In 2003, I remember there was public input. In 2003 we were included and we did know what the stakes were. But, in 2003 we also were lied to and told there was really know other option.
As bad as that was, this feels so much more dangerous.
In Venezuela, there was a plan. The main plan. But no one admitted that. What we got was all the infrastructure of an invasion without anyone talking about invasion.
And you know what is really scary? It is how our Administration is talking about Greenland. Its the same way they started talking about Venezuela. Always probing, always testing for resistance. Its how bullies operate.
The more urgent a National Security crisis is, the more likely it is to be illegal.
In 2003, for all the lies and manipulation, we were part of the conversation. There were hearings, debates, protests, arguments at kitchen tables. We were told what the stakes were, even if they were dishonest ones. War was still called war. And when people said “there’s no other option,” at least that claim was being made out loud, where it could be argued with.
What feels scarier now is how much of this is happening sideways. With Venezuela, it really did feel like we got all the mechanics of an invasion without anyone ever saying “this is an invasion.” It was enforcement, then necessity, then inevitability, and suddenly the reality was already in motion. That kind of quiet rollout feels way more dangerous than being lied to loudly.
And the Greenland point is honestly chilling. That probing language, floating ideas, watching the reaction, it’s a pattern. Say something outrageous, see if anyone pushes back, dial it up a notch next time. That’s not strategy, that’s bully behavior. And once you notice it, you start seeing it everywhere.
Your last line really hits too. The more something is framed as urgent national security, the more likely it is that it wouldn’t hold up if people were given time, transparency, and a real chance to question it. Urgency becomes the excuse for skipping all the parts that are supposed to protect us.
I remember this sort of thing started as far back as Kennedy and the Vietnam war. I'm sure your mom still remembers how easily we slipped into that one…
Under the George W Bush Administration, the President went to Congress for their approval before going to war. Under the Trump Administration, the President not only bypassed Congress and lied about his intentions. Under the Bush Administration we had allies we depended on. Under the Trump Administrations we have no allies.
This distinction really does matter, and you’re right to call it out.
In 2002, the Bush administration did go to Congress and get an Authorization for Use of Military Force before invading Iraq. That didn’t make the war legal under international law, and it certainly didn’t make the intelligence accurate, but it did create a public record of responsibility. There was at least an effort to move through institutions, and allies were actively courted, even if many ultimately refused to join.
What feels different, and more unsettling now is exactly what you’re pointing to. We’re watching military force get framed as “law enforcement” to sidestep Congress entirely, with no serious attempt to build or maintain alliances. When a president no longer feels obligated to seek authorization, be upfront about intentions, or work with international partners, the guardrails thin very quickly.
That doesn’t let the Bush administration off the hook for Iraq. But it does highlight one of the essay’s core concerns: each episode makes the next one easier. What once sparked massive debate becomes routine. What once required justification becomes assumed. And over time, accountability stops being something leaders have to earn and starts being something they can avoid.
Thanks for raising this, it gets right to the heart of the question we’re wrestling with: not just how we got here, but what we’re slowly being trained to accept as “normal.”
You state this clearly- no effort whatsoever on the part of the Trump Administration to “work through the institutions of government” before launching off into war with questions of legality and ramifications being discussed and debated. War is hell and it is only a last resort and its effects are not at all easy to predict. Certainly not something to proclaim abruptly in the middle of the night. The Secretary of State had just assured the people of our country that war was not being considered. This whole thing reeks of illegality and shambolic ruthlessness.
One thing that needs to remain in focus is the probably role of Putin in all of this. Someday, hopefully we will have some inkling of the extent of Putin's hold over Trump. There are credible stories about a preexisting Ukraine-for-Venezuela deal with Putin. The bonkers talk about taking control of Greenland plays directly into Putin's hands.
From here to eternity: 1) Do Not Normalize Bad Behavior 2) settle in for the long run with the right ways 3) educate yourself by the mistakes -yours or theirs.
