alternet--2020-12-08--How to stop Trump from running again in 2024

`` We 're trying to do another four years , '' President Donald Trump said at a Saturday night rally in Georgia .
`` Otherwise , I 'll see you in four years . ''
Trump 's `` increasingly overt flirtations with running again in 2024 , '' as the Associated Press put it , must be met with `` a proportionate response , '' wrote political scientists Alexander Kirshner and Claudio López-Guerra .
The president 's transparent attempts to `` subvert '' the outcome of the 2020 election threaten the `` viability of democracy in the United States , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offense should compel Congress to convict Trump , thus rendering him ineligible for a future presidency .
While political commentators are debating `` the wisdom of pursuing criminal prosecutions of Trump '' after Inauguration Day , the pair of scholars made the case in a Friday op-ed in The Guardian that `` criminal prosecutions are not the only , or even the best mechanism for responding to the Trumpian challenge to self-government . ''
`` In a society fully committed to democracy , '' Kirshner and López-Guerra wrote , `` Congress would use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and disqualify Donald Trump from pursuing public office in the future , as the Constitution allows . ''
`` This might seem undemocratic , '' they continued .
`` It is not .
Joseph Goebbels famously said : 'It will always be one of the best jokes of democracy that it gives its deadly enemies the means to destroy it . '
But Goebbels was wrong .
Well-designed democracies need not turn the other cheek when confronted by aspiring autocrats . ''
Kirshner and López-Guerra noted that Trump 's most egregiously anti-democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once it was clear that he had lost . ''
`` Though there has never been any evidence of substantial electoral fraud , '' they said , `` [ Trump ] explicitly pushed election officials to subvert the outcome in various states where the race was close . ''
As Common Dreams reported this weekend , Trump publicly criticized Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp on Saturday night after the Republican politician refused to comply with the president 's request—communicated by phone earlier that day—to call a special session of the state legislature where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump at the Electoral College , thereby ignoring the will of voters and reversing President-elect Joe Biden 's victory in the state .
Kirshner and López-Guerra are not alone in arguing that Trump 's authoritarian actions have ominous implications likely to outlast the president .
Trump 's `` efforts to challenge the legitimacy of the election and seeking to overturn the will of voters could have staying power , '' AP reported Saturday .
`` What this president is doing is poisoning democracy , '' former Michigan Gov .
Jennifer Granholm ( D @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` has to be defended , '' said Kirshner and López-Guerra .
`` Many democracies block those who attack self-government from holding office . ''
Kirshner and López-Guerra pointed out that in the U.S. , political eligibility is established by the Constitution , which limits presidential office-holding to natural-born citizens who are at least 35 years-old and have been a resident of the country for 14 years .
`` However , presidents who have been both impeached and convicted can be made ineligible by a majority vote of the Senate , '' they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president 's undemocratic reaction to his defeat , the current lame-duck Congress should use this power to cut off any path to another Trump run . ''
The political scientists acknowledged that the Senate `` has never used this tool ... and it is unlikely to do so before January 20 , '' especially with so few Republicans willing to stand up to Trump .
Indeed , a Washington Post survey conducted last week demonstrated the extent of GOP complicity with the president 's coup attempt .
The newspaper found that just 27 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far acknowledged Biden 's victory , and only 32 said they plan to recognize him as the legitimately elected president if the Electoral College does as expected and verifies Trump 's defeat on December 14 .
Two right-wing lawmakers who erroneously believe the election was fraudulent insisted Trump is the winner , according to the Post , while the overwhelming majority of Republicans in the House and Senate remained silent when questioned by reporters .
Even as the president continues to bend the nation 's institutions , including the Department of Defense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House purged several members of the Pentagon 's Defense Business Board and replaced them with Trump loyalists—only nine congressional Republicans expressed opposition to his ongoing efforts to claim victory , according to the Post .
Although most federal GOP lawmakers did not respond to the newspaper 's survey , nine of them indicated that they support Trump 's attempt to undermine the outcome of the 2020 election .
Kirshner and López-Guerra argued that developing penalties—beyond impeachment and conviction—for `` those who assault popular self-rule should be discussed as part of any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an `` unmistakable , illegitimate effort to stay in power regardless of the election 's result , '' the scholars wrote .
`` That he failed does not mean he should be allowed to seek the presidency again . ''
While it may be `` tempting '' to think that `` we are freed from having to expend time and effort to repair the damage '' to the `` foundations [ of ] our democratic house '' if it remains standing after Trump 's storm , Kirshner and López-Guerra warned that it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storms will not bring the house down . ''
`` This is the moment to send a clear message that , pace Goebbels , democracy need not supply its enemies with the means to destroy it , '' they added .
`` Disqualifying those who have assaulted democracy is a first step toward addressing that challenge .
It is , however , no substitute for addressing the deeper factors that allow such individuals to become electorally competitive in the first place . ''

"We're trying to do another four years," President Donald Trump said at a Saturday night rally in Georgia. "Otherwise, I'll see you in four years."
Trump's "increasingly overt flirtations with running again in 2024," as the Associated Pressput it, must be met with "a proportionate response," wrote political scientists Alexander Kirshner and Claudio López-Guerra. The president's transparent attempts to "subvert" the outcome of the 2020 election threaten the "viability of democracy in the United States," they argued, and this impeachable offense should compel Congress to convict Trump, thus rendering him ineligible for a future presidency.
While political commentators are debating "the wisdom of pursuing criminal prosecutions of Trump" after Inauguration Day, the pair of scholars made the case in a Friday op-ed in The Guardian that "criminal prosecutions are not the only, or even the best mechanism for responding to the Trumpian challenge to self-government."
"In a society fully committed to democracy," Kirshner and López-Guerra wrote, "Congress would use this lame-duck period to impeach, convict, and disqualify Donald Trump from pursuing public office in the future, as the Constitution allows."
"This might seem undemocratic," they continued. "It is not. Joseph Goebbels famously said: 'It will always be one of the best jokes of democracy that it gives its deadly enemies the means to destroy it.' But Goebbels was wrong. Well-designed democracies need not turn the other cheek when confronted by aspiring autocrats."
Kirshner and López-Guerra noted that Trump's most egregiously anti-democratic moves "have followed Election Day, once it was clear that he had lost."
"Though there has never been any evidence of substantial electoral fraud," they said, "[Trump] explicitly pushed election officials to subvert the outcome in various states where the race was close."
As Common Dreams reported this weekend, Trump publicly criticized Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp on Saturday night after the Republican politician refused to comply with the president's request—communicated by phone earlier that day—to call a special session of the state legislature where lawmakers could appoint electors who would support Trump at the Electoral College, thereby ignoring the will of voters and reversing President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the state.
Kirshner and López-Guerra are not alone in arguing that Trump's authoritarian actions have ominous implications likely to outlast the president.
Trump's "efforts to challenge the legitimacy of the election and seeking to overturn the will of voters could have staying power," AP reported Saturday. "What this president is doing is poisoning democracy," former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) told the news outlet.
Democracy "has to be defended," said Kirshner and López-Guerra. "Many democracies block those who attack self-government from holding office."
They continued:
The logic of these policies is plain. Democracy requires that no one be unjustifiably barred from seeking office. One's race, religion or gender does not matter. It would be an insult to block someone because of the color of their skin. But holding office is a public trust. The decisions made by presidents, senators, and representatives impact the basic welfare and rights of many others, including their democratic rights. Accordingly, the liberty to seek election can be reasonably restricted. Age requirements are familiar enough examples.
Democracy-reinforcing eligibility rules follow a similar logic. They may deter participation in anti-democratic plots and keep those who are manifestly unfit from seeking power. The excluded have little warrant to complain. Potential candidates forfeit their right to run when their actions demonstrate they will use that position to assault the democratic rights of others, as Trump has done.
Kirshner and López-Guerra pointed out that in the U.S., political eligibility is established by the Constitution, which limits presidential office-holding to natural-born citizens who are at least 35 years-old and have been a resident of the country for 14 years.
"However, presidents who have been both impeached and convicted can be made ineligible by a majority vote of the Senate," they wrote. "In light of the president's undemocratic reaction to his defeat, the current lame-duck Congress should use this power to cut off any path to another Trump run."
The political scientists acknowledged that the Senate "has never used this tool... and it is unlikely to do so before January 20," especially with so few Republicans willing to stand up to Trump.
