April 29, 2017

Who can conduct talks for US, if Deep State has no mouthpiece in Trump?

In the aftermath of the airstrikes on Syria, which contradicted Trump's own vociferous views in an identical context from 2013, world leaders did not know how to react -- was this apparent contradiction a one-time fluke, or was it part of a broader reversal of Trump's long-held views on foreign policy?

Now they have a clear answer, with the administration pushing regime change in Syria as non-negotiable (compared to one week before when Tillerson, Haley, and Spicer said "no regime change"), burning bridges with Russia (compared to "getting along with Russia"), and fixating on North Korea (despite the topic never coming up during the primary or general election campaign).

Right after the airstrike, I said this is not Trump acting voluntarily, given his lengthy history exhorting our presidents not to do things like this, and his unwavering big-picture goals to get along with Russia, not get involved in so-called humanitarian interventions or nation-building ("regime change"), and so on.

Rather, he was having his arm twisted by the military faction of the Deep State, mainly the Pentagon. It does not have to involve literal arm-twisting, or threatening force directly against him. All they need to say is:

"Look, we've had this big-picture plan for a long time, and nothing has changed out there in the world to make us change the big picture, certainly not you getting elected. What does someone outside the government or military know about geopolitics and war? Russia is our #1 enemy in the world, Iran is our #1 enemy in the Middle East, and Syria is allied with both of them. That means we're going to fuck around with Syria, whether that conflicts with your pro-Russian, anti-regime change agenda or not. You can either get on board with us, and make up some BS about being 'flexible' in order to save face in public -- or you can publicly speak out against our vision, while we go ahead and run with it anyway. Do you feel like starting off your presidency with the image of someone who doesn't even have authority over the military that you are nominally the Commander-in-Chief of?"

Faced with that choice, of course Trump has to go along and publicly support the failed vision that he has been savaging for over a decade.

Now things get interesting. At least one world leader is 100% wise to the situation between the anti-interventionist President and the suicidally interventionist Deep State. As it happens, he's one of the key figures in the war that future historians will probably describe as leading up to WWIII -- Assad from Syria. In a recent interview, he lays out the situation in crystal-clear detail:

Telesur: How do you assess the current policy of Donald Trump in the world, and in Syria in particular?

Bashar al-Assad: The American President has no policies. There are policies drawn by the American institutions which control the American regime which are the intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, the big arms and oil companies, and financial institutions, in addition to some other lobbies which influence American decision-making. The American President merely implements these policies, and the evidence is that when Trump tried to move on a different track, during and after his election campaign, he couldn’t. He came under a ferocious attack. As we have seen in the past few weeks, he changed his rhetoric completely and subjected himself to the terms of the deep American state, or the deep American regime. That’s why it is unrealistic and a complete waste of time to make an assessment of the American President’s foreign policy, for he might say something; but he ultimately does what these institutions dictate to him. This is not new. This has been ongoing American policy for decades.

First, Assad believes that Trump's anti-interventionist stance is totally sincere. What explains the reversal is the strength of the Deep State that Trump is opposed to, on the matter of interventionism -- they literally control the armed forces, so how exactly is Trump going to tell them "no"?

If Assad just wanted to score cheap points, he could have said that Trump was just a phony or con artist on the campaign trail, or that he was a mush-headed flip-flopper. We hear these moronic comments about Trump's personality all the time from cynical idiots in the West, but they are wrong (otherwise he would have flip-flopped on TPP, Supreme Court nominee, etc., where the military is not involved). It's encouraging to know that at least Assad does not blame Trump personally, but rather our Deep State.

He also doesn't put the blame on hamburger-eating Americans chanting "USA!" and waving flags. He knows that Trump won because those American people are sick of interventionism. Again, contrast with the cynical idiots in the West, who want to blame "Fox News watchers" along with "temperamental Trump".

Presumably, Assad has discussed his assessment of the situation with Putin or other high-ranking Russians, and perhaps with other world leaders in Iran, China, etc. They were all confused after the airstrike, and have been trying to figure out objectively what the truth is, in order to best prepare for the future. Who knows how many other leaders share Assad's correct assessment of "Trump vs. Deep State"? But it's at least being discussed as a serious hypothesis.

