You learned the hard way just as as I and others veterans before have learned, “there’s not been any TRUE CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP of the military in a VERY LONG TIME!”
Vietnam should have made the government of this country swear off war forever, but it served the opposite purpose. The wealthy get richer, faster, during wartime than any other period, and so they, the ones who write all those checks to congress, love war! Republicans are members of the most corrupt party in American history and they LOVE all that Big Biz largesse, so its: "Want a war? Sure thing! Just sign my check and start makin' airplanes!" [or tanks, humvees, rifles, ammo, etc.]
It seems your glorious leader can find unlimited funds to start a war, or any other distraction to distract attention from the Trump stein files and fund tax cuts for his struggling, multi billionaire besties. No wonder so many destitute working class people voted for him.
What if the rest of the world stopped waiting for permission?
*
Let us move one step beyond polite diplomatic language.
A growing number of countries—quietly, and sometimes not so quietly—are beginning to ask whether the current global trajectory is being stabilised or destabilised by the actions of the United States.
This is not a moral judgement. It is a strategic concern.
From military interventions to economic coercion, and increasingly confrontational geopolitical positioning, there is a perception—fair or not—that U.S. actions are, in aggregate, adding volatility to an already fragile system.
At the same time, existing mechanisms—particularly the United Nations—have shown themselves unable to meaningfully constrain or redirect major powers when they choose to act unilaterally.
So, we are left with an uncomfortable question: What happens when the system cannot moderate its most powerful member?
A Different Starting Point
Perhaps the answer is this:
The rest of the world stops waiting.
Not for permission.
Not for consensus that will never come.
Not for institutions that no longer function as intended.
Instead, a coalition of capable and affected states begins to act—carefully, deliberately, and in a coordinated manner—to reduce systemic risk, irrespective of whether full alignment among major powers can be achieved.
This is not about exclusion.
It is about initiative.
A Structured Coalition of Restraint
A group of influential countries—convened by a credible neutral facilitator such as Switzerland—could initiate a disciplined, outcome-focused process.
The objective would be clear:
To identify and implement practical measures that reduce the risk of escalation in key global flashpoints.
Participation would include major and mid-level powers across regions. The United States would be invited—but crucially, the process would not be contingent on its full participation or approval. That is the shift.
Working With Reality, Not Against It, because let us be realistic. Direct confrontation with the United States—economic, military, or institutional—is unlikely to succeed.
But collective positioning can have an effect. If a sufficiently broad coalition:
Aligns on de-escalatory principles
Coordinates diplomatic pressure
Establishes shared red lines around escalation
And consistently signals those positions
…it becomes harder for any single actor to operate entirely unconstrained.
Not impossible—but harder.
And in geopolitics, friction matters.
Discipline Over Rhetoric
The process itself would need to be tightly controlled:
1) Time-limited, evidence-based position papers
2) A small number of clearly defined actionable proposals per participant
3) Structured debate focused on outcomes, not performance
This is not about producing declarations.
It is about building convergent behaviour among enough states to influence the overall system.
An Uncomfortable Reality
Let us acknowledge what many will avoid saying openly:
The international system has always depended—implicitly—on restraint from its most powerful members. That restraint is now under strain.
When it weakens, the burden shifts to others—not to replace the dominant power, but to compensate for instability where they can.
Conclusion
This approach will make some uncomfortable—particularly in Washington.
But discomfort is not failure.
The real failure would be continued paralysis in the face of rising risk.
So, the question is no longer:
“How do we bring everyone into agreement?”
But rather:
“How do enough countries act together to reduce danger, even if agreement is incomplete?”
That is a harder question. But it is also a more realistic one.
We hippies and the student activists in the 1960s tried to tell you, and as you say, you thought we were un-American and traitors.
It's sad that you had to learn from the men and women who came back from a war to find out that we were right all along.
The facts aren't un-American. They aren't patriotic or traitorous. They just are, and the fact is that war is a practice that only invasion can justify.
That's why the Iranians are fighting so valiantly. We have invaded their country.
Finally an honest objective opinion.