Indeed, a Washington Post survey conducted last week demonstrated the extent of GOP complicity with the president's coup attempt. The newspaper found that just 27 out of 249 congressional Republicans have so far acknowledged Biden's victory, and only 32 said they plan to recognize him as the legitimately elected president if the Electoral College does as expected and verifies Trump's defeat on December 14.
Two right-wing lawmakers who erroneously believe the election was fraudulent insisted Trump is the winner, according to the Post, while the overwhelming majority of Republicans in the House and Senate remained silent when questioned by reporters.
Even as the president continues to bend the nation's institutions, including the Department of Defense, to his own will—Politicoreported Friday that the White House purged several members of the Pentagon's Defense Business Board and replaced them with Trump loyalists—only nine congressional Republicans expressed opposition to his ongoing efforts to claim victory, according to the Post.
Although most federal GOP lawmakers did not respond to the newspaper's survey, nine of them indicated that they support Trump's attempt to undermine the outcome of the 2020 election.
Kirshner and López-Guerra argued that developing penalties—beyond impeachment and conviction—for "those who assault popular self-rule should be discussed as part of any congressional democracy-reform package."
Trump made an "unmistakable, illegitimate effort to stay in power regardless of the election's result," the scholars wrote. "That he failed does not mean he should be allowed to seek the presidency again."
While it may be "tempting" to think that "we are freed from having to expend time and effort to repair the damage" to the "foundations [of] our democratic house" if it remains standing after Trump's storm, Kirshner and López-Guerra warned that it is a mistake to "think that future storms will not bring the house down."
"This is the moment to send a clear message that, pace Goebbels, democracy need not supply its enemies with the means to destroy it," they added. "Disqualifying those who have assaulted democracy is a first step toward addressing that challenge. It is, however, no substitute for addressing the deeper factors that allow such individuals to become electorally competitive in the first place."


alternet--2020-12-08--New report reveals a sharp spike in civilian casualties under Trump airstrike policy

The Trump administration 's 2017 decision to loosen military rules of engagement meant to protect civilians was followed by a sharp increase in civilian deaths , a report released on Monday revealed .
The report ( pdf ) , by Neta C. Crawford of the Brown University Watson Institute 's Costs of War Project—one of the premier authorities on civilian casualties in the 19-year so-called War on Terror—found a 330 % increase in the number of Afghan civilians killed by U.S.-led airstrikes from 2016 , the final year of the Obama administration , to 2019 .
From 2007 to 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an average of 582 civilians each year , the report found .
From 2017 through 2019 , those same forces killed an average of 1,134 civilians each year , a nearly 95 % increase .
The sharp uptick in civilian deaths followed a decision by President Donald Trump , in consultation with former Defense Secretary James Mattis and other military and civilian officials , to relax rules of engagement in the Afghan war in order to give U.S. commanders more battlefield flexibility and to gain leverage at the bargaining table with the Taliban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devastating war whose course has spanned nearly the entire 21st century .
`` From 2017 through 2019 , civilian deaths due to U.S. and allied forces ' airstrikes in Afghanistan dramatically increased , '' the report states .
`` In 2019 airstrikes killed 700 civilians—more civilians than in any other year since the beginning of the war in 2001 and 2002 .
After the U.S. and Taliban reached a peace agreement in late February 2020 , U.S. and other international air strikes declined , and so did the harm to civilians caused by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United Nations , U.S.-led and Afghan government airstrikes killed more civilians than did Taliban militant attacks during the first half of 2019 .
The new report found that as U.S.-led bombings declined following the tenuous peace pact reached with the Taliban in February 2020 , Afghan government airstrikes have increased as the Kabul government negotiates its own peace agreement with the insurgents .
`` As a consequence , the Afghan Air Force ( AAF ) is harming more Afghan civilians than at any time in its history , '' the report states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year , the AAF killed 86 Afghan civilians and injured 103 civilians in airstrikes .
That rate of harm nearly doubled in the next three months .
Between July and the end of September , the Afghan Air Force killed 70 civilians and 90 civilians were injured . ''
`` As with the international airstrikes , some of this harm could be avoided by tighter rules of engagement , as well as better training , '' the report asserts .
`` A negotiated ceasefire might also yield results at the bargaining table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harm to Afghan civilians from airstrikes . ''
The report also underscores the fact that a reduction or even total withdrawal of U.S. ground combat troops does not mean an end to war or civilian casualties , as most American combat is one-sided and takes place in the air .
Crawford cites U.S. Gen. Lance R. Bunch , who said in June 2018 that `` the entire purpose behind our air campaign is to pressure the Taliban into reconciliation and to help them realize that peace talks are their best option '' —a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nixon administration 's so-called Christmas bombing campaign against Hanoi and other North Vietnamese cities in December 1972 during the closing weeks of the Paris peace talks .
Consequently , the report states that there were more weapons dropped from the air in 2018 and 2019 than at the height of U.S. presence in Afghanistan in 2011 .
Although there are still 43 days left in his presidency , it is possible that Trump will leave office being able to boast that he was the first president since Jimmy Carter to not start a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration civilian casualties have increased in nearly all of the at least seven countries under U.S. attack in the War on Terror .
Much of the increase has been attributed to Trump 's loosening of rules of engagement .
While campaigning for president , Trump vowed to `` bomb the shit out of '' Islamic State militants and to `` take out their families , '' a war crime .
The president even suggested that using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan might result in a quick U.S. victory , while conceding the possibility that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be killed . ''
According to the Costs of War Project , more than 43,000 Afghan civilians have been killed during the 18-year U.S.-led war .
Taliban militants have killed the most noncombatants , but thousands of men , women , and children have also been killed by U.S. , allied , and Afghan government bombs and bullets .
In the wider war against terrorism , estimates of civilian deaths caused by U.S.-led forces range from around half a million ( pdf ) to as many as two million ( pdf ) .

The Trump administration's 2017 decision to loosen military rules of engagement meant to protect civilians was followed by a sharp increase in civilian deaths, a report released on Monday revealed.
The report (pdf), by Neta C. Crawford of the Brown University Watson Institute's Costs of War Project—one of the premier authorities on civilian casualties in the 19-year so-called War on Terror—found a 330% increase in the number of Afghan civilians killed by U.S.-led airstrikes from 2016, the final year of the Obama administration, to 2019.
From 2007 to 2016, U.S.-led and Afghan government forces killed an average of 582 civilians each year, the report found. From 2017 through 2019, those same forces killed an average of 1,134 civilians each year, a nearly 95% increase.
The sharp uptick in civilian deaths followed a decision by President Donald Trump, in consultation with former Defense Secretary James Mattis and other military and civilian officials, to relax rules of engagement in the Afghan war in order to give U.S. commanders more battlefield flexibility and to gain leverage at the bargaining table with the Taliban as both sides sought to end the devastating war whose course has spanned nearly the entire 21st century.
"From 2017 through 2019, civilian deaths due to U.S. and allied forces' airstrikes in Afghanistan dramatically increased," the report states. "In 2019 airstrikes killed 700 civilians—more civilians than in any other year since the beginning of the war in 2001 and 2002. After the U.S. and Taliban reached a peace agreement in late February 2020, U.S. and other international air strikes declined, and so did the harm to civilians caused by those strikes."
According to the United Nations, U.S.-led and Afghan government airstrikes killed more civilians than did Taliban militant attacks during the first half of 2019.
The new report found that as U.S.-led bombings declined following the tenuous peace pact reached with the Taliban in February 2020, Afghan government airstrikes have increased as the Kabul government negotiates its own peace agreement with the insurgents.
"As a consequence, the Afghan Air Force (AAF) is harming more Afghan civilians than at any time in its history," the report states. "In the first six months of this year, the AAF killed 86 Afghan civilians and injured 103 civilians in airstrikes. That rate of harm nearly doubled in the next three months. Between July and the end of September, the Afghan Air Force killed 70 civilians and 90 civilians were injured."
"As with the international airstrikes, some of this harm could be avoided by tighter rules of engagement, as well as better training," the report asserts. "A negotiated ceasefire might also yield results at the bargaining table and at the same time avoid escalating harm to Afghan civilians from airstrikes."
The report also underscores the fact that a reduction or even total withdrawal of U.S. ground combat troops does not mean an end to war or civilian casualties, as most American combat is one-sided and takes place in the air.
