You Can’t Judge a War by Its Stats

An Iranian couple carrying the national flag on March 13 walk past a police facility destroyed in an attack on Tehran. Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via AP

This past week, New York Times columnist Bret Stephens penned an article that captured the rah-rah-ness of the pro-war crowd and was breathtaking in its short-sighted triumphalism. Headlined “The War Is Going Better Than You Think,” Stephens called for “perspective on the panic over the war in the Middle East” and scolded critics who depict the Iran war as “an unprovoked and unnecessary attack on Iran, launched at Israel’s behest” that is “already a foreign-policy fiasco that has put the global economy at risk without any clear objective or endgame.” Not so, he cried.

His evidence? Comparisons to the past. In 1991, during Operation Desert Storm against Saddam Hussein, the US-led forces lost 75 aircraft. So far not a single piloted plane has been shot down over Iran. At the start of the invasion of Iraq 12 years later, President George W. Bush tried but failed to mount a strike to decapitate Saddam’s regime. This time around, Donald Trump killed Iran’s supreme leader and many high-ranking officials in the initial bombing. And in 2012, when Barack Obama was president, the price of Brent crude oil hit $123 a barrel ($175 in 2026 dollars). So the price of $108 a barrel this past week shouldn’t be such a bother.

Stephens presents a couple of other markers to suggest this war is proceeding just fine, while acknowledging the Trump administration’s “failures in planning, particularly its unwillingness to make a stronger public case for war and get more allies on our side before the campaign began”—which are hardly quibbles. Overall, his advice is to buck up and not be Debbie Downers: “If past generations could see how well this war has gone compared with the ones they were compelled to fight at a frightening cost, they would marvel at their posterity’s comparative good fortune. They would marvel, too, at our inability to appreciate the advantages we now possess.”

Stephens is grasping at tactical straws. Perhaps the US military is putting its hundreds of billions to effective use in terms of the prosecution of the war, though we probably won’t know for certain until there are after-action reports and investigations (if there are any). We do already know that a missile strike that was attributed to US military forces hit a girls’ school and killed about 175 Iranian civilians, most of them students. But looking at the number of bombs dropped or Iranian leaders killed or the fluctuation in the price of oil is not the best way to evaluate this war—especially in these first weeks of the conflict.

Wars are often not easy to judge because the chaos, conflict, and disruption they trigger will yield consequences that last for years, if not decades. It’s easy to gawk at Pentagon videos of Tomahawks raining “death and destruction from above,” as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth calls it, and hail the war machine. Much tougher is perceiving the ripples. We have no idea where all this violence will lead. It’s theoretically possible we might end up with a less threatening regime in Tehran and more stability in the Middle East, though that does seem close to magical thinking. However, cheerleading the early stats and proclaiming they bode well for the long run seems purposefully naive.

There are other historical comparisons to keep in mind. The first Gulf War, in which President George H.W. Bush led a coalition that booted Saddam’s military out of Kuwait after he invaded his neighbor was considered a military success. Yet as part of that operation, Bush deployed troops to Saudi Arabia to protect the kingdom. That move—infidels on Saudi territory—infuriated Islamic fundamentalists, and it caused one of them to declare a fatwa against the United States. His name was Osama bin Laden.

Bush the Younger’s invasion of Iraq went so well that within six weeks he flew out to an aircraft carrier and declared victory beneath a banner that declared “Mission Accomplished.” The conflict was far from over. It spurred the rise of a civil war within Iraq and an insurgency that destabilized the region. In the fighting and violence that followed, thousands of American troops and about 200,000 Iraqi civilians were killed.

In Afghanistan, George W. Bush launched an attack against the Taliban regime on October 7, 2001. About a month later, Kabul fell. The following month, Kandahar, the spiritual home for the Taliban, toppled. A pro-American interim government was put in place. In May 2003, then–Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld proclaimed that combat operations in Afghanistan were “all but concluded.” The war went on for another two decades, cost about $2 trillion, and did not yield success.

