Posted on 06/23/2016 12:26:28 AM PDT by vannrox
“Trump has rejected the whole gamut of U.S. imperial war rationales, from FDR straight through to the present.”
If the Bernie Sanders campaign has propelled the word “socialism” – if not its actual meaning – into common, benign American usage, Donald Trump may have done the world an even greater service, by calling into question the very pillars of U.S. imperial policy: the NATO alliance; the U.S. nuclear “umbrella”; the global network of 1,000 U.S. bases; military “containment” of China and Russia; and U.S. “strategic” claims in the Persian Gulf. Were the U.S. to actually rid itself of these strategic “obligations,” the military hand on the doomsday clock would immediately be rolled back, giving humanity the breathing space to tackle other accumulated crises.
Of course, Donald Trump may over time rephrase, reverse or “clarify” out of existence some of his profoundly anti-imperial, “America First” foreign policy points, elicited in extended interviews with major U.S. media. However, if Trump’s tens of millions of white, so-called “Middle American” followers stick by him, despite his foreign policy heresies – as seems likely – it will utterly shatter the prevailing assumption that the American public favors maintenance of U.S. empire by military means. If the rank and file right wing of the Republican Party is not a pillar of such policies, then who is? – rank and file, Black, white and brown Democrats? If the Trump candidacy can continue to thrive while rejecting the holiest shibboleths of the bipartisan War Party, then we must conclude that the whole U.S. foreign policy debate is a construct of the corporate media and the corporate-bought duopoly political establishments, and that there is no popular consensus for U.S. militarism and no true mass constituency for war in either party.
If Donald Trump is to be the catalyst for such a revelation, then may all the gods bless him – because lots of assassins will be out to kill him.
“If Trump’s tens of millions of white, so-called ‘Middle American’ followers stick by him, it will utterly shatter the prevailing assumption that the American public favors maintenance of U.S. empire by military means.”
Trump’s language is sloppy, but there can be no mistaking the thrust of his position on key points. He calls NATO, the globe-strutting Euro-American military juggernaut that extended its domain to Africa with the 2011 war of regime change in Libya, an alliance that is “unfair, economically, to us.” Trump told the New York Times that NATO should focus on “counter-terrorism” – clearly a fundamentally scaled-down mission.
He repeated his often-expressed willingness to withdraw U.S. forces from Japan and South Korea, where American troops have been stationed since the end of World War Two, unless both countries pay a lot more money to maintain them. Trump actually seems eager to get out of the region, based on the number of times he has brought the subject up in his campaign. As with everything else in the Trump paradigm, he hooks the alliance to his quest for a “better deal” – but the point is that he doesn’t think the “price” of the far-flung U.S. military commitment is “worth it.” Trump’s stated intention to renegotiate virtually all of the “deals” the U.S. has made around the world – the military architecture of imperialism – means he is pointedly applying a cost-benefit test to the 1,000 U.S. bases around the globe. He is reluctant to offer other nations the “protection” of U.S. nuclear weapons.
The crucial point is: Trump does not accept the fundamental premise that these bases exist for U.S. “security” interests, but rather, he frames them as a kind of “service” that the clients should pay for. Once the “national security” veneer is withdrawn, the military-imperial rationale evaporates and all that is left is a business transaction – not enough to call a nation to war, or to risk a world over.
“Trump shows no interest in ‘spreading democracy,’ like George W. Bush, or assuming a responsibility to ‘protect’ other peoples from their own governments, like Barack Obama and his political twin, Hillary Clinton.”
Trump appears to welcome a strategic break with Saudi Arabia, threatening to cut off U.S. purchases of oil from the kingdom unless it “substantially reimburse[s]” Washington for fighting the Islamic State, or unless the Saudis and the other rich oil states commit troops to the anti-jihadist battle – at their own expense. It’s all nonsense, of course, since Washington and Saudi Arabia have been partners in global jihadism for two generations – but so what? Trump seems to relish the idea of severing the Saudi connection. “If Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection, I don’t think it would be around,” he said. His threat to withdraw the “cloak” unless the potentates pay for protection would negate the U.S. “national security” rationale in the Persian Gulf going back to President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1943 declaration that "the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States.” President Carter, another Democrat, upped the ante in 1980 with his doctrine that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its “national interests” in the Persian Gulf. Bush presidents One and Two were simply building on these previous national security rationales. Trump recognizes no such imperative, without which U.S. imperial policy in the region has no political basis.
