Democratic Socialists Are Officially Part of the Democratic Party

Townhall 

Democratic socialists are now undeniably part of the Democratic Party. They are, because their victories are no longer one-off occurrences. They are, because their victories are no longer only happening in deep blue jurisdictions. Most important, they are because the Democratic Party refuses to disavow them.

Abdul El-Sayd’s win in Michigan’s Senate primary marked yet another milestone in democratic socialists’ advance into the Democratic Party. This was a win in a presidential swing state, a state that Democrats have not won the presidency without since 1976. It was a state where Democrats spent over $70 million to defeat El-Sayed. It was a state where the party establishmentlined up behind Rep. Haley Stevens to beat El-Sayed.

Despite all this, El-Sayd won with the endorsement of the leading democratic socialists and their fellow-travelers. He won with the backing of the DSA. And he did not win alone: Progressives also won the Democrats’ nomination in the state’s 7th and 13th (defeating incumbent Rep. Shri Thanedar) congressional districts.

When Democrats’ dalliance with democratic socialists began, it was with Bernie Sanders of Vermont. He was an eccentric, and his self-labeling only added to what some Democrats saw as a cross between quixotic and radical chic.  Sanders was an indulgence, a guilty pleasure.  What could one hurt?

In 2018, the Squad were ingenue insurrectionists.  The usual suspects from the usual places — New York, Minneapolis, Detroit, Boston. They were more Mod Squad than Communards. More would follow.

Last year brought Zohran Mamdani and Katie Wilson. Two peas in the same progressive pod.  Both from the coasts’ epicenters of eccentricity, New York and Seattle. It was impossible to not see the pattern: there had always been loci for lunatics. 

Then just months ago came two more “DSAers” from New York. We had seen it before in 2018, when AOC had beaten longtime incumbent Joe Crowley (NY-14). The progressive plague’s virulence was still growing and its cadence quickening, but it was localized in deep-blue areas where anything could happen. 

The democratic socialists remained explicable, if not excusable.

Then, everything changed. Backed by Bernie Sanders and AOC, Abdul El-Sayed won in Michigan. Suddenly, the contagion had mutated.  DSA radicalism was no longer just infecting the usual places. Now heretofore immune locales were vulnerable.

What Democrats and the establishment media have been trying to first ignore, then second, deny, is no longer possible. The DSA is rampant within the Democratic Party. An outbreak can now occur anywhere, and, wherever it does, Democrats are susceptible. Democratic socialism’s St. Vitus Dance is causing Democrats to gyrate to the left throughout the party.

There is no longer any denying. It can happen anywhere because it’s now happening everywhere. Michigan went for Trump. It’s a swing state. It’s a state Democrats need to win the presidency and the Senate. Yet what carried sway in this crucial state? Democratic socialist endorsements.

Democratic socialists aren’t just Greenwich Village “Guevaras” copping a pose among Democrats — mere shock value more than shock troops. They aren’t aberrations and anomalies; they are now Democratic mainstream. They are becoming the Democratic Party.

El Sayed and his reprehensible views and radical policies sold in Michigan’s Democratic primary.  And if so there, then they can — and soon will —  anywhere.

Hasan Piker has supporters throughout Democratic circles — including El-Sayed. Polling shows 66 percent of Democrats view socialism positively, compared to 38 percent of Independents and 14 percent of Republicans. 

The party that so fervently believes individuals self-determine who they are cannot say that these democratic socialists aren’t Democrats. The fundamental reason they can’t is because they won’t. 

Of course, they could. Some Democrats are edging up to this: James Carvilleand Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) are apparently on the brink of taking the plunge. Undoubtedly, there are others.

But where is the party’s leadership? This mutual assimilation of Democrats and democratic socialists is by mutual consent. Both are damming to Democrats.

Democratic socialists would not be flocking to, competing in, and winning nominations for the Democratic Party if they did not feel comfortable there: If the Democratic Party’s values and policies didn’t align with their own. And democratic socialists couldn’t be entering the Democratic Party if the party wasn’t making them welcome. 

