Tag: national security strategy

Ok, Mr. Trump. What’s Next? Who’s Next?

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

It’s been a few days since the United States attacked Venezuela in the middle of the night and captured kidnapped President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, packing them out, and sending them in handcuffs to New York City where they will be charged with, well, something which has a high probability of winning in a court packed with team players. You know, narco-terrorism, gang activity, gun-running, theft of American property, and perhaps even unauthorized intent to interfere in the 2028 presidential election, among others yet to be thought of. But, you know, “justice” has to be and will be served. Criminals simply cannot be allowed to run around loose like that, you know.

“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” — Melian Dialogue

I’ve read a lot of widely varying viewpoints on this affair and I still don’t know what is the truth. Probably never will for sure, but that isn’t going to stop me from forming my own opinion. Neither should it prevent you because we can only take what we know, including the obviously blatant lies and propaganda, and make the best decision we can with that information. Since we never have the complete truth, we have to make do with what we have. So, here’s mine.

I’m increasingly convinced that the whole affair was a staged act of theater, designed to make it appear that America was back, riding high in the saddle after getting bucked off in Iraq and Afghanistan.1 Yeah, we can do whatever we want because we are the only country in the world who could do such a thing! Braggadocio! Bravado! Pump that fist to pump up the standing of those who are calling the shots and not doing really well at solving anything. Not to mention that this episode is a great distraction from the ongoing fracas known as Total Release of the Complete and Minimally Redacted Set of the Epstein Files. Yeah, how much have you heard about that in the last few days and when will it reassert itself as front-page news? If America gets bogged down in a Viet Nam-style war in Venezuela, will we ever hear anything more about it?

Popular blogger, Simplicius, has fronted the possibility that Trump and Putin actually worked out a deal between them in which the US would agree to withdraw from Ukraine and Putin would look the other way on Venezuela. Whether this is accurate doesn’t matter as much as it adds to the suspicions that the whole thing is about large, muscular states overriding and destroying the sovereignty of smaller weaker ones without any qualms, without any concern as to who gets hurt in the process.

“As the US was so concerned about the Monroe Doctrine and its own backyard, perhaps the US might also be concerned about developments in Russia’s backyard, as in Ukraine, making it very obvious that they were trying to set ip [sic] some kind of let’s just say: You stay out of Ukraine or you move out of Ukraine, and, you know, we’ll rethink where we are with Venezuela.” – Fiona Hill to Congress, October 14, 2019

This seems to me to be a good case of strong arm bullying on the cheap without having to sink huge amounts of men, material, and money into the operation. If that is the case AND if it pans out well for Trump, then he has succeeded spectacularly. However, we cannot discount the idea that it will not play the way it was designed and that the aftermath might just be too much to bear. It is almost certain that the real reason for this was to regain control of the massive amounts of crude oil buried there, not to punish small time drug dealers or gang leaders. The question remains as to how the “campesinos” in Venezuela react to the taking of Maduro and the subsequent seizure of property which they might consider their own. If Trump attempts to impose a puppet government for the purpose of streamlining the transfer of that oil to large multinational companies against the popular will of the people, he may find that he has jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

There are, of course, those niggling, nagging, little things called consequences, many of them as yet unseen.

  • 1. The “international rules-based order” so loudly trumpeted by the West as a defense of its policies and actions, and a denunciation of other nations which refused to “follow the rules”, is dead. Kaput. Rigor mortis setting in. There is no more system, only raw, naked power which is used by those who have the means to exercise it against those who cannot defend themselves.2 This applies as well to the much-vaunted “rule of law” proclaimed proudly as the basis of the supposed republic which Ben Franklin warned would have to be kept or it would disappear. Gone. Gone forever. It will never return in its previous form. From here on out, it is the law of the jungle–“Kill or be killed.”
  • The capture kidnapping and arrest of Nicolas Maduro on specious charges follows the same pattern as set by that in the case of Manuel Noriega in 1989, and will be argued according to the legal doctrine developed at that time. Since the US government never admits wrong-doing and will continue the practice whenever it wants, a precedent has been set which will probably be followed by other nations whenever they can, up to and including the assassination of high government officials, possibly likely even presidents.
  • The US and China have only recently “resolved” their differences over the production and distribution of rare earth elements (REE) which are required in the manufacture of many modern items which we can’t live without–smart phones, hi-tech missiles, data centers, satellites, etc. Will China respond to the loss of oil purchased from Venezuela by clamping down even harder on the REE issue?
  • Will China issue its own National Security Strategy declaring that the entire east coast of Asia is now to be considered as their sphere of influence and woe to the foreign power which might dare to meddle in the sovereign affairs of the nations within it? What if Xi Jin Ping decided one day to change the name of the Taiwan Strait to the China Strait and forbade adversarial powers to enter therein, all while making threatening noises about what would happen if they did?
  • Will foreign backed “terrorist”3 cells be activated within the US? Is that tactic to be reserved until Iran is attacked again? What is to be the defense against those?
  • And, of course, the rock-hard reality that we simply cannot afford another long, drawn-out war even if it is in our own backyard.

