Nonetheless, Trumps decision on Syria, coupled with his order to reduce US forces in Afghanistan by half, has been condemned, as The New York Times approvingly reported, across the ideological spectrum, by the left and right. Analyzing these condemnations, particularly in the opinion-shaping New York Times and Washington Post and on interminable (and substantially uninformed) MSNBC and CNN segments, again reveals the alarming thinking that is deeply embedded in the US bipartisan policy-media establishment.
First, no foreign-policy initiative undertaken by President Trump, however wise it may be in regard to US national interests, will be accepted by that establishment. Any prominent political figure who does so will promptly and falsely be branded, in the malign spirit of Russiagate, as pro-Putin, or, as was Senator Rand Paul, arguably the only foreign-policy statesman in the senate today, an isolationist. This is unprecedented in modern American history. Not even Richard Nixon was subject to such establishment constraints on his ability to conduct national-security policy during the Watergate scandals.
Second, not surprisingly, the condemnations of Trumps decision are infused with escalating, but still unproven, Russiagate allegations of the presidents collusion with the Kremlin. Thus, equally predictably, the Times finds a Moscow source to say, of the withdrawals, Trump is Gods gift that keeps on giving to Putin. (In fact, it is not clear that the Kremlin is eager to see the United States withdraw from either Syria or Afghanistan, as this would leave Russia alone with what it regards as common terrorist enemies.) Closer to home, there is the newly reelected Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who, when asked about Trumps policies and Russian President Putin, told MSNBCs Joy Reid: I think that the presidents relationship with thugs all over the world is appalling. Vladimir Putin, really? Really? I think its dangerous. By this leadership reasoning, Trump should be the first US president since FDR to have no relationship whatsoever with a Kremlin leader. And to the extent that Pelosi speaks for the Democratic Party, it can no longer be considered a party of American national security.
But, third, something larger than even anti-Trumpism plays a major role in condemnations of the presidents withdrawal decisions: imperial thinking about Americas rightful role in the world. Euphemisms abound, but, if not an entreaty to American empire, what else could the New York Times David Sanger mean when he writes of a world order that the United States has led for the 73 years since World War II, and complains that Trump is reducing the global footprint needed to keep that order together? Or when President Obamas national-security adviser Susan Rice bemoans Trumps failures in preserving American global leadership, which a Times lead editorial insists is an imperative? Or when General James Mattis in his letter of resignation echoes President Bill Clintons secretary of state Madeline Albrightand Obama himselfin asserting that the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world? We cannot be surprised. Such global imperial thinking has informed US foreign-policy decision-making for decadesits taught in our schools of international relationsand particularly the many disastrous, anti-order wars it has produced.
Fourth, and characteristic of empires and imperial thinking, there is the valorization of generals. Perhaps the most widespread and revealing criticism of Trumps withdrawal decisions is that he did not heed the advice of his generals, the undistinguished, uninspired Jim Mad Dog Mattis in particular. The pseudo-martyrdom and heroizing of Mattis, especially by the Democratic Party and its media, remind us that the party had earlier, in its Russiagate allegations, valorized US intelligence agencies, and, having taken control of the House, evidently intends to continue to do so. Anti-Trumpism is creating political cults of US intelligence and military institutions. What does this tell us about todays Democratic Party? More profoundly, what does this tell us about an American Republic purportedly based on civilian rule?
Finally, and potentially tragically, Trumps announcement of the Syrian withdrawal was the moment for a discussion of the long imperative US alliance with Russia against international terrorism, a Russia whose intelligence capabilities are unmatched in this regard. (Recall, for example, Moscows disregarded warnings about one of the brothers who set off bombs during the Boston Marathon.) Such an alliance has been on offer by Putin since 9/11. President George W. Bush completely disregarded it. Obama flirted with the offer but backed (or was pushed) away. Trump opened the door for such a discussion, as indeed he has since his presidential candidacy, but now again, at this most opportune moment, there has not been a hint of it in our political-media establishment. Instead, a national security imperative has been treated as treacherous.
In this context, there is Trumps remarkable, but little-noted or forgotten, tweet of December 3 calling on the presidents of Russia and China to join him in talking about a meaningful halt to what has become a major and uncontrollable Arms Race. If Trump acts on this essential overture, as we must hope he will, will it too be traduced as treacherousalso for the first time in American history? If so, it will again confirm my often-expressed thesis that powerful forces in America would prefer trying to impeach the president to avoiding a military catastrophe. And that those forces, not President Trump or Putin, are now the gravest threat to American national security.
Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of politics and Russian studies at Princeton and NYU, and John Batchelor mark the fifth anniversary of their (usually) weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. (Previous installments are at TheNation.com.)
This article was originally published by The Nation.
# Tags
Latest News
Most viewed