At any point, the party’s leaders could be speaking out against, and attempting to chase out, the democratic socialists. Where are the voices of Bill and Hillary Clinton? Of Obama? Of Biden? Of Al Gore? Of Kerry? Of Harris? Of any of the party’s official leadership? No one is standing up to throw the DSA and its acolytes out. 

The only conclusions are that Democrats are either comfortable with the rising number of democratic socialists in their midst and their increasing representation of the party, or that they are too afraid to act because Democrats’ support for them is already too strong. The other is the result: Democratic socialists are now part and parcel of this party.

Podcast thread for August 12

 

bleh. :(

Why We Fight

American Thinker 

Inspired by his service in the Prussian and Russian armies in the Napoleonic wars at the start of the 19th Century, Carl von Clausewitz has left us with many famous sayings from his unfinished treatise, On War, published after his death in 1830.

Among them was that the "fog of war" often obscures what is really happening on the battlefield. Another is that "war is politics by other means."

President Trump has been criticized in recent weeks by the left and the right for his repeated threats to launch yet another "massive" military strike on Iran, only to relent at the last minute in hopes of some breakthrough in negotiations that would satisfy the two major U.S. goals in this war: the unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and the end of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

So far, each time it has happened, the Iranians have backed away from a deal, either by new drone or missile strikes against ships in the Strait of Hormuz, or by instructing their proxies to carry out attacks against our Gulf allies. And each time that happens, the United States responds by taking out IRGC assets in southern Iran.

The President has repeatedly expressed his reluctance to inflict massive damage on Iran's infrastructure, all the while threatening to do so should the Iranian regime not agree to his conditions.

I believe he is trying to find the sweet spot of just enough military pressure to achieve his political goals, without inflicting what he sees as unnecessary and long-lasting damage.

So far, he has failed to find that sweet spot. The regime -- or whoever is calling the shots in Iran -- responds with increased aggression: more missiles, more drones, and more irredentist demands.

The latest, on Thursday, was a claim by the Iranian parliament that the regime had reached an agreement with Oman over joint control of the Strait of Hormuz that would inflict a toll of between 5% to 7% on ships transiting the Strait that would bring in an estimated $385 million per day to the Revolutionary Guards. That is money they will use to oppress the Iranian people, to build more drones and missiles, and to arm their proxies.

The alleged deal would also bar ships from the United States, Israel, and any other country opposing the "Axis of Resistance" from transiting the Strait. That designation would bar Saudi Arabian ships, since the Saudis have been at war with the Houthis for over a decade.

Clearly, such a deal is not just unacceptable: it is outrageous.

If you read the international media, you might forget the whole reason we are even negotiating over the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. It's because Iran mined the customary passageways in the middle of the Strait at the beginning of the war, and no one has yet removed those mines.

That's why there is all this talk of the "northern route" transiting Iran's territorial waters, and the "southern route" that uses Oman's.

The historic passageway through the Strait transits through international waters. But Iran closed that passageway at the onset of the conflict, an act of war in violation of the UN Law of the Sea Treaty that should have triggered unanimous international action, spearheaded by the UN Security Council.

If it weren't for the support that Russia and China have been providing Iran, the United States could have gone to the United Nations and invoked Chapter VII of the UN charter that authorizes member nations to use "all necessary measures" -- including military action -- to restore international peace and security, just as we did twice in wars against Saddam Hussein.

We actually tried that in May, with the predictable result that both the Chinese and the Russians threatened to veto any resolution against Iran.

Since then, both the Brits and the French have said they would join an international mine-sweeping force, and then promptly backed out when it became obvious that mines were not only still present in the Strait but that the IRGC was going to attack any ships trying to remove them.

So much for the international "order." And so much for our allies.

That leaves President Trump with the course he has followed in recent weeks: apply just enough force to keep the IRGC on its heels, while not triggering a massive spike in oil prices or spooking international markets.

He has succeeded on all three counts, extremely significant accomplishments.

