The Case for Donald Trump, Part III
Don’t let anyone tell you “Trump’s a warmonger too”. Trump is, in fact, the closest thing to a “peacemaker” President the US has produced in over 40 years.
I am fed up with people trying to argue that “Trump is not a peacemaker”. Pundits ranging from Ben Norton and Vanessa Beeley (both of whom I admire) to Mehdi Hasan (whom I do not admire) are all jumping on the bandwagon to fight against what they call “Trumpwashing” — i.e., the movement to promote Trump as the least bellicose option in the 2024 election cycle.
First, let us be clear
I am not saying that Trump is a peacenik, not by any means. His stance on Israel-Palestine, for example, is absolutely deplorable — just like every other mainstream politician in the United States.
There is no subject, no topic, no area of foreign policy that is more locked down, universal and air-tight as the unanimous and unquestioning support for Israel that permeates every nook and cranny of Washington, DC.
When it comes to the Middle East, Israel has control of US politics. This cannot be denied. A quick tally of all the Jewish Zionists in the highest echelons of the Biden cabinet will attest to this reality, as will the fact that AIPAC has already spent over $100 MILLION in the current electoral cycle.
Add to that the grotesque power exercised by Zionist billionaires on both sides of the aisle, such as Miriam Adelson and Bill Ackman (R), and Haim Saban and Sheryl Sandberg (D), and you have a virtually impregnable fortress of support for the Jewish state and its ongoing genocide in Palestine.
During the Oslo Accords negotiation, when Bibi Netanyahu was at his most intractable, Bill Clinton is said to have exclaimed in exasperation, “Who the fuck does he think he is? Who’s the fucking superpower here?”
The question, alas, is moot. Money is the ultimate superpower, and Zionist money is what greases the wheels of Washington. And Netanyahu knows it.
Indeed, I wrote about this “asymmetric” relationship in my article, “Israel and the US : A “Master Blaster” in the Global Thunderdome”, in which I explained how Israel calls the tune, and America dances to it.
So let’s leave the question of Israel-Palestine aside. It is not useful to discuss this issue, as it is not a differentiating one. Unless, of course, you can make a cogent and reasonable argument as to why and how Jill Stein can win the Presidency. If you can, feel free to comment below.
Otherwise, we will proceed to explore the ways in which Trump truly is the least bellicose President we have had since Jimmy Carter.
War crimes are part of the job
Another reality that we must accept as a ground rule: all US presidents since WWII have been war criminals. It just goes with the job. Even Jimmy Carter, the devout Baptist Sunday school teacher who builds Habitats for Humanity, is guilty as sin, as Matt Peppe documented in his 2015 article, “Jimmy Carter’s Blood-Drenched Legacy”.
So-called “signature” drone strikes, civilian “collateral damage”, third world incursions, regime change operations, assassinations — all of these are part and parcel to the job description of a modern POTUS.
Bad things. Done by people who are not good people. Agreed.
But that does not mean we cannot — or should not — choose the lesser bad. Especially when the greater bad could lead us to a nuclear Armageddon, as I have argued in my previous article, “The Case for Donald Trump, Part II”.
Trump is not an ideologue
As I have repeatedly stressed in my previous articles, Trump is — unlike the Biden/Harris/Democrat cabal — definitely NOT an ideologue. He is fully transactional: everything is a deal, everything is negotiable, everything is an opportunity for him personally to win or lose.
In foreign policy, this is a GOOD thing. It means that Trump is not only ready to talk to anyone, he relishes the encounter — especially with those who are perceived “enemies” of the United States. Trump has demonstrated his willingness to deal openly with “adversarial” leaders ranging from Kim Jong Un to Xi Jinping to Vladimir Putin.
Trump does not buy into the ideological narrative that Biden and the neocons are pushing, namely the “democracy versus autocracy” fairy tale. This neocon framing narrative is designed to place the United States on an ideological warrior footing, a sort of resurrection of the Cold War posturing that set a clear ideological confrontation between East and West, between capitalism and communism.
Trump rejects such framing. He sees these so-called “adversarial” figures rather as “strong leaders” who are “trying to do the best for their people”. And he understands that. It is, after all, how he sees himself and his MAGA / America First movement.
Trump is ready for a multipolar world
Trump’s lack of an ideology actually makes him better suited to negotiate as one leader among many, looking out for his country, as the others look out for theirs, and each one trying to get the “best deal” for their side.
In a world where BRICS is ascendant and a “multipolar” geopolitical landscape is already the new reality, Trump’s world view fits the moment better than that of any other traditional American candidate.
