Posts Tagged ‘foreign policy

15
Oct
18

ENIGMA: ‘a person or thing that is mysterious, puzzling, or difficult to understand’


Trump World

Could this definition not be applied to the 45th President of the United States: Donald J. Trump?

Even long before Trump pronounced his candidacy, he was portrayed as one whose achievements in business, finance, and personal life, bellied all sense of reason, justification, and rationality in light of the norms most professionals, and the general public of all strata, have been accustomed to believe.

Since his official inauguration, he has successfully pursued the implementation of a significant portion of his electoral platform promises, be it through executive orders, to the more recent contentious matter: with the support of a Republican Congress and Senate, to nominate and approve Brat Kavanaugh as the ninth Supreme Court Judge solidifying a conservative weighted Court Bench for decades to come. All this with no seemingly clear and comprehensive plan or strategy, or so it is thought.

Again, since his official inauguration, the focus of the official, Democrat opposition in both the House, the Senate, and the broader mainstream media, with the exception of FOX News Channel, have set their ambitions to find means to impeach Trump on a variety of charges stemming from influence of Russian meddling and collusion by senior members of his 2016 campaign team; tax evasion and avoidance hallmarked by his reluctance to release his personal and business prior year tax returns; and personal sex scandal with a porn-star and other women.  Their collective goal, at minimum, being to conjure enough suspicion and negative accusation on these contentious issues, unresolved though they may be prior to the Mid-term election of November 6, 2018, will embolden Democrats, independents and non-affiliate members of the public to take back either or both, the Senate and House of Congress, to enable the pursuance of impeachment and, ideally, repealing of legislation of regulations enacted through executive orders.

Is it possible those of all stripes who have voiced their concern, and opposition, over the measures taken, to date, by the Trump Administration, domestically, and possibly more critically, on matters of foreign policy and national security, are being measurably, and strategically, mislead?

An eye-opening encounter with a talk given to a predominately white, middle to upper class, right-leaning audience of elderly, men and women by Victor Davis Hanson, the Wayne and Marcia Buske Distinguished Fellow in History at Hillsdale College, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of classics emeritus at California State University, Fresno [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoAz6o4bUIA&feature=share], wherein he details the conditions that led to the electing of a president, unlike any of his predecessors, as is Donald J. Trump. But, possibly more importantly, the identifying and detailing of the strategy to be employed by his Administration to intentionally respond to those conditions on both the domestic and international stage.

The title to this strategy: Principled Realism.

Principled Realism is a national security paper authored by H. R. McMaster, former National Security Adviser, recently replaced by John Bolton, published in December, 2017.

The symbolism of a change to a policy that now embraces our values was richly expressed by U.S. Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart: “We will no longer have to witness the embarrassing spectacle of an American president doing the wave at a baseball game with a ruthless dictator.”

[http://sfppr.org/2017/07/trumps-new-foreign-policy-of-principled-realism/]

Idealism holds that the purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to advance American values by fomenting freedom and democracy throughout the world. The ultimate goal of Idealism is to bring about a just and peaceful world by ending tyrannies. In the idealist view, the United States should engage in humanitarian missions, military interventions, and nation building, to advance this goal. Idealists believe that U.S. foreign policy should not be determined by what is best for the United States, but by what is, morally, the right thing to do.

In contrast, Realism holds that the purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to secure America’s national interest. Realists believe that moral principles are incompatible with the protection of our national interest. Interests come before values, and U.S. foreign policy should set aside moral considerations, and focus on whatever works.”[http://sfppr.org/2017/07/trumps-new-foreign-policy-of-principled-realism/]

Trump’s Administration strategy as detailed in McMaster’s published policy paper is neither of these two, previously held foreign policy objectives.. No longer will the United States foreign policies and/or interventions be premised, or measured, on the historic strategy of being the global watchdog and purveyor of democratic tendencies, but rather, on the practical approach to international developments focusing on their direct impact on the economic and national security interests and concerns of the American Peoples, solely.

