Donald Trump Named former CIA director and extremist neoconservative James Woolsey his senior adviser on national security issues on Monday. Woolsey, who left the CIA in 1995, went on to become one of Washington’s most outspoken promoters of U.S. war in Iraq and the Middle East.
As such, Woolsey’s selection either clashes with Trump’s noninterventionist rhetoric — or represents a pivot towards a more muscular, neoconservative approach to resolving international conflicts.So much for at all that about Donald Trump being a foreign policy realist. Trump is clearly concerned about the neoconservative defection to Killary, as well as strong pushback from the military wing. This gives the impression that Donald Trump is out of his league and has no policy stance but is making it up on the fly in response to political concerns. I was previously that the election of Killary would by a foreign policy catastrophe but Trump only a disaster. Now I am beginning to think in terms of how big a catastrophe they would respectively produce.
Moreover, since leaving government Woolsey has been deeply involved in the military-intelligence-indusstrial-governmental complex. Now he has dollar signs in his eyes.
Woolsey went on CNN on Monday and said that he was principally motivated to support Trump because of his plans to expand U.S. military spending.
Trump gave a speech last week in which he proposed dramatic expansions of the Army and Marines, and hundred-billion-dollar weapons systems for the Navy and Air Force. He offered no justification — aside from citing a few officials who claimed they wanted more firepower.
Woolsey stood by Trump’s proposal on Monday.
“I think the problem is her budget,” Woolsey said of Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton. “She is spending so much money on domestic programs — including ones that we don’t even have now, and the ones we have now are underfunded — I think there can be very little room for the improvements in defense and intelligence that have to be made.”
The Intercept
Donald Trump, After Blasting Iraq War, Picks Top Iraq Hawk as Security Adviser
Alex Emmons and Naomi LaChance
Donald Trump, After Blasting Iraq War, Picks Top Iraq Hawk as Security Adviser
Alex Emmons and Naomi LaChance
44 comments:
Reagan-Cold War model.....
Matt, it's worse than that. The moderates during the Cold War wanted to wear the Soviets down; the extremists, like Woolsey, were for confrontation. I've heard Woolsey for many years now. He is living in a parallel universe in which his oddball fantasies are real. He's the nut cases nut case, and an exceptionally violent and bloodthirsty one. He's in the worst of the worst category, with Rumsfeld and Cheney. When you add him to the rest of the weird psychopaths Trump has surrounded himself with, then this is a good reflection of who Trump is. It wouldn't now surprise me if he offers Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz positions, perhaps even Limbaugh and Coulter.
Not that it makes any difference, but I've had it with Trump: all his advisers are wackos, and so you have to wonder what the difference between him and Clinton are, other than Trump doesn't faint or have coughing fits every five minutes. It's clear now whoever gets to be president, there'll be plenty of wars.
It is now immoral to vote for anyone other than Stein or Johnson. If I were an American, I'd be happy to see either in the White House. Clinton and Trump are sick characters.
Maybe Iran... It's not "even" with them.... But after a while of build up...
Here John:
"The Iran nuclear deal is "worse than worthless," former CIA Director James Woolsey told Newsmax TV on Wednesday."
This is Rule #1 in Trump 101 ie "Get Even!".
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/james-woolsey-peter-vincent-pry-iran-deal/2015/09/02/id/673281/
It all goes back to Iran... the rats nest is in Iran...
Bush2 couldnt work with Saddam because his attempt on Bush1... So if there was no Bush2 then a potus X would have worked with Saddam just like we ended up working with Assad in Syria and even daffy-kadaffy in Libya ... to isolate Iran...
So Trump was against the Iraq thing because he saw it as just destabilizing Iraq when the better option would have been to work with Saddam in place... but Bush2 couldnt do it with the family history there... so they had to do Iraq first and it got bogged down and took too long yada yada... it was not the best option...
So Trump will attempt to make a better deal with Russia and Syria than they currently have with Iran while undertaking an 80s style military buildup... but this might entail Russia cutting off dealings with Iran and Syria cleaning out Hezbollah...
The mainstream view is completely 100% polar opposed to a less interventionist policy. Mr Hickey and Democracy Now and Glen Greenwald and this view has an uphill battle. Jill Stein understands the issue but she can't get above 3% of the vote.
I do share the mainstream view on this one though. Though I don't think Tom would.
Matt, if you think Iraq was a bad idea, Iran will be the mother of all disasters.
Iran has given up nearly all its *legal* and *civilian* nuclear programme. There are constant inspections of these sites, not that Iran is a menace to anyone but its own population. This will be like Iraq's WMD story. They'll soften up the people with wild stories, in direct contradiction of all intelligence. And then they'll smash a country that has never invaded or militarily threatened another country. And who will benefit from this? The Wahhabi freaks who killed nearly three thousand Americans in 2001. Washington has helped create a monster that is no longer willing to take orders. Woolsey and idiots like him want to further strengthen the jihadi lunatics. Good luck with that: 9/11 wasn't a loud enough wake up call.