In March 2011, President Barack Obama mounted military attacks by a NATO-led coalition in Libya. The initial aim was admirable: to prevent Moammar Qaddafi’s forces from waging a massacre in Benghazi. Seven months later, Qaddafi’s regime collapsed. Civil war ensued, resulting in what some have described as a failed state, which has led to instability in North Africa and the rise of extremist groups. In 2016, Obama said, the "worst mistake" of his presidency was "probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya."

In all these instances, everything went well at first. Yet...It’s better if bombs land where they are supposed to and US planes are not blown out of the skies. The general competence of a military can be judged. But that’s a far cry from determining whether a war is working out.

No one can say how Trump’s war in Iran will end up. But we already see worrisome consequences. The conflict has led to Israeli attacks on Lebanon. The Ukrainian war is receiving less attention. (This week Russia, as it prepares a spring offensive, launched one of the four-year-old war’s largest bombardments, hurling 1,000 drones and 34 missiles at Ukraine.) Kim Jong Un has declared that Trump’s war against Iran justifies the expansion of North Korea’s nuclear weapons arsenal. (He has long been more of a nuclear threat than Tehran’s mullahs.) And counterterrorism experts fear a rise in terrorism aimed at American targets.

Meanwhile, the world and the global economy is at the mercy of Trump’s chaos, as each day brings contradictory statements and signs about his intentions and plans (if he has any) on how to end this war. The dislocation caused by the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz—an easily foreseen development that Trump did not foresee—extends far beyond the uptick in the price of crude (which Stephens pooh-poohs). One-third of the world’s helium passes through the Strait. Helium is a critical ingredient in semiconductors—which are in just about everything—and it’s necessary for MRI machines. Cut off the flow of helium, and what won’t be made, what won’t happen, and what harm will be done?

If you let loose the dogs of war, they can run in many different directions. Clearly, Trump is ad hoc-ing this war as it proceeds—which is not reassuring. It’s tough enough to prosecute a war with a plan; leading a war without one is folly. For sure, the US military can be rather successful in killing and annihilating. That might look like winning to some. History tells us otherwise.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com.

I try not to be alarmist in general—especially about what might happen. The daily horrors are enough to keep us occupied. But I know many people are worried that Trump intends to mess with the midterms to thwart a Democratic victory in the House and maybe even in the Senate. There’s good reason to believe this. He has demanded his Republican handmaids in Congress pass the so-called SAVE Act, a voter suppression bill. He has leaned on Republican leaders to engage in redistricting to rig congressional districts in their favor. His loyalists conducted an FBI raid to seize ballots in Atlanta from 2020, presumably to bolster his lies about that election. And he has demonstrated a willingness to illegally use National Guard troops for political purposes. Given that he has said that he expects to be impeached should the Democrats win the House in November, there are no shenanigans that we should put past Trump.

So when a crazy and dangerous idea appears, it ought to be taken seriously. And a crazy and dangerous idea was floated on Monday. Steve Bannon, the MAGA strategist who once was a Trump adviser, said on his War Room podcast that Trump’s recent deployment of ICE agents to airports could be a “test run” or “test case” to “perfect ICE’s involvement in the 2026 midterms.”

Bannon’s guest, Mike Davis, a Republican activist who’s been advising Trump on legal issues and his administration's efforts to seek revenge against Trump’s foes, agreed, saying, “I think we should have ICE agents at the polling place because if you’re an illegal alien, you can’t vote.”

As we know, there is little voter fraud, especially involving noncitizen migrants. In 2024, NPR reported that an audit in Georgia showed only 20 suspected noncitizens on the rolls out of 8.2 million registered voters (0.00024% of the state's list), and of them only nine had at one time voted.

Still, Bannon is very excited about deploying ICE to voting places. “They’re trained to, wait for it, check IDs,” Bannon said. “That’s why it’s perfect training for the fall of 2026. This is why it’s such a brilliant—this is another 5D chess move from President Trump. That’s what’s going to happen in the fall of 2026. Because, folks, we’re tired of having elections stolen. ICE is going to be there in the fall of ’26, just like they’re in airports today. So, from the War Room, suck on that!”

Bannon proposes a lot of crap that doesn’t happen. But for this scheme, Trump, per Bannon, has at least taken the first step. ICE agents at polling places will be an intimidating presence even for citizens. And that’s the point. Trump, according to a Fox News poll(!), has dropped 20 points since December in his approval rating among Latino voters. Bannon knows this. Stationing ICE agents at the ballot box seems to be his remedy.

US senators can be too nice. That’s certainly the case with Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat. Appearing on CNN, he was asked about Markwayne Mullin, the Republican senator from Oklahoma who this week was confirmed by the Senate to replace Kristi Noem as secretary of Homeland Security. Welch said of his colleague, “Markwayne Mullin is competent and he’s honest.”

Well, is he? Mullin has been a 2020 election denier. In the judges’ book, that means he’s not honest. He helped to perpetuate one of the biggest lies in American history. During his confirmation hearing for the DHS job, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) asked him a simple question: “Who won the 2020 election?” He could not give a straight answer, noting that Joe Biden “was sworn into office.” Uh, duh. When Slotkin asked again, he refused to respond directly and said, “I believe my job at Department of Homeland Security will be to make sure that we assure that the elections are fair and people can trust them.” The Republican-controlled Senate approved his nomination on a 54–45 vote.

Trump said lots of dumb—and contradictory—things this week about his Iran war, and Secretary of Jumping Up and Down and Shouting “Kill” Pete Hegseth continued to spout brutal and sadistic rhetoric. But the judges ignored those now run-of-the-mill statements for a beaut from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), perhaps the warmongering-est member of the Senate. On Fox News, he called for Trump to take Kharg Island, where Iran has major oil processing facilities, and he said he was “tired” of any naysayers. He exclaimed, "We did Iwo Jima. We can do this."

Graham neglected to share a relevant fact with Fox viewers: 7,000 Americans were killed at Iwo Jima, and 19,000 injured.

Mike Johnson is proving to be the flunkiest House speaker in American history. At a Republican event this week, he announced that he and the Trump cult—that is, congressional Republicans—had decided that what the country most needs at this time is the creation of a new award that can be bestowed upon Trump. Yes, they conjured up the America First Award and named Trump its first recipient—just as he’s doing nothing about affordability, infrastructure, and health care at home and launching and threatening wars around the globe. Johnson proclaimed:

The president has done so much for the American people We want to honor him in some small way...We have created a new award. We are going to do something we’ve never done before. We’re gonna honor him with a new award...He is the suitable and fitting recipient of the first ever America First Award. We can think of no better title for what that is. That’s this beautiful gold statue here, appropriate for the new Golden Era in America.

This is like the crew of the Titanic giving the captain the Best Navigator Award after the ship hit the iceberg. But Johnson and the Republicans cannot be embarrassed. Maybe they’ve had the shame gene surgically removed.

Another shameless Republican, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, gave away the game when he tweeted, “If we don’t pass SAVE America, Democrats win in November. If we pass SAVE America, we have a chance. Failure is not an option.”

He was referring to legislation that would lead to voter suppression (see below). It’s a threat to democracy. And the judges had a simple question for Lee, who claims the Republicans will be slammed in the midterms if this bill is not enacted: How the heck did Trump and the Republicans manage to win the White House and both houses of Congress in 2024 without the SAVE Act? His hysteria here shows what the GOP agenda is: skew the system to prevent losses in the coming elections.

Why do right-wingers love Confederate leaders? In the middle of all the news this week, far-right commentator Matt Walsh decided it was time to call for putting back up statues of Robert E. Lee because he was “a leader of men” and “a brilliant military tactician.”

You know who else was a brilliant military tactician? Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel. But he deserves no such honor today because of what he fought for. All this idolization of Lee on the right—maybe race has something to do with it?

Many weeks, this contest is close, and the judges engage in Talmudic debates to select the winner. Not this time. It wasn’t tight. In fact, if we had a Dumbass Comment of the Year, this remark would be far in the lead. Ladies and gentlemen, we give you Alan Dershowitz, the onetime lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump:

Had President Trump been in charge in 1935 and 1936 I think the Holocaust would’ve been prevented. I think he would have gone in after Nazi Germany. He would have destroyed it the way he is destroying Nazi Iran, and the Holocaust would’ve been prevented.

