Thursday 14th of November 2024

neocons inc......

Weekend news that “Neocon Nikki” Haley is in talks to hit the campaign trail for Donald Trump should raise red flags to everyone cautiously optimistic that Trump 2.0 will avoid some of the personnel disasters that Trump 1.0 fell into time and time again. 

Haley was nicknamed “birdbrain” by Trump in the primaries and he swore that anyone supporting her campaign would be “permanently barred” from Trump’s MAGA camp.

 

By Daniel McAdams
Ron Paul Institute

 

 

Neocons maneuver through the shifting sands of power in Washington to make sure no matter who wins, they remain in charge, writes Daniel McAdams.

 

For her part, Haley accused Trump of being “unhinged,” “just toxic” and “lacking moral clarity.”

She even latched on to the left-neocon “Russiagate” narrative that former President Trump was soft onand even beholden to Russian president Vladimir Putin, accusing Trump of “siding with a murderous thug.”

The former U.S. president’s son, Don, Jr. (accurately) quipped that Haley was “created in a laboratory by the neocons.”

Now that Trump looks more likely to re-take 1600 Pennsylvania, however, Nikki’s back and ready to stump for Trump. 

And she’s not alone. The one thing neocons understand is how to maneuver around the shifting Washington sands of political power to make sure no matter who wins, they remain in charge.

That’s why some neocons like Bill Kristol and Liz (and Papa) Dick Cheney rallied around the Democrats’ Kamala Harris train.

Trump has very publicly renounced and denounced many of the very people he had serving under him in his first administration, including his former National Security Advisor John Bolton, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Vice President Mike Pence, and many others. 

For most of his administration it appeared his own staff was actively working against him and as soon as he was out of office most of his former “trusted” appointees lined up to attack their former boss.

That is why it is also curious that Politico — a publication with a pronounced anti-Trump bias — put out a piece speculating on how a Trump 2.0 cabinet might be populated. 

Now Politico is far from the worst, and in fact we consult it fairly often when thinking about the Ron Paul Institute’s daily Liberty Report, but astute people in our era must consume mainstream media as in the Soviet era and look for the “who or whom” — of the whole thing.

What is Politico really trying to say in the piece? Are they trying to inform or disrupt? At least they admit that they are “spitballing” in their speculation about who Trump might put into top diplomatic, military and national security positions in his 2.0 administration if it comes to that.

But apparently they base it on his references to each person and whether he gets a positive or negative comment – which itself is a bit of Kremlinology.

For secretary of state, Politico suggests that among five choices he may choose either … neocon Ric Grenell, neocon Robert O’Brien, or…drumroll … neocon “l’il” Marco Rubio!

Likewise for defense secretary, Politico reads the tea leaves and comes up with, among three possibilities, Sen. Tom Cotton or … drumroll …Mike “Lie, Cheat, Steal” Pompeo!!!

The bottom line is that the neocons are flocking back to the Trump world knowing that it is where the (nominal) seat of power may soon lie. 

They will flatter him and they will cajole those around them, and a propagandized public will smile and wink that the “experts” are flocking to his administration.

But what have these “experts” achieved? Nothing but failure for the past 25 years, starting with the failed response to 9/11 to the idiotic attack on Iraq to the fake justification for violence embedded in the “Arab Spring” narrative, to our current situation of being on the verge of war with Russia, Iran, China and even BRICS.

They are fully terrible, but they know how to weasel their way into power. Will Trump 2.0 finally banish these parasites to the hinterlands where they belong? “Nikki…buh bye!”

Daniel McAdams is executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and co-Producer/co-Host, Ron Paul Liberty Report. Daniel served as the foreign affairs, civil liberties, and defense/intel policy advisor to U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, MD (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer.

This article is from the Ron Paul Institute.

 

https://consortiumnews.com/2024/10/22/neocons-circling-trump-campaign/

 

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

 

strategic continuity....

It’s the deep state, stupid: Why US foreign policy won’t change much under Trump
Tactical changes can be expected from the administration of the 47th president, but the strategic course is unlikely to shift

By Alan Lolaev

Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election has raised concern among supporters of the country’s current foreign policy direction under the Biden administration, and brought hope to those interested in its transformation.

The pressing question, resonating not only within American political circles, but also among Washington’s allies and adversaries worldwide, is how much change in US foreign policy can be expected from a new Republican administration.

Many experts, drawing on Trump’s and his campaign team’s bold statements, suggest that his return to the presidency will bring significant policy shifts. However, even with a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress (especially the Senate, which holds considerable influence over foreign policy), it is unlikely that Trump will be able to fully deliver on his promises in this area.