But Matt, get even with what? Iran has been public enemy number one since the popular revolution in 1979 overthrew a sadistic dictator who was as close to a Washington stooge as you are likely to get. That's the issue in Washington: a new sadistic stooge has to be installed in Tehran. Again, good luck with that, because no matter how much Iranians hate the Mullahs, they'll fight a US war. If the US can't beat the Taliban, they'll have a nightmare Vietnam-style war with Iran and terrorism hitting every major city in the US and thousands of body bags coming home draped in the stars and stripes.
I can't see Russia or China agreeing to any of this, and they'll arm Iran to the teeth with the latest weaponry to overcome the US technological advantage. And why? They're all too aware that you either stick together or hang together. Washington's plan is too bring Russia and China down a few pegs. To do that they need to take out their allies before confronting them directly. So Russia and China will not only not cooperate, they'll make the US bleed...heavily.
@ Ryan
Actually I agree with this from that FP article. A mix is needed. I also think that maybe we should be looking at thorium nuclear until cold fusion becomes practical. Decentralized energy is also good as a back up. Now people are most using gasoline powered generators.
Decentralized renewable and off-grid energy technologies can play an important role in some contexts, particularly where they are targeted to increase agricultural productivity or otherwise support productive economic enterprises and are deployed in ways that augment expanding centralized grid electricity. They cannot, however, substitute for energy and other infrastructure necessary to support industrial-scale economic enterprise. Microfinance, microenterprise, and microenergy are no substitute for industry, infrastructure, and grid electricity.
" Washington's plan is too bring Russia and China down a few pegs."
That is not the Trump plan... Trump has no problem with Russia and only comlplains about Chinas currency manipulation.... China delegates the exchange rate to its banks and Trump might not have a big problem with them other than if any big trade deficit remains after that...
And the objective for Iran might just be complete isolation....
Attack Iran and the whole MENA goes up in smoke. The Iranians will shut down passage through the strains and destroy the Saudi and Gulf States oil fields. No mystery to what happens to the price of oil.
This is on the order of using the 7th Fleet to confront China militarily in the South China Sea and think it would be a cakewalk because US carrier groups are invincible and could just sit and pound China to ashes.
Similarly, with Ukraine. Pushed far enough, Russia will just roll over it and federalize it by force, while NATO watches.
The US is now doing what all previous empires have done prior to their collapse. Over-stretching and over-reaching.
That is not the Trump plan
1. Trump has a plan?
2. You know what it is?
Just listen to what he says...
He has said a variety of things often in the same speech.I am not the only one that doesn't know what he stands for. Scott adman says that this is a persuasion technique. People will read into it what they want.
In addition, his advisers don't seem to jibe with some things he says. Most of them scare me.
Scott Adams.
He wants to bring the trade deficit down with mostly China... use the USD balances gained there for infrastructure... make NATO pay more munnie and take that munnie to build up US strategic military systems....
Re-engage with Russia on commerce and strategic cooperation over there...
Isolate Iran... Protect Israel... etc..
That's not a plan. Those are ideas thrown out in a campaign.
Trump's plan is roughly: deal with immigration, deal with trade issues, deal with Russia and China. All that's missing are the details.
My momma always said, "Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." - Donald Gump
Those are rough objectives and not even prioritized. The plan is the details.
He'll hire a staff to do the detailed plan if he wins.... That's the way it works....
Btw the headline here doesn't get it right to Trump, Woolsey is an IRAN hawk....
I would say the neocons disagree with Trump on his approach but not necessarily objectives...
Whereas Trump looks at the neocons like they are the Keystone Kops....
He'll hire a staff to do the detailed plan if he wins.... That's the way it works....
Given the people he has tapped so far, that's my concern. Trump is not a details guy and policy is all about detail. That's why legislators and many staff are lawyers. They understand that it's all in the fine print.
What is this obsession with Iran...
Tom, you have to have Faith...
Bush Sr. Blames Neocons for Ruining W.’s Presidency: Is he Warning Jeb?
James Woolsey is listed.
Well Tom they didnt do a very good job...
I dont think anybody disagrees with that...
iow Bush1 doenst blame them for going into Iraq just not doing a very good job of it and stalling the GWOT down there. ... so that then reflects negatively on Bush2...
Trump takes a larger issue with the whole Iraq thing from the get-go... probably thinks they should have had dealings with Saddam similar to Assad and daffy-kadaffy...
So this is maybe why Trump takes so much flak from Kristol & Co. they are Bush1 & Bush2 posse members... Kristol iirc broke in as Dan Quayles COS in the Bush1 admin...
Trump takes issue with some of the approach there and they get all defensive...
But the objectives are the same...
