#non intervention

Trump came into office touting his “America First agenda,” disdaining NATO,  and asking “Why is it a bad thing to get along with Russia?” He told us he abjured  “regime change” and held up Libya as an example of bad policy. Now he’s turned  on a dime, bombing Syria, and welcoming tiny (and troubled) Montenegro into  NATO. His intelligence agencies are even accusing  Russia of having advance knowledge of the alleged chemical attack in Syria  (although the White House disputed  that after it got out). And all this in the first one hundred days!

How did this happen? It’s easy to explain, once you understand that there is  no such thing as foreign policy: all policy is domestic.

That’s the core principle at the heart of what  I call “libertarian realism,” the overarching theory – if such a grandiose  term can be applied to what is simply common sense – that explains what is happening  on the world stage at any particular moment. And there is no better confirmation  of this principle than the recent statement  by Eric Trump, the President’s son, who said: “If there was anything that Syria  [strike] did, it was to validate the fact that there is no Russia tie.”

Oh yes, and Ivanka was “heartbroken” – and so it was incumbent upon the President  to change course, break a major campaign promise, and declare via his Secretary  of State that “Assad  must go.”

Got it.

Trump’s Syrian turnabout is clearly a response to the coordinated attack launched  on his presidency by the combined efforts of the Deep State, the media, the  Democrats, and the McCain-Graham-neocon wing of the GOP – a campaign that still  might destroy him, despite his capitulation to the War Party.

Vladimir Putin has likened  the current Syria imbroglio to what happened in Iraq, with claims of “weapons  of mass destruction” and a war fought on the basis of false intelligence, but  there is one major difference: this time, the bombing came first, with the “evidence”  an afterthought. You’ll recall that in the run up to the invasion of Iraq there  was an extended and quite elaborate propaganda campaign designed to make the  case for war. Now, however, that process has been reversed: bombing first, “evidence”  later.

Speaking of which, Bloomberg national security reporter Eli Lake tells  us that the US is about to release a “dossier” explaining the rationale  for the Syria strike: it is “short on specific intelligence” but long on “its  refutation of Russian disinformation.” As in the case of the “Russian interference  in the election” narrative, we’ll doubtless be told that protecting “sources  and methods” precludes us peons from seeing the actual “intelligence.” Ours  is not to question why, ours is but to do and die, as the old saw goes: but  is that  –  not to mention the moral imperative of safeguarding Ivanka’s fragile  emotional state  –  really enough to justify a 180-degree shift in US foreign  policy?

The real significance of this “dossier” has little to do with justifying the  Syria strike insofar as actual evidence of Assad’s alleged crime is concerned,  and more with signaling to the heretofore hostile “intelligence community’ and  political actors in the US that the days of President Trump trying to achieve  détente with Russia are over. As Lake points out:

“But it is really the report’s condemnation of the Russian response that  is most striking. Trump has sought to reset the relationship with Moscow, as  President Barack Obama hoped to do in 2009 and 2010. Now, one U.S. official  tells me, Russian officials in phone calls with their Trump administration counterparts  repeated in private the same propaganda lines their government was issuing in  public. ‘That has led to a lot of frustration at the highest levels of the government,’  this official said.“

Translation: Forget getting along with Russia  –  just call off your bloodhounds.

We now have Putin warning  that more “provocations” are in store, with some pretty specific details supplied.  It wouldn’t surprise me in the least, but we’ll have to wait and see if that  pans out. In the meantime, however, three factors are percolating in the mix:  1) Our spooks, not content with having turned the Trump administration around  on Syria policy, won’t let up on the alleged “Russian foreknowledge” angle.  These guys mean business. 2) The previously stalled effort to overthrow Assad  by funding and arming the Islamist savages championed by McCain, Graham, &  Co. will recommence, with some success, and 3) The campaign to smear Trump as  a Kremlin tool will continue, unabated, with both the House and Senate investigations  barreling full speed ahead, with plenty of help from the “former intelligence  officials.” They aren’t about to let Trump off the hook quite so easily.

What all this shows is how far removed the making of US foreign policy is from  actual facts on the ground, and the rational calculation of American interests.  What it all comes back to is how it serves the political interests of those  in power – and those who aspire after power. Facts have nothing to do with it  except insofar as they can be manipulated – or created – so as to fit a preexisting  agenda.

There are very few good arguments for striking out at the Syrian government.  One of the pseudo-credible ones is that the use of sarin and other similar weapons,  if allowed to go unpunished, would hurt our legitimate interests, since their  use would then become pandemic. The riposte is that anyone who would even consider  using such weapons is not likely to be deterred by US retaliation, no matter  how swift.

