Melvin Goodman

Several weeks ago, the mainstream media carried a statement from eight former secretaries of defence and five retired four-star generals that stated

For the past 60 years, U.S. presidents have used and misused the concept of threat to justify the use of force on a massive scale. U.S. presidents in the post-World War II era were so fearful of a congressional and public return to isolationism that the threat of communism was exaggerated to justify increases in defense spending and maintenance of hundreds of unneeded military bases and facilities. In the current era, we are devoting large sums of money to defense spending as well as justifying military bases vulnerable to attack from third-rate military actors such as Iran.

For the past 60 years, U.S. presidents have used and misused the concept of threat to justify the use of force on a massive scale. U.S. presidents in the post-World War II era were so fearful of a congressional and public return to isolationism that the threat of communism was exaggerated to justify increases in defense spending and maintenance of hundreds of unneeded military bases and facilities. In the current era, we are devoting large sums of money to defense spending as well as justifying military bases vulnerable to attack from third-rate military actors such as Iran. More

Lessons learned are supposed to be insights and practical takeaways from past experience. The guest essays in the New York Times are arguing that such lessons will prevent the repetition of mistakes and lead to continuous improvement when faced with future decisions regarding war and peace. In making these arguments, the writers—all experienced in issues involving international security—are confident that future U.S. leaders will learn from the terrible decision-making of past U.S. leaders.

Photograph Source: צילום: איציק אדרי – CC BY 2.5 “Supporting the U.S.-Israeli relationship is quickly becoming a minority view among

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair The mainstream media argues that increased spending on defense in peacetime is predicated on military necessity and military objectives.

President Donald J. Trump poses for a Family Photo with world leaders at the Shield of the Americas summit at Trump National Doral, Saturday, March 7, 2026, in Miami, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

For the past few decades, the Washington Post's David Ignatius has been an apologist for the Pentagon’s use of force, the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of covert action, and Israel’s aggressive use of military power to secure its sovereignty. Once again, the United States is faced with a difficult geopolitical challenge of its own making, and once again—like Ignatius—politicians and pundits argue it will simply take more military power for the United States to achieve its misbegotten objectives.

The U.S.-Israeli invasion of Israel was planned as a short war, but it is turning into an unmitigated, gale-force cock-up. Fighting continues in the sixth month and as many as 17 nations may be involved. Iran launched attacks on U.S. military facilities in Kuwait last week, and an Egyptian port near the Suez Canal was hit as well. Two ships were hit, including a U.S. gas storage tanker. These attacks threaten Saudi Arabia’s use of the Red Sea, needed to gain access to the canal. This was necessitated by the Houthis attacks to close down the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb that connects the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean.

Most American interpretations of our history have been triumphal. From the use of atomic weapons against Japan in 1945 to the justifications for war with Iran in 2026, politicians and pundits have largely accepted the triumphal nature of the use of force and denied the criticism that accompanied these actions. Interpretations of the past and present have been a battleground at the heart of American politics. Revisionists and critics have been for the most part on the outside looking in.