This is in stark contrast to the neocons, who see the US as the only “virtuous” player, the one “indispensable nation” (as arch neocon Madeleine Albright declared). All other nations are either “friendly” vassals in service to the United States, or adversaries who must be vanquished, sabotaged and suppressed.
This attitude is simply no longer viable.
This obsoltete world view — shared by Biden/Harris and the other neocons — is very dangerous. A declining empire is likely to strike out violently, to rage against the dying of its hegemonic light.
But an imperial world view is also a world view that neglects the home front.
The US, for example, is funneling billions to Ukraine and Israel, literally paying for free healthcare, pensions and other social welfare costs in those countries, while Americans themselves are deprived.
This is the perverse pattern that MAGA addresses. “America First” does not mean “rule the world”, it means “take care of our own”. This is, in a very clear way, a political posture that is much more respectful towards other countries.
Because when you are, as the neocons believe, the “one indispensable nation”, that means all other nations are, perforce, ”dispensable”. And that makes for a very poor starting point in negotiations. Trump knows this.
When he addressed the troops at Al Asad airbase in Iraq in 2018, Trump expressed his views thusly:
“While American might can defeat terrorist armies on the battlefield, each nation of the world must decide for itself what kind of future it wants to build for its people, and what kind of sacrifices they are willing to make for their children. America shouldn’t be doing the fighting for every nation on Earth…”
Trump and the military
This lack of an ideological orientation also informs Trump’s attitude toward the military. Many know that Trump attended high school at the New York Military Academy (NYMA), a “feeder” school for the military and United States Military Academy at West Point, which lies just 16 minutes to the south of NYMA.
What many do not know is that Trump excelled at that school, rising to the rank of Captain his senior year. That was in 1964, when the Vietnam War was looming on the horizon. Trump himself received deferrments, however many of his classmates were not so lucky.
This early exposure to the military left Trump with an attitude towards the military that is — like everything else about the former Preseident — unique and complicated.
When Trump entered office, he was in the thrall of “his generals”. However, after a few years in office, the honeymoon was over. Trump resented the pressure that the generals were always putting on him to be more warlike. The air strike he ordered on Syria, for example, must seem like a mistake now, as it was predicated on a gas attack originally ascribed to Assad, but later found to have been “staged” by the very rebels the US was supporting.
Trump at odds with the MIC
Trump did not just become disillusioned with the military, he also recognised the power and influence exerted by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC).
Trump spoke at a convention of conservatives in 2019:
“I’m not saying the military’s in love with me. The soldiers are,” he told reporters. “The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t because they want to do nothing but fight wars so all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.”
Trump can make such bold statements because, unlike neocons such as Obama, Biden and Harris, he does not owe his entire professional career to donations from “those wonderful companies”.
Trump hated “needless” military deaths
Maggie Haberman writes that Trump was deeply affected by the deaths of US military personnel, those “soldiers”:
“Trump cared about fulfilling a campaign promise, but aides were struck that he seemed rattled by the number of deaths involved; over time, he came to resent every ‘Killed in Action’ letter he was forced to sign after a service member died, not wanting to attach his name to a war he disliked and its needless deaths.”
Trump the peacemaker? It’s complicated
As I described at the top of this article, it is practically impossible to describe any US President as a “peacemaker”. Even Jimmy Carter, who famously brokered “peace in the Middle East”, also presided over bloody interventions, assassinations and rebellions in Zaire, Angola, East Timor, El Salvador, and Afghanistan.
So what makes Trump different?
As a general rule, Trump is opposed to any military adventure that involves an open-ended commitment to “American boots on the ground”. As he told those troops in Iraq:
“The men and women who serve are entitled to clear objectives, and the confidence that when those objectives are met they can come home and be with their families.”
This philosophy led to Trump being the first US President since Jimmy Carter not to start any NEW wars while in office. Whether that accomplishment is related to the fact that both Presidents ended up serving only one term is something I will leave to the conspiracy theorists.
YES, Trump did “bring the troops home”
Trump famously ran in 2016 on a platform on non-intervention and a promise to “end the forever wars”. I have no doubt he was sincere. I also have no doubt that he was vigorously and deceitfully opposed in this effort by the military and the neocons in his own administration.
Tired and saddened by having to sign those KIA letters, Trump wanted to end the war in Afghanistan, but was thwarted by the military leaders who said it could not be done.
Nonetheless, Trump DID draw down US troops in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in Syria.
At every step, he met with resistance from the military and the neocons. As he explained to the troops at Al Asad airbase:
“One year ago, I gave our generals six more months in Syria. I said, ‘Go ahead. Get them.’ And it turns out it was really a year and a half ago. I said, ‘Go get them.’ ‘We need six months.’ ‘Go get them.’ Then they said, ‘Give us another six months.’ I said, ‘Go get them.’ Then they said ‘Go — can we have one more, like, period of six months?’ I said, ‘Nope. Nope.’ I said, ‘I gave you a lot of six months.’”
