www.theamericanconservative.com
Trump Should Leave His Neocon Streak Behind
President Donald Trump is basking in praise for the Gaza ceasefire he brokered, despite the likelihood that Israel will resume its attack now that the Israeli hostages have been returned. Anyway, he could have achieved a similar result nine months and thousands of Palestinian lives ago had he threatened to cut off U.S. arms to Israel if it refused to make a deal. Unfortunately, he was too beholden to Israel’s U.S. supporters to do so. Indeed, he did much to set up the current conflict during his first term, fueling the Netanyahu government’s brutally aggressive designs and crushing any political hopes of millions of Palestinians under Israeli rule. Given his conduct, it would have been surprising had the region not exploded.
In 2016 the president helped sell his candidacy by posing as an anti-war warrior, a Jacksonian Republican willing to denounce the Iraq war, which he had originally endorsed. This gave him credibility with voters who had tired of Washington’s bipartisan War Party, ever ready to sacrifice American lives and wealth by making other governments’ conflicts America’s own.
The Republican Party once stood for the old republic, but in recent years has been controlled by militarists like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who were constantly braying to join the latest foreign war launched or imagined. Despite the Cold War’s end, a bipartisan coalition turned Uncle Sam into GloboCop, attempting to reshape the Mideast according to Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s dictates and remake failed Third World states, while forever subsidizing the defense of rich industrialized countries and increasingly treating China and Russia as enemies.
Trump’s inner neocon intermittently took control during his first term. He didn’t start any new wars, but neither did he end any old ones. He denounced European defense cheap-riding, but his administration increased U.S. financial and troop commitments to NATO. He negotiated with the Afghan Taliban, but left American troops entangled in Central Asia, for no recognizable national interest.
Moreover, he submitted to every demand of the politically avaricious Benjamin Netanyahu, including allowing the traitor Jonathan Pollard, who turned U.S. military secrets over to Israel, to emigrate and pardoning Pollard’s Israeli handler. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman received similarly generous treatment, as Trump continued the Obama administration’s support for Riyadh’s brutal aggression against Yemen and protected MbS’ “ass” after the gruesome murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Trump ordered the assassination of Iran’s general and beloved military icon Qassem Soleimani, triggering Iranian attacks on U.S. forces based in the region, and he abandoned the JCPOA nuclear agreement, effectively ending diplomacy with Tehran and thereby ensuring the acceleration of its nuclear program. He also initiated lethal military aid to Ukraine, fueling its conflict with Russia and undermining Washington’s relations with Moscow.
This disturbingly aggressive course offered little benefit for Americans, at least those living and working outside the infamous Washington Beltway. Trump looked good only compared to his predecessors, who had repeatedly started or entered new wars. Especially the Biden administration, which took the U.S. into a dangerous proxy war-plus against Russia. At least with Trump, Americans knew who is risking their lives and money by deploying military assets across the globe on one dubious mission or another. Even today, no one knows who was ultimately making decisions under the evidently decrepit Biden.
Just nine months into his second administration, Trump rarely puts America First, instead always favoring someone else: Israel, of course, and Europe, more surprisingly, given his past criticisms. Unfortunately, the president may be embracing the defense of rich allies because it enables him to shake them down economically. However, better for Americans to end Washington’s costly military commitments than have the president play socialist-in-chief and politicize investments. About the only good foreign policy news today comes from the Saudis, who, after unexpectedly losing their war against Yemen and no longer trusting Washington, now favor stability and peace.
Worst may be his apparent willingness to out-Biden Biden and escalate the proxy war against Moscow. Who expected Trump to encourage the Ukrainians to escalate their attacks on Russia proper and to even aid Kiev in striking Russian energy facilities? And who expected Trump to threaten to provide Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine? These are nuclear-capable and would require U.S. intelligence to hit Russian targets.
Imagine how any American president would react if Moscow provided similar weapons to a nation engaged in a shooting war with the U.S. Dual use weapons that could carry nuclear warheads. Weapons that could be used to strike American bases, American infrastructure, and American cities. Remember the Cuban missile crisis?
Of course, the president is complacent, which should surprise no one. After all, his appointees spend most of their timegenuflecting while praising his genius, perspicacity, and eloquence. Although Vladimir Putin’s decision to attack Ukraine was reckless and foolish (as well as morally horrendous and practically disastrous), he has carefully avoided expanding or escalating the conflict into a direct war with NATO, despite allied provocations. He is likely to continue doing so as long as he believes he is winning. However, facilitating attacks within Russia, especially on important military and economic targets or even Moscow, could increase political pressure on Putin to respond. Moreover, if allied analysts really believe that he can be beaten, they should expect retaliation. And that could turn a proxy fight into a real war, which could easily go nuclear once begun.
What interest is at stake that warrants taking such a risk? Doing so endangers rather than protects America. Joining Ukraine’s battle does not fulfill the NATO alliance, which is, or at least originally was, based on defending its membersfrom attack rather than attacking other states in defense of non-members. The original NATO advocates, including Dwight D. Eisenhower, supported the transatlantic alliance as a temporary shield behind which Europe could recover and then take over its own defense. He would be disappointed, and probably shocked, to learn that decades later 340 million Americans would be defending 600 million Europeans against 140 million Russians. How does this make any sense, especially for Trump, who long rightly challenged the Europeans for their determined reliance on Washington for all things security? They continue to resist pressure to take over, instead playing to the president’s vanities—creating superficial processes and making dubious promises—to convince him that all is well. Ironically, the Europe that the administration is encouraging through its support for dubious populist parties is one in which continental military outlays are far more likely to fall than rise.
Unfortunately, he appears to have been captured by his office, as has happened to so many of his predecessors. He echoed his neocon predecessor in declaring that “I run the country and the world.” This is precisely what America’s founders feared about future presidents, which is why they limited the chief executive’s powers, established competing branches of government, and created a system of checks and balances. Even Alexander Hamilton, the avid proponent of presidential power, insisted that it was “in substance much inferior to” that of the king.
Having won both the popular vote and the electoral college tally, the president started strongly after his January inauguration. Alas, in foreign policy he has changed little of note, largely reinforcing Biden’s approach, with America continuing to pick up the tab for other people’s wars. How is Trump different from others who are in permanent thrall of Israel, no matter the human cost to Palestinians? Does he behave differently than those who promote democracy while excusing manifold repression and aggression by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other governments? How does his policy differ from that of his predecessor, especially pushing confrontation with Russia?
No where has Trump minimized let alone dropped a military commitment. Rather, he has maintained Biden’s policies of constant commitment in the Mideast and growing indirect attacks on Russia. Trump appears to have abandoned his previous threats to withdraw U.S. troops from Europe or South Korea, both antiquated commitments long ready for history’s trash can. Unfortunately, so far he has proved to be a hawk on Russia, threatening to escalate support for Kiev, which would make conflict with Moscow an increasingly real possibility. Few today imagine the U.S. and Russia at war, but virtually no one expected Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Washington must work to maintain peace. Which should begin with the president ending the proxy war against Russia—and continue by making this country’s defense the foundation of American foreign policy.
The post Trump Should Leave His Neocon Streak Behind appeared first on The American Conservative.
Bitchute
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