You learned the hard way just as as I and others veterans before have learned, “there’s not been any TRUE CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP of the military in a VERY LONG TIME!”
Vietnam should have made the government of this country swear off war forever, but it served the opposite purpose. The wealthy get richer, faster, during wartime than any other period, and so they, the ones who write all those checks to congress, love war! Republicans are members of the most corrupt party in American history and they LOVE all that Big Biz largesse, so its: "Want a war? Sure thing! Just sign my check and start makin' airplanes!" [or tanks, humvees, rifles, ammo, etc.]
It seems your glorious leader can find unlimited funds to start a war, or any other distraction to distract attention from the Trump stein files and fund tax cuts for his struggling, multi billionaire besties. No wonder so many destitute working class people voted for him.
A VERY WILD SUGGESTION
What if the rest of the world stopped waiting for permission?
*
Let us move one step beyond polite diplomatic language.
A growing number of countries—quietly, and sometimes not so quietly—are beginning to ask whether the current global trajectory is being stabilised or destabilised by the actions of the United States.
This is not a moral judgement. It is a strategic concern.
From military interventions to economic coercion, and increasingly confrontational geopolitical positioning, there is a perception—fair or not—that U.S. actions are, in aggregate, adding volatility to an already fragile system.
At the same time, existing mechanisms—particularly the United Nations—have shown themselves unable to meaningfully constrain or redirect major powers when they choose to act unilaterally.
So, we are left with an uncomfortable question: What happens when the system cannot moderate its most powerful member?
A Different Starting Point
Perhaps the answer is this:
The rest of the world stops waiting.
Not for permission.
Not for consensus that will never come.
Not for institutions that no longer function as intended.
Instead, a coalition of capable and affected states begins to act—carefully, deliberately, and in a coordinated manner—to reduce systemic risk, irrespective of whether full alignment among major powers can be achieved.
This is not about exclusion.
It is about initiative.
A Structured Coalition of Restraint
A group of influential countries—convened by a credible neutral facilitator such as Switzerland—could initiate a disciplined, outcome-focused process.
The objective would be clear:
To identify and implement practical measures that reduce the risk of escalation in key global flashpoints.
Participation would include major and mid-level powers across regions. The United States would be invited—but crucially, the process would not be contingent on its full participation or approval. That is the shift.
Working With Reality, Not Against It, because let us be realistic. Direct confrontation with the United States—economic, military, or institutional—is unlikely to succeed.
But collective positioning can have an effect. If a sufficiently broad coalition:
Aligns on de-escalatory principles
Coordinates diplomatic pressure
Establishes shared red lines around escalation
And consistently signals those positions
…it becomes harder for any single actor to operate entirely unconstrained.
Not impossible—but harder.
And in geopolitics, friction matters.
Discipline Over Rhetoric
The process itself would need to be tightly controlled:
1) Time-limited, evidence-based position papers
2) A small number of clearly defined actionable proposals per participant
3) Structured debate focused on outcomes, not performance
This is not about producing declarations.
It is about building convergent behaviour among enough states to influence the overall system.
An Uncomfortable Reality
Let us acknowledge what many will avoid saying openly:
The international system has always depended—implicitly—on restraint from its most powerful members. That restraint is now under strain.
When it weakens, the burden shifts to others—not to replace the dominant power, but to compensate for instability where they can.
Conclusion
This approach will make some uncomfortable—particularly in Washington.
But discomfort is not failure.
The real failure would be continued paralysis in the face of rising risk.
So, the question is no longer:
“How do we bring everyone into agreement?”
But rather:
“How do enough countries act together to reduce danger, even if agreement is incomplete?”
That is a harder question. But it is also a more realistic one.
Note: ChatGPT assisted with editing.
We hippies and the student activists in the 1960s tried to tell you, and as you say, you thought we were un-American and traitors.
It's sad that you had to learn from the men and women who came back from a war to find out that we were right all along.
The facts aren't un-American. They aren't patriotic or traitorous. They just are, and the fact is that war is a practice that only invasion can justify.
That's why the Iranians are fighting so valiantly. We have invaded their country.
We are no different from the Nazis.