30-round magazines, containing at least 210 bullets.

On Friday we heard reports that citizens of Uvalde, including at least one parent of a child who was killed, were outside the school yelling at armed police officers to go inside and take on the shooter. Cell phone video shot at the scene at 12:37 p.m., while the shooter was inside the school killing children, show one officer holding up his hands trying to prevent a person from filming him and shooing a crowd of people away from the doors of the school. One person can be heard calling to the others that they should enter the school and storm the shooter because the cops aren't doing anything. Another video shot at the same time showed numerous police officers in full tactical gear restraining parents who were trying to enter the school to retrieve their children. One father was pepper-sprayed in the face and a mother was handcuffed. In the background, a police officer in armored gear is hiding behind the bed of a pickup truck aiming his AR-style police rifle at the door of the school.

So some of the good guys with guns were doing exactly what so many cops are accused of every day: menacing civilians and pushing them around and threatening to arrest them for doing nothing that was even remotely illegal.

A spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety said Friday that the gunman was in the school for nearly an hour before a SWAT team from the Border Patrol arrived and was able to get into the classroom where he was and kill him. By that time, all the children in the classroom were dead.

Also absent from the scene in Uvalde were any of the 13 million people who own guns in the state of Texas, all those good guys with guns that Wayne LaPierre has told us are the only thing that can stop "a bad guy with a gun."

Watching the coverage of the aftermath of mass shootings in this country has become commonplace. The shooting at the Tops Supermarket in Buffalo happened two weeks ago, and here we are looking at images of yet another exterior of yet another building where someone carrying an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle walked in and killed people, this time children this time. The scene is always the same: Heavily armed police officers clad in camouflage uniforms, protected by bulletproof vests and wearing helmets, along with an entire panoply of military-style tactical gear, are milling around talking to each other. A few of them are dispatched to do what the army calls "set up a perimeter," which in the case of mass shootings amounts to stringing yellow crime-scene tape around the scene and then guarding it so civilians can't get near the scene and presumably contaminate evidence. In Uvalde, at least one armored personnel carrier could be seen near the school after all the shooting was over and all the kids were dead.

There are always a lot of heavily armed police officers at the scene of mass shootings after they have occurred. It is beyond me why they think it's necessary to show up looking like they're about to be dispatched to serve on the front lines in Ukraine or some other war zone. But there they are, wearing enough body armor and carrying enough firepower to assault an infantry battalion, and what are they doing? Standing around.

Every time there's another mass shooting, more money flows into police departments to buy military-spec rifles and military-spec shotguns and military-spec body armor. Why? To look cool as they stand around in the parking lot while people die.

It's all of a piece. Every time there is another mass shooting, more and more money floods into the budgets of police departments and they go out and buy military-spec M-4 rifles and military-spec shotguns and military-spec body armor and military-spec helmets and military-style camouflage uniforms. Why? Because they're cool, that's why. If they're going to go up against one of these mass shooters, every one of whom is outfitted in military-style tactical gear and carrying military-style AR-15 rifles, then by God, they're not going to be one-upped! Just like Greg Abbott and his exhortation to Texans to buy more guns so they could catch up with California (!), the cops are going to buy more guns and more body armor — more of everything — so they can be ready the next time they're called upon to stand around in a parking lot of a building after 10 or 20 people have been shot and their dead bodies are strewn around the floor somewhere inside.

There's a weird, ironic perfection to the fact that the NRA's convention began on Friday in Houston, offering Wayne LaPierre, who is still the CEO of that august organization of gun-lovers, the chance come up with yet another exhortation to his masses. One year they tried "my dead hands," as in, if you want my guns you'll have to pry them from my dead hands. Then came Wayne's good guys with guns.

Maybe this year Wayne will explain to us that the reason we've had all these school shootings and mass killings is because we don't have enough good guys with guns. More good guys! More guns! That'll show these mass murderers! Next time one of them shoots up a school, we'll have even more people standing around outside picking their camo-clad asses as the bodies of the dead lie there inside submitting to the ministrations of the crime scene investigators.

More guns, and more crime scene investigators! That'll show 'em that in Texas, we're second to nobody!

Police don't stop crime -- so what are they for?

