The idea that Trump or MAGA is in any sense “anti-war” is something between an absurdity and a misunderstanding. Kate and I had a good discussion of it in this week’s podcast. At one level it’s a simple fraud. Trump claimed he’d always been against the Iraq War at a time when the U.S. had been bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. It was a helpful attack line and it was completely false. Trump wasn’t in politics in 2002 or 2003 and to the extent he said anything, like a lot of people, he was for it when it was popular and against it when it wasn’t.

During his presidency he signed off on the assassination/targeted attack that killed Qasem Soleimani; he heavily involved the U.S. in the Saudi war in Yemen; he maintained or expanded the U.S. fight against ISIS in Iraq/Syria. Those are at least a continuity with the Obama years and in key respects an expansion of it. The one arguable exception is the deal Trump made with the Taliban to leave Afghanistan — a bad deal which Joe Biden was saddled with and followed through on and was endlessly criticized for, by Trump more than anyone else. Afghanistan captures Trump perfectly — his one notionally “anti-war” position was continuity by definition. And he turned against it as soon as he was unpopular. Trump has gotten “anti-war” mileage out of his opposition to Ukraine aid. But that’s pro-Russia rather than anti-war.

Read More

Yesterday (in this post which didn’t go up as a BackChannel) I discussed the idea of “strategic depth” as a way of thinking about the sovereignty of the states in the battle against Trumpism. I want to expand on that. Because it’s become pretty central to my thinking about how the United States is going to survive the next three and a half years and begin the process of battling back. “Strategic depth” is primarily a concept for military studies. It refers to the shape and arrangement of the physical territory a country controls and how close its borders, which may be vulnerable to military attack, are to its concentrations of population, political and industrial centers. If all a country’s key stuff is right near a vulnerable border that’s a big problem. But in addition to where its key stuff is, does it have a lot of territory to fall back on if it suffers early defeats?

Read More

This is one of the most amazing stories to come down the pike in I don’t know how long, published over the weekend in The Washington Post. The short version is that Tim Sheehy, probable Republican nominee for Senate in Montana, is a comical liar and is trying to cover up that lie with a story so preposterous that it’s kind of a joy to run through because it’s so hilariously bad.

Seriously, I’m not overstating the case.

Let’s dig into the details.

Read More

10:38 PM: In any war, in any sport, you maintain the initiative and you’re on the road to victory. Harris has controlled the entire debate. She’s effectively baited him in a way no other candidate has ever been able to do. It’s not like she’s going to rocket into some big lead. People aren’t going to abandon Trump. But she needed to show she can dominate him, be the one in control. She has. It’s as simple as that. She’s also gotten him to spend most of the debate showing his most feral and angry self. This debate was a rout. I don’t think there’s any other way to put it.

10:19 PM: Is she actually going to overmatch him on the Afghanistan withdrawal question?

10:05 PM: Trump has simply been on the defensive for every moment of this debate. She delivers her messages, while also baiting him and he responds and gets angrier in a way that makes him even less coherent than normal. She’s controlling the tempo and frankly dominating the debate. Meanwhile he’s spent most of the debate talking about his worst vulnerabilities.

A couple of days ago I wrote “that the withdrawal from Afghanistan remains one of Biden’s shining moments even though I know absolutely no one agrees with me.” Since then I’ve gotten a steady stream of emails from TPM Readers saying, “No, there’re at least two of us!” So perhaps, in the words made famous by Arrested Development, there are dozens of us. In all seriousness, it’s good to hear. And I won’t ever stop believing this. As I wrote in that post …

The United States remained in Afghanistan for ten years after anyone had any good explanation for why we were there. Obama wanted to leave. But he got rolled by the Pentagon. Biden knew that the only way to really leave was to leave. Someone had to bite the bullet. He bit that bullet and paid a big price and didn’t look back.