But the United States cannot just "walk away and go home" if our diplomacy fails, as Vice President JD Vance suggested recently in his very unfortunate three-hour appearance on the Joe Rogan show.

There is that pesky second demand that Iran give up its nuclear ambitions.

On Wednesday, reports from Israel resurfaced an earlier claim by the current IRGC Chief, Ahmad Vahidi, that Iran would continue to develop nuclear weapons as long as the United States and Israel possessed them. "If they disarm, we will disarm," he reportedly said.

There has been some parsing of that quote in recent days. One Iranian commentator claimed that the correct quote was this: “As long as the United States and Israel possess nuclear weapons, activities related to national security will not cease.”

Sorry, but in IRGC-speak, that means exactly the same thing.

In the end, whether Vahidi made those public comments or not makes little difference. There is no other explanation for the massive expenditures on uranium enrichment, buried nuclear sites, the Iranian regime's absolute refusal to discuss its nuclear programs, or the recent revelations about Mount Kalang (aka "Pickaxe Mountain").

The Iranian regime is developing nuclear weapons, and thank God they don't yet have them, or they would have already used them on Israel or on us, either in direct attacks or in EMP mode to destroy our electric power grid and send us back to the 1880s, when the United States could support a population of between 80 to 90 million.

This is a regime that has already acted out its intentions to wipe Israel off the map, and has shown its willingness to destroy the entire civilian infrastructure of its Persian Gulf neighbors, including their desalination plants.

If anyone has any doubts as to why we are fighting this war, just think of what the IRGC would do if it actually had operational nuclear warheads.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

The Famous Beer Test, and Why Commies Always Fail It

RedState 

There's an apocryphal saying generally attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." Now, I don't know if Mr. Franklin actually said that or not, but you have to admit, it's a very Franklin-esque thing to say. I've been known to sit down in front of a few frosty glasses of beer myself from time to time, or to pop open a cold tall can on a warm Sunday afternoon. I like beer, but I will also admit I'm a tad choosy about who I drink it with. Lots of other folks are as well.

That's why the beer test is a thing. It's a sort of informal poll on the personality of political candidates, in which the question is, "Which candidate would you rather have a beer with?" Writing at Racket News, Matt Taibbi has some notable thoughts to share on that great test of personality.

Had a chuckle reading the New York Times story this morning about Nebraska Independent Senate candidate Dan Osborn, whose interesting take on the two traditional parties is, “I think they both kind of suck.” The Times is stroking Osborn for the same reason the Democratic Party is promoting him — he’s running against Republican Pete Ricketts. Which is fine, and logical, but this was funny:

Off the stump, Mr. Osborn passes the political test of a guy you’d like to have a beer with. He is loose, chatty, goofy and prone to saying stuff that would give the average campaign consultant a heart attack.

The history of the beer test goes back to the 2000 election, as Mr. Taibbi also points out:

The “beer test” was once a massively overused campaign reporting cliché. It grew out of a Sam Adams ad campaign in the 2000 race, and from Bush-Gore through the 2016 cycle it was nearly impossible to escape “beer test” coverage. Then Donald Trump won the 2016 beer test by default — it was hard to imagine Hillary Clinton having a beer at all — leading even Slate to pronounce “there has never been and perhaps never will be a candidate you’d be more eager to have a beer with than Donald Trump.”

The notion of Hillary Clinton having a beer at all - I mean, come on, Her Imperial Majesty Hillary I, Dowager-Empress of Chappaqua, imbibing a drink for peasants! The very thought!  So, Donald Trump wins that one by default (I know, I know, President Trump is teetotal, but bear with me here). And, of course, in 2024, he would have handily won that test as well. That election was, in large part, a contest of personalities, and again the winner was clear; President Trump has a personality, while Kamala Harris does not.

So, how might the current crop of "democratic socialists" (communists) like Zohran Mamdani, Abdul El-Sayed, and Francesca Hong do? Not very well. There's one primary reason why nobody much is going to want to have a beer with any of them, primarily for one reason: Like communists and socialists everywhere, they are some of the most utterly humorless scolds you're liable to encounter in your life, even if you live to be a thousand.

