By Nick Catoggio
Wednesday, June 11, 2025
If you missed this yesterday, save yourself time and skip
to the 2:45 mark in the video. Everything before that is stuff you learned in
fourth grade and feels vaguely like the answer to the question, “What if we
made Greta Thunberg director of national intelligence?”
“As we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear
annihilation than ever before, political elite and warmongers are carelessly
fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers,” says America’s most
powerful intelligence officer. “Perhaps it’s because they are confident that
they will have access to nuclear shelters for themselves and for their families
that regular people won’t have access to.”
Well.
There are a dozen angles from which one might approach
that, starting with the fact that we are assuredly not
closer to nuclear war than we’ve ever been. Only a liar or an ignoramus
would say so. Which one is Tulsi Gabbard?
Another is to wonder why the DNI is cutting videos
lobbying the public on foreign policy. That job isn’t supposed to be political;
rather the opposite, so as not to raise suspicions that intelligence being
supplied to the president has been colored by his director’s bias. In the 20
years since the position was created, I can’t recall the person holding it ever
issuing a statement laying out their pensées on war like Gabbard does
here.
A third angle, popular yesterday among hawks, was to
remind her that the atomic bomb almost certainly saved American and Japanese
lives on balance. So many Purple Hearts were made in the United States for the
anticipated military invasion of the home islands that the Defense Department
still hadn’t depleted its inventory more
than 50 years later. Japan’s surrender after Nagasaki averted a bloodbath
that would have produced millions of casualties.
But here’s the angle that occurred to me: Did she get
this from Tucker? Last month, Tucker Carlson hosted a minor housing
official from the George H.W. Bush administration who claimed
that the United States has built a secret network of bunkers to shelter
America’s ruling class from doomsday at the low, low cost of $21 trillion.
The point of the first 2:45 of Gabbard’s clip is that
there’s nowhere to hide from the horrific consequences if the bomb drops, and
true enough. For her to then turn around and allege that “elites and
warmongers” not only will be able to hide but will be so safe underground as to
render them indifferent to the end of human civilization can’t be
explained by logic, only by conspiratorial Carlsonian populist paranoia.
It’s several standard deviations away from rational
thought. Which is just what you want to see in a director of national
intelligence, I’m sure you’ll agree.
There are three points to make about all this.
It’s part of a postliberal ‘apology tour.’
In the same way that promoting healthier eating offends
right-wing populists when Michelle Obama does it but not
when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. does, American officials apologizing to former
enemies offends
them when Democrats do it but not when Republicans do.
Gabbard’s quasi-apology to Japan for bombing Hiroshima
isn’t the first time this year that the White House has condemned prior U.S.
military action. “The so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than
they built,” Donald Trump told
an audience in Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago, alluding to Iraq. “In recent
years, far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion
that it’s our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use U.S. policy
to dispense justice for their sins.” The odds can’t be worse than 50-50 that
he’ll call the Cold War a mistake the next time he meets Vladimir Putin face to
face.
It’s unusual to see apologies issued from a movement that
typically treats
remorse as a character flaw, evidence of weakness. But Trump and Gabbard
have strategic reasons to signal regret: They want to ally the United States
with illiberal nations, and part of their effort to shape public opinion is to
encourage Americans to second-guess previous uses of military force against
illiberal regimes.
If Tulsi Gabbard were sincerely worried about nuclear
brinkmanship, she’d worry about Moscow. Russian expansionism is the world’s
foremost cause of weapons proliferation right now and will remain that way
until China at last makes a move on Taiwan. Ukraine, for instance, must be considering building nukes
to deter the next Russian invasion; European powers, led by France, are mulling
their own “nuclear umbrella” in the absence of U.S. leadership. The surest
way to make nuclear war more likely is to tempt Putin into attacking Eastern
Europe by undermining NATO—yet that’s exactly what
the Trump administration has done, no doubt with Gabbard’s support.
