TRUMP'S MERCENARY MILITIA?

 $1,776,000,000.00 is the proposed taxpayer payout President Trump wants to give those he pardoned of the crimes they were convicted of as a result of participating in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capital.  Many were sentenced to serve time in prison as a result of the due process they were entitled to under the Constitution being carried out.   President Trump did what presidents are also entitled to do under the Constitution which is to exercise the power to pardon those convicted of federal crimes.  What no president has ever done was monetarily compensate those pardoned.  What is even more puzzling is that President Trump wants tax payers to do so, including the Capitol police officers who were attacked by those he pardoned, and anyone in the vicinity who was threatened directly or indirectly by the insurrectionists.  

President Trump does not strike one as being the compassionate type which is underscored by the fact that if he wanted to he could use his own billions to personally compensate them if he was truly moved by their plight of being convicted of their obvious crimes.  But that does not strike one as how President Trump rolls.  President Trump does not throw money, our or his (which this President obviously considers ours to be his), in order to use on things that advantage him personally if he can avoid doing so.  If this is not an act of compassion for those he considers wrongfully convicted and financially inconvenienced because they were doing his bidding at the end of his first presidential term, then what is it?  

The thought of not getting his way or losing something he badly wants seemingly results in him becoming dangerously petulant.  Weakness is not something he wants associated with him.  He cannot be weak and any sense that he is perceived as being so results in his verbally threatening to do political or physical harm; such as, we are seeing in his dealings with Iran.  Not wanting his buttons pushed so that he is compelled to push THE BUTTON or forced to give the command to annihilate an entire civilization, Trump plays the "I've won" game as though the realization of his having won the undeclared war with Iran so has not dawned on Iran or his opponents.  He acts patiently; as in, playing the long game by giving deadlines and then pushing the deadlines down the road to supposedly give whoever is causing him concern time to realize there is no hope but to acquiesce to his demands.  If it worked for him in his private business dealings (and it often did), why not with his dealings on the national and international stage?

President Trump is good at creating diverse issues that takes one's focus off of things that personally matter to him.  He tries to avoid having to deal with any personal or financial problems by what I have described as sleight of hand.  The question in this post is what is motiving him to offer almost $1.776 billion?  The natural question everyone should be asking this president is what is in it for him?  

One cannot help feeling surprised that political commentators and pundits haven't picked up what seems obvious. Losing the mid-term elections could likely end or put a damper on President Trump's aspiration to have congress offer him a third term or see the completion of the monuments to himself in Washington D.C..  To help ensure he won't lose, it is in the realm of possibilities that beyond creating a diversionary tactic to keep our minds preoccupied with the ridiculous notion of reimbursing those who attacked the capitol on Jan. 6, 2021,  there is the more pressing issue that could be motivating him to take such actions.  The first is that he needs a militant presence during midterms, especially in areas where there is need to intimidate voters from showing up at the polls. Who better qualified to do his bidding than those he not only pardoned but also paid for their loyalty back in 2021.  In essence,  President Trump may be ensuring that he has a mercenary militia to personally protect him and ensure that he doesn't lose seats in congress that have been loyal to him during the upcoming election.   

Even if his efforts to pay for a mercenary militia is defeated in congress, it is the thought that counts.  If the militia groups are denied payment, they will blame congress not the President and will do his bidding once again in the hope they will receive renumeration in the long run.  Is this speculation?  Of course it is. But it is speculation that needs consideration by congressional leaders and the general American public.  Do we want to risk having the Presiden'ts personal militia disrupting polling places this coming November of worse?  

I find it hard to believe that no one else is thinking along this line regarding his payout scheme.  I'm sure there are, but the reason it has not made it to the campaign trail or major news outlets or podcasts could be to see how far congress will go with regard to funding such a payout with taxpayer money.  What leads one to think there is devious side to the President's fund is the size of the payment, $1.776 billion is that it is a cute sum to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.   PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES NOT DO CUTE.  Instead, he does code like his comment on the Proud Boys during his debate with Hilary Clinton in 2020 saying, "Stand back and stand by" or his invitatiom to his followers to come to Washington D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021 saying, "It will be wild."  The payout could easily be understood as code for a pre-paid revolution.  

Undoubtedly this is pure speculation, but it is speculation worth considering while keeping an eye on how this payout scheme plays out. 