Note that it is irrelevant what you the reader believe explains Trump's apparent reversal. We are not major players in this game, while Assad and other leaders are. It's their perceptions that matter.

Now here's the problem: if Assad believes that it's the Deep State that is thinking up plans, executing them, and coming up with responses, why would he want to interact with Trump? He explicitly says that Trump might say something contrary to the will of Deep State, making his words not only meaningless but in the opposite direction of what will truly happen. When Trump says "no to regime change," it's guaranteed that the official Deep State plan is "yes to regime change".

The same applies to the chief diplomat, Secretary of State Tillerson, who also went on record saying that there would be no regime change, and Assad's fate would be left up to the Syrian people -- only to be saying the exact opposite just one week later. The same applies to UN Ambassador Haley, a major go-between for the international community, as well as Press Secretary Spicer, the official voice of the White House.

But still, Assad, Putin, etc. would like to communicate with the American side in the conflict. Discussing goals, deconfliction, entering into negotiations, and so on. However, they have no one to interact with on the American side, since all of the official figures cannot be relied upon to speak on behalf of the Deep State. Not Trump, Tillerson, or Haley.

Sure, Trump or Tillerson could read statements on behalf of Deep State -- but not engage in a back-and-forth conversation across the conference table. They would have to keep taking a break to check in with Deep State. The other side would say, "Why don't you just send a Deep State representative instead?" But agreeing to that would make Trump lose face, unless he could frame it as the representative having more extensive knowledge and experience in this one particular area -- not as that rep being the duly selected voice of Deep State.

Normally, this is not a problem because the President is in fact a voice for Deep State, because he has no real priorities of his own, and is just hungry for power, or else he is a true believer in the goals of Deep State. Now that the President has taken a principled stand against the status quo of the foreign policy Establishment, his counterparts in other countries will always have to ask, "Is that Trump speaking, or is that Deep State speaking? We only want to hear from those who wield true military authority."

There is one possible Cabinet member who can speak on behalf of Deep State, because he was not part of the coordinated message saying "no more regime change in Syria", and therefore does not have a record of changing his message 180 degrees within one week. That effort came at the end of March, and included the Secretary of State, UN Ambassador, and Press Secretary, not to mention Trump saying this back to 2013.

But who else is missing from that list, someone who is centrally involved in foreign policy and war? The Secretary of Defense, one of "the Generals" who is much more a member of Deep State than outsiders like Trump or Tillerson.

In fact, Mattis did hold a joint press conference in London with his British counterpart, also at the end of March. He was pointedly asked about the administration's policy on regime change in Syria, and was it different from that of Obama, who was pro-change? Mattis dodges that question, which is better than saying "I know the President wants to end the plan for regime change, but the Pentagon does not share that view." Still, it's striking that he was silent, when the other major international relations figures were public and unequivocal about ending the regime change policy toward Syria.

(Vice-President Pence also refrained from joining the "no regime change" effort in late March, but undertaking major foreign negotiations would seem to go beyond his office.)

Trump has just given Mattis more latitude in determining the number of Americans to deploy in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. Perhaps he will soon be delegating Mattis as the official representative for the American Deep State in any future discussions or negotiations. Either that, or the diplomatic channels could be shut down entirely with no reliable voice on the American side.

On the one hand, Trump could publicly lose his reputation for authority; on the other hand, there could be an end to discussions between the two sides in an increasingly hot war. I don't pretend to know which choice is better for the American national interest, off the top of my head, but that's where we are now.

23 comments:

  1. How do we go to war against this? Stop this insanity? It seems we can only watch this slow-moving multi-car accident from the sides.

    Ron Paul interviewed Assange, btw.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "How do we go to war against this? Stop this insanity?"

    By making it known precisely which people comprise the Deep State, which is a meaningless term without racial context. The Deep State is only one group of people. They are not Americans, they are foreigners who serve foreign interests. They keep winning because Americans who know who they are afraid to call them what they are: Jews. You defeat them by exposing them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jews control the Pentagon -- good one. They control a different faction of The System, namely Wall Street.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We try to stop it by making our voices heard and gradually raising the social costs to the Pentagon brass.

