Though Hysteria Mounts, the Future is Peace
By Karl Pomeroy
July 26, 2016
Addendum July 27, 2016
Geopolitical analysts are right to be alarmed about Bush-Obama-Clinton neoconservative policy. This arrogant agenda of reckless aggression has pushed NATO troops to the doorway of Russia, destabilized the Islamic belt of the Middle East and North Africa, created a fertile breeding ground for human revenge by terrorists like ISIS, and nudged Russian President Vladimir Putin to warn of retaliation.
Yet as hysteria mounts in the anti-establishment media about nuclear world war, the answer escapes many analysts. This curious phenomenon seems suspect. If these authors are sincere about preventing nuclear war, why don’t they acknowledge our best hope for peace?
Why Vilify Peace?
Recent articles abound on the threat of nuclear war. Paul Craig Roberts is one of the leading editorialists. His July 23 commentary entitled Armageddon Approaches makes Donald Trump’s foreign policy conspicuous by its absence. Why no mention of Trump, the only noninterventionist candidate?
John Hecht, writer for the anti-establishment platform Global Research, rails about the “issue” of Trump’s purported “racism”, while ignoring Trump’s views on peaceful foreign relations.
British anti-neocon author Finian Cunningham [see Footnote 1 below], as if trapped in a curious schizophrenia—or seeking an “enlightened balance” by expounding two contradictions at once—praises Trump’s foreign policy, then fantacizes that the Republican candidate has a hidden neocon agenda.
In his article Trump and the End of NATO?, Cunningham says:
“If Donald Trump is elected US president it will spell the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. At least, that’s how a phalanx of US foreign policy pundits and establishment figures see it. Trump once again caused uproar recently with comments that were viewed as undermining a «cornerstone» of US foreign policy since the Second World War….
“The rightwing American Enterprise Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, and senior foreign policy makers within the Republican and Democrat parties all unanimously berated Trump over his views on NATO. Estonian and Latvian political leaders also expressed deep anxiety on what they saw as a withdrawal by the US from Europe’s security….
“It is not the first time that Donald Trump has shown an irreverent disregard for NATO and other military partnerships which have been the hallmark of US foreign policy since World War Two.,,, Trump says that his view of drawing down overseas American military forces is part of his «America First» policy. He told the New York Times this policy means: «We are going to take care of this country first before we worry about everyone else in the world». In a certain sense, Trump’s worldview is laudable….
“But here is where Trump gets it fundamentally wrong. His premise of the United States functioning as a benevolent protector is misplaced.”
Benevolent protector? What? Nowhere in the article does Cunningham justify his contention that Trump believes the United States is a “benevolent protector”. In fact, Trump says just the opposite, as is clear in his statements quoted later below.
The writer goes on to say about Trump: “Can you imagine the reaction if he had, instead, rebutted the false assertion about there even being Russian aggression?” Nonsense. Trump has rebutted the false assertion of Russian agrression many times. How can Cunningham be blind to this fact?
Cunningham is not alone in the oxymoronic anti-Trump anti-neocon camp. Eric Zuesse [see Footnote 2], Michel Choussadovsky, Stephen Lendman and a host of other “geopolitical experts” embrace this contradictionist view. Without so much as a word of explanation, these authors either vilify Trump or entirely ignore his stance on foreign affairs.
Analyst Tom Hall, in his July 23 Information Clearing House commentary In Signal to Military, Hillary Clinton Picks Senator Tim Kaine as Running Mate, dares to present Trump’s views in veiled contrast to Hillary’s, in a brief mention that belittles the importance of Trump’s foreign policy. Hall says: “In the past few days the Clinton camp has focused, in particular, on comments Trump made to the New York Times, in which he raised the possibility that, as president, he would not necessarily start a war against Russia in the case of a Russian ‘attack’ on one of the Baltic states that are members of NATO.” Is that all?
Exceptions Rare but Brilliant
Justin Raimondo, American author and editorial director of Antiwar.com, has the right idea about Trump’s peace policy, albeit with the occasional cynical twist. In his recent article The Dems WikiLeaks Hysteria—–The Hunt For A Red Trump-tober (July 25, 2016, David Stockman’s Contra Corner), Raimondo says:
“With the ascension of Trump, who threatens to get us out of NATO, out of the Pacific, and out of the business of defending the rest of the world from itself, the Republican party—and much of the conservative movement—is rejecting the globalist conception of America as the world’s gendarme-in-chief. Yes, there’s still the aftermath of the 9/11 Effect to deal with, and the blowback from our ‘war on terrorism,’ but you’ll note that Trump always says he’s going to pulverize ISIS ‘quickly’: ‘We’re going to do it fast!’ Whether or not we should believe him is another matter: the point being that he feels obligated to pay lip service to the now established principle of an ‘America First’ distaste for foreign meddling.
