Trump's Reported National Security Advisor Supports Bombing Russia and Afghanistan
Mike Waltz has called for a “credible military option” against Iran, wants to “take the handcuffs off” Ukraine, and regrets ending the "multi-generational war" in Afghanistan.

So much for keeping out the war hawks. President-elect Donald Trump has reportedly chosen Rep. Mike Waltz (R–Fla.) to be his national security adviser and Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) to be his secretary of state. Rubio is a longtime regime change and war enthusiast, although he's recently pivoted to Trump's position that the war in Ukraine has to end diplomatically.
Waltz, on the other hand, doesn't even have a pretense of wanting to stay out of wars. He's been passionately in favor of escalating conflicts that Trump wants out of, including in Afghanistan and Ukraine. And he supports not only threatening to attack Iran but also militarily confronting Russia, which Waltz calls a "gas station with nukes."
If last week was a bad time to be a member of the Cheney family, this week is shaping up to be a good one. After working as a Department of Defense policy planner for the Bush administration, Waltz served as former Vice President Dick Cheney's counterterrorism adviser. And it shows.
"I think we're in for a long haul and I think our nation's leadership needs to begin telling the American people, I'm sorry, we don't have a choice, we're 15 years into what is going to be a multi-generational war because we're talking about defeating an idea," Waltz said about Afghanistan at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2017.
Lest anyone think that Waltz has changed, he fought tooth and nail against Trump's negotiations to withdraw from Afghanistan, voting to tie the president's hands and whining that Afghanistan is strategic real estate on the "flank" of Iran, Russia, and China. (That idea seems to have caught on with Trump, who argued during the campaign that Afghanistan would have been a good base from which to confront China.) After U.S. forces left in 2021, Waltz called for restarting the war with both "American air power" and boots on the ground.
It's no surprise, then, that Waltz voted against ending U.S. support for the Saudi war in Yemen and voted for keeping the Iraq War authorization on the books…in 2021. And, of course, he's been arguing for years that the United States should be threatening to bomb Iran. Last month, he begged President Joe Biden to go ahead and "punch Iran in the nose" in response to Iraqi guerrilla attacks.
At an event with the liberal Atlantic Council last month, Waltz got excited about the idea of fighting outside powers in the Middle East, praising Trump for bombing Russian forces in Syria. "The facts show that [Trump] was far tougher on Russia than the narrative that floats around Washington," he said, arguing that Russian leader Vladimir Putin is "struggling, he's a gas station with nukes."
The "gas station" turn of phrase is the same one that former Sen. John McCain and former Obama administration adviser Jason Furman used. At least Waltz acknowledges the nukes, although that hasn't seemed to faze him, since he's also excited with the idea of bombing Russians inside Russia. At the Republican National Convention this year, he bragged that Trump told Putin that "you try anything, and I'll take the tops off the Kremlin."
In an interview with NPR last week, he said that the Russian-Ukrainian war can end if the United States applies some leverage. And what is that leverage? Making sure Russia's "war machine will dry up very quickly" with U.S. economic sanctions, Waltz said, as well as "taking the handcuffs off of the long-range weapons we provided Ukraine." Ukraine has been demanding permission to use American missiles against targets on Russian soil. Ukrainians forces are currently only allowed to use them to defend Ukrainian soil.
From the beginning of the war, Waltz has wanted U.S. troops to be more directly involved. "I'm not advocating for American troops on the frontlines in Ukraine. Absolutely not. But what the British are doing is they're helping with planning. They're helping with logistics. They're helping Ukrainians use the equipment that we're funding at a headquarters level, in their supply depots," he told independent journalist Michael Tracey in July 2022.
If wars in the Middle East and Europe weren't enough, Waltz has proposed that Congress authorize a war of "cyber, drones, intelligence assets, naval assets" against drug cartels in Mexico.
Perhaps Waltz has been so successful in the competition for administration jobs because—unlike classic neocons—he's been so successful at disguising escalation as a path to "peace through strength." More aggression is a way to "bring the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East to a swift conclusion," Waltz argued in an essay for The Economist that came out just before the election. And putting American boots on the ground in Ukraine? Why, that's just a way to stop U.S. aid from going into a "black hole."