Crawford cites U.S. Gen. Lance R. Bunch, who said in June 2018 that "the entire purpose behind our air campaign is to pressure the Taliban into reconciliation and to help them realize that peace talks are their best option"—a policy that has drawn comparisons to the Nixon administration's so-called Christmas bombing campaign against Hanoi and other North Vietnamese cities in December 1972 during the closing weeks of the Paris peace talks.
Consequently, the report states that there were more weapons dropped from the air in 2018 and 2019 than at the height of U.S. presence in Afghanistan in 2011.
Although there are still 43 days left in his presidency, it is possible that Trump will leave office being able to boast that he was the first president since Jimmy Carter to not start a new war. However, during his administration civilian casualties have increased in nearly all of the at least seven countries under U.S. attack in the War on Terror. Much of the increase has been attributed to Trump's loosening of rules of engagement.
While campaigning for president, Trump vowed to "bomb the shit out of" Islamic State militants and to "take out their families," a war crime. The president even suggested that using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan might result in a quick U.S. victory, while conceding the possibility that "tens of millions of people would be killed."
According to the Costs of War Project, more than 43,000 Afghan civilians have been killed during the 18-year U.S.-led war. Taliban militants have killed the most noncombatants, but thousands of men, women, and children have also been killed by U.S., allied, and Afghan government bombs and bullets.
In the wider war against terrorism, estimates of civilian deaths caused by U.S.-led forces range from around half a million (pdf) to as many as two million (pdf).


alternet--2020-12-07--Trump launches 'despicable' last-minute attack on Social Security

Just weeks away from relinquishing power to incoming President-elect Joe Biden , the Trump administration is quietly launching a last-minute assault on Social Security by rushing ahead with a rule that , if implemented , could deny critical benefits to hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities .
The Social Security Administration ( SSA ) late last week submitted to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) a proposed rule aiming to further tighten eligibility requirements for Social Security disability benefits , which around ten million Americans currently rely on for a modest monthly income .
While it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finalized before Biden takes office next month , Social Security defenders reacted with outrage to the proposal and called on the president-elect to make clear that he will immediately roll back the change .
`` It is outrageous , '' Richard Fiesta , executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans , said in a statement Monday .
`` The Trump administration could pull the rug out from millions of Americans , especially older Americans , in the waning days of its administration .
Since the day he took office , President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He is showing his true colors again . ''
Advocacy group Social Security Works called the proposal `` a despicable attack on people with disabilities and on our Social Security system '' and urged Biden—whose own record on Social Security has been heavily criticized by progressives—to `` clean house at the Social Security Administration on day one '' by replacing top officials appointed by President Donald Trump .
In the works for months , the Trump administration 's proposed rule would significantly revise the criteria by which SSA determines who does and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Under current law , applicants with certain serious conditions automatically qualify for benefits ; those with other ailments are deemed qualified or not based on an evaluation of additional factors such as age , work history , education , and `` residual functional capacity . ''
The Trump administration 's proposed rule , as the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year , `` would no longer assume age seriously affects a person 's ability to adapt to simple , entry-level work . ''
`` It would raise the age at which education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eligibility to 55 , from 50 , '' the Journal reported .
`` The new rule would also update data on occupational skills that the agency uses to determine eligibility , based on new information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics . ''
Another component of the proposed overhaul , according to HuffPost , would `` essentially redefine full-time work as 30 hours per week , instead of the usual 40 , for purposes of determining whether someone is disabled . ''
`` Fewer people would likely win benefits as a result , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration 's rule—one of many attacks it has launched on Social Security during its four years in power—would impose `` a massive change that could push thousands of Americans into poverty . ''
`` Social Security 's disability payments are modest , an average of $ 15,096 each year for the average worker , '' said Fiesta .
`` These benefits are not easy to receive ; disabled workers go through a lengthy and rigorous process to determine eligibility .
We are in a pandemic that is hitting older Americans the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans who can no longer work due to a disability , not scheming to deny them the benefits they have earned over a lifetime of hard work . ''
Economist David Weaver joined calls for Biden to immediately roll back the Trump administration 's proposed change , noting in an op-ed for The Hill on Monday that the rule `` could ultimately prevent as many as 500,000 Americans from receiving benefits . ''
`` Looking at recent or modern data , the current system routinely denies benefits to older individuals with serious health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy , '' Weaver wrote .
`` Amplifying these outcomes by trying to get even more denials is not a rational policy approach . ''
As HuffPost 's Arthur Delaney reported last month , Biden will soon have the authority to unilaterally undo Trump 's attack on Social Security disability benefits as well as a slew of other safety net cuts the president is attempting to ram through the regulatory process during his final weeks in the White House .
Bethany Lilly , director of income policy at advocacy group The Arc , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't been finalized by the time the Biden administration takes office , `` they can effectively just put a stop to it . ''
`` I would expect the Biden administration to do so , '' said Lilly .

Just weeks away from relinquishing power to incoming President-elect Joe Biden, the Trump administration is quietly launching a last-minute assault on Social Security by rushing ahead with a rule that, if implemented, could deny critical benefits to hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) late last week submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a proposed rule aiming to further tighten eligibility requirements for Social Security disability benefits, which around ten million Americans currently rely on for a modest monthly income.
While it is unclear whether the rule can be finalized before Biden takes office next month, Social Security defenders reacted with outrage to the proposal and called on the president-elect to make clear that he will immediately roll back the change.
"It is outrageous," Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said in a statement Monday. "The Trump administration could pull the rug out from millions of Americans, especially older Americans, in the waning days of its administration. Since the day he took office, President Trump has claimed he would protect Social Security. He is showing his true colors again."
Advocacy group Social Security Works called the proposal "a despicable attack on people with disabilities and on our Social Security system" and urged Biden—whose own record on Social Security has been heavily criticized by progressives—to "clean house at the Social Security Administration on day one" by replacing top officials appointed by President Donald Trump.
In the works for months, the Trump administration's proposed rule would significantly revise the criteria by which SSA determines who does and doesn't qualify for disability benefits.
Under current law, applicants with certain serious conditions automatically qualify for benefits; those with other ailments are deemed qualified or not based on an evaluation of additional factors such as age, work history, education, and "residual functional capacity."
The Trump administration's proposed rule, as the Wall Street Journalreported earlier this year, "would no longer assume age seriously affects a person's ability to adapt to simple, entry-level work."
"It would raise the age at which education and work experience are considered in determining eligibility to 55, from 50," the Journal reported. "The new rule would also update data on occupational skills that the agency uses to determine eligibility, based on new information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics."
Another component of the proposed overhaul, according toHuffPost, would "essentially redefine full-time work as 30 hours per week, instead of the usual 40, for purposes of determining whether someone is disabled."
"Fewer people would likely win benefits as a result," HuffPost noted.
Fiesta warned that the Trump administration's rule—one of many attacks it has launched on Social Security during its four years in power—would impose "a massive change that could push thousands of Americans into poverty."
"Social Security's disability payments are modest, an average of $15,096 each year for the average worker," said Fiesta. "These benefits are not easy to receive; disabled workers go through a lengthy and rigorous process to determine eligibility. We are in a pandemic that is hitting older Americans the hardest. Our government should be helping Americans who can no longer work due to a disability, not scheming to deny them the benefits they have earned over a lifetime of hard work."
Economist David Weaver joined calls for Biden to immediately roll back the Trump administration's proposed change, noting in an op-ed for The Hill on Monday that the rule "could ultimately prevent as many as 500,000 Americans from receiving benefits."
"Looking at recent or modern data, the current system routinely denies benefits to older individuals with serious health problems and diminished prospects in the modern economy," Weaver wrote. "Amplifying these outcomes by trying to get even more denials is not a rational policy approach."
As HuffPost's Arthur Delaney reported last month, Biden will soon have the authority to unilaterally undo Trump's attack on Social Security disability benefits as well as a slew of other safety net cuts the president is attempting to ram through the regulatory process during his final weeks in the White House.
Bethany Lilly, director of income policy at advocacy group The Arc, told HuffPost that if a rule hasn't been finalized by the time the Biden administration takes office, "they can effectively just put a stop to it."
"I would expect the Biden administration to do so," said Lilly.


alternet--2020-12-07--Trump's attacks on the Georgia election are failing miserably — but show no sign of slowing down

The rapidly unfolding events in Georgia this past weekend showcased the lengths that President Trump will go to overturn the 2020 general election 's popular vote , the depth of disinformation that he is pushing and many partisans are accepting , and the fortitude of a handful of Georgia 's constitutional officers who did not bend under pressure .
On Monday , Georgia 's Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said the recount found that Democrat Joe Biden had won his state 's 2020 presidential election by nearly 12,000 votes .
It was the third statewide tally of the presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 5 million paper ballots after Election Day , and the Election Day tally .
No other battleground state in 2020 conducted as thorough an examination to verify its vote .
Georgia 's governor , Republican Brian Kemp , who served as secretary of state before being elected governor in 2018—a race that his opponent , Democrat Stacy Abrams , said was marred by a catalog of voter suppression—has said that he will certify the presidential results .
Trump has repeatedly called on Kemp to convene a legislative session to select a pro-Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the slate reflect Georgia 's popular vote .
But as President Trump made clear on Saturday at a rally in Valdosta , Georgia , he will not stop trying to muscle his way to a second term—even if it means ignoring the popular vote , urging Republican governors in other swing states , such as Arizona , to convene special sessions to anoint him , and filing lawsuits that he hopes will end up before the Supreme Court , where Trump expects that conservative justices will to elevate to a second term .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ major event since the November election , had attendees from across the county who supported Trump and fanned his unfounded claims of a stolen election .
The event 's advertised purpose was to promote Georgia 's two Republican senators who face January 5 runoffs , where , should they lose , that body would return to a Democratic majority .
But from the start , Trump said that he won , listed grievances , showed videos purporting to prove electoral theft , slammed skeptics in his party , and pledged to emerge victorious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Everybody here , all these thousands of people here tonight , they 're all victims , '' Trump said 90 minutes into the rally filled with mounting cheers of `` Stop the Steal '' and `` Fight for Trump . ''
Trump leaned on podium , relishing the cheers and holding forth .
`` The next great victory for our movement begins right here on January 5th [ the Senate runoffs ] and then we are going to win back the White House , '' he continued .
`` We 're going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to win back the House in 2022 .
And then in 2024 , and hopefully I wo n't have to be a candidate , we 're gon na win back the White House again .
A friend of mine said , 'Oh , do n't worry about it , sir .
You are way up in the polls , you 'll win in 2024 . '
I said , I do n't want to win in 2024 , I want to go back in three weeks . ''
Trump 's strategy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority to interrupt certifying their state 's vote or impact their state 's Electoral College slate to act on his behalf .
He mocked Kemp for not being tough enough and encouraged Rep. Doug Collins , R-GA , a loyalist , to run against Kemp in two years .
He mused that maybe Arizona 's GOP governor would be tougher , meaning he would be the first to convene a special session to select a pro-Trump slate .
Trump periodically returned to the rally 's ostensible purpose , to boost the Republicans in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not without repeating his desire to stay in power and modeling the tough-minded stance that he expected Republicans to take in this fight .
`` If they [ Georgia 's incumbent Republican senators ] get in—and add me to this group if you do n't mind—we will be greater than ever before , '' Trump said toward the end to loud cheers .
`` America 's destiny has just begun .
We will not bend .
We will not break .
We will not give .
We will never give in .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will never back down .
We will never ever surrender .
Because we are Americans and our hearts bleed red , white and blue . ''
Trump 's passionate attacks on the 2020 election are not just urging Republicans to override millions of legally cast votes and delegitimize Joe Biden 's presidency before it has begun .
He has weaponized the voting system in such a way that no matter what any election official says , including top Republican state officials in Georgia , election outcomes can not be trusted .
Georgia is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional offices and both legislative chambers .
In the days before Trump 's rally , Republican legislators convened hearings to build a case to reject the popular vote .
Much of their rationale was based on what their party 's largely untrained citizen election observers saw during the post-Election Day counting process .
These observers thought they saw systemic breakdowns , which is a result of their unfamiliarity with election administration 's intricacies and a process that often lacks transparency to be easily understood .
But Trump observers were predisposed to believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election officials could not be trusted , that poll workers were part of a vast plan to steal the presidency .
No one noticed that Republican officials had oversight of Georgia 's elections—its technology , its procedures and eligibility rules—for years .
One of the witnesses who expected to testify before the Georgia Senate late last week was seen by this reporter during the presidential ballot hand count making unfounded claims of ballot forgery , ballot box stuffing and falsified counting .
Yet there he was , issuing press releases with the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ override the popular vote .
Over the weekend , a handful of Republican state senators circulated a petition that they hoped would force Gov .
Kemp to hold a special session .
The petition claimed that every category of illegal election crime occurred due to `` systemic failure . ''
Allegedly , votes were cast by felons , underage youth , non-state residents , residents of different counties and dead people , the petition said .
Voter registrations illegally contained post office boxes , not street addresses , it said .
Signatures on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been properly authenticated .
Election observers could not see every step to validate ballots .
The petition , needless to say , did not note that Georgia 's 2020 elections were the first elections in two decades to use a paper ballot .
Nor did it say that the state was the only 2020 battleground that counted its presidential votes three times .
The recent developments in Georgia suggest the 2020 election is not yet over .
Despite the responsible steps by its secretary of state and governor to defend their electoral system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant their candidate lost—the fight will continue .
One can expect more fights over Electoral College slates .
There are deadlines that will be a focal point for more legal fights and partisan bluster—if not disinformation .
States that certify their presidential results by December 8 can not have those results overturned by Congress when it convenes on January 6 to ratify the Electoral College vote .
( Each state 's presidential electors meet on December 14 to officially certify the winner . )
On January 6th , one should expect some Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That would be no different than in 2004 , when two Democrats , California Sen. Barbara Boxer and Ohio Rep. Cynthia Tubbs Jones , rejected , George W. Bush 's nomination .
Their objections , citing GOP-led voter suppression , forced each chamber to debate for two hours .
When the joint session reconvened , the Congress ratified Bush 's second term .
It is unlikely that Trump will block Biden 's presidency , as he keeps losing in federal court—including two more lawsuits on Monday .
`` They want this court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two and a half million Georgia voters who voted for Joe Biden -- and this I am unwilling to do , '' said U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Batten on Monday , dismissing the latest litigation in Georgia to overturn the election 's results , while issuing his ruling from the bench .
In Michigan , another pro-Trump lawsuit was rejected for similar reasons .
`` Plaintiffs ask this Court to ignore the orderly statutory scheme established to challenge elections and to ignore the will of millions of voters , '' wrote U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` This , the Court can not , and will not , do . ''
Nonetheless , one should expect Trump 's supporters to drag out the fight for Georgia 's senate seats .
Unlike the presidency , there are no congressional deadlines for seating senators .
It could be months before the newest senators were seated , if the results were close and challenged .
Recall that in Minnesota in 2008 , the senatorial recount took six months to resolve before Democrat Al Franken was finally seated in mid-2009 .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would keep a Republican majority in the Senate .
Sen. Mitch McConnell would remain majority leader .
He would oversee committee assignments and the legislative agenda in the early months in the Biden presidency , even if the two Democrats in Georgia eventually prevailed .

The rapidly unfolding events in Georgia this past weekend showcased the lengths that President Trump will go to overturn the 2020 general election's popular vote, the depth of disinformation that he is pushing and many partisans are accepting, and the fortitude of a handful of Georgia's constitutional officers who did not bend under pressure.
On Monday, Georgia's Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said the recount found that Democrat Joe Biden had won his state's 2020 presidential election by nearly 12,000 votes. It was the third statewide tally of the presidential election, following a manual hand count of 5 million paper ballots after Election Day, and the Election Day tally. No other battleground state in 2020 conducted as thorough an examination to verify its vote.
Georgia's governor, Republican Brian Kemp, who served as secretary of state before being elected governor in 2018—a race that his opponent, Democrat Stacy Abrams, said was marred by a catalog of voter suppression—has said that he will certify the presidential results. Trump has repeatedly called on Kemp to convene a legislative session to select a pro-Trump Electoral College slate, rather than have the slate reflect Georgia's popular vote.
But as President Trump made clear on Saturday at a rally in Valdosta, Georgia, he will not stop trying to muscle his way to a second term—even if it means ignoring the popular vote, urging Republican governors in other swing states, such as Arizona, to convene special sessions to anoint him, and filing lawsuits that he hopes will end up before the Supreme Court, where Trump expects that conservative justices will to elevate to a second term.