Besides, you'll never convince me any of these people drink beer. Instead, they probably go with something feminine and bubbly, like a zinfandel spritzer - and don't get me started on what the women might drink, that is, if they can figure out who among them are the women. They seem to be pretty fuzzy on the concept, and honestly, if you look at a gathering of these people, you can kind of see why. Add to that the fact that, like Kamala Harris, they seem awfully personality-impaired, and also, like the Queen of Word Salads, they are inarticulate and seem to talk about themselves all the time.

For 2026, well, in my home states, I'd happily sit down for a beer and some engaging conversation with our Republican Representative, Nick Begich III (AK-At Large) or Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK). I've had occasion to talk with our front-runner for Governor, Bernadette Wilson, and found her engaging, quick-witted, and smart. I have no idea if any of these people drink beer or not, but it's more of a conceptual test anyway, and they win.

It's not a bad test. When you go to vote, don't vote for the humorless scolds. And, yes, were I to ever have the chance, I'd sit down for, well, a Diet Coke with President Trump. In a heartbeat.

Margaret Brennan Exists To Speak Power To Truth

If anything bad happens in the second week of the month, this is proof that you should have remained silent and obedient in the first week of the month. You’re being dangerous!

The Federalist 

Every family has a wine aunt who makes weddings and holidays a chore. Her second glass of Sauvignon Blanc turns her into a lawn sign with legs, and she starts repeating slogans: Why don’t you believe in science? America is a nation of immigrants! Trans women are women!

In her day job as an administrator for a nonprofit organization or an associate vice president of human resources, Aunt Madge is an enforcer. She lives to police boundaries. You can’t say that! She has no thoughts. She says the slogans. She is received wisdom, embodied, and she knows that what you said isn’t true, because she hasn’t seen it in The New York Times. Yes, she owns some version of this shirt.

Wine aunt’s mind, to the extent that she has one, is shaped by credentials and authority. Professors are very important. Doctors are never wrong, unless they’re doctors who question the party line. Experts must be trusted, because they are definitionally correct. They have a degree in that. And is there another bottle of Sauvignon Blanc in the kitchen?

Margaret Brennan is America’s wine aunt. If you doubt this at all, watch her astonishingly dimwitted encounter last weekend with the longtime Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, who now runs the NIH. Bhattacharya has all the credentials, but public heterodoxy plus a job in the Trump administration take away all his credential points. The discussion is a witch-burning from the opening bell, and Brennan is fidgety and agitated in the presence of the witch.

As you watch, note above all that Brennan never says what she’s saying. She hints, she implies, she does the laziest guilt by association, but she never nails down any claim that she wants to suggest. Someone shot up the offices of the CDC, and he was influenced by “misinformation” — isn’t it bad that Trump, Trump, Trump?

Brennan doesn’t explicitly say that the shooter was influenced by any specific statement from any specific person. She takes two claims: The shooter was motivated by misinformation, and people in the Trump orbit spread misinformation. She then assumes that they’re both entirely true and connected by a bridge. (Bhattacharya, a gentleman to the point of being disadvantaged, never attacks her premise in a way that Marco Rubio or J.D. Vance would know to do immediately.) People questioned public health officials; isn’t that murder?

Every piece of underlying logic is insane. You can’t criticize a pharmaceutical corporation’s product, because someone might get shot. Government officials are not to be questioned, because someone might take it wrong and try to kill them. If anything bad happens in the second week of the month, this is proof that you should have remained silent and obedient in the first week of the month. You’re being dangerous!

Above all, Brennan is speaking for power and the status quo. She’s the voice of Albert Bourla and the GS-14. Weren’t you behaving very dangerously when you questioned the authorities? Incredibly, she carries this line through a conversation with a current authority without noticing that she’s eroding her own premise: How dare you question public health officials, Dr. NIH Director?