“Hillary Clinton represents the exact opposite worldview: hers is a decidedly protracted interventionist vision of America’s role in the world, and she’s apparently settled on a new global bogeyman in order to rationalize her program of serial regime change: Russia. Having likened Putin to Hitler, she is now following up with her own domestic ‘brown scare,’ which bears an eerie resemblance to the ‘red scare’ we Baby Boomers remember with not a trace of fondness.
“If and when Mrs. Clinton makes it to the White House, she and her Myrmidons will launch a new cold war that could quickly escalate into a very hot one. Once again, the threat of war with nuclear-armed Russia will be center stage, and perhaps the day is not far when American schoolchildren will once again be going through a ‘duck and cover’ routine in the classroom, and every family will be urged to build a backyard bomb shelter.
“The new era certainly has its ominous aspect, but there are also hints of sunshine behind the storm clouds. The Trumpian takeover of the GOP means the exodus of the neoconservatives—the command center of the War Party—and their re-entry into the Democratic foreign policy Establishment.
“With the tilt of the Democrats toward becoming the party of war as well as Big Government—complementary aspects of the same organizing principle—the Republicans will inevitably trend in the opposite direction. The political polarities are switching once again—and this presents the anti-interventionist movement with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Trump, for all his inconsistencies and incoherence, is defining the GOP’s line of march from this day forward, and, as he put it in his acceptance speech, it is going in one direction: ‘Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.’
Top Russian geopolitical analyst Alexander Dugin has long acknowledged the Trump revolution and the hope it brings for detente between the two superpowers. Dugin says:
“Russia is not an enemy for America. If Trump wins the elections, he will be on the side of realism, as he promised. And the main contradictions between Russia and the USA will disappear: each one will concentrate on its own problems and will not interrupt one another. It is an ideal scenario. But the globalists didn’t establish their domination of the world (first of all in America), create their networks, and plant liberal agents of influence to give up so easily. They can fall only because of Trump! He can create the conditions for peace. But the globalists need war. They don’t need peace, Trump, or Russia. That’s why they try to aggravate relations with Moscow.”
Andrei Akulov, a Moscow-based expert on international security issues, is another anti-establishment pundit willing to recognize Trump. In his March 30, 2016 article for Strategic Culture Foundation, entitled Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Views Reflect Sentiments of People, Akulov says, “The Republican frontrunner advocates a light footprint in the world. According to him, ‘in spite of unrest abroad… the United States must look inward and steer its resources toward rebuilding domestic infrastructure.'”
Is Peace Possible?
Despite all the nuclear hysteria, the prognosis for peace is good. The most likely scenario in US affairs is a landslide victory for Trump. After he takes office, and as early as week two of February 2017, US President Donald Trump will sit down with Russian President Vladimir Putin to a four-day summit at the elegant New York Trump Tower penthouse. These two brilliant minds will proceed to dispel all the manufactured crises plaguing Europe and the Islamic belt—fake crises conjured by the elite to glorify their global dominion.
From this profound meeting of minds will emerge a trajectory for international order. The specter of a NATO-Russia nuclear war will vanish into the nothingness it came from, and the hideous tragedy of regime change will fade from the Middle East and Africa.
If it is a curse to live in interesting times, times will soon be less interesting, as nations settle down to minding their own business and stop meddling in each other’s affairs. This curtain call of common sense will prove an anathema to shock-and-awe journalists who make their living off of global destruction and secretly hope it continues. Fearing less to rant about and fewer atrocities to enrage their readers, these professional hypocrites seek to negate the prospect of peace. Why else would they stir up outrage toward Trump while ignoring his global policies?
I have argued personally with some of these analysts—in one case through a round of some twenty-three emails—and have yet to see a rational reason for their Trump phobomania. They fail to produce a reason because their reaction to him is visceral. Would they rather have a nuclear war than transcend their own hypocrisy?
As they show in their articles railing against the neocons, these punidits agree with Trump’s foreign policy—that is … until Trump says it. Then suddenly they ignore his foreign policy and attack him for something else. Like insulting Mexicans when he’s never insulted Mexicans.