So these people writing this dont really understand what is going on all they can do is look for what they think is hypocrisy and maybe point that out... but youre always going to be able to see that as the relationships between the players here are not 1 dimensional...
Bob,
here:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116236/iran.aspx
Everybody here in the US hates Iran....
Trump understands it's about the oil. He bAsically says that the US as the Godzilla in the world should just take it as "ours."
"Capitalism" is about alpha dominance, which Matt calls "Darwinism," and they do appeal to "Darwin" to rationalize it.
In this view, humans are super-smart primates. The alphas take what they want and fight with other alphas for dominance. But being super-smart, human alpha often choose to negotiate with each other over the spoils, but only if it is a fairly equal match where the winner is uncertain and both are likely to be bloodied. If they are sure they can win the match though, then it's zero-sum. That is their world.
That's the result of the propaganda machine ritually demonizing an adversary in preparation for war. It's SOP and has been from everywhere from time immemorial. It's tribal.
BTW, it's a rule regarding groups that the bad drive out the good. Even when a good leader rises to power on occasion, the institution is so internally resistant to change that nothing can be accomplished before the leader is replaced, at least anything that lasts.
Tom, we (US) are down to only taking about 1 to 2 mbpd from ME these days... about 10%...
Trump (says he) is going to prioritize the domestic situation and pull back on the international front..
He will only get involved in the international area to the extent it has to do with domestic outcomes.. trade deficits, terror, etc...
imo he is looking for the allies to start paying for more in the area of national security and reprogram those current expenditures into defence modernization, etc...
And shrink the trade deficits and take those current USD saving by the external sector (which will bring the deficit down) and use that on domestic infrastructure...
So he gets his domestic program funded by a shrunken trade deficit and his military programs funded by cutting US spending on international security efforts (NATO, Japan, S. Korea, MENA, etc...)
it at least makes sense from his out of paradigm perspective...
It is very important in life to understand and appreciate power.
Power is essentially the ability to control
There are two types of power.
Power to control oneself, which leads to self-mastery
Power to control other, which leads to mastery of others.
Guess which most people pursue.
Obviously, those that rise to the top of groups generally are oriented to accumulating and wielding power as the ability to control others.
Tom,
This is Pat Buchannon vs. Hannity on this stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RGgpwqFpPw
This is pretty representative of what is being argued in the GOP imo and with the whole "neo-con!" thing... Kristol and Buchanon hate each other, etc... Trump is leaning Buchanon here so Kristol & Co hate Trump yada yada...
I dont think these people writing here are able to understand it... I think this video is more revealing if you really want to know what is going on...
Actually, the US is more blameworthy as a country for the county's policies and actions since it is a functioning democratic republic.
"some people view a whole population as being the same as a leadership "
They dont see the "population" Tom they see a nation (thru the leadership)....
Look at the Gallup poll I posted above it asks "Iran?" not "Habib?" (ie Habib lives in Iran....)
This is an issue you are having with recognizing the Spatial Domain....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_analysis
You are looking at it as people... that is not the way they are looking at it...
Buchanon is more on your side in the thing with Hannity... he and you Jesuit educated....
Hannity no university at all....
Tom what are these 2 intercept idiots implying?
That Trump will go back into Iraq?
LOL!!!!!!
Here Tom this is a big one with the fire and brimstone crowd:
"20 Then He begins to reproach the cities in which most of His powerful deeds occurred, for they do not repent.
21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the powerful deeds which are occurring in you occurred in Tyre and Sidon, long ago they would repent, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
22 Moreover, I am saying to you, For Tyre and Sidon shall it be more tolerable in the day of judging than for you.
23 "And you, Capernaum! Not to heaven shall you be exalted! To the unseen shall you subside, for, if the powerful deeds which are occurring in you had occurred in Sodom, it might remain unto today.
24 Moreover, I am saying to you that for the land of Sodom shall it be more tolerable in the day of judging than for you." Mat 11
Consider He is not talking about the people there......
You are looking at it as people... that is not the way they are looking at it...
I know that. It is deeply immoral.
It's the Anglo-American way.
This is not new for the US, founded on Native American genocide and African slavery .
Nor is it new for the UK.
https://crimesofbritain.com/2016/09/13/the-trial-of-winston-churchill/
Pat was a classmate of mine. We didn't hang out though.
Here Tom here is Bill from today:
"the way the Left fell prey to what we call the globalisation myth and started to believe that the state had withered and was powerless"
Its not that it "withered"... many dont see it at all... this is another bias in this cohort against spatial cognition... this cohort has trouble seeing boundaries and interfaces...
They will then say the ones that do are the "xenophobia!" people...
"Churchill found his love for war during the time he spent in Afghanistan. While there he said “all who resist will be killed without quarter” because the Pashtuns need “recognise the superiority of race”.
Sounds like he was well read into his Darwin....
Post a Comment