    How is it going to look when there's 1 million people assembled on The Mall, or the Pentagon itself, with signs saying "America First, Deep State Last" and "Trump Voters Against Deep State" and "Defend America's Borders, Not Turkey's," etc.?

    Simply getting the word out that Trump wanted one thing, and the Pentagon wanted the opposite and over-ruled the supposed civilian Commander-in-Chief -- that's enough to wake most people up right there.

    Only trouble is if they prefer the Pentagon's interventionism (Boomers still deluded about America being able to impose its will, humanitarian intervention, etc.). But there's plenty of opposition to that even among Trump voters, forget the rank-and-file Democrats and Independents.

    In that YouGov poll about which demographic groups supported the airstrike, wanted humanitarian intervention, etc., non-whites were the most turned off. That's a good chunk of the Democrat base we could get on our side right away. Aside from seeing a non-white country getting bombed, they don't like the government's money being spent on some foreign group rather than black Americans.

    The opposition includes everyone who voted for Obama against McCain just eight years ago, a major theme being neocon interventionism vs. staying out of it. That was one of the few elections where the Democrat won the white vote.

    Now that it's clear that the Pentagon is not just launching an isolated airstrike on Syria, but is expanding the focus to be the old "Axis of Evil" countries from 2002, it will not be hard to remind people of where this is all headed.

    The key is to not blame Trump, since he has been so opposed to it, and because he's already surrounded by the enemy. We have to focus specifically on the Deep State, Pentagon, or whatever you want to call it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Assange is another big-picture guy who gets it. He doesn't mind if Sean Hannity and Fox News give him free marketing, as long as the truth gets out.

    And during the week of the airstrike on Syria, he implies that Trump had opposite goals but got over-ruled by the Deep State:

    "Well, we can talk a little bit later about what’s happened to the Trump administration and this fascinating process that we have been seeing about how many days does it take for the security sector to digest a president. Something like 75 appears to be the answer."

    https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/12/full_interview_julian_assange_on_trump

    Like Assad, Assange is not blaming Trump for changing his mind or selling out. There's just too strong of a push from the "security sector" to resist so early on in his presidency.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pat Buchanan is another one who has settled on the view that it's Trump vs. the military wing of Deep State:

    http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/the-rise-of-the-generals/

    As well as Old Left political economists:

    https://maps.southfront.org/missile-attack-on-syria-a-silent-coup/

    In other words, people who are analyzing things institutionally rather than as a free-for-all clash of individual personalities, share this basic view of Trump getting over-ruled by Deep State on foreign policy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Now that it's clear that the Pentagon is not just launching an isolated airstrike on Syria, but is expanding the focus to be the old "Axis of Evil" countries from 2002, it will not be hard to remind people of where this is all headed.

    Axis of Evil is Jewish neo-con David Frum's phrase for "threat to the jews".

    Meaning North Korea doesn't care about Israel but they will sell rocket technology to two countries that do - Iran and Iraq.

    Now we just replace Iraq with Syria.

    Remember Jewish neocon Bill Kristol wanted Mattis to run for president. Mattis is viewed as a shabos goy for Israel, an Israeli agent of influence in the Pentagon.

    We had a ton of them in there under Rumsfeld. And they were actual Jews not merely shabos goys.

    Same old, same old.

    Again it's:

    - The military industrial complex and its contractors and careerists at defense, state and cia

    - Wall street bottom lines

    - Jewish ethnic identity politics.

    Keep your eye on all three. They are behind so many counter productive/anti American policies.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We know that Jews are willing propagandists for the Pentagon, and that they will promote anything that is good for Israel / bad for Israel's enemies.

    But the whole Axis of Evil thing is from the Cold War, not anything distinctly Jewish or Israeli or Zionist. They are the countries that eluded incorporation into the American sphere of influence -- Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Libya.

    Cuba means diddly-squat to Israel. NK doesn't export diddly-squat to Israel's enemy Iran, compared to Russian and Chinese arms exports.