Trump also removed practically ALL the US troops in Somalia.
Notably, that order was subsequently REVERSED by Joe Biden.
While Trump was not able to bring ALL the troops back home, he at least made an effort to do so.
The focus is on terrorism, not “great power” conflict
While Biden/Harris and the neocons are focused on fighting the forces of “autocracy” (whatever that means) and engaging in “great power competition” (whatever that means), Trump is focused on the more modest — and more concrete — threat of international terrorism.
In Trump’s 2018 National Strategy for Counterterrorism, the priority was clearly defined:
“Radical Islamist terrorists remain the primary transnational terrorist threat to the United States and its vital national interests,” according to the strategy.
This focus on terrorism is reflected in the addition of Tulsi Gabbard to his campaign team — and, more importantly, his Transition Team. Gabbard, an active duty Lt. Colonel in the Hawaii National Guard, is a staunch anti-interventionist and, like Trump, is adamant about the threat from “radical Islamist terror”.
Indeed, Gabbard made enemies among her fellow Democrats by constantly railing against “wasteful” wars that detract from the situation at home:
“…what is often not addressed is the fact that our foreign policy, the cost of these continued wasteful regime-change wars that we have been waging now for so long, has a direct connection to our domestic policy and our ability to invest the resources that we need to in things like health care, education, infrastructure, and so on.”
Her views reflect those of Trump, who has often criticised the money given to client states like Ukraine, claiming that the money would be better spent at home and promising to cut off aid to Ukraine if elected.
Gabbard is also not shy about hitting back at detractors:
“Like Trump, she has faced accusations of being a “Russian asset,” most notably from failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Gabbard responded to Clinton’s 2019 jab — likely a reference to her past praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s fight against terrorism in Syria — by calling Clinton “queen of the warmongers” and suing her for defamation.”
Do not believe the bluster
Many Trump critics point to the former President’s “dangerous rhetoric” when railing against America’s perceived adversaries. I believe this is a negotiating tactic.
One well-worn axiom of foreign policy history is the idea that “only Nixon could go to China”. This is because Nixon was a renowned anti-Communist who frequently spoke in the harshest of terms regarding the PRC and the USSR.
Indeed, The New York Times once wrote that “Anti-Communism has been Richard M. Nixon’s chief political stock in trade since the beginning of his public career in 1946.”
Surely, the thinking went, the fiercely anti-Communist Nixon would be “a tough negotiator” when he sat down at the table in Beijing.
Trump has taken a page out of Nixon’s book, especially regarding North Korea.
Wooing Kim Jong Un
In 2017, Trump said of North Korea, and its leader, Kim Jong Un:
“North Korea [had] best not make any more threats to the United States,” Trump told reporters at his golf resort in Bedminster, N.J. “They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”
He doubled down on his threat:
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “has been very threatening, beyond a normal statement,” Trump said, “and as I said, they will be met with fire, fury and, frankly, power the likes of which this world has never seen before.”
His aides were in a panic; the military was worried about a nuclear strike from Pyongyang. But it never came.
Instead, less than two years later, Trump became the first sitting US President to set foot in North Korea, setting off a series of visits and meetings to negotiate a peace treaty to make the Korean peninsula a “nuclear free zone”.
Alas, a full deal was not to be, as Trump’s efforts were sabotaged by John Bolton, whom Trump later fired.
Nonetheless, Trump’s valiant effort to make peace with the “Hermit Kingdom” was historic in scope, and had lasting effects.
In fact, Trump and Kim went on to exchange a series of 25 “love letters”, singing each others’ praises and looking towards the day when they could finalise the proposed treaty.
Making peace with Putin in “24 hours”
Trump has frequently boasted that he could end the war un Ukraine in “24 hours”. For example, he told UK politician Nigel Farage in an interview:
“If I were president, I [would] end that war in one day. It’ll take 24 hours. I will get that ended. It would be easy.”
Details of Trump’s “secret plan” were leaked to Stars and Stripes:
“Trump’s proposal consists of pushing Ukraine to cede Crimea and the Donbas border region to Russia, according to people who discussed it with Trump or his advisers…”
The article observed that Trump’s approach would “dramatically reverse President Biden’s policy”, which has emphasised “curtailing Russian aggression and providing military aid to Ukraine” (because that has worked SO well).
The deal would be done because Trump has such a good relationship with Putin, he said.
The Stars and Stripes article goes on to note what — for me — is a good reason to get the GOP back in the White House:
“In his eight years as the GOP’s standard-bearer, Trump has led a stark shift in the party’s prevailing orientation to become more skeptical of foreign intervention such as military aid to Ukraine.”