The Valdosta rally, Trump's first major event since the November election, had attendees from across the county who supported Trump and fanned his unfounded claims of a stolen election. The event's advertised purpose was to promote Georgia's two Republican senators who face January 5 runoffs, where, should they lose, that body would return to a Democratic majority. But from the start, Trump said that he won, listed grievances, showed videos purporting to prove electoral theft, slammed skeptics in his party, and pledged to emerge victorious.
"We're all victims. Everybody here, all these thousands of people here tonight, they're all victims," Trump said 90 minutes into the rally filled with mounting cheers of "Stop the Steal" and "Fight for Trump." Trump leaned on podium, relishing the cheers and holding forth.
"The next great victory for our movement begins right here on January 5th [the Senate runoffs] and then we are going to win back the White House," he continued. "We're going to win it back. And we're going to win back the House in 2022. And then in 2024, and hopefully I won't have to be a candidate, we're gonna win back the White House again. A friend of mine said, 'Oh, don't worry about it, sir. You are way up in the polls, you'll win in 2024.' I said, I don't want to win in 2024, I want to go back in three weeks."
Trump's strategy is to keep pressuring any official who has authority to interrupt certifying their state's vote or impact their state's Electoral College slate to act on his behalf. He mocked Kemp for not being tough enough and encouraged Rep. Doug Collins, R-GA, a loyalist, to run against Kemp in two years. He mused that maybe Arizona's GOP governor would be tougher, meaning he would be the first to convene a special session to select a pro-Trump slate.
Trump periodically returned to the rally's ostensible purpose, to boost the Republicans in the state's January runoffs, but not without repeating his desire to stay in power and modeling the tough-minded stance that he expected Republicans to take in this fight.
"If they [Georgia's incumbent Republican senators] get in—and add me to this group if you don't mind—we will be greater than ever before," Trump said toward the end to loud cheers. "America's destiny has just begun. We will not bend. We will not break. We will not give. We will never give in. We will never give up. And we will never back down. We will never ever surrender. Because we are Americans and our hearts bleed red, white and blue."
Trump's passionate attacks on the 2020 election are not just urging Republicans to override millions of legally cast votes and delegitimize Joe Biden's presidency before it has begun. He has weaponized the voting system in such a way that no matter what any election official says, including top Republican state officials in Georgia, election outcomes cannot be trusted.
Georgia is a red-run state where Republicans hold all constitutional offices and both legislative chambers. In the days before Trump's rally, Republican legislators convened hearings to build a case to reject the popular vote. Much of their rationale was based on what their party's largely untrained citizen election observers saw during the post-Election Day counting process. These observers thought they saw systemic breakdowns, which is a result of their unfamiliarity with election administration's intricacies and a process that often lacks transparency to be easily understood. But Trump observers were predisposed to believe that the process was rigged, that local election officials could not be trusted, that poll workers were part of a vast plan to steal the presidency. No one noticed that Republican officials had oversight of Georgia's elections—its technology, its procedures and eligibility rules—for years.
One of the witnesses who expected to testify before the Georgia Senate late last week was seen by this reporter during the presidential ballot hand count making unfounded claims of ballot forgery, ballot box stuffing and falsified counting. Yet there he was, issuing press releases with the same claims to legislators who seemed primed to override the popular vote.
Over the weekend, a handful of Republican state senators circulated a petition that they hoped would force Gov. Kemp to hold a special session. The petition claimed that every category of illegal election crime occurred due to "systemic failure."
Allegedly, votes were cast by felons, underage youth, non-state residents, residents of different counties and dead people, the petition said. Voter registrations illegally contained post office boxes, not street addresses, it said. Signatures on absentee ballot return envelopes allegedly had not been properly authenticated. Election observers could not see every step to validate ballots. The petition, needless to say, did not note that Georgia's 2020 elections were the first elections in two decades to use a paper ballot. Nor did it say that the state was the only 2020 battleground that counted its presidential votes three times.
The recent developments in Georgia suggest the 2020 election is not yet over. Despite the responsible steps by its secretary of state and governor to defend their electoral system and the popular vote outcome—even if it meant their candidate lost—the fight will continue.
One can expect more fights over Electoral College slates. There are deadlines that will be a focal point for more legal fights and partisan bluster—if not disinformation. States that certify their presidential results by December 8 cannot have those results overturned by Congress when it convenes on January 6 to ratify the Electoral College vote. (Each state's presidential electors meet on December 14 to officially certify the winner.)
On January 6th, one should expect some Republicans in Congress to challenge Biden's election. That would be no different than in 2004, when two Democrats, California Sen. Barbara Boxer and Ohio Rep. Cynthia Tubbs Jones, rejected, George W. Bush's nomination. Their objections, citing GOP-led voter suppression, forced each chamber to debate for two hours. When the joint session reconvened, the Congress ratified Bush's second term.
It is unlikely that Trump will block Biden's presidency, as he keeps losing in federal court—including two more lawsuits on Monday.
"They want this court to substitute its judgment for that of two and a half million Georgia voters who voted for Joe Biden -- and this I am unwilling to do," said U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Batten on Monday, dismissing the latest litigation in Georgia to overturn the election's results, while issuing his ruling from the bench.
In Michigan, another pro-Trump lawsuit was rejected for similar reasons.
"Plaintiffs ask this Court to ignore the orderly statutory scheme established to challenge elections and to ignore the will of millions of voters," wrote U.S. District Judge Linda A. Parker on Monday. "This, the Court cannot, and will not, do."
Nonetheless, one should expect Trump's supporters to drag out the fight for Georgia's senate seats. Unlike the presidency, there are no congressional deadlines for seating senators. It could be months before the newest senators were seated, if the results were close and challenged. Recall that in Minnesota in 2008, the senatorial recount took six months to resolve before Democrat Al Franken was finally seated in mid-2009.
If a similar trajectory unfurled in 2021, it would keep a Republican majority in the Senate. Sen. Mitch McConnell would remain majority leader. He would oversee committee assignments and the legislative agenda in the early months in the Biden presidency, even if the two Democrats in Georgia eventually prevailed.


alternet--2020-12-07--A pernicious legacy: How Trump put the U.S. on a path for cataclysmic war

In the military realm , Donald Trump will most likely be remembered for his insistence on ending America 's involvement in its twenty-first-century `` forever wars '' -- the fruitless , relentless , mind-crushing military campaigns undertaken by Presidents Bush and Obama in Afghanistan , Iraq , Syria , and Somalia .
After all , as a candidate , Trump pledged to bring U.S. troops home from those dreaded war zones and , in his last days in office , he 's been promising to get at least most of the way to that objective .
The president 's fixation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his own generals and other officials on the subject ) has generated a fair amount of media coverage and endeared him to his isolationist supporters .
Yet , however newsworthy it may be , this focus on Trump 's belated troop withdrawals obscures a far more significant aspect of his military legacy : the conversion of the U.S. military from a global counterterror force into one designed to fight an all-out , cataclysmic , potentially nuclear war with China and/or Russia .
People seldom notice that Trump 's approach to military policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he repeatedly denounced the failure of his predecessors to abandon those endless counterinsurgency wars , he bemoaned their alleged neglect of America 's regular armed forces and promised to spend whatever it took to `` restore '' their fighting strength .
`` In a Trump administration , '' he declared in a September 2016 campaign speech on national security , America 's military priorities would be reversed , with a withdrawal from the `` endless wars we are caught in now '' and the restoration of `` our unquestioned military strength . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ implement that very agenda , instructing his surrogates -- a succession of national security advisers and secretaries of defense -- to commence U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan ( though he agreed for a time to increase troop levels in Afghanistan ) , while submitting ever-mounting defense budgets .
The Pentagon 's annual spending authority climbed every year between 2016 and 2020 , rising from $ 580 billion at the start of his administration to $ 713 at the end , with much of that increment directed to the procurement of advanced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Department of Energy budget for the acquisition of new nuclear weapons and the full-scale `` modernization '' of the country 's nuclear arsenal .
Far more important than that increase in arms spending , however , was the shift in strategy that went with it .
The military posture President Trump inherited from the Obama administration was focused on fighting the Global War on Terror ( GWOT ) , a grueling , never-ending struggle to identify , track , and destroy anti-Western zealots in far-flung areas of Asia , Africa , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's bequeathing to Joe Biden is almost entirely focused on defeating China and Russia in future `` high-end '' conflicts waged directly against those two countries -- fighting that would undoubtedly involve high-tech conventional weapons on a staggering scale and could easily trigger nuclear war .
