The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTom Engelhardt Archive
Andrew Bacevich: What Matters and What Doesn't
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In 2013, ExxonMobil CEO and future secretary of state Rex Tillerson — the man who called the president who would fire him a “moron” — summed up our world with eerie accuracy in a single question. Speaking of climate change and ExxonMobil’s role in producing carbon emissions, he asked that company’s shareholders, “What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?” What he clearly meant was: “What good is it to save the planet if ExxonMobil and its shareholders suffer?” On that, if not the moron comment, President Trump continues to agree with Tillerson (and his administration has acted accordingly).

Given the future that seems to be in store for us, our children, and our grandchildren, there may, in fact, be no more important news than this: a president elected by almost half of American voters is ensuring that ExxonMobil, its shareholders, and he himself won’t suffer, even if civilization does. Still, the most essential news on that very subject — carbon emissions rising at a startling clip, the oceans warming with unexpected rapidity, insect and other populations being decimated, the planet’s great masses of ice melting down, temperatures at record levels globally, Australia broiling, you name it — is easy enough to miss these days.

Faced with an ego the size of the Ritz, the mainstream media deluges us, as TomDispatchregular Andrew Bacevich makes clear today, with Donald J. Trump and his doings. Everything else, no matter how crucial, takes second (third? fourth?) place to that. President Trump’s overblown self-image and over-the-moon sense of vanity might be the world’s least-well-kept secret. Otherwise, why would Poland’s president have promoted the idea of an American military base in his country by preemptively dubbing that future post “Fort Trump” on a visit to the White House? Of course, you don’t have to live in Poland to sense what we’re dealing with. You just have to watch the talking heads of cable news to know that never has an ego been stroked this way (even by those who loathe the man) to the obliteration of so much else.

After all, given our obsession with DJT, how much attention has the most inspirational and timely movement of our century gotten? I’m thinking about the arrival of the “climate kids” to tell us that our “house” is quite literally “on fire.” Let Andrew Bacevich, then, plunge you deep into TrumpWorld, as he considers how news about war, American-style, has, like climate change, gone remarkably unnoticed and unattended in the world of Fort Trump.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Most of us aren’t scientists, and so, we really do not know whether (or not) mankind produces climate change or why.

    Due to scientists, we do know that massive climate change has occurred before, including during times when humans did not roam the Earth, even on foot much less in SUVs.

    We also know that—if humans create climate change—it is due to overpopulation, and yet, all of the fervent environmentalists seem to have this in common: they believe in accommodating endless legal & illegal immigration while rewarding womb-productive immigrants (and many citizens) when they stay below the earned-income limits for welfare programs.

    They believe in rewarding womb producers with more pay-per-birth welfare and tax credit money from the US government, the more natural-resource consumers they produce. They do not care that this rigs the labor market against non-welfare-eligible, non-womb-productive citizens, driving wages down for 40 years, and they do not care about the impact of pay-per-birth overpopulation on the mommies, babies and other cute & cuddly creatures of the future as they sell the concept of mass immigration with emotionalism, heedless of the consequences for current citizens in the labor market or future humans on a resource-limited planet.

    They believe in more financial incentives to reward womb productivity than even the current list of womb-productivity wage boosters, including free EBT food, free housing, monthly cash assistance, free electricity, up to $6431 in refundable child tax credit cash or several thousand in non-refundable tax breaks to reward womb-productivity for dual-earner couples, in addition to libertine absenteeism privileges for working parents that put them above-firing.

    Since every policy designed by the crew that cries about climate change punishes single, childless. citizens, with one earned-only income to cover unaffordable rent, while rewarding the womb producers the more environmentally destructive natural-resource consumers that they pump out, I find it hard to take anything they say seriously, especially when you add on issues like the many family-friendly, jet-fuel-consuming trips to Europe (for the kids), taken by dual-high-earner parents.

    I don’t think any of them intend to give up any serious carbon-footprint-increasing self indulgences. They only want to make conveniently fashionable, symbolic gestures of sacrifice, like buying a trendy pair of hemp-woven, fair-trade, vegetable-dyed shoes, made with materials not tested on animals, at Whole Foods with their non-refundable child tax credit to take with them on their jet-fuel-consuming trip to the Caribbean.

    As for the comment made by Rex Tillerson, do you think he might have meant that humans are the only beings on this planet that are fully cognizant? If he meant that we should put humans first, I agree with him, albeit I honestly do not understand the full implications of things like a dwindling insect population and agriculture, which is necessary to sustain human life.

    As far as bringing back manufacturing to the USA, I have always been for that regardless of environmental impact, knowing that the US middle class disappeared concurrent with the offshoring of millions of jobs, but I am noting that as manufacturing increases slowly, the Trump Administration is bringing in even more pay-per-birth, legal immigrants to fill those jobs, the exact opposite of what we voted for. That puts any environmental risk in a different cost / benefit light for US citizens.