John Stoehr
May 28, 2022

Police outside Robb Elementary School following a shooting on May 24, 2022, in Uvalde, Texas.

 © Dario Lopez-Mills, AP

Sometimes it’s the little things that evoke the biggest feels. I have been writing about the Uvalde massacre most of the week. I have been so focused on facts and arguments, I haven’t sobbed. But the tears came this morning after reading a report by KENS, a TV news station local to that Texas community, where 19 fourth-graders were shot to pieces.

The report was an eyewitness account by a survivor of the shooting. The boy, whom the reporter did not identify, said he and a friend “heard the shooting through the door.” He added that, “I told my friend to hide under something so he won't find us. I was hiding hard. And I was telling my friend to not talk because he is going to hear us.”

The boy told the reporter what happened after police came through the classroom door Salvador Ramos had locked behind him. “When the cops came, the cop said: 'Yell if you need help!' And one of the people in my class said 'help.' The guy overheard and he came in and shot her.”

That’s it. That’s the detail that got me. A child desperately needing to trust a caring adult. A child shot to pieces for needing and trusting.

Because of a cop’s incompetence.

The boy’s eyewitness account is more damning in context.

The Post reported Thursday that Ramos strolled into the school “unobstructed” with a long gun. Officials had said he encountered three cops. First, an in-school cop. Then, two others arriving on the scene. Officials had said the latter two officers sustained injuries.

Turns out all that was a lie.

Police arrived “four minutes” after Ramos entered the building, officials conceded. Meanwhile, while Ramos was shooting 19 fourth-graders to pieces, they dithered outside for an hour.

A video shows some carrying semiautomatic rifles. It shows one cop with his taser drawn, at the ready. Another cop restrains what appears to be a parent in order to prevent them from entering the building.

This is the context in which the boy’s testimony is even more damning than the incompetent cop who got a girl killed for needing to trust.

Irma Garcia and Eva Mireles were the boy’s teachers, the KENS reporter said. They were shot to pieces. They saved his life, he said.

“They were nice teachers," he said.

"They went in front of my classmates to help.


“To save them.”

We have entered a familiar period after shooting massacres during which officials justify what police did and why. We are hearing Thin Blue Line advocates saying it was reasonable to hang back. After all, the scene was dangerous. The suspect had a semiautomatic rifle.

This familiar pattern, by which police authorities presume the public is on their side, and won’t question them too much, is fraying as more details emerge as to what the police didn’t do and why they didn’t do it.


On the video, you can hear rapid-fire gunshots followed by mothers wailing in despair, pleading with armed police to save their kids.

The good guys with the guns were not that good. Indeed, they were deadly. It was the teachers, who were not armed, who did the most to save their students. The real heroes are dead. The cowards are alive.

But the living get to write history.

Matter of fact, police departments across the country do as much to influence public opinion as they do “crime fighting.” Their influence is so great the public finds it completely understandable when cops refuse doing their jobs in the face of mere scrutiny. It’s so strong cops can get away with murder on account of murder being seen as a tragic but sometimes necessary response to the dangers of facing an infestation of criminals and crime. It’s so huge few complain about Uvalde’s cop shop sucking up 40 percent of the town’s yearly budget.

The influence of American police departments on public opinion is deeply rooted in the reason cop shops exist – yes, to “protect and serve,” sometimes, but more often to serve as the last line of defense against democratic forces threatening to flatten the old orders of social and political power. Cops are white power incarnate.

So expect to hear familiar rhetoric about “brave men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line to protect communities.”

Don’t believe it.

Turn that story around.

What are cops for?

First, they don’t stop crime.

“If larger police forces make us safe, then by that logic, the U.S. would already be the safest society in the world as over $115 billion is spent on policing a year, a budget larger than any other country’s military budget except for China,” wrote Kinjo Kiema. “Over 50 years of crime data shows only 2 percent of crimes end in conviction. Police don’t stop crime that has occurred, nor do they prevent it from happening.”

Second, police don’t stop violence.

“When researchers account for the impacts of socio-economic and other factors, the reality that police don’t protect us from violence — because their purpose is to use violence to maintain ‘order’ premised on existing relations of power — becomes more clear,” according to research by activists Mariame Kaba and Andrea J. Ritchie.