From the GWOT to the GPC It 's impossible to overstate the significance of the Pentagon 's shift from a strategy aimed at fighting relatively small bands of militants to one aimed at fighting the military forces of China and Russia on the peripheries of Eurasia .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bands of infantry and Special Operations Forces units backed by patrolling aircraft and missile-armed drones ; the other envisions the commitment of multiple aircraft carriers , fighter squadrons , nuclear-capable bombers , and brigade-strength armored divisions .
Similarly , in the GWOT years , it was generally assumed that U.S. troops would face adversaries largely armed with light infantry weapons and homemade bombs , not , as in any future war with China or Russia , an enemy equipped with advanced tanks , planes , missiles , ships , and a full range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlook from counterterrorism to what , in these years , has come to be known in Washington as `` great power competition , '' or GPC , was first officially articulated in the Pentagon 's National Security Strategy of February 2018 .
`` The central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security , '' it insisted , `` is the reemergence of long-term , strategic competition by what the National Security Strategy classifies as revisionist powers , '' a catchphrase for China and Russia .
( It used those rare italics to emphasize just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Department of Defense and the military services , this meant only one thing : from that moment on , so much of what they did would be aimed at preparing to fight and defeat China and/or Russia in high-intensity conflict .
As Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis put it to the Senate Armed Services Committee that April , `` The 2018 National Defense Strategy provides clear strategic direction for America 's military to reclaim an era of strategic purpose ...
Although the Department continues to prosecute the campaign against terrorists , long-term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now the primary focus of U.S. national security . ''
This being the case , Mattis added , America 's armed forces would have to be completely re-equipped with new weaponry intended for high-intensity combat against well-armed adversaries .
`` Our military remains capable , but our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare , '' he noted .
`` The combination of rapidly changing technology [ and ] the negative impact on military readiness resulting from the longest continuous period of combat in our nation 's history [ has ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' In response , we must `` accelerate modernization programs in a sustained effort to solidify our competitive advantage . ''
In that same testimony , Mattis laid out the procurement priorities that have since governed planning as the military seeks to `` solidify '' its competitive advantage .
First comes the `` modernization '' of the nation 's nuclear weapons capabilities , including its nuclear command-control-and-communications systems ; then , the expansion of the Navy through the acquisition of startling numbers of additional surface ships and submarines , along with the modernization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accelerated procurement of advanced combat planes ; finally , to ensure the country 's military superiority for decades to come , vastly increased investment in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence , robotics , hypersonics , and cyber warfare .
These priorities have by now been hard-wired into the military budget and govern Pentagon planning .
Last February , when submitting its proposed budget for fiscal year ( FY ) 2021 , for example , the Department of Defense asserted , `` The FY 2021 budget supports the irreversible implementation of the National Defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Department 's decision-making in reprioritizing resources and shifting investments to prepare for a potential future , high-end fight . ''
This nightmarish vision , in other words , is the military future President Trump will leave to the Biden administration .
The Navy in the Lead From the very beginning , Donald Trump has emphasized the expansion of the Navy as an overriding objective .
`` When Ronald Reagan left office , our Navy had 592 ships ... Today , the Navy has just 276 ships , '' he lamented in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first priorities as president , he asserted , would be to restore its strength .
`` We will build a Navy of 350 surface ships and submarines , '' he promised .
Once in office , the `` 350-ship Navy '' ( later increased to 355 ships ) became a mantra .
In emphasizing a big Navy , Trump was influenced to some degree by the sheer spectacle of large modern warships , especially aircraft carriers with their scores of combat planes .
`` Our carriers are the centerpiece of American military might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nearly completed carrier , the USS Gerald R. Ford , in March 2017 .
`` We are standing here today on four-and-a-half acres of combat power and sovereign U.S. territory , the likes of which there is nothing ... there is no competition to this ship . ''
Not surprisingly , top Pentagon officials embraced the president 's big-Navy vision with undisguised enthusiasm .
The reason : they view China as their number one adversary and believe that any future conflict with that country will largely be fought from the Pacific Ocean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only practical way to concentrate U.S. firepower against China 's increasingly built-up coastal defenses .
Then-Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper expressed this outlook well when , in September , he deemed Beijing the Pentagon 's `` top strategic competitor '' and the Indo-Pacific region its `` priority theater '' in planning for future wars .
The waters of that region , he suggested , represent `` the epicenter of great power competition with China '' and so were witnessing increasingly provocative behavior by Chinese air and naval units .
In the face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States must be ready to deter conflict and , if necessary , fight and win at sea . ''
In that address , Esper made it clear that the U.S. Navy remains vastly superior to its Chinese counterpart .
Nonetheless , he asserted , `` We must stay ahead ; we must retain our overmatch ; and we will keep building modern ships to ensure we remain the world 's greatest Navy . ''
Although Trump fired Esper on November 9th for , among other things , resisting White House demands to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Iraq and Afghanistan , the former defense secretary 's focus on fighting China from the Pacific and adjacent seas remains deeply embedded in Pentagon strategic thinking and will be a legacy of the Trump years .
In support of such a policy , billions of dollars have already been committed to the construction of new surface ships and submarines , ensuring that such a legacy will persist for years , if not decades to come .
Trump said little about what should be done for U.S. ground forces during the 2016 campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them even bigger and better equipped .
What he did do , however , was speak of his admiration for World War II Army generals known for their aggressive battle tactics .
`` I was a fan of Douglas MacArthur .
I was a fan of George Patton , '' he told Maggie Haberman and David Sanger of the New York Times that March .
`` If we had Douglas MacArthur today or if we had George Patton today and if we had a president that would let them do their thing you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Trump 's reverence for General Patton has proven especially suggestive in a new era of great-power competition , as U.S. and NATO forces again prepare to face well-equipped land armies on the continent of Europe , much as they did during World War II .
Back then , it was the tank corps of Nazi Germany that Patton 's own tanks confronted on the Western Front .
Today , U.S. and NATO forces face Russia 's best-equipped armies in Eastern Europe along a line stretching from the Baltic republics and Poland in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If a war with Russia were to break out , much of the fighting would likely occur along this line , with main-force units from both sides engaged in head-on , high-intensity combat .
Since the Cold War ended in 1991 with the implosion of the Soviet Union , American strategists had devoted little serious thought to high-intensity ground combat against a well-equipped adversary in Europe .
Now , with East-West tensions rising and U.S. forces again facing well-armed potential foes in what increasingly looks like a military-driven version of the Cold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more attention .
This time around , however , U.S. forces face a very different combat environment .
In the Cold War years , Western strategists generally imagined a contest of brute strength in which our tanks and artillery would battle theirs along hundreds of miles of front lines until one side or the other was thoroughly depleted and had no choice but to sue for peace ( or ignite a global nuclear catastrophe ) .
Today 's strategists , however , imagine far more multidimensional ( or `` multi-domain '' ) warfare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rear areas , as well as into space and cyberspace .
In such an environment , they 've come to believe that the victor will have to act swiftly , delivering paralyzing blows to what they call the enemy 's C3I capabilities ( critical command , control , communications , and intelligence ) in a matter of days , or even hours .
Only then would powerful armored units be able to strike deep into enemy territory and , in true Patton fashion , ensure a Russian defeat .
The U.S. military has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' and assumes that the U.S. will indeed dominate space , cyberspace , airspace , and the electromagnetic spectrum .
In a future confrontation with Russian forces in Europe , as the doctrine lays it out , U.S. air power would seek control of the airspace above the battlefield , while using guided missiles to knock out Russian radar systems , missile batteries , and their C3I facilities .
The Army would conduct similar strikes using a new generation of long-range artillery systems and ballistic missiles .
Only when Russia 's defensive capabilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up with a ground assault , Patton-style .
Be Prepared to Fight with Nukes As imagined by senior Pentagon strategists , any future conflict with China or Russia is likely to entail intense , all-out combat on the ground , at sea , and in the air aimed at destroying an enemy 's critical military infrastructure in the first hours or , at most , days of battle , opening the way for a swift U.S. invasion of enemy territory .
This sounds like a winning strategy -- but only if you possess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If not , what then ?
This is the quandary faced by Chinese and Russian strategists whose forces do n't quite match up to the power of the American ones .
While their own war planning remains , to date , a mystery , it 's hard not to imagine that the Chinese and Russian equivalents of the Pentagon high command are pondering the possibility of a nuclear response to any all-out American assault on their militaries and territories .