Trump plays the trade card rather than the military gambit in dealing with China. He would threaten economic retaliation for China’s fortification of islands in the China Sea – not military encirclement. “We have tremendous economic power over China, and that’s the power of trade,” he said. The same, presumably, would apply to Russia.
The presidential candidate shows no interest in “spreading democracy,” like George W. Bush, or assuming a responsibility to “protect” other peoples from their own governments, like Barack Obama and his political twin, Hillary Clinton. On the contrary, Trump has stated that the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq and Libya and killed their leaders, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, because they killed terrorists – in contrast to Hillary Clinton’s macabre cackling over Gaddafi’s body. He opposed the U.S. proxy war against the al-Assad government in Syria, for similar reasons.
“Trump is busily delegitimizing U.S. imperial policy since World War Two.”
He even briefly defied the ultimate taboo, using the word “neutral” to describe the stance he would take on Palestine.
In sum, albeit sloppily, and with no guarantee that he won’t change his mind at any moment, Trump has rejected the whole gamut of U.S. imperial war rationales, from FDR straight through to the present. For who knows what reason, Trump is busily delegitimizing U.S. imperial policy since World War Two.
It’s not that the Empire has no clothes, but that it is being stripped of its rationale to march around the planet in battle gear. Thanks, not to Bernie, but to The Donald.
Trump has reduced white American nationalism to Race, his “trump” card – but without his hero, Teddy Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet sailing the world to plant the flag on distant shores.
The first effect of Trump’s intervention in the Republican primaries was to demonstrate that his white hordes really don’t give a damn for the GOP establishment’s corporate agenda; indeed, Trump gave them a chance to show they hated what global capitalism has done to “their” jobs. The fact that this cohort despises and fears non-whites of whatever citizenship status is nothing new – it’s a constant in U.S. politics, which is why there has always been a White Man’s Party. What makes this electoral season different – and, hopefully, a turning point in U.S. history – is that much of the rank and file of the White Man’s Party, the GOP, is rejecting the economic agenda of its corporate masters. If the Republican voters accept Trump’s assault on the ideological rationale undergirding U.S. foreign policy and its imperial structures, there will be nothing left of the GOP for the corporate rulers to defend. The Republican house of cards is collapsing, inevitably throwing the whole duopoly system out of whack.
“It is sad beyond measure that the near-extinction of independent Black politics has placed African Americans in the most untenable position imaginable at this critical moment: in the Hillary Clinton camp.”
The job of the Left, at this historic juncture, is to ensure that the two-party duopoly is permanently broken, to create the space for a much broader national discourse and, especially, to free Black America from the “trap within a trap” of the corporate-controlled Democratic Party. As we have written before in these pages, the best scenario of 2016 would be a fracture at both ends of the Rich Man’s Duopoly. It is insane – although perfectly explainable – that the most leftish constituency in the nation, Black America, is aligned with the right wing of the Democratic Party in the person of Hillary Clinton, while white Democrats man the barricades for the nominal socialist, Bernie Sanders. Blacks are the most pro-peace ethnicity in the nation, but have also been the indispensable bloc behind Hillary Clinton, the warmonger who is on her way to becoming the sole candidate of both Wall Street and the Pentagon.
It is magnificent, grand and glorious that the duopoly system is in deep trouble. But it is sad beyond measure that the near-extinction of independent Black politics has placed African Americans in the most untenable position imaginable at this critical moment: in the Hillary Clinton camp. Fortunately, key elements of the Movement for Black Lives have pledged not to endorse any candidates this election season. We hope that they stick with that commitment, continue to build a grassroots movement, and resist the corporate Democratic hegemony that has strangled and subverted Black politics for the past 40 years. The Black Left, broadly defined, must engage in a thorough reassessment of its politics and practice, in light of the great fissures that are occurring in the structures of the rulers’ system. That’s why the Black Is Back Coalition for Social Justice, Peace and Reparations is holding a National Conference on the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election and the Struggle for Black Self-Determination, on April 9th, in Harlem, New York City. This electoral season will see massive realignments of parties and coalitions – events that will happen whether Black people are organized or not. But Black self-determination is only moved forward if people push it. The most optimum time to press issues of Black self-determination is when the larger polity is in flux, such as exists today – thanks, in great measure, to the racist billionaire, Donald Trump.
Actually, there’s no need to thank him. That wealth-born son-of-a-rich-developer has already been paid. And by his own standards, that’s all that matters.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.
