by Cat
Fri Oct 25th, 2019 at 09:10:35 PM EST
The essay, "Trump & the Turkish Invasion of Northern Syria," challenges a few closely held beliefs in the honor of so-called Atlanticist foreign policies and coordinated military alliances. Domestic controversy regarding tangible and intangible returns from investment in such adventures recurs with somewhat alarming frequency. One may note here that the measure of returns from prosecuting a Global War on Terror in the "Greater Middle East" was from its start undermined by the failure of its leadership to identify reliable foreign agents ("proxies") and reduce or eliminate likely agency problems. The Management of Democratic Forces for The Good of the Planet today are no more astute in sorting sectarian mercenaries from sectarian rivals, genocides from undeclared wars, or civilians from combatants and collaborators than they were 100 years ago or more. For those observers, safely nested thousands of miles from "harm's way," the results are a disheartening testament of Allied commitment to humanitarian relief. For other observers manifest calumny is yet another opportunity to recruit arms (with or without legs), another fighting "round," to recover ground covering marketable resources, profiteering.
[ED. typo at "Atlanticist". 03.11.2019]
The reaction was unanimous: the so-called idealist diplomats under former President Barack Obama and the neoconservatives under former President George W. Bush all reacted with great alarm to the news that President Donald Trump was withdrawing U.S. troops from northern Syria and that he had given the green light to Turkey's President Recep Erdogan to launch his military operation against the Kurds.
The think tank and media establishment in D.C. finds fault with Trump, no matter what he does. The only exception was when Trump bombed Syria. Then the media and think tanks praised him for being presidential and for sending a message to enemies of the U.S. (Why do U.S. messages always have to be violent?) When Trump acts tough in foreign policy, he is praised. But he is often criticized for not being tough enough. If he shows softness in foreign policy, he is fiercely criticized for harming U.S. national security interests.
[...]
Trump is discovering that criticizing U.S. wars from the outside is much easier than trying to end them from the Oval Office. The crisis in northern Syria did not start overnight, although the media just noticed. The U.S. media is now the voice of the war lobby and they wish to have the U.S. maintain a military force in almost all Arab countries. And once an American occupation starts, the media does not want it to end. Instead it amplifies arguments about the need to "protect allies" (usually armed mercenaries) or "maintain vital U.S. interests" or "keep the peace" (even though the U.S. military presence always causes more bloodshed and exacerbates tensions), or stand firm against U.S. enemies (and naturally the enemies of Israel).
US Department of State Treaties Pending in the Senate, a partial listing