Yay!
This is Realpolitik, and it is what we need, rather than the ideological, messianic “vision” of the warmongering neocons.
No danger of war with China
Many anti-Trump critics claim that Trump is “ramping up war with China”. This is pure nonsense.
Trump, like almost all politicians in Washington, perceives China as an economic threat. But he does not see China as a military adversary.
Rorry Daniels, managing director of the Asia Society Policy Institute, explains in The Diplomat:
“I don’t think Trump is an anti-CCP warrior himself,” she said. “He has publicly admired Xi Jinping’s role as an authoritarian leader and doesn’t seem to be highly ideologically motivated.”
As I have described above, this lack of an ideology makes Trump a far, far safer option than the Biden/Harris neocons, who (as I described in my previous article) are literally recalibrating America’s nuclear force posture to prepare for war with China.
Unlike the ideological neocons, who are willing to die “defending democracy” against the “autocratic” CCP, Trump is a pragmatist — especially when it comes to defending Taiwan.
The Diplomat continues:
As tensions heat up in the Taiwan Strait, Trump has told reporters that he doesn’t think the U.S. should defend Taiwan in the case of a Chinese invasion, saying that the Taiwanese have to understand that “things like that can’t come easy.”
When asked whether he would “defend Taiwan”, Trump told TIME:
“Well, I’ve been asked this question many times and I always refuse to answer it because I don’t want to reveal my cards to a wonderful reporter like you. But no. China knows my answer very well.”
Indeed, Trump’s ambivalence toward Taiwan has not gone unnoticed in Beijing, where Trump is clearly preferred to Harris, according to such sources as The Atlantic, Foreign Policy, and Bloomberg.
Trump does, of course, “rail” about China, but it is more in terms of trade, technology and other economic and financial subjects.
Rorry Daniels is correct in her assessment that Trump admires Xi. Remember the love fest at Mar-a-Lago in 2017? That was where the two leaders got along wonderfully over what Trump described as the “most beautiful piece of chocolate cake”.
Trump sees Xi, like Putin, as an admirable figure who has done very well for his people, and of whom he once said: “he runs 1.4 billion people with an iron fist. Smart, brilliant, everything perfect.”
In 2023, Trump told reporters:
“You have a lot of misinformation spread about China, and you have a lot of misinformation spread about a lot of different places. I think I’m going to get along great with China. President Xi of China and I are very good friends.”
Avoiding a war with Iran
Many also condemn Trump for his anti-Iran rhetoric, and his drone assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the famous Iranian General. These acts, they say, show that Trump is anxious to go to war with Iran.
This is simply not true, and the evidence speaks to the contrary.
In June 2019, Iran shot down a US drone. The military and the neocons were jubilant: now there was a reason to finally attack Iran and start the war they had been pushing for years. Democrats and Republicans alike were clamouring for a “response”.
Warships were in place, their missiles loaded; planes were in the air, theur targets pre-selected. Then, Trump called off the strike.
Trump defended his decision, and The New York Times observed:
Mr. Trump has proved profoundly reluctant to fight with live ammunition on a real battlefield. “For all of those that say, ‘Oh, they should do it, it shows weakness,’” he said, “actually, in my opinion, it shows strength.”
In a follow up reported by Reuters, Trump said he called off the strike to “save lives”- and was willing to enter into talks with Iran:
“U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he aborted a military strike to retaliate for Iran’s downing of an unmanned U.S. drone because it could have killed 150 people, and signalled he was open to talks with Tehran.”
Was Trump afraid of starting one of the “endless wars” he had railed against in his campaign? Was he reluctant to have to deal with a “new war” on his watch? Was he just worried that he could not handle the pressure of taking the country to war with an adversary 4 times the size of Iraq?
Who knows. I only know that we averted a war.
To conclude …
There are plenty of reasons to believe that Trump will be the closest thing possible to a “peacemaker” President. None of these reasons have to do with any sort of intrinsic humanity, lofty ambitions or altruistic passion on the part of the former President. Instead, they all rely on specific aspects of Trump’s own narcissistic character, his overriding desire to “do a deal” where he thinks others have failed, and above all his deep-seated aversion to having US soldiers die.
Yes, there will be drone strikes. Yes, there will be counterterrorism operations. But these will be done in partnership with Russia and China, according to Trump. Yes, he will “do the deals” with his good buddies, Xi and Putin.
And when we talk about nuclear powers, isn’t it best to work in partnership rather than blow each other — and the world — into radioactive smithereens?
#End
If you liked this post, please consider leaving me a tip! Donations support my independent, ad-free writing.
============================================================================