Ending the empire is the keystone to restoring liberty in the United States.
Black Racists For Trump!
Maybe a Country that has amassed more Debt than every other Nation on the Earth combined should dial back the Empire Building Business and just crush Evil when it erupts with overwhelming Firepower.
Talk about a “Big Tent”! This is not the only Lefty coming around to join the Trump Train! See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3442814/posts
And remember, when America is totally out of the picture, peace and tranquility reign supreme. Just ask the Hutus, Tutsi, Ethiopians, Serbians, Uighers, etc. When we are not there, there lives are enriched by their tribal experiences.
Yeah.
Boilerplate commie carp.
And so...what do you propose? Do you think it’s our job to fix the world for everyone else? If people are enriched by tribal experiences, it’s no business of mine so long as it doesn’t directly threaten American safety and security. By directly, I mean exactly that. It’s time to eliminate the “expeditionary” nature of the modern US military and return to walking softly while carrying a BIG stick.
The point is that the same people who scream about American intervention were the ones hammering the USA when all these incidents occurred. They were asking why we weren’t doing anything about those incidents.
The reason we are currently in so many places is that those issues did start to affect the United States. Germany and Japan were incredibly warlike countries and our presence there eventually changed those countries. The Soviet Union was aggressive and our presence in Europe forestalled them. Iraq was paying to train terrorists and was taking potshots at our planes in flight.
We have reasons to be where we are. And our absence would have an incredibly horrible affect on our ability to trade around the world. The world would truly be in a meat grinder if we were not the policeman on the corner. And our economy would suffer.
Since the end of the cold war, I have, in a way, been sympathetic to a help Israel, but, F the rest of them attitude. Maybe help UK in a situation like today’s vote...
Read to know your enemies.
I couldn't care less.
One of the things that never gets much attention -- and deliberately so -- is that all of the countries we allegedly "set free" with these military campaigns ends up using the U.S. dollar as a trading currency with us.
This is the reason why the U.S. backs radical Islamic elements in places like Kosovo, Iraq and Syria over stable dictators who primarily conduct business with western European trading partners and the Russians.
Do you think it's any coincidence that you're seeing these little announcements in the news about Boeing's new contracts to sell new aircraft to Iran?
Foreign policy doesn’t fit into left and right anymore. That’s why you have self-appointed “real conservatives” agreeing with fellow globalists like Hillary more than a nationalist like Trump.
Personally I would be in favor of most of that. Way back in time right after WWII “somebody’ was convinced that since the U.S. was the sole remaining power that had not suffered War on it’s soil that we had an ‘obligation’ to be the world’s policeman.
And look what that has done for us? Near constant war ‘somewhere’ on the planet that we have stuck our nose, (people and treasure), into. Death and destruction of our people and our ‘treasure’, paying tribute to nearly every country in the guise of ‘foreign aid’ and what do we have to show for it?
A bankrupt nation with out capital, intellectual knowledge and yes... Jobs, having fled or been stolen. Enough is enough, it’s time to say No More. So call me an isolationist, that word just rolls off of my back now. I’m an old man who’s traveled the world and worked for and with the U.S. Government. I know what I’ve seen and what I’ve experienced and it’s time, long past time, to stop the bleeding of our people in the armed services and destruction of our nation.
Trump’s problem with most US military ‘adventures’ is that he has trouble understanding how they are in the interest of the United States. Consider our ‘adventures’ since Reagan took office:
1) Granada (Reagan): Stopped Cuba/Soviet expansion in its tracks, and saved Granada (also gave our side a nice airport with a 10,000 foot runway). This one made perfect sense.
2) Panama (Bush-41): Hard to see what this accomplished - got rid of a guy we didn’t like. We should have taken back the Canal Zone at the time.
3) Kuwait/Iraq (Bush-41): Iraq was a real threat and proved it - but we should have marched in Bagdad and taken out Saddam at the time.
4) Somalia (Bush-41): Why?
5) Bosnia (Clinton): Why?
6) Kosovo (Clinton): Why?
7) Afghanistan/Iraq Nation Building (Bush/Obama): Why?
8) Syria: Why?
Notice any pattern lately?
There is no American empire and Trump is happy to provide defense if the countries pay
Doublespeak and Gobbletygoop. Obama class intellect.
How much of us should we sacrifice to mend the un-mendable ills of the world? How many places have we "helped" with blood and money that have become Democracies/republics and that don't despise us?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.