Norm 

WHEN A KING CAME TO OUR RESCUE

In the era of "NO KINGS" protests in America in which I participated, there is no small amount of irony that King Charles III of Great Britain came to the United States to gently but poignantly remind us while addressing a joint session of Congress of who we are and what both our nations have valued and traditionally stood for since being allies in two world wars.  King Charles offered a unique perspective of our own history as an heir to a royal family that has been part of America's history prior to the American Revolution and beyond.  As a constitutional monarch, he reminded us of the importance of our own constitution and its ties to Magna Carta which he pointed out has been referenced in our Supreme Courts decisions numerous times.  In short, it was perhaps the finest speech ever delivered to a joint session of Congress to date in the 21st century.  

Normally, such a speech as this would have been understood in the context of mutual understanding and gratitude for such shared values between our two nations which on the surface it was.   The context in which King Charles spoke, however,  was set against a backdrop that sharply contrasted with those values; the current autocratic regime that occupies the White House and is supported by its sycophants in Congress and the Supreme Court.   How ironic that a constitutional monarch has to remind us of the importance of checks and balances that is the very foundation upon which our constitutional republic rests.  

Naturally, there were those on both sides of the pond who were not happy with their majesties coming to America.  I am not sure any of us knew what to expect, but for myself and many others it was a momentous occasion that brought relief and hope in a friendship determined to see us through one of the most difficult moments in our nation's history.  King Charles' dignity, wit, and wisdom were clearly on display that spoke well of Great Britain and the British Commonwealth.  That too was set against our President's bumbling rudeness.

* * *

What came to mind during the King's speech was King George III's song from the musical Hamilton, "You'll Be Back."  I have to admit King Charles' speech gave me a sense of longing for rational leadership, intellectual wit, and calm wisdom.  There was also something about a constitutional monarch speaking in revolutionary terms about the need for limitations on personal power and the benefits of checks and balances in democratic nations that contrasted deeply with the current presidential regime's  dismissal of any constitutional restraint used to block the current President's personal ambitions.

What King Charles' visit offered us is the advantage of a head of state and a historical royal family who is constitutionally apolitical and whose only power is to speak officially to those in power, whose job it is to to uphold the people of his realm; to speak to the nation and Commonwealth in both good times and in times of trouble.  There was one comment in King Charles speech, however, that caught my attention and gave me pause to think:

“Standing here today, it is hard not to feel the weight of history on my shoulder — because the modern relationship between our two nations and our own peoples spans not merely 250 years, but over four centuries. It is extraordinary to think that I am the 19th in our line of sovereigns to study, with daily attention, the affairs of America."

I don't know that any president of the United States feels the weight of history on his shoulder the way King Charles does.  It is within being "the 19th in line of sovereigns to study with daily attention, the affairs of America" that lies the power of King Charles to speak to us; not from a constitutional duty to do so but rather from a historical one.  In sharing with us the weight he feels history has on his shoulder, we are reminded that the weight of history rests on our shoulders as well.  

A constitutional monarchy is a living testament to Great Britain's continuity in the living symbols of a family and a monarch that personifies the heritage of the nation they serve.  We in America removed such hereditary symbols after our revolution.  Continuity in America is in the heritage of the ideas we hold to be true and in the belief that they will continue to sustain us in the future, no matter how precarious the present seems.   This continuity is expressed in our constitutional democracy's ability to offer new perspectives and to breathe life into our's nation being.  King Charles reminded us that we as a nation not only bear the weight of our own history but the future history of the entire world.  A burden that cannot be undertaken by any singular nation.  

His Majesty conferred a sense of majesty in our shared histories and in the task of coming together to make the weight of history a shared burden when he said,

“Our common ideals were not only crucial for liberty and equality, they are also the foundation of our shared prosperity. The rule of law: the certainty of stable and accessible rules, an independent judiciary resolving disputes and delivering impartial justice. These features created the conditions for centuries of unmatched economic growth in our two countries. 

King Charles' speech was a much needed reminder of who we are at a time we seem to have lost our way.  It is with gratitude, therefore, that I can honestly say as an American, "God save the King and God save the United States of America."

