28 Comments
User's avatar
Paulo Aguiar's avatar

When the world's most powerful military begins normalizing mass civilian casualties under the guise of legal reinterpretation, it's not just a regional issue; it's a strategic signal. What’s unfolding in Gaza isn’t an exception. It’s a preview.

The erosion of restraint in warfare reflects a deeper shift: the West is recalibrating for a future where brute force overrides moral calculus and where legitimacy is measured by power, not principle. Any nation that fails to adapt to this reality — or worse, pretends it isn’t happening — will find itself unprepared and irrelevant.

Expand full comment
eg's avatar

The people who really ought to be worried are the citizens of the West — the tools used by the Empire to dominate the periphery inevitably find their way into police forces back in the metropole.

The blowback will be truly epic …

Expand full comment
Tony Buck's avatar

Wars should always be avoided whenever possible.

But if, as a last resort, a war has to be fought, it must be fought with victory in mind - not principle or moral calculus.

Expand full comment
Kojo's avatar

No. Humanity progressed at least beyond that a long time ago. That's the fourth Geneva convention is about, the Ottawa convention on anti personnel mines, and so on.

What you are actually speaking about is a regression. to pure bararity.

Expand full comment
Tony Buck's avatar

So, not a long time ago at all.

War itself is pure barbarity. Though there are some weapons which need to be outlawed, in the last resort, in a war of survival, they should be used.

And would be.

If Hitler could ONLY have been defeated by the use of anti-personnel mines (or napalm or poison gas or nerve gas) those dread weapons would undoubtedly have been used.

And rightly so. To disagree, is in effect to say that the war against Hitler should never have been fought.

Expand full comment
Kojo's avatar

"Hitler"? What sort of weird manipulation attempt is that?

Its 2025 right here, right now, and the entire nation of Israel is exterminating human beings. Not interested whatsover in "Hitler" fiction.

And conventions such as those against landmanies are not due to any quint ideas bout which bogeyment you want to peddle. Those conventions are there because those weapons are most effective at killing civilans, and at that after wars have ended, for decades on end. Most of them children. These are barbaric and stupid weapons. That why they were banned. That's why they should not be used even today in Gaza: because the data shows they would be most effective at killing people after the war.

Expand full comment
Tony Buck's avatar

That depends on whether landmines are mapped when placed, then removed after the war ends.

People will gladly use any weapon available to them, if they are sufficiently desperate.

As you would yourself.

Expand full comment
Kojo's avatar

The history fo landmines is very clear. There is no "sustainable" use: they kill inocent people. What you are speaking of is a westen descent to old days of savgery. Not "people." Western savagery.

Expand full comment
Kojo's avatar

Not people. Savages, Dont project your own savagery on all humans.

Expand full comment
Godfree Roberts's avatar

China at its weakest thoroughly defeated–indeed, routed–the US in battle in 1951.

Today, China has 100,000 missiles in inventory and 5 dark factories each designed to produce 1000 missiles a day. Thanks to their advanced propellants (N15B) and explosives (CL-20) Chinese missiles outrange America's by 50%-150% (depending on age) and vastly out-punch them.

America's fleet has, at most, 55 combat-capable warships, while China has 102 that are half the age of the US ships, half the mileage and are vastly better crewed. Ditto their Army and Air Force.

The notion that the US is a superpower is a PR confection. It never was and will, on present trajectory, will never be.

Expand full comment
Kouros's avatar

"“From that vantage”, Jones writes, “Gaza not only looks like a dress rehearsal for the kind of combat US soldiers may face. It is a test of the American public’s tolerance for the levels of death and destruction that such kinds of warfare entail”."

Nowhere I see mentioned the idea that the American public tolearnce with high levels of death and destruction inflicted on them is on the cards. The US sky is open because there is little to no AD systems in place.

It couldn't happen with nicer people I say...

