'Don’t back any more bullshit wars.'

Hi,

This past week has been intense. The threat of a full-blown world war is, in my opinion, the most urgent it’s been in my life. That may sound alarmist, but it’s not unfounded—the world is in a precarious position at the moment, and it feels like one wrong move could tip us over into catastrophe.

It’s very clear to me, too, that the vast majority of us don’t want any of this shit. We were put here by war-mongering men who can’t be bothered to solve their conflicts peacefully. Or are too arrogant to stay out of other countries’ business (and land). Or just want to cause chaos to line their pockets.

With this week’s TLR, I hope to help open some eyes. There are clear imperial and capitalistic designs going on here, and there’s a concerted propaganda push to keep us all in the dark. I concede that this entire crisis is impossibly complex, and that there are way too many dimensions of this. Still, the stories here should help clear the fog a bit.

Stay safe, stay informed, stay on the side of peace. See you again next week.

More than most other outlets, The Intercept consistently does a brilliant job of taking a critical, unflattering look at the U.S., especially its armed forces.

Here, the paper goes big and sets its sights on the SEAL Team 6, arguably the most venerated, most mythologized of all American military units. But, unsurprisingly, there’s a very dark underbelly to that: The SEAL Team 6 is responsible for many war crimes. And these aren’t just unfounded allegations, hoping to besmirch the group’s name without basis.

As this story finds, through interviews with soldiers and retired operators themselves, the government’s most elite squad desecrates the bodies of the dead; is indiscriminate with its trigger-pulling; and will not be told to fall in line. SEAL soldiers, indeed, are arrogant and brutal and deceitful and egocentric, a far cry from the disciplined, principled men that they’re made out to be.

And they’re very insular and secretive, too: They cover up for each other and keep their cruelty away from the eyes of the public and the press. In this, they’re broadly supported by the military establishment.

This story is incredibly long, but I think the wordcount is necessary to lay out all the evidence the reporters have found, and to make their case convincing: That the SEAL Team 6, and the armed forces at large, deal in violence and atrocities, and aren’t concerned about flouting international norms and laws. Mission be damned.

Probably my favorite story on this list.

There’s a lot of moral grandstanding from the media—both the press and pop culture—about the current conflict. Lots of big names coming out and putting their star power behind one cause or another. But really, everyone’s tainted. As this story shows, the U.S. Department of Defense has fostered a friendly relationship with Hollywood, one built on mutual benefit: Movies gain access to set pieces and get guidance from the military, and the army gets to influence how they’re portrayed in pop culture.

This influence is wide-reaching. It’s not just the overtly action movies (yes, your favorite Marvel show is likely at least partly a propaganda piece), but also some less obvious ones. This piece gives Pitch Perfect 2 as an example, but I’d argue even something like Paw Patrol counts.

And I understand that that may be hard to swallow, but this piece (correctly) argues that propaganda isn’t just the very outward, very regimented displays of military power that we see in countries like North Korea or Russia. In fact, there’s a very valid point to be made that those types of propaganda aren’t very effective because you know that they’re conditioning you to think another way.

In contrast, the U.S.’s propaganda is sly, underhanded. It sways your opinion without you realizing it. And it instils in you the thirst to receive more of it. The writer puts it really well:

How the U.S. Is Making the War in Yemen Worse | The New Yorker, $

Even after all these years, Yemen stands out to me as one of the most egregious examples of the U.S. militaristic hubris—the gall to pump millions of dollars and crates of weapons into foreign paramilitary groups under the assumption that they understood the impossibly complex local politics of a country (to say nothing of a culture) hundreds of miles away.

And then, after all the chaos and death and pain their firearms have wrought, to just walk away seemingly bored and unbothered, as if nothing happened, moving on to the next conflict that interests them, looking for the next country to destabilize. Wish there was a tally of how much the defense companies earned per conflict.

The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama | Esquire, Free

Long-time readers will recognize this one; I think I’ve shared it a few months back. But it’s worth revisiting again, I think, just to drive home the point that promoting conflict and seeding violence across the globe has always been baked into the U.S.’s foreign policy. Even under supposedly good presidents.

Here, Tom Junod (one of my favorite longform writers) digs not just into Obama’s drone-centric directives, but also his two-faced rhetoric, publicly promising peace but privately signing off on dozens of bombings per day. If anything, I think this is a timely reminder for all of us to remember to look beyond the charisma and speeches of our leaders, and actually look at what they’re doing.

How the US Government Used Propaganda to Sell Americans on World War I | History, Free

Shorty here, but no less important. Like that piece from The Outside above, this one explores how the U.S. is comfortable with using propaganda to lie to its people and drumming up support for war.

Some might balk at the word “lie” so here: The U.S. government has no qualms of subtly misleading you, feeding you with half truths and out-of-context news bits, prodding you with cleverly placed references in shows or movies or what-have-you. All in service of swaying your opinion of war, slyly obtaining your consent to use your tax dollars to fund military intervention abroad. It’s best we realize the falsehoods we’re being fed.

The Press Goes to War | Hoover Institution, Free

As a member of the Press myself, I feel like I have a responsibility to be extra critical of my industry, my colleagues. And so while I typically stay away from sharing stories from non-profits, I think this one deserves an exception.

I like this analysis in large part because it takes an unforgiving look at one of the field’s most venerated posts: war reporters. Here, Hoover argues that the practice of embedding into military units to get a first-hand account of warzones exposes a reporter to high levels of bias and puts them in way too friendly of a position with soldiers. In fact, as this piece reveals, the practice of embedding was created specifically as a way to sanitize the military’s image—that is, the armed forces see it explicitly as a tool of propaganda.

Of course, not everything is black-and-white, and there are upsides to embedding. Journalists now have unprecedented access to areas of conflict, and the public is better-informed for it. But even that, I think, has been tainted by the propaganda angle. We know what’s going on, sure, but how can we be certain we’re not merely being shown what the military wants us to see?

I love this piece for what it adds to this list: A much-needed look at the economics of war.

Indeed, conflict has become a lucrative business for the country’s top defense companies. In this piece, the writer dissects the money that goes into the U.S.’s decision to invest into building out the its military armament—even if there’s no real need for it.

The picture that emerges is complex, as with anything. And perhaps what I find the most level-headed angle of all is that defense investments produce jobs for Americans. But even that is a sort of twisted way to understand things, no? The U.S. has so inextricably incorporated military spending into its society that people now rely on violence (or defense, as the hawks would argue) for basic survival.

Of course, there’s an even more nefarious level here, which is that lawmakers and defense executives move in very close circles. It’s what analysts would call a revolving door: After a stint in Congress, a lawmaker would step down and find gainful employment in one of these defense powerhouses (think Raytheon, Lockheed Martin) and lobby their former colleagues in the government to pass industry-friendly legislation. In some cases, these ex-lawmakers could even find their way back into Capitol Hill.

All of this, unfortunately, is above-board. None of it is illegal, but it’s very clearly wrong. (And this is just one industry, and just one facet of the influence that capital exerts on the U.S. government—there’s still the matter of PACs, campaign donations, and outright corruption).

The result is a country that has the world’s most bloated military spending and lax regulations. Is it any surprise, then, that said country would jump at the chance to flex all of that investment, in the process bullying other nations with smaller arms budgets?

Thanks for reading! Please, please reach out if you have feedback, suggestions, or questions. Alternatively, you can fill out this super quick survey form. I promise it won’t even take five minutes of your time, and it’ll be a HUGE help!

ALSO: I know some of the stories I recommend might be behind paywalls, and maybe I can help you with access to those. Send me a message and let’s see what we can do 😊

Until next Monday! 👋