But all the fancy word games in the world can't change reality. What Waltz is promising is, as he admitted in 2017, more of the same "multi-generational war" that every president from George W. Bush to Joe Biden waged. And he's going to be waging it with the same overstretched tools of American power that Biden inherited.
After all, the Biden administration itself has tried to sell the same "deescalation through escalation" strategy over the past couple months. Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Supports Bombing Russia"
Can't be true.
#TheResistance is telling me Trump is still a Kremlin asset and is staffing his government accordingly.
I know what you're thinking. "Is he playing chess in 13 dimensions or only 12?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is Donald Trump, the most powerful Manchurian Candidate in the world, and would blow the tops of the Kremlin clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?
Comrade, we at the FSB installed Trump to confuse the west.
Waltz is a decorated green beret. He’s hardly some democrat chickenhawk neocon.
First Navy SEAL to ever fight in the Army Special Forces. First person ever to kill Hitler AND Bin Laden.
At the same time?
In his first term, Trump had "Bomb 'Em All" Bolton and didn't bomb anyone. I wouldn't get so exited.
^This.
You beat me to it.
Kept Bolton around, for a while, because he was a nutjob. It's all about the art of the deal.
There’s an ancient Vulcan proverb, “Only Nixon could go to China”.
GG, you’re too good for this place.
Back at ya.
Waltz will leave in frustration like the others.
Then people will talk about how bad Trump is because the warmongers don't hang around long.
Also, how many troops does the National Security Advisor command?
Seems like someone charged with National Security by name *should* be the kind of person who regards Russia as a gas station with nukes.
Conversely, I never heard of Nuland calling for anyone to be bombed and look how well that turned out!
Almost anyone would be a massive improvement over that pinko bitch.
Trump, I believe, still holds the record for number of bombs dropped on Afghanistan in a given year. He beat all of his predecessors, not sure if Biden topped him in the end though.
He may have been restrained in starting new wars then Bush and Obama but he did bomb lots of people.
This was "bumper sticker reporting" that was out of sync with reality and hashed out back when it happened.
That is, the presumption being more bombs by number = more war is false. Tactically, one 2,000 lb. bomb is nominally as destructive as 4, 500 lb. bombs despite being "1/4 of the war-ness". Moreover, dropping 40 bombs on a remote network of caves, killing 20, isn't exactly 40X or 2X as "war-ness" as dropping one bomb in a village or city and killing 10. The death tolls, Afghan civilian and US military were down in the years when Trump incurred the "Most bombiest" title. Further still, strategically, it was nominally against the Taliban, to whom we were to be turning over the country to in a year. Presumably, if we were blowing up a bunch of civilians and hardening the opposition to a more perpetual and larger state of war, we wouldn't be simultaneously negotiating their takeover.
You got facts into the talking points.
Sure, no problem with that analysis. I was just pointing out that he did bomb people despite jdinkles "bumper sticker reporting" that he hadn't bombed anyone. But it is true that he dropped a larger number of bombs in total quantity then his predecessors on Afghanistan and he is objectively* also less war hawkish then his predecessors; these are not mutually exclusive.
*
Bush, 2 wars started
Obama, 2 wars started
Trump, zero wars started
Right. Pretty sure "didn't bomb anyone" and "Assassinated Qasem Soleimani" are mutually exclusive and, while I could be wrong, jdinkles wasn't asserting that no one died in any conflict anywhere while Trump was President.
DID YOU HEAR WHAT TRUMP SAID !?!?!?!?!?
I, for one, am tired of the constant TDS-addled BULLSHIT written by the TDS-addled slimy piles of shit who write for REASON.
Trump always says something that makes Sullum, Boehm, Binion, and Welch wet themselves.
Too bad about the last name.
How many disastrous failures does it take to get the warhawks to realize that war doesn’t work? It doesn’t work for regime change; it doesn’t work to stop the dominoes from falling; it doesn't protect our vital national interests; it doesn't keep the oil flowing; it doesn’t lead to world peace; it doesn’t make the world safe for democracy; and it sure as hell hasn’t stopped global terrorism. I do not buy the narrative that standing up to Hitler would have prevented World War Two, so we have to stand up to every real or imaginary world threat in order to prevent World War Three. Aside from the total lack of connection between the post-World War One situation and the post-World War Two situation, there is no evidence to even support the notion that there is anything that would have prevented the Nazis and the Empire of Japan from trying to conquer the world in the first place. The warhawks are self-serving, power-hungry politicians who enjoy playing with toy soldiers, only the people who die in these wars are not toys to be played with but, rather, our children and grandchildren.