    The Pentagon's vision is to conquer the holdouts from the Cold War era against the Soviet Union, a distinctly American perspective (albeit insane and out-of-date) rather than a distinctly Israeli perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The insane build-up of NATO forces farther eastward in Europe, right up against Russia's borders, obviously has zero to do with Israel. Nor does Crimea.

    That's just good old Cold War "strategy" to advance the American sphere against the Soviet / Russian sphere.

    What crazy theory do you propose for framing the NATO expansion as the Americans and Europeans being shabbas goyim for Israel's secret plans against Russia?

    ReplyDelete
  10. But the whole Axis of Evil thing is from the Cold War, not anything distinctly Jewish or Israeli or Zionist. They are the countries that eluded incorporation into the American sphere of influence -- Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Libya.

    To David Frum, who came up with the term, it's ALL about Israel.

    The Pentagon's vision is to conquer the holdouts from the Cold War era against the Soviet Union, a distinctly American perspective (albeit insane and out-of-date) rather than a distinctly Israeli perspective.

    You are trying to hard. I said 3 factors were involved. The MIC and Jewish identity activists are not in conflict.

    The insane build-up of NATO forces farther eastward in Europe, right up against Russia's borders, obviously has zero to do with Israel. Nor does Crimea.

    Tell that to Victoria Nuland and her neo-con husband Robert Kagan!

    Czar Putin touches a raw Jewish nerve as does Trump. Plus last time I checked Russia isn't exactly hostile to Assad or the Iranians.

    Jews are very aware of that.

    What crazy theory do you propose for framing the NATO expansion as the Americans and Europeans being shabbas goyim for Israel's secret plans against Russia?

    Crazy theory? As I said the MIC is motivated by a need to justify their contracts and careers. Russia as threat is a big motivator.

    Now why might ethnocentric Jews hate Putin and Russia? Any clues?

    Are they happy about Putin taking down all those nice Jewish boys who took over Russia's economy in the 90s?

    Russia's ongoing support for Iran's client in Syria?

    Do they remember and want revenge for Russia's military and political support for all those Arab regimes who fought Israel?

    Jews...remember? nah..........

    ReplyDelete
  11. You're the one trying too hard -- 3 factors when 1 will suffice.

    The non-Jewish controlled Pentagon continuing its Cold War push against the Soviet / Russian sphere of influence is sufficient to explain the march of NATO through Eastern Europe.

    On the other hand, you cannot explain the obsession with Cuba and North Korea under the view that Israel / Jews use the Pentagon as their shabbas goy military. Meanwhile, such fixations on Cuba and NK follow naturally from the view that the Pentagon is simply (and insanely) continuing its distinctly American Cold War policies vis-a-vis the Soviet / Russian sphere.

    You can't explain major cases (Cuba, NK), and the cases you can explain do not require an Israeli angle (Iran). The straightforward view of mine explains all of them -- that's how straightforward explanations work. Explain the most of the "data" with the fewest assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. On the other hand, you cannot explain the obsession with Cuba and North Korea under the view that Israel / Jews use the Pentagon as their shabbas goy military.

    I don't need to. Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol or Netanyahu are not obsessed with Cuba.

    And neither were Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld.

    Explain the most of the "data" with the fewest assumptions.

    No. I don't agree with Occam's razor.

    I have no problem understanding multiple causation or multiple self serving agendas.

    Same with immigration. Republican agribusiness types have different motives than Democrat la razas or DNC operatives but they work towards the same agenda of more mestizo, Hispanic immigration/amnesty in the US.

    In US foreign policy again three factors not one. No need to eliminate Jewish ethnocentric agendas from why decisions are made in US policy.

    Although I know why THEY don't want it discussed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Random Dude on the Internet4/29/17, 6:48 PM

    I don't really see a scenario where people will come around to supporting a war in Syria. Time and time again people have rejected it. This time they falsified a chemical weapons attack...and people were still lukewarm at best.