Third, police create violence.

“Police are violence workers,” Kaba and Ritchie wrote. “Their response to violence is more violence or the threat of violence. This means more police, police contact and police resources automatically means more violence because cops add their own violence to what’s already” there.

“They are the sources of violence.”

What are police for?

As I’m writing this, the Times reports that Border Patrol agents arrived earlier than previously known. But when they got there, the local Uvalde cops “would not allow them to go after the gunman who had opened fire on students inside the school, according to two officials.”

They “had driven up from the Mexican border, one official said. The official said it was not clear to the federal agents why their team was needed, and why the local SWAT team did not respond.”

As I’m writing, the LA Times reported that the kids “begged for police to enter their classroom and save them, repeatedly calling 911, as a team of 19 police officers waited in the corridor for an hour because a commander believed the situation had shifted from active shooter to a barricade subject, a Texas law enforcement officer said today.”

They don’t stop crime.

They don’t stop violence.

They create violence.

That’s another detail that gets me. We need to trust law enforcement.

Yet law enforcement so often has us wondering why we should.

John Stoehr is a fellow at the Yale Journalism Initiative; a contributing writer for the Washington Monthly; a contributing editor for Religion Dispatches; and senior editor at Alternet. Follow him @johnastoehr.

So where were the 'good guys with guns'? Standing around doing nothing, as usual

Lucian K. Truscott IV,

 Salon
May 28, 2022

Uvalde law enforcement officers (Photo by CHANDAN KHANNA for AFP)

Nearly 10 years have passed since the last school shooting that killed as many children as were murdered in Uvalde, Texas, on Tuesday. That shooting, at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, took the lives of 20 children and six adults. It was supposed to be the mass shooting that changed everything, remember? The killings were so horrific, most of the victims so young and innocent, that surely the House and the Senate could come up with some sort of "common sense" gun control measures that everyone could agree on.

This article first appeared in Salon.

Ha! Ten years have passed, and what has happened? Exactly nothing. Why? At least in part because within days of the Sandy Hook shooting, the National Rifle Association, one of the largest contributors to the political campaigns of (mostly Republican) politicians in the country, swung into action to stop any momentum for new gun laws before they could even get going.

Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, called a press conference in Washington and with a single sentence, began a refrain about guns and gun violence and gun control that is still with us today: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said that day. What we might call the LaPierre Rule has become gospel for gun owners, gun manufacturers, and the political party that opposes any sort of gun control, the Republican Party. LaPierre's Rule devolved into sub-rules, such as this gem: The solution to gun violence isn't fewer guns, it's more guns in the hands of more people.

RELATED: Uvalde shooting timeline exposes an ugly truth: Cops have no legal duty to protect you

The NRA began a campaign after Sandy Hook to put an armed police officer in every school and to push for "open carry" laws across the country. These are state laws that allow you to openly carry a gun — of any kind, handgun or rifle — on your person or in your car without a permit. At this point, 31 states have open carry laws on their books. Fifteen states require a permit to carry a handgun, and only five, including the District of Columbia, have laws that ban the carrying of handguns in public.

Last year, the state of Texas passed its own law allowing the open carrying of handguns and other firearms without a permit. That law was passed less than two years after mass shootings in El Paso and Odessa killed 30 people. The solution to bad guys having guns is more guns, see? Texans don't want to make guns harder to buy, or to limit the times and places citizens can carry their guns. They want to make it easier. They want more guns on the street, not fewer guns.

Figures on gun ownership in Texas vary. One study I saw, by World Population Review, says that 45.7 percent of Texas citizens over the age of 18 own a gun. Another study, by the Rand Corporation, says that 37 percent of adults in Texas live in a household with a firearm. A recent report on NBC said that Texas has the highest percentage of gun ownership in the country. After the shooting on Tuesday, a tweet by Gov. Greg Abbott from 2015 surfaced in which he said, "I'm EMBARRASSED: Texas #2 in nation for new gun purchases, behind CALIFORNIA. Let's pick up the pace Texans." The tweet was posted following a report in the Houston Chronicle that gun purchases in Texas had topped one million for the year.

