Trump is apparently expanding the US military presence in the Middle East, a possible buildup to an attack on Iran. The why of this is important, since it involves nuclear capability, Israel, and quite possibly some corrupt scheme to line Trump’s pockets by either getting a payoff for stopping the attack or a payoff for executing it. All-in-all an interesting development for a President who just scammed $10B from American taxpayers for his “Board of Peace,” which itself raises interesting Constitutional questions about that whole Advise and Consent clause that requires Senate approval for treaties.

A post – or podcast episode – for another day. For now, this got me to thinking about US military leaders and how I would expect them to react if given orders to conduct offensive operations in support of an expansionist fascist regime.

We already know they will conduct offensive operations against both nation states and non-state actors given a plausible national security and moral argument, however specious (see Viet Nam and Communist expansion).

What would it take to get them on board with an openly expansionist foreign policy? To capture Greenland by force….then Cuba…Panama (the stole our canal, after all)? He’s openly spoken about invading all these countries, plus Mexico, on a “go after the cartels” pretext.

The US has a long history, especially in the Western Hemisphere (Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, others) and the Southwest Pacific (Philippines), of executing colonial wars, sometimes based on fear of European intervention, sometimes on a pretext of stopping the spread of communism, often simply to protect the interests of US corporations.

I think the US military learned some lessons in Viet Nam, and I believe that the post-Viet Nam War Army I served in, only ten years removed from the end of the draft, might have pushed back against aggressive military interventions where no clear US national interest is demonstrated. I’m not sure how we would have reacted, especially given the incomplete transition from a conscription to an all-volunteer force.

My context is the First Gulf War and our intervention in the Balkans – both important as part of our role in keeping world order and enforcing certain conventions and agreements (e.g., national sovereignty, stopping genocide). I have to say that I was a bit taken aback by how enthusiastically some soldiers, especially officers, embraced the chance to experience combat. But I’m almost 25 years removed from my military career, and I know things have changed.

Geopolitics has changed since the World Trade Center attacks in 2001. The US twice attempted to invade and rebuild nations (Iraq and Afghanistan) in our image as capitalist democracies and failed miserably both times. I don’t imagine the Army has much interest in repeating that exercise, even if some believe that Iran is ripe for this given recent protests against the regime and Iran’s history of democracy (which we ended in 1952 by imposing the Shah).

Moreover, the Army and other military services have changed. I recently met a young woman who is running for Congress in Virginia who served in the US Army Armor branch as a Tank Company Commander. I’ve met her, and would have been happy to be her first Tank Platoon Sergeant. There is no doubt in my military mind that Captain Beggs would be a very effective combat commander. But I wonder about the effects of having leaders like this in combat formations – not on combat effectiveness, but in how thoughtfully they would obey – or disobey – orders to fight unnecessary wars.

Trump will attack Iran, so check your prediction market account. But I predict an invasion of Cuba, perhaps on a “humanitarian relief” pretext once our blockade has starved them out enough. This would be a clear act of aggressive imperialism, but the US military probably buys in, especially if given a powerful enough “we’re saving lives, not taking over” case.

Greenland, not so much, and I expect a couple of generals have already told Trump so. It also matters that young people seem to be coalescing around anti-war thinking, perhaps inspired by opposition to Israeli genocide in Gaza. Enlistments are down, and though some blame failure of young people to qualify, I think disinterest in military service is also a factor.

So I think we still have some hope that the US military and a majority of the US population will reject the kind aggressive wars of conquest that fascist regimes historically have used for a variety of purposes. They want to create an enemy that must be vanquished before prosperity can be achieved. They understand that this increases corporate profits and keeps the population employed. And it conditions the population for autocratic rule because dangerous times call for suspension of normal civil liberties, which is in the end their goal. In our particular case, this might be a signal to Christian Nationalists that Trump is willing to fight religious wars on their behalf (Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth invited Doug Wilson, a proponent of what amounts to Christian Sharia law, to speak at the Pentagon). It also helps shift the “monster under the bed” needed to control MAGA supporters from immigrants generally to Muslims in particular.

It’s possible that senior US military leaders would push back on an aggressively militaristic foreign policy grounded in occupying other countries. But I wouldn’t bet on it…I mean, predict it.