    It's over. The deep state/military deep state lost here. The public no longer just goes along with military intervention schemes anymore. Maybe it's a sign of trouble at home. People who think there are a lot of domestic issues to take on are not going to be supportive of additional foreign conflict(s). I don't even see much enthusiasm for North Korea, a country that everyone thinks is bad on a bipartisan level.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Neocons are obsessed with Cuba, and have been since the 1950s and '60s. Ditto NK -- back to the 1950s.

    That was long before Israel became a client state in the 1970s.

    You didn't know that we sided against Israel in the Suez Crisis of 1956, bolstering a secular Arab nationalist leader who just nationalized a major colonial asset that the Israelis were hoping to get a piece of.

    Cold War / anti-Soviet maneuvering explains everything, and predates our alliance with Israel.

    So what you have is Jews piggy-backing on the American military that would be pointing against Russia, Syria, and Iran of their own volition. Jews are not directing any of that.

    Your comments are too dumb and annoying, so don't bother commenting anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I don't even see much enthusiasm for North Korea, a country that everyone thinks is bad on a bipartisan level."

    No enthusiasm among the general public, but the Pentagon and the elites are jizzing themselves over it. And in Korea, there was not even a precipitating event that drew our focus to it. It was just, all of the sudden, we have to obsess over Korea and use our military to stabilize our economic rivals (SK, China, Japan).

    The Deep State doesn't mind going rogue against the people, and now even the Commander-in-Chief. The only open question is how far they'll push. While that remains to be seen, the fact that they've over-ruled the President and by extension the American people, does not bode well.

    During the Iraq War, Bush and a good share of the public were in favor of the Pentagon's wish to destroy Iraq. The military was not going rogue, even if it had no point.

    Now they've gone rogue, and that audacity certainly raises rather than diminishes the probability that they're going to get us into some real serious shit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If Israel want "regime change" in Syria (and let's be honest - that is what this is all about) then let them do it and not connive a gullible American President into doing it for them. There is absolutely no benefit to the US in deposing Assad.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't trust anyone coming here saying with emphases "they" and "them".

    Did you watch Trump and Pence in Pennsylvania last night? Pence was early and eager about Mattis and NK(?)...I don't remember exactly, but I didn't get "held hostage" vibe from him. President Trump was a whole 'nother story...

    ReplyDelete
  18. RW means "Israel" by "them".

    As for Pence, remember the VP debate where he contradicted Trump on both Russia and Syria:

    http://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13170020/mike-pence-vice-presidential-debate-russia

    There's your garden-variety insults against Putin and Russia, and talking about Crimea as a crime we have to avenge. But listen to what he said about Syria and Assad, which now sounds a lot more ominous:

    "If Russia continues to be involved in this barbaric attack on civilians in Aleppo, the US needs to be prepared to strike military targets of the Assad regime to prevent them from [taking part in] this humanitarian crisis taking place in Aleppo."

    The humanitarian crisis was jihadists holding the city hostage, while Russia intervened to drive them out in a matter of months with only dozens of civilian casualties, in a city of millions.

    Aleppo had been liberated from our jihadist allies by Inauguration Day, so what was Deep State supposed to do? They had planned out their propaganda narrative about the cruel butcher Assad attacking his own people in Aleppo, backed by the evil meddler Putin.

    Shift focus to somewhere else in that same area, but still under jihadist control -- Idlib. Assad attacks, chemicals go off (probably put there by jihadists as precursors or final forms of their own chemical weapons), and there's your pretext for war.

    The only problem is that Russia was not involved in that attack like they were in liberating Aleppo. Darn! Well, just insinuate that Russia was either so ignorant or permissive of Assad's supposed chemical attack plans, or maybe even encouraged a chemical attack. Now they can pin some blame on Putin and saber-rattle against Russia at the same time as against Syria and Assad.

    Obviously Pence did not come up with that answer spontaneously -- he was coached by Pentagon people.

    Thank Jesus that Russia liberated Aleppo as fast as they did -- otherwise we would have been in a hot war with Russia over their presence in that city. The Pentagon had to settle for a more limited propaganda narrative, without the months and months of constant BS in the media that Aleppo had received. Nobody in the media had been talking about Idlib at all.