In theory, Trump’s return to the presidency will occur under the most favorable conditions for implementing his foreign policy agenda. Republicans not only have a strengthened majority in the House of Representatives but have also regained control of the Senate, which significantly influences foreign policy by confirming key appointments and ratifying international treaties.

Current concerns over substantial foreign policy changes echo Trump’s first term, when his strong statements were often perceived as policy shifts, but ultimately were not. Once back in the White House, Trump is expected to reintroduce the “America First” principle in foreign policy, which implies a more pragmatic approach to international issues but does not necessarily entail a wholesale change in foreign policy goals and priorities. 

Trump’s first term: Tactical changes, strategic continuity

The expectations of inevitable radical shifts in the US foreign policy following Trump’s 2016 victory proved false. For example, the Republican promised to dismantle NATO, build closer ties with Russia, and take a tougher stance on China. Trump criticized European countries for insufficient defense spending and repeatedly threatened to reduce the US role in NATO.

He may again insist that NATO countries increase their defense spending, emphasizing that the US should not bear the main burden. This approach created tensions within the alliance and led to a redistribution of responsibilities, ultimately strengthening NATO by encouraging greater European involvement in their own security.

Trump also expressed a desire to establish closer ties with Moscow, speaking positively about Putin and pursuing a new nuclear arms control treaty that would include China. However, these ambitions led to additional sanctions against Russia and increased aid to Ukraine, precluding any real improvement in US-Russia relations.

Under Trump, the US began an active trade war with China, restricted cooperation in high-tech sectors, and implemented measures to counter Chinese influence in Asia and other regions. However, these confrontational steps were a logical continuation of containment and the “pivot to Asia” strategy initiated by the Obama administration, thus does not fall under the definition of a major policy shift.

The Ukraine case: Steady decline in support

One of the key foreign policy priorities of Trump’s second term will be the conflict in Ukraine. During his campaign, Trump claimed that, as president, he could quickly bring an end to the country’s war against Russia. However, he also said he would not commit to increasing aid to Ukraine, insisting that European countries should take on more responsibility for its support.

Trump’s relationship with Russia has been marked by contradictions. On the one hand, he has sought warmer relations with Putin, repeatedly speaking of him in positive terms, calling him “brilliant” and “smart.” Meanwhile, he condemned Russia’s operation in Ukraine, calling it a “huge mistake” on Putin’s part. This inconsistency, coupled with anti-Ukraine statements from members of Trump’s inner circle, has created uncertainty around the stance Washington would take under a new Republican administration.

Trump is expected to pursue a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict, likely leveraging Kiev’s dependence on the US military and economic assistance, as well as the potential cessation of this support, as an argument for peace.

A peace agreement would likely come on terms less favorable to Ukraine than it would have a year ago. With the situation on the ground shifting in Russia’s favor, Ukraine’s territorial losses suggest that the conditions of any future peace could be more challenging for Kiev than if negotiations had taken place earlier.

Should this scenario materialize, like other key areas, it would not signify a major shift in US foreign policy.

The current Biden administration has already shown signs of “Ukraine fatigue” – weariness with the costly support for Kiev. Public sentiment in the US also reflects a steady decline in support for maintaining current aid levels to Ukraine. Even if there had been a Democratic victory in the presidential election, with Kamala Harris winning the White House and Democrats retaining control of Congress, support for Ukraine would likely continue its gradual decline.

The Trump administration may adopt a strategy focused on a more pragmatic resolution of the Ukraine conflict. This approach would likely combine a reduction in military aid with active diplomatic mediation, which, if successful, would allow Trump to showcase an “effective resolution” of the conflict. However, for Ukraine and its allies, this strategy would mean increased pressure on Kiev to compromise, potentially weakening its position in negotiations and shifting the balance of power in the region.

The main limiting factor: Institutional inertia or the deep state

The reason radical changes in US foreign policy are unlikely lies in the institutional inertia of the decision-making system. The country’s foreign policy is heavily bureaucratized and cannot operate independently of the balance of interests among various influence groups. The president wields substantial power but must consider Congress for important foreign policy decisions. As in other areas of decision-making, the influence of the deep state on foreign policy remains significant.

In Congress, a bipartisan consensus exists on key areas of American foreign policy: containment of Russia and China, maintaining NATO, and supporting Israel. This consensus allows for only tactical adjustments while preserving the overarching strategy.

Thus, a second Trump term will likely lead to a more pragmatic foreign policy. His administration would likely focus on a tougher stance toward China, reduced support for Ukraine, redistribution of responsibilities within NATO, and decreased US involvement in global alliances and agreements.

While these changes may appear significant, they will not constitute a complete overhaul of Washington’s long-term foreign policy direction.

https://www.rt.com/news/607508-changes-us-foreign-policy-trump/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

“It’s hard to do cartoons without a trumpy road…”

         Gus Leonisky