Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
Donald Trump’s February 28th address to a joint session of Congress – in addition to reiterating the need for increased border security and for the expulsion of criminal aliens while also allowing implicitly for the amnesty of those illegals living in the United States not otherwise engaged in criminal activity – was typically sphinx-like on foreign policy. Trump abhorred superfluous wars, but pledged allegiance to Israel and proposed to “rebuild” America’s military with still more lavish spending and made a vague allusion to future victories on the battlefields of some country or other.
Trump was silent on Russia, which has fueled the fevered imaginations of so many of the CIA’s dupes among the president’s enemies of late; but something like a show of strength or bellicosity might be inferred from the commitment to NATO that Trump expressed this evening. NATO, the original purpose of which was to counter Soviet Russian ambitions in Europe, has been pushed to Russia’s borders despite the promises of previous U.S. administrations, and mainstream media outlets pushing the meme of a New Cold War have been particularly aggressive in casting Putin as an international force of malevolence – a neo-Stalinist octopus with puppeteering tentacles reaching even into the Trump White House.
Despite the promise of more productive relations with Russia that Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson seemed to offer until recently, the “war party is back in power and the odds of normal relations with Russia have dropped to zero,” writes CounterPunch’s Mike Whitney, who suggests that Trump has already relinquished control of American foreign policy.
The appointment of Army Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster to the position of national security adviser indicates that Trump has done an about-face on his most critical foreign policy issue, normalizing relations with Russia. General Michael Flynn – who recently stepped down from the post following allegations of lying to Vice President Mike Pence – was the main proponent of easing tensions with Moscow which is a position that had been enthusiastically embraced by President Donald Trump. But McMaster does not support normalizing relations with Russia, in fact, McMaster sees Russia as a “hostile revisionist power” that “annex[es] territory, intimidates our allies, develops nuclear weapons, and uses proxies under the cover of modernized conventional militaries.” So, what’s going on? Why has Trump put a Moscow-hating hawk like McMaster in a position where he’ll be able to intensify the pressure on Russia […]?
The appointment of McMaster is an attempt by Trump to placate his enemies in the Intel agencies and foreign policy establishment. Trump is signaling to his adversaries that he will cooperate in carrying out their strategic agenda provided they allow him to finish his term. Trump doesn’t want to end up like Flynn nor does he want to do battle with the all-powerful deep state operatives who can launch one demeaning propaganda blitz after the other followed by years of excruciating investigations leading inevitably to a lengthy and humiliating impeachment that leaves Trump a broken, discredited shambles. That’s not how Trump wants to end his career in politics. He wants to end it on a high note, riding a wave of burgeoning affection and love.
That’s why he picked McMaster. The neocons love him, the liberal interventionists love him, the media loves him and the entire political establishment loves him. Everyone loves him. He’s the “warrior-scholar” who “speaks truth to power” and writes futuristic books on “generation warfare”, “information superiority” and “predictive battlespace awareness” all of which delight his devoted admirers. The downside of McMaster is that he is a hard-boiled militarist with a driving animus towards Russia. Judging by his writing on the topic, I would expect a broader and more lethal conflict to flare up in either Syria or Ukraine as soon as he gets settled in his new job.
The appointment of McMaster came as “something of a surprise as he was not widely reported as among the front-runners,” notes Antiwar.com’s Jason Ditz.
McMaster’s primary claim to fame is the 1997 book Dereliction of Duty, in which he details the failures of the Vietnam War, and argues that the military leadership had failed to communicate to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara that his strategy was failing. He goes on to argue that military actions intended to show American “resolve” tend to fail if they lack concrete military objectives.
McMaster has more recently served as a strategist, working on the potential of a US ground war in Eastern Europe against Russia. […]
Instead of focusing just on combat, McMaster has argued the military’s big problems are a need to focus more heavily on their capacity to nation-build, saying that the leadership and the American people need to both realize the Army is expected to “shape political outcomes,” and that the resources they are given need to be up to that job.
Ditz suggests that this “might put him at odds with President Trump, who has argued against nation-building as a general rule”, and that McMaster’s “argument that military leaders need to be frank with criticism of the civilian leadership might make this a rocky relationship.”