    That only allowed them a more limited strike, instead of the broader strikes they would have carried out if the media could still broadcast images of "the humanitarian crisis in war-torn Aleppo" (torn by our jihadist allies).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agnostic's place is a place of love, peace, and light. Just a lotta people showing up lately who don't get this.

      Delete
    2. "Thank Jesus that Russia liberated Aleppo as fast as they did -- otherwise we would have been in a hot war with Russia over their presence in that city. The Pentagon had to settle for a more limited propaganda narrative, without the months and months of constant BS in the media that Aleppo had received. Nobody in the media had been talking about Idlib at all."

      Yes. Also, that fire-bombed bus filled with kids and the total black-out of this 100+ killing has had a strong chilling effect on the narrative and saber-rattling. Most in our media couldn't even bring themselves to name or speculate as to who was responsible. It doesn't help them that a vigorous anti-war contingent now has such a strong counter visual now.

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-17/syrian-bus-bombing-kills-at-least-80-children/8447104

      Delete

  19. i think there seems to be a bit of ambiguity here as to what is actually being said by assad. yes, we could interpret this as assad speaking of something along the lines of a loss of civilian control of government and threat of a coup or something close to it. that’s the most extreme, most literal interpretation.

    or i think, we could take it to mean something more abstract and impersonal. more along the lines of the president facing enormous institutional hurdles, if not outright mutiny yet. undoubtedly, we lack lobbyists on our side on a number of issues as alluded to. and the president isn’t merely being fed questionable intelligence.. he is being subject to leaks and spurious claims by a lot of these people. all of that is observable. and frightening in itself.

    also complicating matters is that it’s obviously in assad’s interests to try and diminish the role of the president. to cast further doubt on the legitimacy of the us government. not that i believe that he the ordered gas attack. i don’t believe that. too many details doesn't make sense about the "timeline of events," or seem suspiciously omitted there. but there is a propagandistic element to this. i mean it is literally venezuelan television he's speaking on. he may be playing to the crowd a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  20. worth noting that there are a lot of reports that trump declined more aggressive action on syria.

    http://www.newsweek.com/trump-reviewed-aggressive-military-options-syria-580956

    and there was that bizarre incident during a fox interview where he momentarily slipped up and said the us had bombed iraq.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfYFm_H_isY

    of course we should be skeptical of all media. but i get the impression that syria is literally, kind of an after thought for this administration. the bulk of their attention seems to be on north korea (you know my theories there) and to a lesser extent iran. although trump has to be fair, taken a far more moderate line on iran than he did a decade ago. i do think the consensus has shifted on the matter. i don't want to be totally negative.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Trump is putting on the brakes as much as he can, given the direction or path the Pentagon has put him/us on. McCain or Romney would have stepped on the gas.

    But the path points toward regime change / building democracy in Syria and confrontation with Russia, which is 180 degrees away from the path Trump wanted us to be on.

    His National Security Council led by McMaster also wants $20-30 billion more to blow on building democracy in Afghanistan (Cernovich first, then Eli Lake confirming as usual).

    I haven't criticized Trump once re: foreign policy. I place 100% of the blame for going in the wrong direction on the Pentagon boarding party that landed shortly after inauguration, beginning with the ouster of Flynn, the only "General" who wanted to get along with Russia and who in 2015 publicly accepted the possibility that the chemical attack in Syria in 2013 was a false flag by jihadists.

    The gay internet slapfight between blackpillers and rationalizers assumes, on both sides, that Trump is omnipotent. So if we're going on the opposite track that he has been preaching for years, that must be truly what he wants us to be doing.

    The blackpillers interpret that to mean that the correctness of the original goal remains, and therefore Trump has sold out or betrayed or whatever.

    The rationalizers interpret it to mean that the original goal turns out to be incorrect, and for whatever reason (new info, change in values, etc.) the new path is the optimal one, however much it differs in orientation from the campaign promises and Trump's views going back years / decades.

    My view is that Trump has not changed, nor have his goals and priorities, but that he is not omnipotent, especially against the military wing of Deep State. He has run into an obstacle that cannot be moved or circumvented, so he has been re-routed onto the wrong path against his will.

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."