Thursday, February 16, 2017
Trump Has A Tiger By The Tail. Does He Have The Cunning To Control It?
The ouster of former national security advisor Michael Flynn is being described as a soft coup carried out by intelligence community bureaucrats working to undermine the Trump administration before the new president is able to get his international agenda underway. This is just one of many battles President Donald Trump faces with a deep state that has resolved to work against him.
Shortly after Trump’s November victory it became clear that the intelligence community he’d insulted throughout the campaign season was willing and ready to join forces with the anti-Trump political establishment to ensure that the new administration wouldn’t undermine the globalist foreign policy initiatives steering the U.S. toward continued military adventurism and a likely showdown with Russia.
And before Trump’s victory, it was overwhelmingly clear that Democrat Hillary Clinton was the deep state’s choice candidate in the 2016 contest. Understanding why begins with understanding what we’re talking about when we reference the deep state.
Journalist and transparency advocate Glenn Greenwald offered a fine explanation in a recent interview with The Washington Post.
“It’s basically unified establishment power which, though unelected, can control elected officials and exploit their functions for the benefit of their own interests, usually exerting power in the dark,” he explained.
The deep state is a conglomerate made up of influencers at the highest level of the U.S. military and intelligence bureaucracies and their counterparts protecting corporate interests in the banking and defense industries. Basically, we’re talking about the individual parts of the military-industrial complex President Dwight Eisenhower warned of when it became clear that international conflict was big business following the era of total war.
Total war isn’t something Americans have witnessed since the end of WWII– but as the U.S. economy became increasingly global thanks to the influence the nation gained from its success in that conflict, the relationship between money and military has remained.
With regard to the situations we’ve seen unfold in the Middle East in recent years, the deep state’s primary concern is the protection of the petrodollar. U.S. banking interests make massive profits from guarantees that oil producers like Saudi Arabia will use the U.S. dollar as the standard for oil transactions. Any time a country in the region becomes belligerent to the idea– think Libya, Syria– banking and defense interests lobby heavily for U.S. intervention. Both factions win.
Unfortunately, the situation in the region is become increasingly precarious– and the banking and defense interests who stand to profit from U.S. hegemony increasingly psychotic in their willingness to swing wildly the nation’s big stick.
Under Clinton’s leadership, the U.S. was headed for a conflict with Russia over the nation’s decision to help Syrian leader Bashar Assad push back against organized chaos unleashed against his nation when he considered a plan that would undermine U.S. and Saudi Arabian oil interests. Clinton’s relationship with the House of Saud can’t be understated.
With Clinton out and Trump threatening policies that would weaken the deep state’s power to meddle in the affair, there’s a lot at stake. Every day the Russia/Syria equilibrium is allowed to persist the deep state’s banking and defense interests get closer to big losses.
However you feel about the current president and his policies, it’s obvious that his understanding of how the U.S. should approach war is far removed from the view held by the average neocon lawmaker who has spent years being lobbied by banking and defense interests. And it makes sense. Trump’s dealings in international business over the years would seldom benefit from U.S. adventurism. And in his view, it seems, when the U.S. makes the very serious decision to attack a region, there must be a very clear picture of what the taxpayer funding intervention stands to gain.
Lawmakers like John McCain, meanwhile, are looking to protect the banking and defense interests who benefit from rolling destabilization that keeps governments in certain areas on the U.S. puppet strings.
As The Week pointed out in discussing the Flynn situation, we’re witnessing a battle between democratic government and deference to a shadow state:
The whole episode is evidence of the precipitous and ongoing collapse of America’s democratic institutions — not a sign of their resiliency. Flynn’s ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination) engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn’t the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function.
Unelected intelligence analysts work for the president, not the other way around. Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result. “Finally,” they say, “someone took a stand to expose collusion between the Russians and a senior aide to the president!” It is indeed important that someone took such a stand. But it matters greatly who that someone is and how they take their stand. Members of the unelected, unaccountable intelligence community are not the right someone, especially when they target a senior aide to the president by leaking anonymously to newspapers the content of classified phone intercepts, where the unverified, unsubstantiated information can inflict politically fatal damage almost instantaneously.
Only time will tell if Trump has the power, the will and the cunning to push back. But it’s safe to say that this isn’t the last set of leaks and attempts to destabilize the Trump administration we’ll see from the deep state. Unfortunately we do know that the deep state has far more practice dismantling governments than Trump has leading one.