Russian, not American, “warmongering” is the greatest
risk to world peace, and Gabbard would acknowledge that if she weren’t a
longstanding useful idiot. (Senate Republicans who dutifully confirmed her
to be DNI are suddenly
shocked, shocked, to discover it.) Her Hiroshima video implicitly adopts a
talking point that the Kremlin has used since the beginning of the war: Let
Russia do whatever it wants to whoever it wants, or else World War III is in
the offing. It’s nuclear blackmail, and America’s top intelligence official is
part of the extortion.
I don’t think Gabbard’s video is primarily about Russia,
though. I suspect it’s ultimately about Iran, another traditional American
enemy with whom her views often align in
strange and conspicuous ways. There’s a power
struggle happening behind the scenes right now between doves like Tucker
and hawks like radio host Mark Levin as the president weighs whether to support
an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program. (Levin recently met with Trump in
person to lobby him on it, prompting this screed from
Carlson.) The new video from Gabbard is a sort of “bat signal” to try to
rally MAGA populists behind the doves at a decisive moment. Mark Levin will
be safe in his trillion-dollar Pentagon super-bunker if Israel bombs Iran’s
enrichment facilities—but what about you?
If nothing else, highlighting the horror of Hiroshima
encourages Americans to draw a moral equivalence that flatters figures like
Putin. If you’re looking to create an international order in which authoritarian
bullies get to pulverize their regional neighbors with impunity, you need
to extinguish the American people’s native antipathy to foreign strongmen.
“Sure, Russia’s doing terrible things in Ukraine, but we nuked people” is one
way to do it. It’s a tactic most commonly seen in progressive tankies, but then
that’s
Tulsi all over.
This is the most poorly informed administration in
American history.
Hawks frequently accuse Gabbard of being a Russian asset,
but I’ve never gotten that sense from her. There’s always been a purity to her
populism that makes me believe she’s in earnest. Like any good MAGA, her
skepticism toward information provided by America’s establishment and her
gullibility toward information provided by its adversaries seem equally
absolute.
Another good trait to have in a director of national
intelligence, no?
If I’m right, it’s possible that Gabbard really does
believe that “elites” have access to nuclear shelters so luxe that they’ve
stopped caring whether their policies bring about Armageddon or not. Never mind
that someone in her position should be able to obtain a definitive answer about
that in five minutes.
And so her Hiroshima video may be just the latest
reminder that this is surely the most ill-informed administration the United
States has ever had.
Partly that’s due to willful ignorance by the president.
Last month, NBC News reported that Trump had sat for a grand total of 14
intelligence briefings to date, turning the “President’s Daily Brief” into
more of a weekly brief. (Joe Biden had received 90 such briefings over a
comparable period.) To try to get him more interested, Gabbard is considering,
uh …
You know what? I’m just going to quote NBC News because
it would embarrass me to have to describe this in my own words:
One idea that has been discussed is
to transform the PDB so it mirrors a Fox News broadcast, according to four of
the people with direct knowledge of the discussions. Under that concept as it
has been discussed, the national intelligence director’s office could hire a
Fox News producer to produce it and one of the network’s personalities to
present it; Trump, an avid Fox News viewer, could then watch the broadcast PDB
whenever he wanted.
A new PDB could include not only
graphics and pictures but also maps with animated representations of exploding
bombs, similar to a video game, another one of the people with knowledge of the
discussions said.
The president doesn’t know what’s going on moment to
moment because he can’t get motivated to find out unless Steve Doocy is talking
to him through a screen.
Another problem is willful blindness by Gabbard herself.
In May, she fired
two top intelligence officials after they concluded that immigrants who
belong to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua are probably not acting at
the behest of the Venezuelan government, contradicting a key claim Trump made
when he invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Gabbard’s office insisted that the two
were fired for leaking but she’s now requiring intelligence reports to be approved
by her or her top deputy before they’re published, which suggests that the
conclusion itself was the problem.
“Nobody wants to give the boss what he or she needs to
hear if the messenger is going to get shot,” one former intelligence official
told Axios. Gabbard and Trump don’t want the truth; they want their
biases confirmed.
And then there’s the eternal information problem that
bedevils the modern right, the feedback
loop between populist leaders and populist media. When Trump claims that
Los Angeles would be “burning
to the ground right now” if he hadn’t deployed U.S. troops, he’s
exaggerating to
a preposterous degree—but maybe not intentionally. If most of the
information you got came from apocalyptic right-wing social media and Fox News,
you, too, truly might believe that the entire city, if not the state, was about
to go up in flames.