As I thought about this this morning, I wondered: does anyone really think today that it would be better if we still had a couple thousand U.S. troops in Afghanistan? Being completely out of the country is so obviously better that barely anyone would actually say this. Thus, the standard retort — that of course it was the right decision to get out, it just wasn’t handled well — is a dodge. The idea that you were ever going to completely withdraw from a country you’d A) been policing for two decades with a nominal government that B) had little ability to maintain itself without things getting ugly was a fantasy.

It’s a classic example of continuing to invest more in a failed investment not because there is any hope of getting a return but simply to put off ever having to write down the loss.

Read More

Wes Moore, Governor of Maryland, is one of the Democrats’ big, rising stars. And yesterday the Times delivered an ominous headline about a Bronze Star “he claimed but never received.” The subhed of the article reads: “For years, the Maryland governor has faced questions about whether he had wrongfully said he had a Bronze Star. He insisted no. But an old document proves otherwise.”

Sounds bad, as they say. The feature photo shows Moore looking toward the sky with a mix of contrition and shame. So the article tells us that Moore has long “faced questions” and now the Times has finally found the document that proves Moore’s wrongdoing. That document turns out to be his application for a White House fellowship in 2006 where he said he had received the Bronze Star and combat action badge. But there’s no record of him ever receiving the Bronze Star. Moore spoke to the Times and said it was an honest mistake which he regretted. According to Moore his superior officer told him to include it because he was already submitting the paperwork for the award. “He thought that I earned it and he was already going through the paperwork to process it.”

You have to get all the way down to paragraph fourteen, as TPM reader AG helpfully pointed out to me, until you get this.

Read More

9:55 PM: Trump’s definitely not going to be a strongman and his character witness is Viktor Orban.

9:54 PM: They say you’re a disgrace. Wow.

9:48 PM: So Trump spent his time saying that Nancy Pelosi did January 6th.

9:44 PM: So I’m going to say that energy answer wasn’t great for Trump. Good lord.

9:37 PM: I keep hoping she’ll say one thing and then she doesn’t. But she says something better. She’s hitting her points.

9:33 PM: Obviously Afghanistan is a good issue for Trump. It is what it is. But Trump’s getting angrier and angrier. It’s visible.

9:29 PM: She’s just baiting him and he’s taking the bait. He’s hitting points he wants to certainly. But he is reacting to her.

9:23 PM: JD made a crunchy sound after Don threw him under the bus.

9:21 PM: Harris’s response on abortion was literally perfect.

9:20 PM: There are technical points I was hoping Harris would hit on abortion. But what she’s actually doing is much better. “Trump abortion bans”.

9:18 PM: This is a good example of a case in which his furry and fast talking could give the appearance of coherence. But it’s all nonsense. I’m listening now to the abortion answer. It just sounded like jibberish.

9:14 PM: She’s spinning him in the circles. I’m not trying to be over-optimistic. But every exchange so far is her pressing a point that is important to her campaign and he’s responding and often with a fugue of nonsense.

9:11 PM: She’s driving this debate so far.

9:08 PM: Harris started a bit nervous, a touch wobbly. But she’s hitting the points she needs to hit. She’s making him respond. That’s what I’m seeing so far.

9:01 PM: Why is he calling him “President Trump”. He’s the former President. He’s not Prsident.

Okay, let’s do this.

Axios sent out an email yesterday headlined “Biden’s Stubborn Loyalty.” I went back to it this afternoon and realized I’d remembered it having a more negative spin than it really did. That headline above is followed by “1 Big Thing: Biden’s Teflon Cabinet.” The gist is that Biden sticks by his people. Got a criticism of one of his people? Who cares? Biden doesn’t want to hear it. What spurred this write-up is the controversy about Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Will Biden fire Austin? Will he resign? No, says the White House. Indeed, Biden won’t let him resign. Done and done.

Axios writes this: “Politico reports Biden would not accept a resignation from Austin even if he offered, and chatter from the pundit class is likely to reflexively harden the president’s view.”

I like this attitude.

Read More