In the world of Wine Aunt Brennan, public health officials were right. They bravely fought the pandemic! No mistakes were made. No excesses occurred. They only wanted to stop the virus. To believe all of that in 2026, or at this point pretty much any of it, implies a level of self-hypnosis that brings to mind the Manchurian Candidate. Anthony Fauci is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.There’s nothing in there. She’s not thinking about any of it. No cognition occurs. There’s a fortress wall, and she’s firing at people who cross the moat, armed with some words that somebody wrote down on a piece of paper for her.

The great open secret about the leftist establishment girlboss is that none of them know anything, and none of them wish to know anything. When you meet with them, you hear their slogans, but they can’t answer a question or explain a premise to save their lives. A follow-up question slays them.

The Italian writer Luca Dellanna has succinctly described the descent into a culture of “ritual over merit,” a social world he calls a “mimetic society.” In that kind of society, he argues, people regard themselves as important and high-status because they can perform the status-defining rituals with exceptional uniformity. “In mimetic societies,” Dellanna writes, “conversations are rituals where turns are taken to reassure the other that he is performing well.”

This is exactly what Brennan is doing. A reference to “misinformation” is supposed to trigger a response that agrees about the importance of trusting the experts. It’s not an interview or a discussion; it’s an enforcement mechanism, like offering the secret handshake to see if the person on the other end of it knows how to return the signal.

Bhattacharya failed, because he thought. And Margaret Brennan won’t tolerate that kind of irresponsible behavior. We still don’t really care, Margaret.

After CCP Spy Fiasco, US Should Reconsider Sharing Intel With Canada

Until Canada demonstrates it can protect shared allied secrets, partners — especially the United States — should reasonably limit what they share.

The Federalist 

In late July, a Canadian woman of Chinese descent was arrested in Belgium on serious charges of espionage for China while serving as an intern with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Canadian media have identified the woman as Biwei Zhang, also known professionally as Claire Zhang or Catina Zhang.

Reportedly born in China, she later became a naturalized Canadian citizen. Zhang has a background in systems engineering, computer science, and economics. Before starting her internship at NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium, in July 2025, Zhang worked at the Canadian Space Agency and Statistics Canada.

SHAPE is described as the central operational command hub for the 32-member NATO alliance. Zhang worked in the IT department. According to The Brussels Times, Zhang’s suspicious behaviors, including “excessive curiosity about her colleagues, a tendency to enter areas to which she was not authorised, and claims that she had accessed files outside her professional remit,” prompted SHAPE security to flag her and refer the case to Belgian intelligence.

Belgian authorities searched Zhang’s home and workplace at SHAPE before placing her in pretrial detention, which was later extended by one month. NATO has stated nothing of importance was compromised. Zhang has made no public comments on the espionage allegations but has appealed the detention order. A decision on her appeal is expected in the coming days.

Zhang’s espionage case is not an isolated security lapse. It is a symptom of a deeper reality: Canada does have a China problem, due to a security culture that has repeatedly subordinated rigorous vetting and threat assessment to commercial and diplomatic engagement with Beijing.

It is concerning because Canada is a member of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, a longstanding partnership that also includes Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The alliance shares some of the world’s most sensitive intelligence, particularly signals intelligence (SIGINT), as well as information on foreign interference, cyber threats, espionage, and military developments. China is one of the primary targets of this collective effort. As Canada deepens economic and diplomatic ties with Beijing, despite clear evidence of screening failures and a pattern of prioritizing commercial interests, allies are entitled to ask whether Ottawa can still be trusted with the most sensitive intelligence.

Since Zhang’s arrest, The Globe and Mail has revealed a troubling “history of fraud.” While applying for a position at the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) in 2019, Zhang submitted two similar applications under different names and email addresses on the same day. This deceitful strategy allowed her to take the eligibility exam twice within 24 hours, apparently a blatant attempt to manipulate the hiring process. When “asked directly” about the double applications, Zhang refused to acknowledge what she had done. A 2023 investigation by the Public Service Commission confirmed the finding, which a federal court upheld in 2024. As a consequence, Zhang was mandated to complete an ethics course and inform the commission before accepting certain public service roles.