So when Tulsi Gabbard says the world is “closer to the
brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before,” consider the possibility that
she’s not reciting Russian propaganda. (Knowingly, I mean.) She may simply have
sat through one too many MAGA
grift-casts grousing about Ukraine and ended up believing the lie.
Whether by choice or by disposition, this is the most
aggressively ignorant government we’ve ever elected. And it’s getting stupider
by the day.
Postliberals want to wage war on domestic enemies, not
foreign ones.
The thrust of Gabbard’s video isn’t that imperial Japan
was done dirty or that it’s almost midnight on the doomsday clock. It’s that
the real enemy of the American people, the “political elite and warmongers,”
lies within.
There’s no more succinct summation of postliberalism. The
president himself famously used the formulation “the
enemy from within” on the trail last year. A key reason that the dregs of
right-wing populism side with Russia in the current war, I’m sure, is because
their true adversaries on the American left and the Reaganite right are
foursquare behind Ukraine. There’s no foreign power that MAGA Republicans are
more eager to discredit and defeat than the enemy from within.
No, not even China. Just this morning, Trump excitedly
announced another
trade truce with Beijing—an objectively bad
one. He’s bent over backward to save TikTok, breaking the law
repeatedly to do so. He fangirls endlessly over Xi Jinping, praising
his dictatorial brilliance. After watching Trump dismantle the Pax
Americana over the last four months, only a fool could still believe that he’ll
ride to Taiwan’s rescue if China attacks.
MAGA has no quarrel with Chinese totalitarianism. How
could it? It’s a Maoist
movement itself. If the president ultimately indulges his fantasy of
handling mass demonstrations in L.A. the
way “the Chinese generals” do, there’s no doubt which side of that American
Tiananmen Square most of his supporters would be on.
For all its natural antipathy to the left, the American
right spent most of the 65 years after World War II looking abroad for enemies.
The Soviet Union and international communism filled the role for most of that
period, then jihadis and Islamism stepped in after 9/11. But when the Iraq war
went sideways and America elected Barack Obama, the search for enemies turned
inward. That’s the genesis of the postliberalism that Trump eventually
harnessed and rode to power. It was time to confront “the real enemy.”
All MAGA politics flow from that. When the president
addresses the troops at Fort Bragg and encourages them to boo—in uniform—domestic enemies
like Gavin Newsom and the media, that’s postliberalism. When he needlessly
frightens Californians by sending the Marines to Los Angeles despite things
being “very
well under control,” that’s postliberalism. When he insists on punishing
illegal immigrants by
sending them to Guantanamo instead of back home to friendly European
countries who are willing to take them, that’s also postliberalism.
One must be diplomatic, even friendly, with ogres like
China and Russia, but one can never be too rough on the enemy from within.
Gabbard’s Hiroshima video is an interesting stylistic
twist on that belief. Instead of ranting about some imaginary catastrophe, as
populists tend to do, she’s the picture of composure while discussing an actual
catastrophe that America inflicted on Japan. But her tone masks the insanity of
what she’s suggesting: Supposedly, the chief moral consideration in triggering
a nuclear holocaust for our elites—of which she somehow isn’t a part, despite
being one of America’s most powerful officials—is whether … they’ll personally
have access to a bomb shelter.
To believe that hawks want to arm Ukraine and Israel
because they’re willing to live the rest of their lives underground in a
radioactive wasteland, not because they believe that keeping the peace
occasionally requires deterrent force, is to stoop to a level of casually
hysterical demagoguery that even Trump rarely approaches. The elite “enemy from
within” isn’t merely an enemy, to hear Gabbard tell it. He’s an outright demon,
a homicidal maniac.
And maybe that explains why she cut the video. Her role as DNI requires her to focus on foreign threats, which is no fun at all for a populist. All of the action on the postliberal right is in demagoguing domestic enemies, and she wanted a cut. Now she has it. If she lands on the ticket in 2028, don’t be surprised.
No comments:
Post a Comment