In Uvalde, the "good guys with guns" wearing police uniforms stood around for almost an hour before storming a classroom and killing the murderer of 19 children and two teachers.

No matter which figure you use, that's one hell of a lot of "good guys with a gun" in the state of Texas, don't you think? If all that's necessary to take down a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, the question after the Uvalde shooting is, where were they? Even the good guys with guns wearing police uniforms, it was revealed on Friday, waited almost an hour before they stormed the classroom where the shooter was, and 19 of them waited until they could be backed up by a SWAT team from the Border Patrol before they finally used their guns to kill the murderer of 19 children and two teachers.

The shooter, an 18-year-old resident of Uvalde, had purchased two AR-15 semiautomatic rifles and more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition and 50 — fifty — high-capacity magazines only days after his birthday on May 16. Texas laws require only that you be 18 years old to buy a rifle in the state, but at that age, you can buy any kind of rifle, including a semiautomatic AR-15 style weapon. The shooter was able to buy two of the AR-15s in the days after his birthday when he was apparently already making plans to kill children at an elementary school in Uvalde. Much has been made of the fact that he was not old enough to buy a beer, but he was old enough to buy a rifle capable of firing two to three bullets per second. He was also able to buy the seven 30-round magazines, containing at least 210 bullets.

On Friday we heard reports that citizens of Uvalde, including at least one parent of a child who was killed, were outside the school yelling at armed police officers to go inside and take on the shooter. Cell phone video shot at the scene at 12:37 p.m., while the shooter was inside the school killing children, show one officer holding up his hands trying to prevent a person from filming him and shooing a crowd of people away from the doors of the school. One person can be heard calling to the others that they should enter the school and storm the shooter because the cops aren't doing anything. Another video shot at the same time showed numerous police officers in full tactical gear restraining parents who were trying to enter the school to retrieve their children. One father was pepper-sprayed in the face and a mother was handcuffed. In the background, a police officer in armored gear is hiding behind the bed of a pickup truck aiming his AR-style police rifle at the door of the school.

So some of the good guys with guns were doing exactly what so many cops are accused of every day: menacing civilians and pushing them around and threatening to arrest them for doing nothing that was even remotely illegal.

A spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety said Friday that the gunman was in the school for nearly an hour before a SWAT team from the Border Patrol arrived and was able to get into the classroom where he was and kill him. By that time, all the children in the classroom were dead.

Also absent from the scene in Uvalde were any of the 13 million people who own guns in the state of Texas, all those good guys with guns that Wayne LaPierre has told us are the only thing that can stop "a bad guy with a gun."

Watching the coverage of the aftermath of mass shootings in this country has become commonplace. The shooting at the Tops Supermarket in Buffalo happened two weeks ago, and here we are looking at images of yet another exterior of yet another building where someone carrying an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle walked in and killed people, this time children this time. The scene is always the same: Heavily armed police officers clad in camouflage uniforms, protected by bulletproof vests and wearing helmets, along with an entire panoply of military-style tactical gear, are milling around talking to each other. A few of them are dispatched to do what the army calls "set up a perimeter," which in the case of mass shootings amounts to stringing yellow crime-scene tape around the scene and then guarding it so civilians can't get near the scene and presumably contaminate evidence. In Uvalde, at least one armored personnel carrier could be seen near the school after all the shooting was over and all the kids were dead.

There are always a lot of heavily armed police officers at the scene of mass shootings after they have occurred. It is beyond me why they think it's necessary to show up looking like they're about to be dispatched to serve on the front lines in Ukraine or some other war zone. But there they are, wearing enough body armor and carrying enough firepower to assault an infantry battalion, and what are they doing? Standing around.

It's all of a piece. Every time there is another mass shooting, more and more money floods into the budgets of police departments and they go out and buy military-spec M-4 rifles and military-spec shotguns and military-spec body armor and military-spec helmets and military-style camouflage uniforms. Why? Because they're cool, that's why. If they're going to go up against one of these mass shooters, every one of whom is outfitted in military-style tactical gear and carrying military-style AR-15 rifles, then by God, they're not going to be one-upped! Just like Greg Abbott and his exhortation to Texans to buy more guns so they could catch up with California (!), the cops are going to buy more guns and more body armor — more of everything — so they can be ready the next time they're called upon to stand around in a parking lot of a building after 10 or 20 people have been shot and their dead bodies are strewn around the floor somewhere inside.