Norm

 

THE FRONTIER

In American history the frontier was considered the Wild West, land that inhabited by Native American and sought after by white settlers.  This sense of a frontier continues to linger in the American mind, the acquisition of "untamed' land based on either the need for space as in the Old West or a need for rare elements that created the Gold Rush in 1849.  What made the idea of a frontier attractive back in the 19th century was wealth, power, and prestige. That attraction has not changed in the 21st century, which brings me to frontierism.  

Used in this post, the frontier is an idea associated not only with exploration but also with competition and conquest.  It is the idea of a frontier being a starting line in a race to be the first in discovering or creating something new.  The idea of a frontier seems hardwired in the collective human psyche.   We humans always seems to be in a race of some kind, either literally or metaphorically.  The fascination with discovery is something most of us are attracted to, either as an active participant or as an observer.  

On the positive side, the sense of a frontier is what drives us to understand the unknown and to be innovative in that pursuit.  On the negative side,  a frontier is often the product of greed in pursuing wealth and power that treats knowledge as a commodity.   Perhaps the biggest frontier facing humanity is the frontier of understanding ourselves and our planet home;  its mysterious and kindred life forms and the role they play in keeping our planet home a habitat for life.  In other words there remains frontiers in our planet's backyards and waterways to explore and understand. 

* * * 

Space exploration is a frontier that fascinates me as I suspect it does most of us.  It seems to me, however, that the more we know about the universe the less we humans know or, should I say, understand about our place in it.  I am not against space exploration as long as it is a planetary undertaking instead of an international race to dominate access to resources found on other planets.  

The idea of a nation planting its flag on the moon or mars; as if to say, this planet belongs to specific parcels of land (nations) on the earth seems ridiculous.  It exposes an archaic sense of national tribalism that continues to wreak havoc in the world in which we live.  For example,  I speculate that if the United States, Russia, China, India, or the EU control portions of the moon such control will be considered  primarily from a military point of view with regard to national interests on earth.  

This speculation causes me to advocate for getting our collective acts together and recognizing the necessity to understand our home planet and the uniqueness of life here and now before entering and subjecting planetary exploration with the international animosity that continues to plague our existence on Earth.  One of the hopeful outcomes of any space travel involving humans; such as the Artemis II crew,  is that they invariably express a sense of humility about our planet and awe with regard to vastness of space in which this blue dust mote exists.  

Opportunity for the frontier explorer always seems to lurk in the darkness of the unknown.  We have plenty of unknowns lurking about right here in our home planet.  There is much we can learn about our universe by studying our place in it as revealed by our planet home.  For instance, we art only a blue dust mote, but a living green one.  We have yet to see a planet that has something akin to trees or even moss.  T 

We are the only planet we know of that lives and breathes with a diversity of life forms.  This is not to say there are no other planets like us, but rather to say that we should know ourselves better, appreciate the uniqueness of life's diversity that we experience everyday, and seek ways to better utilize the resources that our solar system already gives us;  that in taking and preserving all life on this planet as in dispensable to ensure life not only on our planet but potentially other for eons to come.  In that way we will be better prepared to explore the frontiers of space with a better understanding of what we are looking for and what we are looking at.

Norm

MANIFEST DESTINY

For the most part, manifest destiny is a term that has been relegated to the annals of United States history. It is generally used in relation to U.S. expansion from its original east coast colonies to the U.S west coast states during the 19th century.  Writing about American imperialism in the 19th century historian, William Earl Weeks stated, 

"The rhetoric of American empire comprises three main aspects: the assumption of the unique moral virtue of the United States, the assertion of its mission to redeem the world by the spread of republican government and more generally the 'American way of life,' and the faith in the nation's divinely ordained destiny to succeed in this mission."   

Weeks, William Earl (2002). John Quincy Adams and American Global Empire. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 183–184. ISBN 978-0-8131-9058-7. 

Weeks' three main aspects of imperialism provides an accurate description of manifest destiny.  The term manifest destiny first emerged during the1844 presidential election between James Knox Polk and Henry Clay. After Polk won the election, the term became part of the United States' lexicon of political terms.  It was a controversial subject with regard to its use in initially shaping U.S. continental policy and later in shaping its foreign policies. Not everyone during that period of time subscribed to idea of manifest destiny.  For example, Presidents like Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant did not subscribe to it.  After World War I, the term was largely ignored as guiding principle of U.S. foreign policy.   