Expand full comment
Karl Sanchez's avatar

The Outlaw US Empire will lose a war launched against China. It no longer has the means to even begin. And if it uses its old nukes, China will destroy the USA--destruction of the homeland is something the US Military NEVER contemplates. And just WHY does the Outlaw US Empire salivate at the thought of going to war against China? Does China pose any threat to the national security of the Empire? No. Then why the fear? The Empire's Neoliberal policies combined with those employed by China to enrich China AND the Empire's elite. What the Neoliberals had no clue about is China's 5,000 year history and the philosophy of life it developed over all those years which happens to becoming reality under a political movement that calls itself Communist.

This comment can go on for many pages, but the above is enough. The declining Outlaw US Empire thinks it's not declining and is as powerful as it was when it attacked itself in 2001. It isn't. It's a paper tiger as are all reactionaries.

Expand full comment
Erl Happ's avatar

The wild west. The carpet bombing of German Cities in WW2 and more latterly Hanoi. The Mai Lai massacre. A single individual was found guilty serving just three years under house arrest for killing 22 Vietnamese. So many precedents. There is 'form'.

Expand full comment
Tony Buck's avatar

What about the wild east ? Mao's complete nonchalance while millions of his people were dying of hunger during the Great Leap Forward, his unleashing of the murderous Cultural Revolution to buttress his power.

Expand full comment
Tom V's avatar

We need to look in the mirror. Since the founding of our country we have been responsible for the most genocide in history. It's still going on in Palestine, Ukraine, Burma, etc. They all have our fingerprints on them: the CIA backed violence. I suspect our visa free privileges will be eliminated in the near future to curtail the CIA's actions.

Expand full comment
Kojo's avatar

The so called west is unfortunately not more than a thinkly veiled colonisl club. And history has shown what existentially threatened white supremacists do. They run amok.

Expand full comment
Richard North's avatar

Do you really think that Hamas, whose strategy deliberately provokes and weaponises civilian casualties, would UNDERestimate these?

Expand full comment
eg's avatar

The Gaza tragedy has just about zero parallel with any US war against China — neither proximity nor geography nor size and composition of theatre, let alone scale, logistics, force composition nor relative strength of opponent.

It’s pure sophistry on the part of any US military personnel who claim otherwise.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

The aging, over-the-hill champ gets into the ring for a comeback bout against a younger, stronger, faster and highly motivated challenger….. 🤔 I think we can see what happens next. Problem is, what happens after that? Will the US Navy quietly slink back to Hawaii, with its tail between its legs, having left 4 Nimitz flattops on the bottom of the ocean, along with 15,000 dead sailors? Doesn’t seem likely, does it? Similarly, if it tries to pull Israel’s strategic chestnuts out of the Iranian fire, does it call it quits after all its Middle East & gulf bases are destroyed and another 15,000 servicemen are dead? Doesn’t that seem a bit unlikely also? Seems like we are entering a time where the 2nd use of nukes by the USA is becoming a very real prospect…….

Expand full comment
Michael Chung's avatar

I was actually listening on the radio a while back about just that, about an over-the-hill former champion who'd lost his last 4 fights but refused to give up and I thought at the time 'sounds like the US'

Expand full comment
Philalethes's avatar

The author deserves praise for drawing attention to these developments. Unfortunately his concerns for the respect of international law disappear completely when the attention shifts from what the US might do in the future to what Russia is very much doing at present.

Expand full comment
Tony Buck's avatar

There is a word missing from the article: Taiwan.

If a Sino-American War does break out, half the blame will be on Beijing, not Washington DC.

Expand full comment
eg's avatar

Taiwan is China.

Expand full comment
Tony Buck's avatar

Not according to the Taiwanese.

Expand full comment
eg's avatar

Well it's the official position of both China and the United States. As for the Taiwanese I suspect that there is some internal division on the matter, eh?

Expand full comment
Tony Buck's avatar

The official US position is that

Taiwan has the right to defend itself against any Chinese military action, and will have US support in doing so.

The majority of Taiwanese voters agree with this.

Expand full comment
Michael Chung's avatar

So do Canada and Greenland

Expand full comment