There's a weird, ironic perfection to the fact that the NRA's convention began on Friday in Houston, offering Wayne LaPierre, who is still the CEO of that august organization of gun-lovers, the chance to come up with yet another exhortation to his masses. One year they tried "my dead hands," as in, if you want my guns you'll have to pry them from my dead hands. Then came Wayne's good guys with guns.

Maybe this year Wayne will explain to us that the reason we've had all these school shootings and mass killings is because we don't have enough good guys with guns. More good guys! More guns! That'll show these mass murderers! Next time one of them shoots up a school, we'll have even more people standing around outside picking their camo-clad asses as the bodies of the dead lie there inside submitting to the ministrations of the crime scene investigators.

More guns, and more crime scene investigators! That'll show 'em that in Texas, we're second to nobody!

THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGIN

Psycho secession: Texas’ lost-cause lawsuit was the first shot in a new Civil War

Published December 12, 2020
By Lucian K. Truscott IV, Salon- Commentary
\

President Donald Trump and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (Facebook).

They didn’t bother with writing articles of secession this time. No, Ken Paxton, the disgraced attorney general of the state of Texas, did that for them when he filed a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the presidential election. On Wednesday, Missouri and 16 other states filed a brief with the court seeking to join the Texas lawsuit, which alleges that the four decisive swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia violated the Constitution by allowing mail-in voting in the November election. On Thursday, a majority of the Republican caucus in the House, 126 members of Congress, signed on to the lawsuit along with the instigator in chief, Donald Trump. Twenty-five states and territories signed a brief opposing the Texas lawsuit. Friday evening, the Supreme Court rejected the suit out of hand.

The 18 states and 126 members of Congress, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Minority Whip Steve Scalise, are seceding from democracy. It amounts to nothing less than an act of sedition by the entire Republican Party, 70 percent of whom believe that Joe Biden’s election was illegitimate, according to a Quinnipiac poll released on Thursday. In contrast, 98 percent of Democrats think Biden’s victory was legitimate, along with 62 percent of independents.

The last time anything like this happened was in 1860, when the election of Abraham Lincoln led almost immediately to declarations of secession by seven states between Dec. 20, 1860 and Feb. 1, 1861. Two months later, on April 12, the bombardment of Fort Sumter began, and the Civil War was underway.

It’s not a shooting war — yet — but Texas didn’t just file a lawsuit this week, it set a match to the Constitution of the United States. It isn’t just that these Republicans don’t recognize Joe Biden as our next president. They don’t want to be part of the democracy that this country was founded on. They don’t respect the votes of their fellow citizens. They don’t want what more than 80 million people wanted when they cast their votes in this election. They want what Donald Trump wants.

Thankfully, it’s not the whole country. The Quinnipiac poll found that 60 percent of registered voters think that Biden’s victory was legitimate. But it wasn’t the whole country in 1860, either. It was only after the election of Lincoln that the Southern states seceded from the Union over the issue of slavery.

This time there isn’t a single issue, there’s a single man: Donald Trump. In this way, what’s happening right now in this country is eerily similar to what happened in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s with Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. Trump has identified and used the same sort of mass hysteria Hitler did — a sense of resentment among his supporters that somehow they have been left behind and misunderstood and humiliated, and that only he, Trump, understands them and is willing to stand up for them and will bring back their rightful way of life.

So far, Trump has only played around with the kind of violence that Hitler made use of to achieve power and then consolidate it. Trump used implied violence in the chants of “Lock her up” that energized supporters at his rallies in 2016 and throughout the campaign of 2020. By staying silent this year when armed protesters occupied the State Capitol in Michigan, Trump implied his support, and his exhortations to “liberate” states that were mandating lockdowns to fight COVID were taken by many as invitations to violence.

