Referring to Judge Napolitano discussion with Col Lawrence Wilkerson about Trump and the Defense Department (video) English Outsider writes:
"Yes, the man all hoped would give the quietus to the neocons seems to be appointing neocons himself.
Mercouris has made some valuable preliminary observations on the subject of Trump's appointees so far. Risking paraphrasing him (the reference is to his video of a couple of days back), he considers that these appointments are made mainly to ensure Trump has in place those loyal to him, that consideration over-riding any question of whatever foreign policy stance the prospective nominees may hold.
As said, these are preliminary or tentative conclusions arrived at by Mercouris but I believe they make very good sense. Following on from Mercouris' conclusions are I believe further conclusions on the subject of these somewhat hawkish proposed nominees.
1. It no longer matters what US foreign policy is with respect to Ukraine and maybe with respect to the ME.
The Russians are going to get their "demilitarisation and denazification" in Ukraine whatever the West does or attempts. That has long been apparent and is now apparent to all. So the views of the Trump nominees on Ukraine, and the views of Trump himself on Ukraine, no longer matter when it comes to changing facts on the ground.
Similarly in the ME, whether the appointees are Israel Firsters or not also no longer matters. It looks as if Israel is heading for defeat, but whether it is so or not the outcome can't be altered by the US. Neither Biden nor Trump are going to authorise open and declared war on behalf of Israel and if they did, it's doubtful that American military power is sufficient to change that outcome.
In addition, open and active war against Iran, for instance, would lead to an increase in oil prices and to significant damage to American ships and bases. That is not something Biden has been prepared to risk so far and Trump even less: it would damage his credibility were he to open his Presidency with a major war having given the impression, in his election campaign, that he was opposed to one.
So there's nothing much the US or the West as a whole can do to alter the outcome either of the Ukrainian war or of the conflict in the ME. I haven't read "The Art of the Deal" but I'm sure that Trump recognises that when you sit down to play, the first priority is to recognise the strength of your own hand. Whatever the US hawks may believe, the Pentagon will know that in either case we in the West hold no aces.
2. Given that military impotence the US politicians can follow the example of the Europeans. They can make what threats they please knowing they will not risk putting those threats into practice. We've seen Macron threatening French boots on the ground knowing he's never going to declare war on Russia. We see Scholz and Starmer still impeccably resolute, knowing they will never be at risk of having to back up words with deeds. Now we will see US politicians – have in fact been seeing them for some time – doing the same.
But it's not all sound and fury signifying nothing. In the case of the ME the American politicians have to bear in mind the strength of the voting bloc made up of the Evangelicals, Christian Zionists, Mormons and the various religious sects for who Israel First is an article of faith. That voting bloc is large, in the tens of millions. It was not one Biden wished to offend. It was a necessary component in the portion of the electorate that carried Trump to victory. They need the rhetoric even if the reality falls short of their expectations. By proposing Israel Firsters, and vociferous Israel Firsters at that, Trump has given them that rhetoric.
3. After the defeat in Ukraine, and what looks very likely to be defeat in the ME, the first priority of the politicians will be to save face.
The UK politicians, as we see have seen in the UK press, have their alibi ready for Ukraine. "We would have won had the Americans not let us down. They should have permitted deep strikes. They should have put boots on the ground. They should have threatened nuclear". That alibi ignores the fact that none of those courses would have been practicable. But it will probably serve and most of the UK electorate will be content with it.
No doubt such alibis will be coming out of Europe. It is essential for Trump to have a similar alibi. None can say whether the war will end before Trump's inauguration but if it doesn't, if it's the Trump administration that has to confess defeat, the Democrats will undoubtedly attempt to lay the blame for that defeat at his door. By proposing hawks and thus adopting hawkish rhetoric, Trump will be able to avoid that reproach.
…………………
Are those fair conclusions to draw from Mercouris' observation? Pretty squalid conclusions, if so, but then that's politics. But for me, my judgement of the success of the Trump Presidency will be on quite other grounds. I stated that judgement on Colonel Lang's old site and state it here:
This final stage of the Ukrainian war is leading to quite appalling casualties. The genocide in the ME is not only a tragedy for those suffering. It is an ineradicable stain on Western civilisation and future generations will look back in horror at what we supported and often encouraged.
Trump's Presidency will be judged not by the success of his internal reforms. It will be judged by the extent to which he managed, even before his inauguration, to bring these horrors to an end."