What are the facts?
Trump and Putin agree on many issues. . . and not because either man is a traitor to his country. Both men champion their own national interests.
They agree because there really is no conflict. The aristocracy have conjured this illusion out of the thin air of media hyperbole. And the illusion of conflict will vanish back into the thin air whence it came.
I’ve said trump and Putin agree. But how close is their take on the world’s crises?
What Putin Says about Foreign Affairs
Russian President Vladimir Putin, in this June 30, 2016 address to the eighth meeting of Russian Federation ambassadors and permanent envoys, held at the Russian Foreign Ministry, said:
“I therefore say again that cooperation, a common will, and willingness to seek compromises are the key to resolving the greatest and most complex problems, no matter where in the world they arise.
“However, we see how some of our partners continue stubborn attempts to retain their monopoly on geopolitical domination. They put to use centuries of experience in suppressing, weakening, and setting opponents against each other, and turn to their advantage enhanced political, economic, financial and now information levers as well.
“By this, I mean, for example, the practice of intervening in other countries’ internal affairs, provoking regional conflicts, exporting so-called ‘colour revolutions’ and so on. In pursuing this policy, they sometimes take on as accomplices terrorists, fundamentalists, ultra-right nationalists, and even outright neo-fascists. […]
“The military intervention in Iraq and Libya are the most vivid examples of this irresponsible and mistaken policy that has led to a rise in terrorism and extremism. It is clear to everyone today that this policy has contributed to the emergence of menacing organisations such as the Islamic State (DAISH). Terrorists have tried to turn to their advantage, and not without success, the breakdown in state systems and the results of, frankly speaking, clumsy experiments in exporting democracy to parts of the Middle East and North Africa. Every man and his dog talks about this now. It would be funny if it were not so sad, and if it were not the cause of so many tragedies.”
What Trump Says about Foreign Affairs
Republican nominee Donald J. Trump said, in his April 27, 2016 Foreign Policy Speech:
“Unfortunately, after the Cold War our foreign policy veered badly off course…. Logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, which led to one foreign policy disaster after another.
“We went from mistakes in Iraq to Egypt to Libya, to President Obama’s line in the sand in Syria. Each of these actions have helped to throw the region into chaos and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper…. It all began with a dangerous idea that we could make western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interests in becoming a western democracy. We tore up what institutions they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed. Civil war, religious fanaticism, thousands of Americans just killed [and] lives, lives, lives wasted…. The vacuum was created that ISIS would fill.
“[T]he legacy of the Obama-Clinton interventions will be weakness, confusion and disarray, a mess. We’ve made the Middle East more unstable and chaotic than ever before. We left Christians subject to intense persecution and even genocide…. Our actions in Iraq, Libya and Syria have helped unleash ISIS, and we’re in a war against radical Islam, but President Obama won’t even name the enemy, and unless you name the enemy, you will never ever solve the problem.
“After Secretary Clinton’s failed intervention in Libya, Islamic terrorists in Benghazi took down our consulate and killed our ambassador and three brave Americans. Then, instead of taking charge that night, Hillary Clinton decided to go home and sleep…. Clinton blames it all on a video, an excuse that was … proven to be absolutely a total lie. Our ambassador was murdered and our secretary of state misled the nation.
“We desire to live peacefully and in friendship with Russia and China.”
These two reasonable men share the same global picture. And Trump is likely to win. Yet hysteria and frenzy about nuclear war continue to haunt the anti-neocon pundits.
They implore Americans to wake up to the threat of nuclear war, when it’s the Trump-fearing pundits who should wake up to the prospect of peace.
Footnote 1: Finian Cunningham has cautiously praised Trump in his July 25, 2016 article:
Footnote 2: Eric Zuesse has now cautiously come out in support of Trump’s foreign policy. See The Central Issue in the U.S. Presidential Campaign, by Eric Zuesse (July 27, 2016) at Vineyard of the the Saker:
Addendum July 27, 2016
With the eruption today of “Putin-gate”, so dubbed by a baffled journalist who actually took Trump seriously, I want to clarify that the similarities in the views of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which I pointed out in the above article, do not imply any connection between them.
Trump’s joke about the Russians releasing Hillary’s 33,000 missing emails is only a little less funny than the fact that the mainstream media took him seriously! 🙂
Who needs campaign funding?
We wish Trump a landslide victory in November!!
For more on Putin-gate see: