How to Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

A funny thing happened on the road to the White House.  The president who turned-up isn't the same guy as the candidate.

The US war against Iran is unpopular and becoming more unpopular as it continues; furthermore, the latest Economist/YouGov Poll also finds few Americans support deploying ground troops to the conflict.

Or do other Americans see it differently?

Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper - Dr. Strangelove

It depends-upon whom you ask.

Only 30% of Americans strongly or somewhat approve of President Trump's handling of the Iran war with 60% disapproving for a net approval of -30.

Almost all Democrats (88%) oppose the war while independents oppose it by a 3-to-1 ratio.  

But there is this: Collectively, most Republicans support the war (62%) yet there is a huge gap in support between MAGA Republicans and non-MAGA Republicans (70% support vs. 33%).  Inasmuch as there are more than twice as many MAGA supporters as non-MAGA supporters among the GOP, MAGA opinion is basically settled science.   

Furthermore, a recent CBS News poll found that 92% of MAGA Republicans expressed support for military action against Iran, compared with only 70% of non-MAGA Republicans.

Amongst my MAGA acquaintances, and mostly on account of my unwavering support for arming Ukrainians in defending their country from a Soviet invasion, I have been characterized as everything from an armchair general to a warmonger.  

Naturally, beginning three years ago and following Vladimir Putin's unprovoked assault on Ukraine these same individuals reminded me at most every opportunity that supporting Ukraine's defense was distinctly at odds with candidate Trump's America First platform.  I quote:  'No foreign entanglements', 'We haven't won anything since WWII', 'Donald Trump is the greatest patriot ever' and 'You like war too much'.    

Candidate Trump may have ridden to reelection with a pledge to avoid forever wars yet systematically blowing alleged drug-running vessels and crews out of the Gulf of Mexico, a birthday military parade, deploying the military on America's streets, Houthis in Yemen (Operation Rough Rider), 529 air strikes across the middle east, Africa and central Asia, aerial strikes against Iranian sites last summer including ISIS in Iraq, threats to take Greenland by force, masked and unidentified federal paramilitary forces killing three American citizens, a military toppling of Venezuela's government, seizure of Venezuelan oil at the point of a gun, threats against Cuba, the current Iran war and recent musings to ditch NATO suggest that America First pretty much means whatever President Trump says it is; on any given day.  My impression is it is exceedingly warlike.

I had always figured that MAGA supporters preferred candidate Trump's populist pitch while bemoaning old-school Reagan neocons and their propensity for an assertive foreign policy.  Deservedly or not it is a fact I have been derisively called a neocon; yet the polling seems to suggest that MAGA world agrees-with and, only a short fourteen months into a second term, seems to have developed a powerful thirst for Trumpian military adventurism - both domestically and abroad.  

Just as with the CBS poll, if you dig thru the data, MAGA world is overwhelmingly in favor of mounting a war with Iran; and, when specifically asked if the war counts as an America First policy, only a mere 9% of the president's loyalists say it does not.

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute's 2025 National Defense Survey reveals that self-identified MAGA supporters were also the most supportive of all sorts of interventions in Taiwan with two-thirds supporting 'committing US forces in defense of Taiwan.'  That doesn't sound like isolationism does it?

Speaking for myself I happen to think that the Iranian Mullahs are a dangerous collection of twisted religious revanchists who would represent a threat to a peaceful world order if they had nukes and the capacity to deliver them.  I generally lose no sleep over dealing with bad actors by means of force.

Nevertheless, dealing with security threats deliberately and with forethought is not the same as impulsiveness.  And the world has no shortage of bad actors.  Most days I think the president has stepped in it this time and unleashed a cascade of destabilizing events that have dangerous consequences for global stability, security and the world's economy.  Let there be no misunderstanding, it is in my own self interest that things somehow work out for the best.  I'm also smart enough to know that five weeks into this the president's excursion is nowhere near a forever war.  Oh; and we don't have the highly-enriched stuff in our possession either.  Yet anyway.  There is that as a denouement.  

I have yet to hear what the exit strategy is.  You?

So for now I think we might be in for a stretch of rising energy costs, inflation and possibly some economic stagnation or contraction.  Only the passage of time will write the end to that chapter.

Meanwhile, there's a pile of the US population becoming grumpy over rising gasoline and diesel, increasing grocery prices due to supply chain disruptions and escalating transportation costs.  I'm beginning to believe that post-election MAGA world doesn't really care about that as much as they did a couple-three years ago.  Nobody's bitching about it at all on social media and not a single sole Trump supporter I speak with on a daily basis has yet to bring it up.  Loyalists are called that for a reason after-all.  Which is just fine; and it is perfectly OK to own what you have wrought.

It has occurred to me this might have something to do with ideological principles; dictated by whatever president Trump tells us to believe and the possibility that the beliefs of some reading this might be insincere.  Which is fine too; people are disingenuous all day long.  I understand that sometimes it is difficult to admit making a mistake.  I get it.  I make mistakes too.  Get over it.  Own it.

Or perhaps at its core the principle is to agree with the president in every respect; even if his actions contradict what he promised in order to get a voter's support.  No matter it damages their business and costs them the actual farm.  On that matter I can only speculate.

