|
How The
Military Defeated Trump's Insurgency
By Moon Of
Alabama
September
18, 2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- Trump was seen as a presidential candidate who
would possibly move towards a less interventionist
foreign policy. That hope is gone. The insurgency
that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a
counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S.
military. (Historically its first successful one).
The military has taken control of the White House
process and it is now taking control of its
policies.
It is
schooling Trump on
globalism and its "indispensable" role in it. Trump
was insufficiently supportive of their desires and
thus had to undergo reeducation:
When
briefed on the diplomatic, military and
intelligence posts, the new president would
often cast doubt on the need for all the
resources. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson organized the
July 20 session to lay out the case for
maintaining far-flung outposts — and to
present it, using charts and maps, in a
way the businessman-turned-politician would
appreciate.
Trump was
hauled into a Pentagon basement 'tank' and
indoctrinated by the glittering four-star generals
he admired since he was a kid:
The
session was, in effect, American Power 101 and
the student was the man working the levers. It
was part of the ongoing education of a president
who arrived at the White House with no
experience in the military or government and
brought with him advisers deeply skeptical of
what they labeled the “globalist” worldview.
In coordinated efforts and
quiet conversations, some of Trump’s aides have
worked for months to counter that view, hoping
the president can be persuaded to
maintain — if not expand — the American
footprint and influence abroad.
Trump was
sold the establishment policies he originally
despised. No alternative view was presented to him.
It is
indisputable that the generals are
now ruling in
Washington DC. They came to power over decades by
shaping culture
through their sponsorship of Hollywood, by
manipulating the media through "embedded" reporting
and by forming and maintaining the countries
infrastructure through the Army Corps of Engineers.
The military, through the NSA as well as through its
purchasing power,
controls the information flow on the internet. Until
recently the military establishment only ruled from
behind the scene. The other parts of the
power triangle, the
corporation executives and the political
establishment, were more visible and significant.
But during the 2016 election the military bet on
Trump and is now, after he unexpectedly won,
collecting its price.
Trump's success as the
"Not-Hillary" candidate
was based on an anti-establishment insurgency.
Representatives of that insurgency, Flynn, Bannon
and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first
months in office. An intense media campaign was
launched to counter them and the military took
control of the White House. The anti-establishment
insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to
public figure head of a stratocracy - a military
junta which nominally follows the rule of law.
Stephen Kinzer describes this as
America’s slow-motion military coup:
Ultimate
power to shape American foreign and security
policy has fallen into the hands of three
military men [...]
...
Being ruled by generals seems preferable to the
alternative. It isn’t.
...
[It] leads toward a distorted set of national
priorities, with military “needs” always rated
more important than domestic ones.
...
It is no great surprise that Trump has been
drawn into the foreign policy mainstream; the
same happened to President Obama early in his
presidency. More ominous is that Trump
has turned much of his power over to generals.
Worst of all, many Americans find this
reassuring. They are so disgusted by
the corruption and shortsightedness of our
political class that they turn to soldiers as an
alternative. It is a dangerous temptation.
The
country has fallen to that temptation
even on
social-economic issues:
In the
wake of the deadly racial violence in
Charlottesville this month, five of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff were hailed as moral authorities
for condemning hate in less equivocal terms than
the commander in chief did.
...
On social policy, military leaders have been
voices for moderation.
The
junta is
bigger than its
three well known leaders:
Kelly,
Mattis and McMaster are not the only military
figures serving at high levels in the Trump
administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo,
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy Secretary
Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke
each served in various branches of the military,
and Trump recently tapped former Army general
Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal Bureau of
Prisons.
...
the National Security Council [..] counts two
other generals on the senior staff.
This
is no longer a
Coup Waiting to Happen
The coup has happened with few noticing it and ever
fewer concerned about it. Everything of importance
now
passes through the
Junta's hands:
[Chief of
staff John] Kelly initiated a new policymaking
process in which just he and one other aide
[...] will review all documents that cross the
Resolute desk.
...
The new system [..] is designed to ensure that
the president won’t see any external
policy documents, internal policy memos, agency
reports and even news articles that haven’t been
vetted.
To
control Trump the junta
filters his information input
and eliminates any potentially alternative view:
Staff who
oppose [policy xyz] no longer have unfettered
access to Trump, and nor do allies on the
outside [.. .] Kelly now has real
control over the most important input: the flow
of human and paper advice into the Oval Office.
For a man as obsessed about his self image as
Trump, a new flow of inputs can make the world
of difference.
The
Trump insurgency against the establishment was
marked by a mostly informal information and decision
process. That has been
destroyed and replaced:
Worried that Trump would end
existing US spending/policies
(largely, still geared to cold war priorities),
the senior military staff running the Trump
administration launched a counter-insurgency
against the insurgency.
...
General Kelly, Trump's Chief of Staff, has put
Trump on a establishment-only media diet.
...
In short, by controlling Trump's information
flow with social media/networks, the generals
smashed the insurgency's OODA loop (observe,
orient, decide, act). Deprived of this
connection, Trump is now weathervaning
to cater to the needs of the establishment
...
|
No
Advertising
- No
Government
Grants
-
This
Is
Independent
Media
|
The Junta
members dictate their policies to Trump by only
proposing to him certain alternatives. The one that
is most preferable to them will be presented as the
only desirable one. "There are no alternatives,"
Trump will be told again and again.
Thus
we get a
continuation of a
failed Afghanistan policy and will soon get a
militarily aggressive policy
towards Iran.
Other
countries noticed how the game has changed. The real
decisions are made by the generals, Trump is
ignored as a mere
figurehead:
Asked
whether he was predicting war [with North
Korea], [former defence minister of Japan,
Satoshi] Morimoto said: "I think Washington has
not decided ... The final decision-maker
is [US Defence Secretary] Mr Mattis ... Not the
president."
Climate change, its local catastrophes and the
infrastructure problems it creates within the U.S.
will
further extend the
military role in shaping domestic U.S. policy.
Nationalistic indoctrination, already at abnormal
heights in the U.S. society, will further increase.
Military control will creep into ever extending
fields of once staunchly civilian areas of policy.
(Witness the increasing militarization of the
police.)
It is only
way to sustain the empire.
It is
doubtful that Trump will be able to resist the
policies imposed on him. Any flicker of resistance
will be smashed. The outside insurgency which
enabled his election is left without a figurehead,
It will likely disperse. The system won
This
article was first published by
Moon Of Alabama
-
|