Principled realism opens up diplomatic possibilities anchored on the intersection of our values and our interests. President Trump’s foreign policy will not be one that puts fear in the minds of oppressive regimes as some had hoped. Dictatorships offend our values, but not necessarily our national interests.[http://sfppr.org/2017/07/trumps-new-foreign-policy-of-principled-realism/]

 So it would seem, with `eyes wide shut’, while the Democrat establishment incumbents and supporters, the liberal-leaning on-screen mainstream media and entertainment industry, and political pundits exhaust their efforts to bring down the man: Donald J. Trump; through his folly, embarrassing tweets, and public rally displays as a bombastic idiot, his Cabinet team is stealthfully implementing the doctrines, through legislative policy, of measured principled realism.

To appreciate, and possibly decide the what, where, why, and how this strategy just might have a foresight beyond most to currently understand, view this informative, video conference presentation given by Peter Zeihan, a geopolitical strategist who specializes in global energy, demographics and security in February, 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0eJK4Avk2M

 

 

 

02
Sep
15

Kissinger – Provocateur?


Kissinger's Shadow

CLICK ON IMAGE FOR VIDEO INTERVIEW WITH AUTHOR

What unearthly plan gives any woman or man
The right to be untouchable, to have immunity,
To gain the heralded, enviable title of Statesman;
Yet be provocateur to unbridled devastation with impunity?

The ability of such monsters, hands awash in blood,
To gain centre stage in the course of human history;
Emotionally void, eclipsing the constitution of love;
Rivalling the true definition of imposed suffering and misery.

Yet this kind of Being flourishes with unrestrained momentum
As tool to the ambitious powers-that-be to achieve their devious goals;
Only through death will truth held by their inner sanctum
Speak of the brutishness and countless deaths unfold.

Human history is blemished by countless presence of this ilk
Gaining stature of importance and celebrated aggrandizement;
Rewarded for their cunning yet, ignoring the cost of blood spilled;
A testament to the ignorance of humankind and, its willing appeasement.

Reference: Kissinger’s Shadow – the long reach of America’s most controversial Statesman
By Gregg Grandin

Excerpts:

`America’s exceptional sense of itself depends on a similarly ambiguous relationship to the past. History is affirmed, since it is America’s unprecedented historical success that justifies the exceptionalism. Yet history is also denied, or at least what is denied is an understanding of the past as a series of causal relationships. That is, the blowback from any given action—arming anti-Soviet jihadists in Afghanistan, for example, or supplying Saddam Hussein with the sarin gas he used on Iran—is rinsed clean of its source and given a new origin story, blamed on generalized chaos that exists beyond our borders.’

This evasion has been on full display of late, as the politicians who drove us into Iraq in 2003 tell us that decisions made at the time that facilitated the rise of Islamic State militants shouldn’t hinder America from taking bold action in the future to destroy Islamic State militants. “If we spend our time debating what happened eleven or twelve years ago,” former vice president Dick Cheney today says, “we’re going to miss the threat that is growing and that we do face.18 The United States, Cheney insists, needs to do “what it takes, for as long as it takes.”

Kissinger perfected this type of dodge.[emphasis is mine] He was a master of advancing the proposition that the policies of the United States and the world’s violence and disorder are entirely unrelated, especially when it came to accounting for the consequences of his own actions. Cambodia? “It was Hanoi,” Kissinger writes, pointing to the North Vietnamese to justify his four-year bombing campaign of that neutral nation. Chile? That country, he says in defense of his coup-plotting against Salvador Allende, “was ‘destabilized’ not by our actions but by Chile’s constitutional President.” The Kurds? “A tragedy,” says the man who served them up to Saddam Hussein, hoping to turn Iraq away from the Soviets. East Timor? “I think we’ve heard enough about Timor.19″




Recent Posts

Categories


%d bloggers like this: