all 4 comments

[–]ageingrockstar[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

In the latest episode of Ask the Inspector Scott Ritter replied to a question about Tucker Carlson's assertion from a recent interview in which Tucker forecast an escalation by Biden to a hot war with Russia so he could assume war powers so as to help him win (or possibly defer?) the election. The link takes you to the timestamp in the episode where Scott emphatically rejected the assertion and explains his reasons why he thinks it's very unlikely (within a 3 minute limit, as it's the 'rapid fire' version of the show).

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Scott's mistaken about what Tucker said, which is the fault of the host. By "win" Tucker was referring to winning the 2024 election, not a war. That doesn't assume or require military victory, merely military engagement, and if Scott really thinks there's a general who wouldn't throw American lives into a meatgrinder to earn political favor, he's the delusional one.

[–]ageingrockstar[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

By "win" Tucker was referring to winning the 2024 election, not a war.

True, and in the actual clip Tucker says that he doesn't think the U.S. would win.

However, I think the point is that there's no winner in a direct, hot war between the U.S. and Russia because of the very prominent danger of escalation to a nuclear conflict. (Which is why the two countries have conducted proxy wars from the 1950s onwards, mostly but not always incited by the U.S.) And I think Scott's main point is that the idea of starting a hot war with Russia to keep an administration in power is way too fanciful; it's the stuff of a tv thriller, not the real world. Not much point in staying in power if you're ruling over a country that's a devastated, radioactive ruin. Additionally, the idea that 'war powers' is some sort of get out of jail card for a president is also fanciful.

Scott's area of expertise and former career is the prevention of (nuclear) war. He's warned that the risk of nuclear conflict is higher than it's been for a long time (perhaps forever). But that he doesn't see the scenario that Tucker lays out as compelling, but rather fanciful, is telling I think.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Additionally, the idea that 'war powers' is some sort of get out of jail card for a president is also fanciful.

I largely agree with everything you said, and this bit in particular. But that's not to say there isn't a segment of the consultant class who do/will push the "rally round the flag" idea, and a segment of the electorate on whom it will work.

I hope Scott's right, but I would be completely unsurprised to see the following headline in the NYT: Declaration of War Saves Democracy from Putin and Trump