The examination of available Russian military literature has led some Western analysts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasing their reliance on `` tactical '' nuclear weapons to obliterate superior U.S./NATO forces before an invasion of their country could be mounted ( much as , in the previous century , U.S. forces relied on just such weaponry to avert a possible Soviet invasion of Western Europe ) .
Russian military analysts have indeed published articles exploring just such an option -- sometimes described by the phrase `` escalate to de-escalate '' ( a misnomer if ever there was one ) -- although Russian military officials have never openly discussed such tactics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cited that unofficial literature as evidence of Russian plans to employ tactical nukes in a future East-West confrontation and used it to justify the acquisition of new U.S. weapons of just this sort .
`` Russian strategy and doctrine ... mistakenly assesses that the threat of nuclear escalation or actual first use of nuclear weapons would serve to 'de-escalate ' a conflict on terms favorable to Russia , '' the administration 's Nuclear Posture Review of 2018 asserts .
`` To correct any Russian misperceptions of advantage ... the president must have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] options , including a variety of delivery systems and explosive yields . ''
In furtherance of such a policy , that review called for the introduction of two new types of nuclear munitions : a `` low-yield '' warhead ( meaning it could , say , pulverize Lower Manhattan without destroying all of New York City ) for a Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile and a new nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile .
As in so many of the developments described above , this Trump initiative will prove difficult to reverse in the Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ W76-2 low-yield warheads have already rolled off the assembly lines , been installed on missiles , and are now deployed on Trident submarines at sea .
These could presumably be removed from service and decommissioned , but this has rarely occurred in recent military history and , to do so , a new president would have to go against his own military high command .
Even more difficult would be to negate the strategic rationale behind their deployment .
During the Trump years , the notion that nuclear arms could be used as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflicts took deep root in Pentagon thinking and erasing it will prove to be no easy feat .
Amid arguments over the withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan , Iraq , Syria , and Somalia , amid the firings and sudden replacements of civilian leaders at the Pentagon , Donald Trump 's most significant legacy -- the one that could lead not to yet more forever wars but to a forever disaster -- has passed almost unnoticed in the media and in political circles in Washington .
Supporters of the new administration and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( though not his actual appointees to national security posts ) have advanced some stirring ideas about transforming American military policy , including reducing the role military force plays in America 's foreign relations and redeploying some military funds to other purposes like fighting Covid-19 .
Such ideas are to be welcomed , but President Biden 's top priority in the military area should be to focus on the true Trump military legacy -- the one that has set us on a war course in relation to China and Russia -- and do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a safer , more prudent direction .
Otherwise , the phrase `` forever war '' could gain a new , far grimmer meaning .
Michael T. Klare , a TomDispatch regular , is the five-college professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and a senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association .
He is the author of 15 books , the latest of which is All Hell Breaking Loose : The Pentagon 's Perspective on Climate Change .
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , John Feffer 's new dystopian novel ( the second in the Splinterlands series ) Frostlands , Beverly Gologorsky 's novel Every Body Has a Story , and Tom Engelhardt 's A Nation Unmade by War , as well as Alfred McCoy 's In the Shadows of the American Century : The Rise and Decline of U.S .
Global Power and John Dower 's The Violent American Century : War and Terror Since World War II .

In the military realm, Donald Trump will most likely be remembered for his insistence on ending America's involvement in its twenty-first-century "forever wars" -- the fruitless, relentless, mind-crushing military campaigns undertaken by Presidents Bush and Obama in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Somalia. After all, as a candidate, Trump pledged to bring U.S. troops home from those dreaded war zones and, in his last days in office, he's been promising to get at least most of the way to that objective. The president's fixation on this issue (and the opposition of his own generals and other officials on the subject) has generated a fair amount of media coverage and endeared him to his isolationist supporters. Yet, however newsworthy it may be, this focus on Trump's belated troop withdrawals obscures a far more significant aspect of his military legacy: the conversion of the U.S. military from a global counterterror force into one designed to fight an all-out, cataclysmic, potentially nuclear war with China and/or Russia.
People seldom notice that Trump's approach to military policy has always been two-faced. Even as he repeatedly denounced the failure of his predecessors to abandon those endless counterinsurgency wars, he bemoaned their alleged neglect of America's regular armed forces and promised to spend whatever it took to "restore" their fighting strength. "In a Trump administration," he declared in a September 2016 campaign speech on national security, America's military priorities would be reversed, with a withdrawal from the "endless wars we are caught in now" and the restoration of "our unquestioned military strength."
Once in office, he acted to implement that very agenda, instructing his surrogates -- a succession of national security advisers and secretaries of defense -- to commence U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan (though he agreed for a time to increase troop levels in Afghanistan), while submitting ever-mounting defense budgets. The Pentagon's annual spending authority climbed every year between 2016 and 2020, rising from $580 billion at the start of his administration to $713 at the end, with much of that increment directed to the procurement of advanced weaponry. Additional billions were incorporated into the Department of Energy budget for the acquisition of new nuclear weapons and the full-scale "modernization" of the country's nuclear arsenal.
Far more important than that increase in arms spending, however, was the shift in strategy that went with it. The military posture President Trump inherited from the Obama administration was focused on fighting the Global War on Terror (GWOT), a grueling, never-ending struggle to identify, track, and destroy anti-Western zealots in far-flung areas of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. The posture he's bequeathing to Joe Biden is almost entirely focused on defeating China and Russia in future "high-end" conflicts waged directly against those two countries -- fighting that would undoubtedly involve high-tech conventional weapons on a staggering scale and could easily trigger nuclear war.
From the GWOT to the GPC
It's impossible to overstate the significance of the Pentagon's shift from a strategy aimed at fighting relatively small bands of militants to one aimed at fighting the military forces of China and Russia on the peripheries of Eurasia. The first entailed the deployment of scattered bands of infantry and Special Operations Forces units backed by patrolling aircraft and missile-armed drones; the other envisions the commitment of multiple aircraft carriers, fighter squadrons, nuclear-capable bombers, and brigade-strength armored divisions. Similarly, in the GWOT years, it was generally assumed that U.S. troops would face adversaries largely armed with light infantry weapons and homemade bombs, not, as in any future war with China or Russia, an enemy equipped with advanced tanks, planes, missiles, ships, and a full range of nuclear munitions.
This shift in outlook from counterterrorism to what, in these years, has come to be known in Washington as "great power competition," or GPC, was first officially articulated in the Pentagon's National Security Strategy of February 2018. "The central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security," it insisted, "is the reemergence of long-term, strategic competition by what the National Security Strategy classifies as revisionist powers," a catchphrase for China and Russia. (It used those rare italics to emphasize just how significant this was.)
For the Department of Defense and the military services, this meant only one thing: from that moment on, so much of what they did would be aimed at preparing to fight and defeat China and/or Russia in high-intensity conflict. As Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis put it to the Senate Armed Services Committee that April, "The 2018 National Defense Strategy provides clear strategic direction for America's military to reclaim an era of strategic purpose... Although the Department continues to prosecute the campaign against terrorists, long-term strategic competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of U.S. national security."
This being the case, Mattis added, America's armed forces would have to be completely re-equipped with new weaponry intended for high-intensity combat against well-armed adversaries. "Our military remains capable, but our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare," he noted. "The combination of rapidly changing technology [and] the negative impact on military readiness resulting from the longest continuous period of combat in our nation's history [has] created an overstretched and under-resourced military." In response, we must "accelerate modernization programs in a sustained effort to solidify our competitive advantage."
In that same testimony, Mattis laid out the procurement priorities that have since governed planning as the military seeks to "solidify" its competitive advantage. First comes the "modernization" of the nation's nuclear weapons capabilities, including its nuclear command-control-and-communications systems; then, the expansion of the Navy through the acquisition of startling numbers of additional surface ships and submarines, along with the modernization of the Air Force, through the accelerated procurement of advanced combat planes; finally, to ensure the country's military superiority for decades to come, vastly increased investment in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, robotics, hypersonics, and cyber warfare.
These priorities have by now been hard-wired into the military budget and govern Pentagon planning. Last February, when submitting its proposed budget for fiscal year (FY) 2021, for example, the Department of Defense asserted, "The FY 2021 budget supports the irreversible implementation of the National Defense Strategy (NDS), which drives the Department's decision-making in reprioritizing resources and shifting investments to prepare for a potential future, high-end fight." This nightmarish vision, in other words, is the military future President Trump will leave to the Biden administration.