    We are being inverse colonized by elites at the bottom and the top of the labor market, with corporate elites playing the same-old cruel mind games while doing it, telling displaced American citizens that they are just not skilled enough, as they replace us with immigrants who are paid less, which does not indicate higher skill levels.

    The laborforce-participation rate of working-aged US citizens has barely budged. Ditto for wages, which have risen very little, unlike the cost of unaffordable rent which has skyrocketed, with so many immigrants conpeting for units. Housing costs have risen right along with the suicide rate in the USA.

    And welfare consumption by womb-productive citizens and their colonizing, noncitizen, womb-productive replacements, brought in by corporate elites to lower their labor costs, likewise continues to rise, with welfare for illegal immigrants going down only a smidge, by 10%.

    I don’t see any of these elite corporate sophisticates calling for any real environmental sacrifices, even from their pleasingly subservient, cheap, preferred immigrant employees, like denying them pay-per-birth welfare that increases with each instant-citizen kid produced or child tax credits that max out at $6,431 for their US-born, natural-resource-consuming kids.

    These are the things that make it easy for their groveling immigrant servants to accept low wages, cheerfully undercutting non-welfare-eligible, non-tax-credit-hoisted American workers in their own country’s labor market. Rich environmentalists are not about to give up their cheap, bowing, womb-prolific servants for the good of the orange-headed grasshopper.


    • Agree: fnn
  2. First the president is one of more than twenty that have in office since the advent of widespread oil usage. The world of carbon energy sources is not “Trumpworld”.

    Second, one can be a fan of environmental concerns without alarmist notions that the human foot print of air pollution which ranks by billions of metric tons produced naturally is the cause of any change in climate, beyond local environments.

    Third, the entire global warming assail developmentally hamstrings developing nations from develop while at the same time keeps them in bondage financially to the the countries most responsible for the state of affairs you claim.

    Fourth, I am deeply disappointed at the messy argument concerning expanding US military presence juxtaposed against “climate change”. For several reasons:

    a. we are not at war with Poland, and establishing a base there neither guarantees war nor will it produce significant amounts of carbon enough to impact global temperatures.

    b. since we have been establishing our global military presence before this president arrived on scene – the continued expansion can hardly be the a “Trumpworld” phenomenon. That’s akin to saying the Monroe Doctrine developed by Sec. Adams in 1823, is actually the “Trump Doctrine” because the president wants to force some manner of regime change in Venezuela. It remains a policy written by Sec Adams and a policy engaged by numerous presidents since it’s introduction publicly by Pres Monroe.

    Fifth, based on the data, the history and the number of similarly practices throughout various presidencies for 200 years — it seems we are destined to hire “ego-maniacal” chief executives as we have since we have had presidents. i am unclear what George Washington would have said about the Washington monument or his image on mount Rushmore. That foreigners want to name military bases after a living president may be peculiar, but it is not going to contribute to climate change, or war, except in DC and among the apoplectic left.

  3. For the record, I am not convinced we need a post in Poland.

  4. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    One would never guess that the linked article of Mr. Bacevich not only doesn’t concern what Mr. Engelhardt calls “the most inspirational and timely movement of our century,” but ends its discussion of Washington wars with these words:

    “Yet the fault is not Trump’s. The fault belongs to those who have allowed their immersion in the dank precincts of TrumpWorld to preclude serious reexamination of misguided and reckless policies that predate the president by at least 15 years.”

    I keep asking what purpose is served by Mr. Engelhardt writing these TDeaSers for the linked articles of his vainly described “TomDispatch regulars.” Today, it was to pimp Mr. Bacevich’s article for a chance to sling another bit of insubstantial snark.

  5. The vastly overpaid propagandists masquerading as journalists in the corporate media attack Trump 24/7. Somehow this ridiculous overkill is attributed to Trump’s ego? The New Left thinks everybody is as stupid as they are.

  6. Bacevich states that the moment Trump becomes an ex-president cannot arrive too soon. Especially after his SOTU speech last night, in which he again threw his white MAGA supporters under the bus, I would normally agree.

    However, if he doesn’t survive this term, he’ll be replaced by neocon Christian Zionist VP Mike Pence. Just looking at the pictures, it appears clear that Pence feels completely at ease with kindred spirits Pompeo/Bolton/Abrams. Trump, even though he appointed them, seems to be a little wary. In his speech, Trump again stated he will bring the troops home from Syria, and negotiate an agreement with the Taliban to end that stupid war. He said he will again meet with the DPRK dictator Kim Jung-Un later this month. I doubt if Pence would have said any of those things.

    Maybe nothing will ever happen from Trump’s rhetoric. But, under a deep state mover and shaker like Pence, things could be worse. Given a choice between the two, I’ll take Trump any day.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  7. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    As long as Americans can be gulled into backing any of these meaningless alternatives, the Establishment will do just fine.

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Tom Engelhardt Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Eight Exceptional(ly Dumb) American Achievements of the Twenty-First Century
How the Security State’s Mania for Secrecy Will Create You
Delusional Thinking in the Age of the Single Superpower