MANIFEST DESTINY IN THE TRUMP ERA 

In President Trump's inaugural address on January 20, 2025, manifest destiny reemerged when he said, "And we will pursue our manifest destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars."  Manifest destiny was recently made manifest in the launching of the Artemis II space mission to the moon on April 1, 2026.   

The Trump regime has also used manifest destiny to justify taking over Canada, Greenland, Cuba, Venezuela, and conducting a war with Iran.  Week's three aspects of U.S. imperialism have been subjected to some tweaking by President Trump.  Whereas manifest destiny in the 19th century was used to shape the nation's continental and global policies through congressional processes, manifest destiny in the Trump regime is vested in the person of the President himself who claims to have inner "moral virtue, whose personal mission is to save the world as only he can, and who will personally succeed in directing what many believe is the divine mission of the United States.  

Ideological beliefs like, Peace through Strength, American Exceptionalism, and Manifest Destiny have become doctrinaire in the mind of many U.S. citizens.  They are imbued with Christian meanings which relies on a cult like adherence that requires no factual basis.  They have become articles of a national faith in the superiority of the United States.  Christian nationalists have given it their imprimatur by equating such beliefs with doing God's will on earth.   

In the current Trump era, manifest destiny has taken on an apocalyptic urgency for some who believe it will hasten the second coming of Christ.  It has been reported that military leaders have been telling their troops that the war with Iran will do just that.  Manifest destiny has always contained a prophetic aspect, but associating it with the second coming of Christ strikes one as being a particularly fraught notion.  Any prophecy about the future runs the risk of it becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy on the part of its believers.  

Utilizing ancient prophesy as a purpose for engaging in a military conflict with Iran and giving a reason for troops to fight because it is part of God's plan supports the speculation of there being no strategic goal or plan regarding the conflict. President Trump and Secretary Hegseth talking about the inevitability of U.S. casualties as a reality of war and the possible necessity of obliterating the entire civilization of Iran in a glib manner serves to remind us that we are entering into a new Stone Age.

DESTINED FOR A LESSON IN HUMILITY

As I am writing this post, the White House has announced that Iran has accepted a two-week ceasefire proposal contingent on opening the Straits of Hormuz.   Due to President Trump's irresponsible threats of obliterating Iranian civilization the credibility of the United States has taken a direct hit.  Apart from Israel and perhaps a few Arab countries, few nations feel they can trust the United States.   Even the President's staunch allies in the United States are appalled by his rhetoric.  

This twelfth hour acceptance between Iran and the United States and Israel creates a question as to which regime has blinked, Iran, Israel, or The United States?  Given that Iran offered a proposal that was accepted by the United States and Israel, it would seem that the United Stated States blinked as the clock neared the 21st century equivalent of a nuclear D-Day. 

Frankly, one wonders how much of this dangerous drama the world can take.  Iran has quickly claimed victory in the agreed upon ceasefire.  Time will tell if it holds for the entire two weeks.  What is emerging as the manifest destiny for the United States is perhaps a long overdue moment of humility and accountability for the damage done through its adherence to the aforementioned articles of faith.

 

Norm

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

"American Exceptionalism" was a term first coined by German communists in the 1920s to reference how the rise of communism in the U.S. was an exception to how communism arose in Europe.  Some thirty years later it became an expression of a patriotic belief in the United States being providentially destined to be "A City on a Hill."  This was based on sermon written by John Winthrop called a "Model of Christian Charity" delivered in 1630. 

As an Englishman, American exceptionalism was not onWinthrop's mind when he wrote his sermon.   He referenced a "City on a Hill" to reflect what Jesus taught in his Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matthew 5:14.  Winthrop used the concept of "City on a Hill" as a metaphor for establishing what he considered a community governed by Christian principles.  Winthrop's sermon metaphor went largely ignored until the end of the 19th Century.

It wasn't until the Cold War that Winthrop's sermon used as the historical basis for what was originally a 20th century communist term.   There is no small amount of irony in a communist term becoming a primary patriotic article of faith by staunch anti-communist politicians; especially, those currently associated with red hat MAGA Republicans.   