So, for any of my MAGA acquaintances reading this; if you want to call me an armchair general or a warmonger; have at it.  Throw neocon my direction for good measure.  I have a thick skin and since you're doing it from the warming glow of your device and not personally to my face I understand the context. Water off a duck's back.  Das macht nichts aus.  

Polling is science.  With growing awareness the rest of the world is learning that MAGA world likes war; and way the heck more than me.  Does MAGA like it too much?  That's hard to know as we're only fourteen months into President Trump's military adventurism.  I think we ain't seen nuthn' yet.  But I'm perfectly happy to be wrong.

I'm old enough to remember back to 1965 when a certain general famously pledged to eschew ground troops and use naval and air power to bomb the Vietnamese - Back into the stone age.  In his April 1st address to the nation it was fascinating to see and hear President Trump invoke the very same oath - verbatim.  Curious about from whom the president is taking his cues? 

A general splendidly associated with ruthless scorched-earth tactics against civilians.

Stay-tuned..... 

Interdiction - Part 2

Recently a very reasonable question came-up in a discussion within a private Face Book group.

Does the Coast Guard have the authority to fire on a vessel suspected of running drugs or engaged in some other suspected illegal activity?

The short answer is yes.  Unremarkably, the rules of engagement are similar to those of any law enforcement organization.

The US Coast Guard may fire disabling shots at a suspected drug smuggling vessel as long as specific legal rules and operational conditions are met. 

Under the Coast Guard Use of Force Policy found in the Coast Guard Maritime Law Enforcement Manual (MLEM) paraphrased as follows:

1.  Legal authority (jurisdiction).  This requires probable cause or reasonable suspicion of drug smuggling.  Including, does the USCG have the legal authority to stop the vessel - is it in US waters, is it a US vessel, or has a foreign nation given permission?

2.  Issuance of warnings. This requires the use of visual and verbal signals.  The use of lights, sirens, radio calls, and hand signals. And frequently warning shots first; typically with an M240 or .50-caliber across the bow.

3. When the suspect vessel refuses to stop.  If the crew ignores repeated commands to stop - called a “non-compliant vessel” - disabling fire is permitted as the next step before any higher level of force.

4.  Only to disable the vessel, not harm the crew.  These are called “Disabling Fire” or “Engine Disabling Rounds.”  Shots are directed at the engines, not people.  Only trained Precision Marksmen/Surface (PMS) or helicopter gunners can do this.  These shots must be reasonably expected to stop the vessel safely.

5.  When the Coast Guard cannot fire.  They may not fire simply because the boat is suspected of drug running.  If it would create an unreasonable risk to innocent people.  Without proper maritime law enforcement authority.  Without exhausting lesser means (warnings, maneuvering, etc.)

6.  Helicopter Armed Interdiction.  The MH-65 “Hitron” helicopters are utilized for this.  Using a self-stabilizing weapon they fire warning shots.  Then fire precision .50-caliber disabling rounds into outboard motors.  This is a standard technique against go-fast boats.

7.  Deadly force.  Deadly force (shooting at people) is allowed only when the suspected crew poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.  It is unlawful if solely because of drug smuggling or fleeing.

Through Operation Pacific Viper, the Coast Guard has accelerated operations against cartels across the Eastern Pacific.   

During this surge, the crew of USCG Cutter Munro only last week delivered a massive win: 20,000+ pounds of cocaine seized in a single interdiction, the largest Coast Guard drug bust at sea in more than 18 years. 

USCG crews are bringing every capability to the fight, protecting the Homeland, and combating the flow of deadly drugs long before they can impact American communities.

Interdiction - Part 1

photo USCG

As long as we're on the subject of drug interdiction I did some fact checking. 

Under the Department of Homeland Security, the US Coast Guard is the primary agency for US maritime law enforcement. They are our country's law enforcement on the high seas.  This includes drug interdiction, migrant interdiction, fisheries enforcement and more.  Like the US Navy, that agency has sophisticated intel and technology to identify and halt drug runners. 

The US Navy, under the Department of Defense, focuses on warfare, defense and maintaining freedom of the seas with its role shifting to law enforcement only during wartime or specific security crises - adhering to military rather than civilian law. 

Typically, armed USCG teams will halt a boat that there is probable cause to suspect is carrying illegal drugs. They will sequester its crew while a search is done.

If no contraband is found, the Coast Guard vacates the boat and sends the captain and crew on their merry way.

If drugs are found, the crew is arrested and the boat taken in tow by the Coast Guard. The suspects are turned over to federal authorities where they will be arraigned, assigned attorneys, and tried on drug charges. That is called due process and is no different than how any law enforcement agency or department deals with the sale or distribution of illegal drugs in our communities.

Capital punishment is not an option because under our federal law, drug delivery – even massive amounts – is punishable by prison terms, not death. At no time does the Coast Guard act as judge, jury, and executioner.

And they are very good at what they do.  In November the US Coast Guard announced it seized nearly 510,000 pounds of cocaine in the Eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean during fiscal year 2025 (FY25), the largest amount in the Service's history. On average, the Coast Guard seizes 167,000 pounds of cocaine annually.