This finding occurred well before Zhang’s NATO internship. Still, Global Affairs Canada granted Zhang the necessary security clearance for the SHAPE role after assessments from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and criminal-record checks by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). It is alarming that her documented fraud and use of dual identities did not prompt more rigorous scrutiny or result in the denial of clearance for a sensitive posting with allies.

Since NATO relies on member states to conduct security checks and clearances for their personnel, Zhang’s case has raised serious questions about Canada’s security screening processes for government-linked roles and internships at sensitive international organizations.

Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree has pledged a review of security screening protocols to uncover the facts behind this situation. Whether that review produces meaningful change remains uncertain.

In his recent newsletter, China specialist Sam Cooper pointed out that Global Affairs Canada, the agency responsible for granting security clearance to Zhang despite her history of fraud and multiple identities, was headed by Deputy Minister David Morrison from October 2022 to March 2026. Morrison was then promoted to senior diplomatic and international affairs advisor to Prime Minister Mark Carney. Morrison, along with his former minister Mélanie Joly, has a documented record of prioritizing trade and diplomatic engagement with Beijing over national-security concerns. This approach was not unique to them; it reflected a broader tendency within the left-wing Canadian government.

In June 2023, Cooper revealed a draft National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians report finding that Canadian leaders frequently ranked “trade and political objectives over security concerns.” That prioritization has been linked to a pattern of discounting warnings from Canada’s spy agency that Beijing is the “’foremost perpetrator’ of foreign interference in Canada,” as well as to allegations of Chinese interference in Canadian elections and political processes between 2019 and 2022.

Since Carney came into office, he has been positioning Canada for closer ties with China, seeking to reduce dependence on the United States while resisting pressures from the Trump administration. In January 2026, Carney made the first official visit to China by a Canadian prime minister since 2017. He and Chinese leader Xi Jinping announced a new strategic partnership emphasizing trade, energy collaboration, and “cultural exchanges.”

As part of the arrangement, Canada will allow limited imports of Chinese electric vehicles, up to 49,000 units at a reduced tariff rate of 6.1 percent, down from 100 percent. This decision comes despite repeated U.S. warnings about security risks “related to data collected and transmitted by modern [Chinese] vehicles.” Following the announcement, U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra stated that Chinese electric vehicles imported into Canada will not be allowed to cross the U.S. border.

Zhang’s case is a warning: Until Ottawa rebuilds credible screening, prioritizes national-security considerations over short-term commercial gains, and demonstrates it can protect shared allied secrets, partners — especially the United States — should reasonably limit what they share.

How World Wars Begin: Could Iran and Ukraine Lead to World War III?

RedState 

The last two major global conflicts are rapidly slipping from memory. The last veterans of the Great War, from 1914 to 1918, are all gone. My grandfather was one of them, and so was a neighbor who had the next farmstead up the road from my parents' Fairbank, Iowa farm. The veterans of World War II, from 1939 to 1941, are now few and far between. I have it on good authority that our school systems no longer teach much about these conflicts, nor their causes.

We forget these things at our peril. Understanding the causes of the last two world wars may help us evade a third one. Here's the thing: World wars don't begin with world wars. They begin with regional wars. Both the Great War and World War II began thus, and escalated when the major players got drawn in.

An interesting article at RealClearDefense by Francis P. Sempa gives President Trump some credit in understanding and seeking to avoid this, and in the course of the article presents some great insights.

Donald Trump has done more than any other 21^st century U.S. president to “pivot” to Asia and the western Pacific, yet recently his administration has been criticized for going “soft” on China. There is no question that the rhetoric of the second Trump administration is, in Undersecretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby’s words, “quiet and respectful . . . towards China,” but “quiet and respectful” are sound tactics of diplomacy. Building more warships, modernizing our nuclear forces, winning the AI race, using geoeconomic pressure, strengthening our alliances in the western Pacific—those are actions that speak louder than words. The goal in Cold War II with China, after all, is to counter China’s geopolitical ambitions without going to war. It is to avoid the “Guns of August” 2026.