American Exceptionalism is part of a mythic belief system that includes other terminologies; such as, Peace Through Strength and Manifest Destiny.  I have addressed Peace through Strength in my previous post and will address Manifest Destiny in the my next post.  These terms form a credal trinity of what one can consider the United State's national religion, "Americanism."  American exceptionalism is its core tenant.    

The fact is the United States is no more exceptional than any other nation in the world.  Every nation is unique with regard to its history and culture. Every nation can point to exceptional moments in its history.  This is true of the United States also.  As such, it is worth looking at one moment which, in my opinion, was a most exceptional moment.  

A MOST EXCEPTIONAL MOMENT  

A truly exceptional moment in U.S. and world history took place shortly after the end of World War II when most of Europe was in shambles.  Eastern Europe was largely under Soviet control with communism on the rise in Italy and  France.   The threat of a communist takeover of western Europe was imminent, as was the possibility of needing military action prevent it; something no nation could afford, including the United States.  Yes, it is true the United States had the only nuclear weapon at the time, but the awesome destruction it wreaked on the people of Japan created a new reality that was seared into the minds of the world's political and military leaders.  

There was one U.S. military and political leader who came up with an extraordinary idea of rebuilding war torn Europe including the United States' former enemies, Italy,  Germany, and its emerging nemesis, the Soviet Union.  That person was five star General George C. Marshall, one of the most decorated generals in U.S. history who was Chief of Army under President Roosevelt and Secretary of War and of State under President Truman.

In a speech delivered at Harvard University on June 5, 1947,  then Secretary of State Marshall delivered in what was described as a low monotone voice and what most considered an unremarkable speech at the time a proposal to rebuild Europe.  No one picked up on it in the U.S..   The New York Times made no mention of it nor did other news outlets give it thought.   The person who picked up on it was the British Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin who was listening to Marshall's speech on BBC radio.  Without Bevin's attention, Marshall's suggestion of rebuilding Europe might never have been realized, since Marshall did not discuss his proposal with President Truman prior to delivering his speech.  

The Marshall Plan, as it became known, changed the history of the world by saving Europe from self-destruction after the war by an extraordinary requirement that relied on all European nations participating in to get along, including with their sworn enemies like France and Germany, England and Germany and so on.  The plan was very complicated.  Most U. S. citizens today are largely ignorant of the plan or its role in saving Europe and making the United States one of the most powerful nations in world history. 

I personally remember growing up hearing people say that the European nations owed the United States financial remuneration for all the help we gave them after World War II.   The fact of the matter is the Marshall plan consisted of complex financial arrangements in which the the U.S. backed the currencies of the participating nations.  So that when citizens, cities, and nations purchased American goods, they paid in the currencies they were familiar with, which would then be converted back to U.S. dollars and paid directly to U.S. corporations who manufactured the goods needed to rebuild Europe.     

In part this approach was a face saving method for those nations participating to preserve the national pride of its citizens.  U.S. corporations and manufactures profited by receiving U.S. dollars for their products.  In turn they were taxed, at a rate of 30% to 50% during the Eisenhower administration, which allowed the Eisenhower Administration to build the United State's twentieth century infrastructure.   It was a win/win/win for all parties concerned.  

The Marshall Plan was an exceptional; in that, it not only made the United States exceptional but also every nation who participated in it.  It took a great deal of diplomacy, commitment, and determination on the part of all the nations involved to make it a success.   As a result, the Marshall plan built lasting alliances between the U.S. and its European partners.  It helped to the create NATO.   It also planted the seeds of the European Union by realizing that putting aside both old and recent rivalries nations can work together to build a brighter future.

The Marshall Plan was also a rare moment in United States history; in that, it resulted in a bipartisan effort on the part of Democrats and Republicans to see it realized.   The Truman administration sought the best diplomats and corporate leaders in the United States regardless of their party affiliations to make.  In some cases, corporate leaders gave up their lucrative positions and made personal financial sacrifices in order to help lead and make the plan work.  What made the Marshall plan exceptional is that it not only demonstrated a spirit of international cooperation but also a spirit of bipartisanship in the U.S..  

 THAT WAS THEN, WHAT ABOUT NOW?

That spirit did not last long.  Political fear-mongering during the McCarthy era in which Sen. Joe McCarthy from Wisconsin played on fears of Communism becoming a political threat in the United States by promoting the idea of "the enemy within."  The notion of American Exceptionalism became a part of the United State's patriotic lexicon and an article of faith associated with Christian Nationalism and the MAGA movement.  