And on, and on, and on…

This whole thing may blow over with very little damage to show for it, but I have to admit the forebodings I experienced during the Noriega crisis are amplified today. For one thing, at that time, the USSR was on the cusp of collapsing, the vision of America as the only superpower was becoming reality, and the Panama Canal was still widely considered American property. Today? Well, the US is broke, deeply indebted, universally hated, arrogant beyond belief, and led by people who are trying to reclaim her former “glory”4 by repeating the mistakes of the past. There is also the fact that in 1989, the US still had some semblance of respectability around the world, while today it is in ragged tatters.

At any rate, regardless what happens in the next few months or years, the probability that life, liberty, and happiness will be jeopardized for the average person in America and around the world has just been increased. Our situation is not getting better and this sort of Rambo-type machismo will not make it any better.

Success breeds confidence which generates hubris which causes overreach which creates mistakes which have consequences which result in disaster which end in downfall.

  1. This brings back memory of the comment George H.W. Bush made after the First Iraq War which he engineered–“It’s a proud day for America. And, by God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.” ↩︎
  2. Boiled down to its most basic meaning, this is no different than the argument used by those who champion and practice abortion on demand. It is an aggression committed against the least powerful, most defenseless persons among us by those who refuse to act responsibly. ↩︎
  3. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. It all depends on your perspective. However, all terrorists operate according to one principle: the use of violence and force to attain a political end, which means every single government is a terrorist group. ↩︎
  4. I have encapsulated “glory” in quotation marks as a matter of ridicule and contempt. Glory belongs to God alone and He shares with no one. (Isaiah 42:8) Remember this the next time you hear the American flag referred to as “Old Glory”. ↩︎

Beating Swords into Plowshares, Montana Style

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

A few days ago, I posted a short article about a bill, HR 6508, introduced into the House of Representatives by Thomas Massie (R-KY), which if passed into law would require the White House to begin proceedings to remove the US from the organization known as NATO. A companion bill, S 2103 has been introduced into the Senate by Mike Lee, R-UT. In addition, the White House has released its National Security Strategy which basically calls for a moderated withdrawal from a hegemonic attempt to control the world into a more manageable position of ruling the Western Hemisphere with an iron fist. Conversely, it could be an admission that the US cannot rule the world due to the rise of significant resistance and must pull in its horns somewhat. It’s all relative, depending on your viewpoint.

These events, even if they take twenty or thirty years to accomplish, can be seen as positive steps toward a better future for the world, like the first faint glimmer of light breaking through the darkness after a long, dark night. We should be aware, though, that nothing is guaranteed and that international tensions could continue to escalate as modern-day society breaks down into uncontrolled chaos, with the ever-present specter of full-blown nuclear war still only a heartbeat away.

[Note: I wrote this at the request of an editor at Western Montana News who asked how it could relate to the local area in the case that events of this sort did unfold.]

I am extremely skeptical about anything which comes out of Washington, regardless of its source (Thomas Massie, excepted) and understand that evil, like the multi-headed hydra of Greek literature, will not be easily dispatched. These things take time to mature and we should not expect to see an immediate end to hostilities even as we hope and believe that world-wide peace will be the eventual result.

Putting aside our disbeliefs and assuming the best, let’s take a look at what might be long-term effects for Montana and the surrounding regions if, and I stress if, NATO is disbanded and the US does pull back from its long-standing policy of never-ending wars to fill the coffers of the military-industrial complex which Eisenhower warned about long ago. Keep in mind that this is only an exercise of hopeful possibility, not a prediction. Your guess is as good as mine.