The Guns of August refers to Barbara Tuchman’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book by that title, in which she describes how the great military powers of the time failed to head off the coming conflict. None of those powers wanted that conflict. They tried to avoid it. But the United Kingdom, France, Russia, Italy and, in 1917, the United States, found themselves fighting the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and several smaller powers. This war started with regional tensions in the Balkans, and in time drew in the major powers on both sides. The result? As many as 22 million dead. (Estimates vary).

The American treasure Dr. Victor Davis Hanson describes the start of World War II, which began in much the same way: First, the Japanese invasion of China, then the German-Soviet attack on Poland, which officially kicked off the war by bringing in Britain and France. Then, Japan struck out against the United States and Britain, opening the Pacific theater. Then the sides were drawn up: Germany, Italy (until 1943, when they changed sides), and Japan against the United States, the Soviet Union, China, Great Britain, France, and much of the rest of the civilized world. That war lasted six years and caused between 60 and 75 million deaths. The property damage? Incalculable. 

Thus we see the commonality: Regional wars that bring in the major powers, and expand globally.

Here's where Mr. Sempa makes an interesting comparison:

Nixon’s diplomacy brilliantly exploited the growing Sino-Soviet rivalry in the late 1960s and early 1970s with his opening to China. But he also conducted “triangular diplomacy” that positioned the United States closer to China and Russia than they were to each other. He also ended the unpopular Vietnam War, while pursuing “hardheaded détente” with Soviet leaders. His Middle East policy helped to stabilize the region after the Yom Kippur War and reduced Soviet influence there for years to come. Nixon toned down the rhetoric with Soviet leaders because he knew that actions speak louder than words, and that quiet diplomacy can often accomplish more than overheated, antagonistic rhetoric. Nixon’s foreign policy was realism at its best.

What's more, he presents a modern analogue to Nixon: President Donald Trump.

Nixonian diplomacy may be just what is needed to prevent today’s regional wars and geopolitical conflicts from merging into the Third World War. Being respectful towards China while conducting quiet diplomacy and strengthening our alliances and deterrent capabilities in the western Pacific is foreign policy realism in the Nixonian tradition. A combination of patience, prudence, and quiet resolve is what is called for at the present moment. Saber rattling will only serve to increase tensions while potentially undermining diplomatic efforts. The Trump administration appears to understand this better than its critics on both the left and right.

Interesting, eh?

In this, though, I'm inclined to give much of the credit, not directly to President Trump, but to his amazingly effective Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. Secretary Rubio is without doubt the best SecState since Cordell Hull, and he has shown an uncanny ability to balance what sure looks like a staggering workload, including maintaining contacts in all the far-flung corners of the world. And the Trump administration's China policy does seem to include elements of distancing China from the primary players in today's analogue of the Great War's Central Powers and World War II's Axis powers: Russia and Iran.

But we shouldn't rule out the possibilities here, either. China is on the edge, perhaps, but they are still the United States' primary geopolitical adversary, and they have historically (since the late 1940s) been allied with the Soviet Union, and then Russia, and also with post-1979 Iran. Those are the battle lines. If the current regional wars, including the American/Israeli attacks on Iran and the Russo-Ukrainian War, do combine and do start a third world war, these are the lines along which it will be drawn: The United States, Israel, and perhaps some of the nations of Western Europe against Russia, China, and possibly Iran.

We were very lucky in the Cold War years, when the various brushfire conflicts, like Vietnam, ended with no escalation into what could have been a major disaster between nuclear-armed powers. But, as the old saying goes, history may not always repeat itself, but it often rhymes. The United States, as a nation and as the world's foremost military power, must stay prepared to hold that status at all costs. 

I think the odds of a global war in the next few years are still slim. But they are not zero. If one is to start, it's more than likely to grow out of the two ongoing conflicts.

♦️𝐖³𝐏 𝐃𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝

 

W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

posted by DarkGoldenMan

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time.