American Exceptionalism is tainted with a divine purpose akin to the notion of the divine right of kings.  This is particularly evident in the current Trump regime.  Whereas the Marshall Plan connected the United State's national welfare to the welfare of other nations and whose spirit survived through programs like the Peace Corps in the Kennedy era and  USAID, the Trump regime utilizes the concept  of its "divine mandate" to do whatever the President Trump's gut tells him to do.

Within the first year of President Trump's second term, the United States is finding itself isolated from its former allies, not through in accordance with MAGA platform of avoiding entanglement with foreign affairs but by distancing our allies the opposite by dictating his desires to annex Canada and take Greenland.  President Trump not only believes he can tell United State's citizens what they must do but also he can dictate what other nations in the world must do, including our enemies.  American exceptionalism is coming to mean something ominous on the world stage.  Secretary Hegseth and President Trump do not have a microbe of compassion between them for the suffering of others they are causing.  American Exceptionalism, as understood today by the nations of the world, is an ideology to fear, not embrace.  

THE NEED TO DEBUNK AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

The immediate solution to this exceptionally bizarre and tragic situation is for the Republicans in Congress to set aside business as usual and put an end to President Trump's tyranny by funding agencies that truly protect the United State's and our allies interests, to stop terrorizing U.S. cities and towns with masked ICE agents, to end a war that they did not approve, and by paying TSA employees who are critical to our national security, etc..  I cannot and do not believe that all congressional Republicans are so naive and so duped by his audacity as to think they can continue to carry out President Trump's gut-born plans without permanently damaging our relations with long-standing allies and putting at risk our constitutional republic they are sworn to defend.  

Congressional Republicans helped create the very bogeyman they are scared of by not speaking truth to power.  Likewise, they are afraid of him because they are afraid to speak truth to their constituent, unlike Sen. John McCain did in his presidential bid against President Barack Obama during the 2012 presidential election.  During a campaign stop in Lakeville, Minnesota, on October 10, 2008,  John McCain addressed the concerns of a man who did not trust Obama and an elderly woman who believed President Obama was an Arab.  McCain gently and respectfully told the man he could trust Obama if he was elected president and told the woman that she was incorrect.  McCain exemplified personal integrity and a commitment to truth regardless of the personal cost.  John McCain was a truly exceptional person who will be long remembered for his integrity.  

It is up to the Republicans in Congress to put aside their fears of Donald Trump and his vindictive sycophants.  They need to inform their constituents by telling them the truth that they have been bamboozled by a bogeyman.  Instead of avoiding town hall meetings where they are faced with questions they cannot truthfully answer, they should sincerely listening to all their constituents and be committed to asking for their suggestions and solutions and carrying them back to congress.  That would be a truly exceptional moment.

A CLOSING THOUGHT

American Exceptionalism is a vacuous ideology that is used to promote the old notion of "My country, right or wrong" as one's proper patriotic attitude.  As an ideology, it does not produce exceptional moments.  Beliefs in ideologies are like trying to think something into existence.  Being exceptional in the world in which we live must be measured by a commitment to realizing the common good for all. 

Norm

PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH

The United States has a history of justifying its unilateral actions based on beliefs in American Exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny, and Peace through Strength.  In spite of the semantic argument over whether the relentless bombing of Iran and the growing conflict in the Persian Gulf arena is a war or a military action, it is a unilateral decision on the part of the United States with the aid of Israel to take such action that has and will continue to result in immense suffering and destruction.   The pragmatic reasoning for initiating such a preemptive strike is based on the theory of securing peace through military strength. As pragmatic as it sounds, is it rational?  It certainly sounds like it is until one takes a closer look at the terminology and examines its  history.  First, we need to know whose peace we are talking about, the world's or a nation's?   If  it is not for world peace then there will be no peace.  

The expression of  peace through strength has varied through the centuries.  The Roman Empire had a version of it in the Latin statement "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum" ("Therefore, whoever desires peace, let him prepare for war").  George Washington in a State of the Union address in 1793 said, "If we desire to secure peace...  it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."  Neville Chamberlain in dealing with Germany also advocated peace through strength.  NATO was created on the basis that the United States and its allies in Europe could preserve peace through combined military strength.  Ronald Reagan famously made it the foundation of what is known as the Reagan Doctrine.  President Trump and Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth have used it to justify military actions taken this year. 