In 2003, I remember there was public input. In 2003 we were included and we did know what the stakes were. But, in 2003 we also were lied to and told there was really know other option.
As bad as that was, this feels so much more dangerous.
In Venezuela, there was a plan. The main plan. But no one admitted that. What we got was all the infrastructure of an invasion without anyone talking about invasion.
And you know what is really scary? It is how our Administration is talking about Greenland. Its the same way they started talking about Venezuela. Always probing, always testing for resistance. Its how bullies operate.
The more urgent a National Security crisis is, the more likely it is to be illegal.
Yeah, this is exactly it.
In 2003, for all the lies and manipulation, we were part of the conversation. There were hearings, debates, protests, arguments at kitchen tables. We were told what the stakes were, even if they were dishonest ones. War was still called war. And when people said “there’s no other option,” at least that claim was being made out loud, where it could be argued with.
What feels scarier now is how much of this is happening sideways. With Venezuela, it really did feel like we got all the mechanics of an invasion without anyone ever saying “this is an invasion.” It was enforcement, then necessity, then inevitability, and suddenly the reality was already in motion. That kind of quiet rollout feels way more dangerous than being lied to loudly.
And the Greenland point is honestly chilling. That probing language, floating ideas, watching the reaction, it’s a pattern. Say something outrageous, see if anyone pushes back, dial it up a notch next time. That’s not strategy, that’s bully behavior. And once you notice it, you start seeing it everywhere.
Your last line really hits too. The more something is framed as urgent national security, the more likely it is that it wouldn’t hold up if people were given time, transparency, and a real chance to question it. Urgency becomes the excuse for skipping all the parts that are supposed to protect us.
I remember this sort of thing started as far back as Kennedy and the Vietnam war. I'm sure your mom still remembers how easily we slipped into that one…
Under the George W Bush Administration, the President went to Congress for their approval before going to war. Under the Trump Administration, the President not only bypassed Congress and lied about his intentions. Under the Bush Administration we had allies we depended on. Under the Trump Administrations we have no allies.
This distinction really does matter, and you’re right to call it out.
In 2002, the Bush administration did go to Congress and get an Authorization for Use of Military Force before invading Iraq. That didn’t make the war legal under international law, and it certainly didn’t make the intelligence accurate, but it did create a public record of responsibility. There was at least an effort to move through institutions, and allies were actively courted, even if many ultimately refused to join.
What feels different, and more unsettling now is exactly what you’re pointing to. We’re watching military force get framed as “law enforcement” to sidestep Congress entirely, with no serious attempt to build or maintain alliances. When a president no longer feels obligated to seek authorization, be upfront about intentions, or work with international partners, the guardrails thin very quickly.
That doesn’t let the Bush administration off the hook for Iraq. But it does highlight one of the essay’s core concerns: each episode makes the next one easier. What once sparked massive debate becomes routine. What once required justification becomes assumed. And over time, accountability stops being something leaders have to earn and starts being something they can avoid.
Thanks for raising this, it gets right to the heart of the question we’re wrestling with: not just how we got here, but what we’re slowly being trained to accept as “normal.”
You state this clearly- no effort whatsoever on the part of the Trump Administration to “work through the institutions of government” before launching off into war with questions of legality and ramifications being discussed and debated. War is hell and it is only a last resort and its effects are not at all easy to predict. Certainly not something to proclaim abruptly in the middle of the night. The Secretary of State had just assured the people of our country that war was not being considered. This whole thing reeks of illegality and shambolic ruthlessness.
One thing that needs to remain in focus is the probably role of Putin in all of this. Someday, hopefully we will have some inkling of the extent of Putin's hold over Trump. There are credible stories about a preexisting Ukraine-for-Venezuela deal with Putin. The bonkers talk about taking control of Greenland plays directly into Putin's hands.
From here to eternity: 1) Do Not Normalize Bad Behavior 2) settle in for the long run with the right ways 3) educate yourself by the mistakes -yours or theirs.
That last paragraph, MG, OMG!