Now armed protesters have gathered outside the home of the Michigan secretary of state, and Georgia election officials report that they are receiving death threats and racist voice mails. The Republican Party of Arizona has retweeted exhortations from those who say, “I’m willing to give up my life for this fight,” suggesting it’s time to “die for something.” The New York Times reported this week that the chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission has said that “people on Twitter have posted photographs of my house.” Another tweet mentioned her children and threatened “I’ve heard you’ll have quite a crowd of patriots showing up at your door.”

The conservative website The Bulwark reported this week that far-right websites have been posting addresses and other personal information about Republican elected officials in Georgia, superimposing target crosshairs over images of their faces. Right-wing Republicans are in full cheerleader mode trying to turn Kyle Rittenhouse, who is accused of murdering two people and wounding another at a Kenosha, Wisconsin, protest, into a hero of the Trump cause. A Democratic state representative in Pennsylvania told the New York Times that “we’ve been getting emails all the time, all hours of the day and night,” and that “they’re getting more angry, and a lot of calls are saying we won’t be forgetting.”

This kind of stuff is not a joke. The fantastic lie that has gripped the Republican Party started out with everyone going along with Trump’s fantasy and kind of humoring him. But now it’s taken a deadly turn. Trump has been calling Republican state representatives on the phone and pressuring them to go along with his demands that they ignore the votes that have taken place in swing states and appoint electors that will vote for him. If they step out of line, they’re branded as traitors, cowards, RINOs. He’s doing this kind of stuff to his own people, to loyal Republicans who have voted the party line since they were in short pants.

When you add in what’s been happening in red states with COVID, it’s jaw-dropping. Governors and Republican-controlled state legislatures are so intimidated that they won’t pass mask mandates and bar closures, not to mention rules against mass gatherings. COVID cases and hospitalizations in red states are off the charts. They are lining up refrigerated trucks outside hospitals in states like North and South Dakota. Republicans are killing their own people in craven attempts to keep Donald Trump from attacking them on Twitter. God only knows what’s going to happen in those states when the COVID vaccines become widely available, although we’re getting some idea with reports of people standing up at meetings of county commissioners pledging not only that they won’t wear masks, they’ll also refuse to be vaccinated.

http://www.rgnorman.co.uk/artphotoslife.asp?pid=275

The Mason-Dixon line is psychological this time. These people have lost their minds. They have seceded from sanity and reason. This Civil War isn’t being fought with rifles and pistols. It’s a war fought with lies and delusions. This week it passed the number of Americans killed in World War II, and its victims are just as dead as the bodies buried at Anzio and Normandy. Americans are dying every time Mitch McConnell stands up and blocks a COVID relief bill. They are dying every time a Republican senator like Ron Johnson presents testimony from an anti-vaxxer as if it were a sane person instead of an outright idiot. They’re dying by the thousands with their mask-less hubris. They’re dying for Donald Trump, but at least for now, our democracy has not died with them.

US: In Texas, Trump supporters and lawmakers threaten secession if Biden win is certified

Trump and his party have been claiming voter fraud in the November polls

Web Desk December 13, 2020 

After the US Supreme Court rejected Texas' bid to throw out voting results in four key states that president-elect Joe Biden won in November's presidential election, the Texas Republican Party issued a statement raising the spectre of secession. “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a union of states that will abide by the constitution,” said party chairman Allen West. He said the court's order had established "a precedent that says states can violate the US Constitution and not be held accountable". Trump and his allies have been claiming voter fraud in the November polls. 

A Texas lawmaker even announced plans to introduce a referendum pushing to secede from the US. Republican lawmaker Kyle Biedermann said in a statement, according to Fox News: "The federal government is out of control and does not represent the values of Texans. That is why I am committing to file legislation this session that will allow a referendum to give Texans a vote for the state of Texas to reassert its status as an independent nation.”



The US Supreme Court had earlier rejected a lawsuit seeking to overturn the results of the presidential election in several key battleground states won by Joe Biden, effectively ending President Donald Trump's bid to challenge the outcome of the November 3 polls. The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a bid from Texas' attorney general, and backed by Trump, to block the ballots of millions of voters in battleground states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that went in favour of president-elect Biden, who won 306 electoral seats in the polls. Only 270 seats are required for winning the race to the White House.

The election results will be formally certified next week by a 538-member electoral college.