War is a tax-subsidized profit center, and chief export.
War works plenty damned well, once you're past draft age and can send the great unwashed masses off to protect your interests.
Oddly enough, I read this piece and the links provided in it, looking for a single instance of Waltz calling for us to "bomb Russia", but didn't find one. And no, calling for the removal of some restrictions on Ukraine's use of U.S.-supplied weaponry against an invading aggressor doesn't fill the bill.
Terrible pick. Absolutely awful. Very disappointing.
If true.
Its the New York Times saying it, and the Trump campaign hates them with a passion and would happily lie to them just to fuck them over.
If it appears on TheRealDonaldTrump or Truth Social then I'll believe it.
meh … think of the evil semi in Maximum Overdrive
I'm going to need, especially from Donald Trump, a more detailed and verbose description of what "I'll take the tops off the Kremlin." entails before I adamantly oppose.
Maybe the plan is to only take some off the top of the Kremlin. But leave the sides and back long. Thus giving the Kremlin a mullet.
That’s some cold blooded shit right there. Turning the Kremlin into Joe Dirt.
Women, haircuts, ’67 Plymouth Convertible, ’77 Pontiac Trans Ams… as indicated, I’m going to need a more specific description of which tops are coming off and how before I categorically oppose.
If you don't end the war in Ukraine, I'll end it by hosting a topless car show in Moscow! [War in Ukraine ends almost as promptly as Mississippi declares war on Alabama].
we chopped my '75 Monte Carlo does that count?
I heard Elon said "haircuts for all" maybe they're starting back east
So it looks like Trump's strategy is to put of bunch of scary guys in positions that can make lots of threats but not actually order any bombings or deployments. The theory being that will encourage Iran/China/Russia/North Korea/whoever to then kiss up to him, the good cop, for fear of the bad cops Rubio and Waltz.
Which is not awful, it sort of worked in his last term. But I'd say it's at best 2D chess.
I don’t know, I give at least some credence to Thomas Friedman’s take on the matter in what he said about Rumsfeld, during an October 2001 appearance on CNBC, regarding the latter’s role in the invasion of Afghanistan:
“I was a critic of Rumsfeld before, but there’s one thing… that I do like about Rumsfeld. He’s just a little bit crazy, OK? He’s just a little bit crazy, and in this kind of war, they always count on being able to out-crazy us, and I’m glad we got some guy on our bench that’s our quarterback—who’s just a little bit crazy, not totally, but you never know what that guy’s going to do, and I say that’s my guy.”
This website is awful sluggish this afternoon. Did they feed the hamsters? Did they get out? "Free at last!"
Perhaps a feral, mutated, rabid squirrel chewed through the cables to the Reason servers. And speaking of servers, where the fuck are ENB and Little Emma with my goddamned sandwich?
Hey! With talk like that you'll never get a job in the Chase Oliver Administration or at the Cato Institute.
Promise? I already wasn’t looking forward to ‘Sodomy Fridays’.
You know what? The Sefense Secretary SHOULD BE A HAWK. Since it’s his job to prepare and maintain the most lethal military possible, as opposed to promoting DEI and Climate Change.
The SecDef doesn’t make any important Policy decisions. That’s the POTUS. The Sec Def should be a hawk, and the SecState should be a diplomat, and the POTUS should have a diverse array of competent voices advising him with competing and contrary arguments to help make the best decisions
Just imagine if our current National Security Advisor had been a little more energetic about answering the question "What if our current POTUS becomes too incapacitated to carry out his duties?" out loud.
Hey, pour one for the paleocon and Grayzone wanker "Trump is a non-interventionist" idiots at Antiwar.com
It's good to make real efforts towards peace, which it sounds like Trump will do. It's also good to have people on staff that can blow things up (metaphorically and literally) because (i) Russia won't respect Trump if they don't think he just might go off the rails and (ii) if the peace route doesn't work, we need a viable alternative that might involve blowing things up.
Sounds like the kind of war hawk we need. It would actually mess up the entire liberal Russian collusion conspiracy, too.
...which Waltz calls a "gas station with nukes."
It's not?