 AN OXYMORON

When it comes to peace through strength, the message is clear; strength equals military power.  The objective of peace through strength is to maintain peace through fear of military action.  If that is the case, we cannot be talking about a sustainable peace.  Peace through instilling in others a fear of military aggression or war is simply an oxymoron.  In other words, a lasting  peace not only requires the absence of fear on the part of the strong but also a shared absence of fear between all parties concerned.   

In the nuclear age in which we live, peace through strength has led to a tentative sense of peace through the fear of mutual destruction.  Mutual self destruction is not merely a case of two or more nations destroying each other, it is a matter of destroying the entire world.  The bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II were small compared to the nuclear weapons of today.  Nevertheless, this reality has not stopped wars.  

Since the end of World War II, the Super Powers of the United States, Russia,and China have developed sophisticated weaponry; as in, non-nuclear missiles carrying powerful bombs, drones carrying explosives, and the use of cyber, chemical, biological, and other, unknown types of weaponry.  Peace through strength has not been able to keep peace for anyone or for any length of time.  Rather it has served as a pretext and rationale for developing more sophisticated weaponry.  It is a nothing more than a militant adaptation of  the Darwinian theory of only the strong surviving.

History has proven that peace through strength does not work.  Americans should know this.  The United States didn't come into being because it has a mighty army.  At the start of its revolutionary war, the only military it could count on were colonial militias. There was no standing army.  The continental army relied on paid volunteers for relatively short periods of time.   This ragtag army was up against what was considered the greatest military force in the world at the time, the British army and navy.  What led to the defeat of such a mighty force was great determination by the colonists and the skillful tactics by General George Washington.  A nation or a people do not need military power to defeat its enemies.  All it needs is patient determination. 

Genocide and complete destruction of a people or nations capacity to survive will only plant the seeds for another war.  Wars beget wars. The mother of all modern wars is World War I.  We are still fighting wars whose seeds were planted during that war.  It was a war fought because the countries involved felt that strength was on their side.  It was later believed that it was a war to end all wars.  How long did that last?  Peace through strength is a lie.

ALTERNATIVES

Peace is not only a worthy cause but also an essential goal to the world's survival.  If strength or the fear of war is not a means to peace, what might be?   Peace through...

Worldwide Diplomacy?

Worldwide Economic Security?

Worldwide Disarmament?

Worldwide Understanding?

Worldwide  Commitment?

What would you add?  

Why we need peace worldwide is self-explanatory, the how we attain it is complicated.  Peace requires trust.  Worldwide peace requires worldwide trust.  Not easy during the times we are living in.  

Worldwide peace requires a seemingly unworldly determination on the part of every every nation and every religion to rummage through its beliefs and get rid of anything; any doctrine or dogma that inhibits its being realized by all.

Until next time,

Norm

WHEN HISTORY RHYMES

"History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes."

Attributed to Mark Twain

While I was watching the news this morning (Saturday, February 28, 2026) regarding President Trump initiating a war with Iran, my mind recalled the story of Marcus Licinius Crassus's attempt to defeat the Parthian Empire in 54-53 BCE.   

Marcus Licinius Crassus and the Parthian Empire

Marcus Licinius Crassus (Crassus) was a dominant military and political figure in the late Roman Republic. He served as Consul, appointed by the Roman Senate, and led Rome's legions against the war with Spartacus.   Crassus was also considered the richest man in the Roman Republic and very likely the richest man in the world, at the time.  

His wealth started when he assisted Sulla in winning a civil war and benefitted from the practice of proscription, which meant that enemies of Sulla forfeited their wealth and property to the winning side.  Crassus made much of his wealth through spurious real estate practices; such as, establishing a fire brigade in Rome to fight the frequent fires that broke out in the city. He used this brigade to squeeze the owner of the property to sell his property to Crassus as damaged good.  If the owner refused, Crassus would let it burn to the ground and most likely obtain it at a much bigger steal.  As a result, Crassus owned large sections of Rome. 