The Navy in the Lead
From the very beginning, Donald Trump has emphasized the expansion of the Navy as an overriding objective. "When Ronald Reagan left office, our Navy had 592 ships... Today, the Navy has just 276 ships," he lamented in that 2016 campaign speech. One of his first priorities as president, he asserted, would be to restore its strength. "We will build a Navy of 350 surface ships and submarines," he promised. Once in office, the "350-ship Navy" (later increased to 355 ships) became a mantra.
In emphasizing a big Navy, Trump was influenced to some degree by the sheer spectacle of large modern warships, especially aircraft carriers with their scores of combat planes. "Our carriers are the centerpiece of American military might overseas," he insisted while visiting the nearly completed carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, in March 2017. "We are standing here today on four-and-a-half acres of combat power and sovereign U.S. territory, the likes of which there is nothing... there is no competition to this ship."
Not surprisingly, top Pentagon officials embraced the president's big-Navy vision with undisguised enthusiasm. The reason: they view China as their number one adversary and believe that any future conflict with that country will largely be fought from the Pacific Ocean and nearby seas -- that being the only practical way to concentrate U.S. firepower against China's increasingly built-up coastal defenses.
Then-Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper expressed this outlook well when, in September, he deemed Beijing the Pentagon's "top strategic competitor" and the Indo-Pacific region its "priority theater" in planning for future wars. The waters of that region, he suggested, represent "the epicenter of great power competition with China" and so were witnessing increasingly provocative behavior by Chinese air and naval units. In the face of such destabilizing activity, "the United States must be ready to deter conflict and, if necessary, fight and win at sea."
In that address, Esper made it clear that the U.S. Navy remains vastly superior to its Chinese counterpart. Nonetheless, he asserted, "We must stay ahead; we must retain our overmatch; and we will keep building modern ships to ensure we remain the world's greatest Navy."
Although Trump fired Esper on November 9th for, among other things, resisting White House demands to speed up the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, the former defense secretary's focus on fighting China from the Pacific and adjacent seas remains deeply embedded in Pentagon strategic thinking and will be a legacy of the Trump years. In support of such a policy, billions of dollars have already been committed to the construction of new surface ships and submarines, ensuring that such a legacy will persist for years, if not decades to come.
Do Like Patton: Strike Deep, Strike Hard
Trump said little about what should be done for U.S. ground forces during the 2016 campaign, except to indicate that he wanted them even bigger and better equipped. What he did do, however, was speak of his admiration for World War II Army generals known for their aggressive battle tactics. "I was a fan of Douglas MacArthur. I was a fan of George Patton," he told Maggie Haberman and David Sanger of the New York Times that March. "If we had Douglas MacArthur today or if we had George Patton today and if we had a president that would let them do their thing you wouldn't have ISIS, okay?"
Trump's reverence for General Patton has proven especially suggestive in a new era of great-power competition, as U.S. and NATO forces again prepare to face well-equipped land armies on the continent of Europe, much as they did during World War II. Back then, it was the tank corps of Nazi Germany that Patton's own tanks confronted on the Western Front. Today, U.S. and NATO forces face Russia's best-equipped armies in Eastern Europe along a line stretching from the Baltic republics and Poland in the north to Romania in the south. If a war with Russia were to break out, much of the fighting would likely occur along this line, with main-force units from both sides engaged in head-on, high-intensity combat.
Since the Cold War ended in 1991 with the implosion of the Soviet Union, American strategists had devoted little serious thought to high-intensity ground combat against a well-equipped adversary in Europe. Now, with East-West tensions rising and U.S. forces again facing well-armed potential foes in what increasingly looks like a military-driven version of the Cold War, that problem is receiving far more attention.
This time around, however, U.S. forces face a very different combat environment. In the Cold War years, Western strategists generally imagined a contest of brute strength in which our tanks and artillery would battle theirs along hundreds of miles of front lines until one side or the other was thoroughly depleted and had no choice but to sue for peace (or ignite a global nuclear catastrophe). Today's strategists, however, imagine far more multidimensional (or "multi-domain") warfare extending to the air and well into rear areas, as well as into space and cyberspace. In such an environment, they've come to believe that the victor will have to act swiftly, delivering paralyzing blows to what they call the enemy's C3I capabilities (critical command, control, communications, and intelligence) in a matter of days, or even hours. Only then would powerful armored units be able to strike deep into enemy territory and, in true Patton fashion, ensure a Russian defeat.
The U.S. military has labeled such a strategy "all-domain warfare" and assumes that the U.S. will indeed dominate space, cyberspace, airspace, and the electromagnetic spectrum. In a future confrontation with Russian forces in Europe, as the doctrine lays it out, U.S. air power would seek control of the airspace above the battlefield, while using guided missiles to knock out Russian radar systems, missile batteries, and their C3I facilities. The Army would conduct similar strikes using a new generation of long-range artillery systems and ballistic missiles. Only when Russia's defensive capabilities were thoroughly degraded would that Army follow up with a ground assault, Patton-style.
Be Prepared to Fight with Nukes
As imagined by senior Pentagon strategists, any future conflict with China or Russia is likely to entail intense, all-out combat on the ground, at sea, and in the air aimed at destroying an enemy's critical military infrastructure in the first hours or, at most, days of battle, opening the way for a swift U.S. invasion of enemy territory. This sounds like a winning strategy -- but only if you possess all the advantages in weaponry and technology. If not, what then? This is the quandary faced by Chinese and Russian strategists whose forces don't quite match up to the power of the American ones. While their own war planning remains, to date, a mystery, it's hard not to imagine that the Chinese and Russian equivalents of the Pentagon high command are pondering the possibility of a nuclear response to any all-out American assault on their militaries and territories.
The examination of available Russian military literature has led some Western analysts to conclude that the Russians are indeed increasing their reliance on "tactical" nuclear weapons to obliterate superior U.S./NATO forces before an invasion of their country could be mounted (much as, in the previous century, U.S. forces relied on just such weaponry to avert a possible Soviet invasion of Western Europe). Russian military analysts have indeed published articles exploring just such an option -- sometimes described by the phrase "escalate to de-escalate" (a misnomer if ever there was one) -- although Russian military officials have never openly discussed such tactics. Still, the Trump administration has cited that unofficial literature as evidence of Russian plans to employ tactical nukes in a future East-West confrontation and used it to justify the acquisition of new U.S. weapons of just this sort.
"Russian strategy and doctrine... mistakenly assesses that the threat of nuclear escalation or actual first use of nuclear weapons would serve to 'de-escalate' a conflict on terms favorable to Russia," the administration's Nuclear Posture Review of 2018 asserts. "To correct any Russian misperceptions of advantage... the president must have a range of limited and graduated [nuclear] options, including a variety of delivery systems and explosive yields." In furtherance of such a policy, that review called for the introduction of two new types of nuclear munitions: a "low-yield" warhead (meaning it could, say, pulverize Lower Manhattan without destroying all of New York City) for a Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile and a new nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile.
As in so many of the developments described above, this Trump initiative will prove difficult to reverse in the Biden years. After all, the first W76-2 low-yield warheads have already rolled off the assembly lines, been installed on missiles, and are now deployed on Trident submarines at sea. These could presumably be removed from service and decommissioned, but this has rarely occurred in recent military history and, to do so, a new president would have to go against his own military high command. Even more difficult would be to negate the strategic rationale behind their deployment. During the Trump years, the notion that nuclear arms could be used as ordinary weapons of war in future great-power conflicts took deep root in Pentagon thinking and erasing it will prove to be no easy feat.
Amid arguments over the withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Somalia, amid the firings and sudden replacements of civilian leaders at the Pentagon, Donald Trump's most significant legacy -- the one that could lead not to yet more forever wars but to a forever disaster -- has passed almost unnoticed in the media and in political circles in Washington.
Supporters of the new administration and even members of Biden's immediate circle (though not his actual appointees to national security posts) have advanced some stirring ideas about transforming American military policy, including reducing the role military force plays in America's foreign relations and redeploying some military funds to other purposes like fighting Covid-19. Such ideas are to be welcomed, but President Biden's top priority in the military area should be to focus on the true Trump military legacy -- the one that has set us on a war course in relation to China and Russia -- and do everything in his power to steer us in a safer, more prudent direction. Otherwise, the phrase "forever war" could gain a new, far grimmer meaning.
Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is the five-college professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and a senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association. He is the author of 15 books, the latest of which is All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon's Perspective on Climate Change.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer's new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.
Copyright 2020 Michael T. Klare