In any case, this raises the question: did Bashar al-Assad drop sarin gas on  a bunch of civilians at Idlib? Despite the rush to judgment, we don’t know the  answer to that question, but several factors make it unlikely. He was winning  the civil war, and this, if you’ll pardon the expression, seems like overkill.  Furthermore, for  years the Syrian rebels have been doing their damnedest to frame Assad for  just such a heinous crime in order to provoke US intervention on their behalf,  to little avail – until now. Their record speaks for itself.

If indeed Assad is guilty, then it’s conceivable – although I would disagree  – that one could make an argument for a one-off warning strike. Yet that is  not what we’re seeing at all: already, Secretary of State Tillerson is echoing  that old Obama-Clinton slogan, “Assad must go.” This isn’t a one-off: it’s a  complete reversal of what candidate Trump said he’d do once in office.

As I said in my  last column, the silver lining is that many of Trump’s prominent supporters  – and former supporters – are waking up to the importance of non-interventionism  as one of the pillars of “Trumpism.” Their former hero’s betrayal is putting  them on a learning curve – and the best of them will come out the other side  with a new awareness of what “America First” really means.

Jon Huntsman has been offered the job of Ambassador to Russia. Sources say that Huntsman plans to accept the job offer. [Link]

Reports from the State Department say Trump will resume weapon sales to Saudi Arabia that Obama halted in December. The weapon sale that blocked was of precision munitions. [Link]

Nikki Haley demands that we get Iran out of Syria. Iran is in Syria assisting Assad fight ISIS and Syrian rebels in the civil war. [Link]

The US rejects China’s proposed deal between the US and North Korea. [Link]

A new Israeli law bars supporters of the BDS movement from entering Israel. [Link]

Gunmen attacked a Kabul hospital killing 30 people and wounding 50. The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attack. [Link]

Two suicide bombers carried out attacks against a wedding in Tikrit killing at least 30. No group has claimed responsibility for the attack, but it was most likely ISIS. [Link]

US Marines are now in Northern Syria. The Pentagon did not release how many Marines are now in Syria. The Marines are expected to assist in the invasion of Raqqa. [Link] The Marines will likely be providing artillery support. [Link]

Amnesty International has accused Saudi Arabia of using cluster bombs in residential areas in Yemen. The alleged attacks occurred on February 15. [Link]

Slouching Toward WWIII With Guest Col Douglas Macgregor

That's why the US (and basically all others) can't mind their own business.

Feeling cheesed off about one of those "neutrality only aids the oppressor" posts (http://shwetanarayan.tumblr.com/post/86504531651/neoliberalismkills-being-neutral-isnt-being) but not feeling like I want to bring the thunder against any particular reblogger (they seem like kids and follower types mostly) or even op, since it's years old and I don't stand by a fair chunk of what I said that far back, so it wouldn't seem fair to try to hold someone else's feet to the fire about something that old.

But, I gotta say, that's an incredibly dangerous belief to hold. It's calling a bigger chunk of the world enemies than you would without it, frequently a MUCH bigger chunk. That has a lot of consequences; you may see individuals on your side, or even entire groups despair because of these apparently overwhelming odds that might not actually be overwhelming. It justifies attacking uninvolved parties, including violently (hopefully you can see how this can go horribly horribly wrong). And that second problem, plus aggressive rhetoric demanding instant subordination or violent attack, has the potential to shift a lot of people from not caring either way about your group, to actively opposing you.

If two people are having a conflict and a third person isn't intervening, yeah, the third person can reasonably be said to be "aiding the bully" if they had an obligation to do something about it, but even there, the situation could be worse, and hollering a demand that they identify as your enemy unless they intervene in your favor is, if anything, more likely to get them to go, "alright then" and jump into the fray... To smack you around too!

From this week's installment of The Lowdown on Liberty: "Our biggest problems won’t come from whether or not we allow a statue to remain in a park, or from groups clashing in the streets over exaggerated racial tensions. In a world already filled with an abundance of military mistakes, the last thing we should advocate, let alone accept, is the persistence of our already failed foreign interference."

On Monday, President Trump gave a speech outlining his future strategy regarding the war in Afghanistan. In it, he left many things open-ended, such as the number of troops he intended on sending, as well as the timeline for our occupation there. One thing he did not shy away from was the fact we will be continuing our engagement in open warfare, and made vague statments like, “I’m not going to…