  1. NATO is abandoned and disappears. The US and Russia come to an understanding of peaceful co-existence. The European Union, a supra-national organization, disintegrates and reverts once more into a continent of national states, each of which is beset with its own peculiar problems, none of which is capable of exercising massive power outside its borders. In such a scenario, it is possible that the number of nuclear warheads which the US and Russian states control and use as threats against each other might be negotiated down from an insane level to one where the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy does not cause nightmares in fearful people. If that were to happen, would the missile silos at Malmstrom Air Force Base eventually be decommissioned and filled with concrete? It is, according to the premise of this article, at least theoretically possible. If that was the only development which came out of this, it would be a good thing.
  2. Trillion dollar “defense” budgets would become a thing of the past. Without an existential threat constantly looming over our heads, there would be no need to break the bank any longer for the ostensible purpose of keeping the “barbarians” at bay, fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here. Instead of pouring that money into weapons systems to kill and destroy, some of it could be used to rebuild Montana’s deteriorating infrastructure–roads and bridges, schools, hospitals, e.g., among others.
  3. Peace is deflationary. Inflation is necessary to drive the financial engine which waging war requires. Without the “need” to destroy the dollar to protect “national interests”, the printing presses which lubricate the political machine in Washington could be wound down to a more moderate level at the very least. The wages which local Montanans earn would go further and purchase more, enabling a general rise in the standard of living.
  4. Massive numbers of young men and women would no longer be needed to fill the ranks of “cannon fodder” in wars which America has no business involving itself or occupying military bases in foreign countries where they are not needed. Instead, they could become highly productive citizens here, raising future generations in an era where soldiers dying in combat might be an anomaly instead of a fixture.

I could go on but you get my point. Western Montana (and the world) has much to gain from the cessation of wars, especially those in which the threat of nuclear annihilation always looms just ahead.

In conclusion, I point to Isaiah 2:4, which says,

“He [Word of God] shall judge between the nations and rebuke many people; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.“

If this prophecy is true, then it is inevitable that war will cease to exist. All of us should be working toward that goal whether it comes to pass in our lifetimes or not until far into the future.

The bronze sculpture “Let Us Beat Our Swords into Ploughshares,” was created by Soviet artist Evgeny Vuchetich, and presented to the United Nations on 4 December 1959 by the Government of the USSR. The sculpture, depicting the figure of a man holding a hammer aloft in one hand and a sword in the other, which he is making into a ploughshare, is meant to symbolize man’s desire to put an end to war, and to convert the means of destruction into creative tools for the benefit of mankind. It is located in the North Garden of the United Nations Headquarters. 1/Oct/2001. UN Photo/Andrea Brizzi. http://www.unmultimedia.org/photo/

The Narrative is Shifting: Foreign Policy Course Corrections Ahead

Roger Mitchell3 Comments

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/regenerative-farming-just-went-mainstream-heres-why-it-matters

Whether you are a “farmer” growing food or not is not important. The underlying message in this article is that significant changes which become known do not usually happen overnight but occur as a result of hard work over a long period of time by dedicated individuals. The author explains the process quite well.

This can be favorably related to Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) recent bill introduced into the House to require the US to withdraw from NATO. A companion bill, S2152, by Mike Lee (R-UT) can also be seen in this light. Slow, gradual progress is the order of the day, eventually producing enough weight and momentum to push the idea forward to success.

A society, large or small, rarely changes direction dramatically and sharply as a discontinuous event. Instead, like a supertanker or aircraft carrier, the change of course begins with the unseen turning of a rudder, overlooked by nearly everyone until the new direction becomes obvious.

The very fact that these two bills, along with the recent release of the National Security Strategy (NSS) by the White House detailing foreign policy changes show that there is some significant movement underway which most people will not see nor recognize until it bursts onto the scene, perhaps in a cataclysmic manner, akin to a dam bursting and the subsequent release of a large amount of water resulting in the destruction of everything downstream caught in its path.

The system we have lived with and under for decades is giving way and a new one is about to be implemented. It is important to keep in mind that neither of these above-referenced bills are guaranteed passage, however, both add to the weight and pressure building on the existing structure which is trying to maintain the status quo.

Do not discount the significance of Massie’s bill.