The 'secession' statement raised hackles within the Democratic Party. There are increasing calls to sanction the lawmakers who supported the same, and to exclude them from the Congress, citing Section 3 of the fourteenth amendment of the US Constitution.

House majority leader Steny Hoyer said the Supreme Court's decision should put an end to Trump's attempts to overturn the results of the presidential election that he lost. The results are clear, there was no widespread fraud, and Joe Biden is the next president of the United States, he said. "The 126 Republicans who signed on in support of this case should be ashamed of themselves for putting their own political interests before the interests of our nation, the Constitution, and our democratic principles," Hoyer said.

Supporters of President Donald Trump announced they will stifle Washington on Sunday with a pair of rallies. The rallies come a month after a pro-Trump demonstration that drew at least 10,000 people to the capital. The day began with Trump thrilling his supporters by driving by in his limousine and ended with scattered clashes between Trump supporters and local activists. Sunday's rallies are meant as a show of force just two days before the electoral college meets to formally elect Joe Biden as the next president.

-Inputs from agencies

The next insurrection: They don't have the votes, but they've got the guns
Lucian K. Truscott IV, Salon
July 03, 2021




Pro-Trump protesters trying to enter Capitol building. (lev radin / Shutterstock.com)

You want to know what has doomed Nancy Pelosi's attempts to get a bipartisan agreement to investigate the violent assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6? Every time she has talked about why we need a bipartisan commission or the select committee, she said they were necessary "so nothing like this will ever happen again."

This article first appeared in Salon.

Republicans aren't against investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection because they fear it will make them look bad. They're against doing anything to make sure that such an insurrection doesn't happen again.

The assault on the Capitol is already damaging to the Republican Party image, at least to outsiders. The Capitol was attacked by a violent mob of Trump supporters. It's doubtful there were any Democrats among them. The assault took place immediately after a Trump rally on the Ellipse and was incited by the then-president. Several Republican members of Congress joined Trump in addressing the crowd, along with other famous party stalwarts like Rudy Giuliani. It was a Republican rally with a Republican crowd. So was the mob at the Capitol.

Republican members of Congress know it was their supporters out there beating down the doors of the Capitol, ransacking the well of the Senate and looting congressional offices. Republicans don't want to investigate the violence at the Capitol because they want to leave the door open for it to happen again.

Most of them come from safe seats in Republican-majority congressional districts, many of them in Republican-controlled states. Republican senators, not all of them but most, come from Republican states in the South and Midwest. But every one of them can read census numbers, and every one of them understands that their days are numbered, even in states that have been Republican strongholds for decades, like Arizona and Texas. They saw the Election Day returns which showed previously Republican suburbs falling to the Democrats all over the country. They read the depressing voting numbers for millennials and younger voters that show them strongly leaning Democratic. Even a dull, lumbering beast like the Republican Party can tell when a water hole runs dry.

They can read the polls showing how popular Democratic issues are, including improved access to health care, the pandemic rescue bill, the infrastructure bill and the American Family Plan. How many calls have you heard Republicans make lately for repealing Obamacare? How many speeches have you heard them make saying we don't need to spend money on crumbling bridges, obsolete airports and ancient, failing mass transit like the Long Island Railroad or the Chicago Transit Authority or the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority? They don't dare oppose spending that is in any way grounded in reality. All they can come up with is screaming about "socialism" and "Democratic Party wish-lists," because their constituents drive across cracking bridges and commute on failing transit systems and pay a third of their income on rent and a third on child care and way more than they can afford on health care.

Electorally, Republicans are hanging on by their fingernails. In 2020, in the midst of the worst pandemic since 1918, before a single American had received a life-saving vaccination, with 230,000 already dead from the coronavirus and more deaths on the way, voters turned out in record numbers. And Republicans lost. They lost the White House. They lost the House of Representatives. After a runoff election, they lost control of the Senate. They did well locally in Republican-controlled states, maintaining control of state houses and governorships, but they lost ground in the areas where the country is growing. They lost the big cities. They lost the suburbs. They lost in population centers in the South and Midwest and West. They lost in the places where people are moving, where young people are getting jobs when they graduate from college, where many seniors are choosing to retire.

