|
English Outsider On Trump’s Cabinet Of Curiosities And How Little It Matters
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."
All this talk of defeat and ‘winning’ as though history were all so many games. The only struggle is the class struggle, and this is being played out across at least three frontiers in the way that historical capitalism has always sought to renew itself. Ruling classes get worried and then, when things don’t go their way, they get barbaric; gloves come off, masks dropped, veneers fall away, and a very ugly face (re-)appears. Don Bacon above is right: this war forming is against the proletariat—but which one?
There are a few: one is in China and Russia, lifted out of poverty by strong and powerful central governments. That war is directed against the state, which, for the western masses, is given the persona ‘authoritarian dictator’. This is mirrored by the war on the US state about to be waged by DOGE. Since the ruling class has been angling to dismantle the New Deal since 1970 they are outraged that the developing world, over which they thought patronage was imposed after ww2, has effectively begun imposing its own New Deal with Russo-Chinese help. Let’s call this BRICS for short.
Another proletariat is, of course, that of the west itself. Here the ruling class strategy is either rule directly (Democratic Party) or create the illusion (even better) that the ‘people’ rule themselves by encouraging their most socially reactionary prejudices and then giving them a leader who’ll respond. When the last vestiges of the state are then swept away or privatised it is easy to redirect proletarian anger by unleashing horror onto enemies ‘we prepared earlier’ (illegals, liberals, globohomo, etc), who, as with any good lie, are partly responsible, but only because they are symptomatic of the excesses of global capitalism for which the ruling classes are ultimately responsible. There are good precedents for this kind of tactic (Jim Crow and fascism in general).
Yet another shadow-proletariat is the one that dared rise above its station: western post-war middle classes. There is a slow motion inter-generational civil war amongst them (all civil wars are intra-elite conflicts), between the boomer middle class (they reaped all the post-war benefits and are debt-free) and their debt-ridden epigonoi, debt which is owned by the boomers. This latter conflict is not to be underestimated: inter-generational civil war is often the bitterest because it is so internecine, affecting families and communities directly. The sources of this conflict lie in fist-wave New Deal (real value redistribution, 1935-1970) and then the deregulation of credit that was imagined could simulate the New Deal without increasing taxation (fake value redistribution, 1970-1990). In both cases social democrats were behind it, well-meaning folks paving the road to hell. As Marx would say, if the New Deal was the tragedy (the boomers refuse to die, a Faustian catastrophe if ever there was), then the use of credit/debt to simulate wealth was the farce.
All the more so since now middle class status is entirely built on a lien on the future, which brings us back to the pressures that drive historical capitalism’s attempts to renew itself: new markets, new resource fields, Conquista 2.0 (Central Asia), 3.0 China, etc. It is no accident that parvenus were the most eager to strike out for these historically: from the sub-aristocracy of Iberia to the bourgeois founders of India Companies. Australia was the laboratory of such experiments. What we are seeing now is the beginning of the Civil War of Globalism, which, on he analogy of the US Civil War, is a war between an western elite/middle-class whose surplus is derived from the post-war order (let’s call it the ancien regime de modernité or, better still, the South), and an emerging Yankee elite (the BRICSocracy) whose stake is in manufacturing. The new Mason-Dixon line runs from the Finno-Russian border to the Suez Canal. And, as in the last civil war history does not smile on those who cling to the passing forces of production. Theirs is a lost cause. The USA will be the Mississipi of the world.
Posted by: Patroklos | Nov 16 2024 23:41 utc | 206
These are the words of Haile Selassie. For those that have ears to hear.
“Twenty-seven years ago as Emperor of Ethiopia I mounted the rostrum in Geneva Switzerland to address to the league of nations and appeal for relief from the destruction which had been unleashed against my defenceless nation by the fascist invaders.
I spoke then both to and for the conscience of the world. My words went unheeded, but history testifies to the accuracy of the warning that I gave in 1936. Today I stand before the world organization which has succeeded to the mantle discarded by its discredited predecessor and in this body is enshrined the principle of collective security which was unsuccessfully invoked at Geneva. Here in this assembly reposes the best, perhaps the last hope for the peaceful survival of mankind.
In 1936 I declared that it wasn’t the covenant of the league that was at stake but international morality. Undertakings, I said then, are little worth if the will to keep them is lacking. The charter of the United Nations expresses the noblest aspirations of man. Abjuration of force and the peaceful settlement of disputes between states. The assurance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction of race, sex, language, or religion. The safeguarding of international peace and security.
But these, too, as were the phrases of the Covenant, are only words and their value depends wholly on our will to observe and honour them and give them content and meaning. The preservation of peace and the guaranteeing of basic freedoms and rights require courage and eternal vigilance. Courage to speak and act and, if necessary, to suffer and die for truth and justice. Eternal vigilance and a complete transgression of international morality shall not go undetected and unremedied These lessons must be learned anew by each succeeding generation and that generation is fortunate indeed which learns from other than its own bitter experience.