Where to begin? Has Dershowitz ever heard of the original America First movement? Destroying Nazi Germany wasn't its thing. In fact, those folks kind of liked it. Also, Trump tends to pick wars with nations the US military can readily dominate. The Germany military in the mid-1930s was rapidly rearming and rebuilding, with the army expanding from several hundred thousand troops to close to half a million. The US military at that time was small and underfunded—with a mere 138,000 troops and only just developing bombers. How might Trump have gone into Germany then? Not like D-Day?

By the way, when has Trump championed human rights and demonstrated concern about genocide (other than expressing worry about white farmers in South Africa based on disinformation)? As John Bolton, his onetime national security adviser disclosed, during his first stint in the White House Trump gave President Xi Jinping of China a greenlight to set up detention camps for Uyghurs.

Alternative histories can be fun, and there have been some good ones related to World War II, including Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America and Philip K. Dick’s The Man in the High Castle. But the judges doubt that if you went back in time and placed Trump in the middle of the turmoil of the 1930s—the depression, civil unrest, and the rise of fascism—he’d be a hero. For taking Trump cultism far beyond Johnson’s America First Award, Dershowitz gets his own trophy.

Actor and director Elizabeth Banks did a good job explaining what is wrong with the Republicans’ SAVE Act, noting that it could block many women from voting. What a coincidence, right? Cheers to this Hunger Games veteran:

Brandon Becker responded to the recent issue that noted how Trump and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have dismantled government efforts to monitor and counter the attempts of foreign adversaries to mess with our elections:

Thank for highlighting the destruction of our capability to respond to foreign propaganda and disinformation. Sadly, it reminded me of Richard Condon’s The Manchurian Candidate (1959). 

You do have to wonder what Condon, who died in 1996, would have done with a character like Donald Trump.

Joan Lobell went to town after reading the issue that examined Trump’s decision to launch the Iran war:

This is the best (IMHO) thing you've written in a while. You point to Trump's impulse reflex (his id, his hedonism) driving his critical decisions. Did he ever outgrow this infantile mindset?  Especially since SCOTUS gave him the golden ring and laid out the red carpet for him. He didn't have to consider laws or punishment or any consequences. Someone else would be blamed if anything went bad. Could that explain why he chose only people who acted rashly without second thoughts or constraints for his cabinet? Easily believable as guilty dupes—and not noted for their intellect The president's MO is an unreliable model for successful leadership.  

Steve Pelton had a question:

Here's what I don't understand: Senate Majority Leader John Thune is the one with the power to derail the confirmation of unqualified idiot hacks, and yet he has greased the skids for everyone of Trump's picks since Trump took office. Why doesn't he get more coverage for the damage he is doing? His complete dereliction of his constitutional duty to rein in an out-of-control president is infuriating. To top it all off, his dad was a WWII fighter pilot hero, and he has completely dodged his responsibility to preserve our freedom and democracy. There is definitely a father/son tale here somewhere. I also wonder just what he and Trump talked about at Mar-a- Lago? Please hold Thune's feet to the fire. You are a true patriot. 

That's kind of you to say, Steve. Thune, though, is just like every other Republican. He has submitted to the Trump cult. Once you do that, there's no option to serve principle. It's sad. And in fact, if Thune had not taken this subservient stance, there’s no way that the Republican senators would have elected him Senate majority leader. Remember, the person in that position reflects the will of the caucus. You cannot expect more of him that you would the Republican klatch in the Senate.

Several readers wrote in to note there was an embarrassing typo in the last issue. The party affiliation of Sen. Mark Warner was misidentified. We all know he’s a Democrat. The leadership at Our Land Global Headquarters has established a task force to determine what went wrong.

Diane Gosnell shared this succinct thought:

Your canine companion might be smarter than you.

No doubt, if Moxie were a human, or I were a dog, she would be the more intelligent one. Speaking of which...

“You’re working too hard. You need to—”
“I know, Moxie, stop and smell the flowers.”
“Well, if you have the time to do that...”
“Okay, okay. I’ll get the ball.”