After the 2020 election, Gallup found in a December poll that 31 percent of Americans identified as Democrats, 25 percent as Republicans and 41 percent as independents. When independents were asked whether they were "Democratic leaners" or "Republican leaners," 50 percent said they leaned Democratic, and 39 percent leaned Republican. These were not good numbers for the Republican Party. Nobody knows better than Republicans that there are fewer of them than there are of us.

You've heard chapter and verse from me and others about how Republicans are passing voter suppression laws to make it more difficult for Democrats to vote. They know they don't have the votes. They don't have them now, and they'll have even fewer of them in the future.

That's why they've started to concentrate their efforts at the state level on laws that change how votes are counted and who counts them, moving the center of power from elected officials like secretaries of state and appointed officials like election administrators to state legislatures, inherently political bodies where the counting can be managed and controlled politically.

It's why they're clinging to Trump's lie that the election was stolen from him, and it's why their own efforts to "audit" the 2020 election results in places like Arizona are so shambolic and absurd. They know that if honest assessments are done of how the election turned out in battleground states, they will come to the same conclusions that a 55-page report by the Michigan state Senate did last week: There was no election fraud in the 2020 election. None. Zero. Nada.

They've been downplaying the assault on the Capitol, calling it "a normal tourist visit" as Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia did during a hearing a few weeks ago. He is among a growing number of Republicans in Congress who are making the case that nothing really bad happened on Jan. 6, so there's no need to investigate it. They blocked the creation of a nonpartisan 9/11 style commission to investigate the insurrection, and they're in the process of undercutting Pelosi's select committee by labeling it as a Democratic exercise in blame-laying.

Furthermore, they're absolutely right. When the select committee issues its report, it's going to lay the blame where Republicans want it least: on Trump for inciting the riot, and on their own constituents for committing insurrection against the government. And the select committee will likely produce evidence that Republicans are not interested in seeing in the light of day: detailed accounts of the violence committed by the mob and reports of the preparations some of the mob had taken that we haven't seen yet, such as evidence of weapons caches — and planning by some insurrectionists to use them.

Republicans don't want a report that basically comes out and says, Here's how close we came to a coup against our government, and here is what they are planning next. Laws that put partisan political bodies like legislatures in charge of counting votes make it much more likely that an upcoming election will end up in a political wrangle — not down in the states where the counting takes place, but in Washington.

Think about it: there were no controls whatsoever on that mob in Washington on Jan. 6. Estimates of the size of the crowd at Trump's rally on the Ellipse ran as high as 30,000. More than 800 rioters are estimated to have broken through police barricades and entered the Capitol, with as many as 10,000 outside. They outnumbered police by the thousands.

What if that crowd had been armed? What if instead of carrying iron pipes and bear spray and flag poles they had been carrying AR-15s and pistols? What if some of them were carrying the kinds of bombs that were found outside the Democratic and Republican headquarters? Capitol police couldn't stop them from overwhelming barricades and gaining entrance to the Capitol. Do you think they could have searched that mob for hidden weapons and bombs?

This is why Republicans don't want to see an intensive investigation of the insurrection on Jan. 6. If an investigation proves how bad the insurrection was this time, it might predict what will be possible if a mob of 100,000 or more assault the Capitol or other governmental buildings in Washington, and what that mob might be capable of if they're organized and armed next time.

The Republican Party has reached the point where it does not recognize the legitimacy of elections unless it wins them. Democratic political victories are per se illegitimate in Republican eyes. Republicans are lapping up their own lawlessness and ramping up the insanity. They are turning right-wing lunatics like Kyle Rittenhouse into folk heroes. He is the shooter in Kenosha, Wisconsin, who killed two people and wounded a third during Black Lives Matter protests following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

Republican state legislatures in Oklahoma and Iowa have passed laws granting immunity to drivers who hit protesters with their cars during demonstrations on public streets. Multiple states already have laws allowing both open and concealed carry of firearms without a license, with more such laws on the way.

These are the kinds of laws that not only allow insurrection, but encourage it. The Proud Boys and the Three Percenters and the Oath Keepers and their ilk aren't the right's political fringe anymore. They are the Republican base — and the Republican future.