Haile Selassie speech 1963
This organization and each of its members bear a crushing and awesome responsibility to absolve the wisdom of history and apply it to the problems of the present in order that future generations may be born and live and die in peace. Should we fail to achieve this goal we shall have condemned the coming generations to inherit the tragedy of our times.
I have lived too long to cherish many illusions about the essential high mindedness of men when brought into stark confrontation with the issue of control over their securities and their property interests. Not even now, when so much is at stake, would many nations willingly entrust their destinies to other hands. Yet this is the ultimatum presented to us. Secure the conditions whereby men will entrust their security to a larger entity or risk alienation. Persuade men that their salvation rests with the subordination of national and local interests to the interests of mankind or endanger man’s future. These are the objectives yesterday unattainable, today essential, which we must labour to achieve. Until this is accomplished mankind’s future remains hazardous and permanent peace a matter for speculation.
I would now like to mention briefly today, two particular issues. Disarmament and the establishment of true equality among men.
Disarmament has become the urgent imperative of our time. I do not say this because I believe that the absence of arms is tantamount to peace or because I believe that bringing an end the nuclear arms race automatically guarantees the peace or because the elimination of nuclear warheads from the arsenals of this world will bring in its wake that change in attitude required for a peaceful settlement of disputes between nations. Disarmament is vital today because of the immense destructive capacity which men now possess. Ever since the stone age, the production of arms has always been the source of man’s own destruction Even though the achievement of general and complete disarmament is time-consuming it is encouraging to note that great efforts have been devoted to its attainment. My country supports the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty as a step toward this goal even though it is only a partial step. The real significance of a treaty is that it admits of a tacit stalemate between the nations which have created it. A stalemate which recognizes the blunt and unavoidable fact that none would emerge from the total destruction which would be the lot of all in the event of a nuclear war. A stalemate which affords us and the United Nations the breathing space in which to act. The goal of the equality of man which we seek is the very antithesis of the exploitation of one people by another. About which the pages of history and particularly those written about the African and Asian continents speak at such length.
Until the philosophy Haile Selassie speech
Last May in Addis Ababa there was convened a meeting of heads of African States and governments for three days. The thirty-two nations presented at that conference demonstrated to the world that when the wills and the determination exist, nations, and peoples of various backgrounds can and will work together in unity in achievement of common goals in the assurance of that equality that we desire. Our past history has testified to the fact that we have always endeavoured to cooperate with all nations without exception. Thus one of the fundamental principles we have agreed upon at the Addis Ababa summit conference gives expression to our fundamental desire to live in harmony and cooperation with all states.
On the question of racial discrimination, the Addis Ababa Conference taught, to those who will learn, this further lesson:
that until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned;
that until there are no longer first class and second class citizens of any nation;
that until the color of a man’s skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes;
that until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race;
that until that day, the dream of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained.
And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes that hold our brothers in Angola, in Mozambique and in South Africa in subhuman bondage have been toppled and destroyed;
until bigotry and prejudice and malicious and inhuman self-interest have been replaced by understanding and tolerance and good-will;
until all Africans stand and speak as free beings, equal in the eyes of all men, as they are in the eyes of Heaven;
until that day, the African continent will not know peace. We Africans will fight, if necessary, and we know that we shall win, as we are confident in the victory of good over evil.
The basis of racial discrimination and colonialism has been economic and it is with economic weapons that these evils have been and can be overcome. In pursuance of resolutions adopted at the Addis Ababa summit conference, African States have undertaken certain measures in the economic field which, if adopted by all member states of the United Nations, would soon reduce any intransigence to reason.
I ask today for adherence to these measures by every nation represented here which is truly indicative of principles enshrined within the treaty. I do not believe that Portugal or South Africa are prepared to commit economic or physical suicide if honourable or reasonable alternatives exist. I believe that such alternatives can be found. We must act while we can, while the occasion exists to exert those legitimate pressures available to us lest time run out and resort be had to less happy means. The great nations of the world would do well to remember that in the modern age even their own fate is not wholly in their own hands. Peace requires the united efforts of us all. Who can foresee what spark might ignite the fuse. The stakes are identical for all of us. Life or death. We all wish to live, we all seek a world in which men are freed of the burdens of ignorance, poverty, hunger and disease.
We shall all be hard-pressed to escape the deadly rain of nuclear fallout should catastrophe overtake us. The problems which confront us today are unprecedented; they have no counterpart in human experience. Men search the pages of history for solutions, for precedents but alas there are none to be found.”
Posted by: Trismegistus | Nov 17 2024 0:06 utc | 209
|