Crassus is best known for having defeated Spartacus in the slave rebellion (71-73 BCE).  Pompey, who played a minor role in moping up runaway slaves involved in the revolt, was awarded by the Senate with a Triumphal procession while Crassus was only awarded and much less honor called and Ovation.  Crassus was said to not want any public notoriety such as a Triumph or Ovation because he only defeated slaves.  It is likely he was extremely put off by Pompey who was a Rome's favorite at the time.  Crassus is also noted for helping Julius Caesar rise to power.  In 60 BCE, Crassus, Caesar, and Pompey formed the First Triumvirate, with Crassus being given the purview of the lucrative Roman province of Syria.

What happens next in the story of Crassus is the story of a person who is never happy with what he has and is always looking for more.  Sharing power was not enough.  Winning a war against slaves was not enough.  He wanted to win a major war against a major power, like the Parthian Empire which bordered Syria, on his own.

* * *

The Parthian Empire began in 247 BCE in what today is Iran.  At its height, its range extended from eastern Turkey to western Pakistan and the Persian Gulf.  The Parthian Empire was not a friend of Rome.  The Parthian military was noted for its skilled horseback archers and mounted lancers.  

Crassus, in control of seven Roman legions and mercenaries from Gaul, had roughly 40,000 troops under his command.  He believed he had the overwhelming power to defeat the Parthians.  Unfortunately, Crassus did not do his homework and was not open to the advice of his generals or others.  He did not consider the landscape or distance he would force his troops to go. 

Crassus was no genial commander.  He employed the practice of decimation (cruelly executing one in ten of his own troops in a legion in which troops deserted the battlefield).   He refused the offer of King Atravasdes' offer of safe passage through Armenia, along with roughly 30, 000 foot soldiers and 10, 000 mounted lancers.  Why?  

No one really knows, but one suspects he wanted sole credit for defeating the Parthians.  Instead of going through a more forgiving landscape with and additional 40,000 troops, Crassus took the advice of chief Ariamnes of the Orsorenes to lead his troops through a grueling long march through a desert that Crassus believed would be a more direct route.  Little did Crassus know that Ariamnes was a paid spy of the Parthians.

Knowing that Crassus was on his way with a large force that would being worn down by lack of water and rest, the Parthian general, Surena, with 1,000 mounted lancers and 9,000 mounted archers met Crassus and his 40,000 troop sin 53 BCE at Carrhae in what is today eastern Turkey.  Although outnumbered four to one, the Parthians defeated Crassus, killing approximately 20,000 troops, capturing 10,000, with a remaining 10,000 fleeing the battlefield.  It was considered the worst defeat singular defeat in the history of the Roman Empire.

According to most historians, Crassus was killed in the battle.  Nevertheless there was another, perhaps legendary account, that Crassus was taken captive by Surena.  According to this story, Crassus pleaded for his life, offering to pay the Parthians a huge amount of gold.  The Parthians were having none of it.  Since the Parthians knew Crassus's obsession with wealth, they chose to execute him by pouring molten gold down his throat.   Whether true or legendary, it became a cautionary tale against lusting for wealth, power, and glory.  But like all such tales, they fail to be taken seriously by those who continue lusting for wealth, power, and glory.  

A Rhyme Within Our Time 

I agree with Mark Twain that history does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.  The mostly lone venture of President Trump to undertake regime change in Iran strikes me as rhyming very much with Crassus' venture to defeat the Parthians. They also share an uncanny personal history of wealth accumulation, a lust for power, and lust for glory.   

The one major difference between their stories is that unlike Crassus, President Trump does not have a similar military background.  Although he is the Command in Chief of the the U.S. military forces, he  lacks personal military field experience and needs to rely on the military expertise of his generals, which does not instill one with confidence he will do so.  After all, he recently cited his own mind (not the input of others) as what guides his actions and his morals.  

While I agree that history does not repeat itself, human behavior is very repetitious.  History shows this to be true.  I sincerely hope things turn out very well for the people of Iran and the region.  If they do, President Trump will be due his laurels,  but he must remember the whisper of the ancient Roman auriga (slave) who stood at the back of the triumphal chariot and held the laurel wreath above a triumphant leader's head and repeatedly said, "Memento homo," "You are a man;" a reminder that in a moment of triumph it is easy to forget one's mortality and humanity.  

If things do not turn out well, let us hope the rhyming ends.

Norm