Four More Years Would Be Welcomed by the Pentagon by Brian Cloughley!
(2020-09-13 at 17:49:16 )

Four More Years Would Be Welcomed by the Pentagon by Brian Cloughley!

On August 24 President Donald Trump was nominated as the Republican presidential candidate to chants of "four more years, four more years!" which made a lot of people wonder just what another Donald Trump term might be like. And although opinion polls at the moment put Joe Biden ahead of Donald Trump by about ten points we should remember that around this time in 2016 the pollsters put Hillary Clinton ahead of him by fourteen points. And pollsters were not the only people to get things wrong.

In July 2016, just before Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton and confounded the pollsters, I wrote a Strategic Culture article titled Might the Donald be Good for Peace? And it is embarrassing to admit that the commentary contained the totally incorrect assessment that "it is not likely that The Donald will support confrontation by the nuclear-armed armadas that at the moment plough so aggressively around Chinas shores. And he is not likely to endorse the Pentagons happy fandangos concerning Russia, either" - because he has increased the number of provocative forays into the South China Sea as well as having Nato, the Pentagons billion dollar sub-station in Brussels, indulge in yet another anti-Russia exhibition of confrontational "solidarity" by deploying six nuclear bombers to fly over all Nato countries on August 28.

In the words of General Tod Wolters, commander of United States European Command, the fly-over fandango (called the "bomber task force mission") was intended to "send a clear message to potential adversaries about our readiness to meet any global challenge."

And now the State Department has given notice that it is considering creation of a Nato-type military machine in the India-Pacific area. It is intended that the United States, India, Australia and Japan form this alliance, and Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said on August 31 that they would work together to prepare for "a potential challenge from China" and "to create a critical mass around the shared values and interests of those parties in a manner that attracts more countries in the Indo-Pacific and even from around the world .. ultimately to align in a more structured manner."

This has been tried before, when Washington,D.C. put together a grouping called the South East Asia Treaty Organisation, Seato, which collapsed in 1977 after achieving nothing during 23 years of expensive existence. It had eight members of which the most prominent were the United States, Britain, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand and France. The only Southeast Asian countries that took part were the Philippines and Thailand, from which it may be gathered that the whole thing was a farce. And it is likely that a new Seato-type body will never get anywhere - but the overall message is that Washington,D.C.s campaigns against China and Russia will not be relaxed.

On August 28 the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Robert O Brien, told the Atlantic Council that Donald Trump supported the stance of Pentagon America. He declared that "Whether [Trump] has a successor in a few months or in a few years, we are leading the way so that the United States of America can stand up to China and maintain our way of life and defend against these pernicious attacks." (Chinas "pernicious attacks" are its political and commercial disagreements with the United States. If you disagree with Washington,D.C. you are attacking it.)

Mr. O Brien opined that "as we look at a rising China, as we look at a more assertive Russia, especially in Eastern Europe, a lot - China and Russia have allies that they rent or that they buy. They have very few true allies. We have likeminded countries that share our values, that share our way of life all around the world, and we have a very strong system of alliances."

Mr. O Brien is being overly optimistic, because he cannot truly believe that the United States has allies to that extent. The arrogance of the Donald Trump stance was epitomised by Mr. Pompeos declaration that because Germany, Britain and France disagree with Washington,D.C.s policy on Iran, they thereby "sided with the Ayatollahs" and were "standing in the company of terrorists."

This is not the way to maintain "a strong system of alliances" and was another indication that Washington,D.C. chooses allies on a one-way basis. As the Washington Post noted on September 4, "Mr. Trump has aimed demeaning language at the leaders of friendly foreign nations, such as the prime minister of Canada - Canada! - whom he labelled "very dishonest and weak."

Washington,D.C.s policy regarding German cooperation with Russia over the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline is another example of anti-ally smugness that combines arrogance with economic sanctions, and Chancellor Merkel spoke for her country when saying that "We do not consider these extraterritorial sanctions, that is those that go beyond the territory of the United States, to be legal." She speaks from both a moral and legal standpoint - but neither morality nor legality guide Donald Trumps foreign policy, which is increasingly confrontational.

The supposed China threat is large on Washington,D.C.s horizon, and the Pentagon produces an annual Report titled "Military and Security Developments Involving the Peoples Republic of China" which this year announced on September 1 that "over the next decade, China will expand and diversify its nuclear forces"

The Pentagon states that the number of Chinese nuclear warheads is "in the low 200s" which is at variance with the estimate of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute which in its Yearbook published in June gives the figure of 320. But the laugh is in the Pentagons shock and horror at its forecast that China will be "likely at least doubling its nuclear warhead stockpile." Has nobody told the Pentagons propaganda people that the United States has more than four thousand nuclear weapons?

According to the war-drumming Pentagon pundits, presumably with grins of condescending smugness on their lips, China wants to build military bases overseas so that Beijing can "project and sustain military power at greater distances." How dreadful. Or it could possibly be dreadful if the Pentagon did not operate from at least 800 bases in over 70 countries, thereby projecting unwanted and provocative military power where it has no business to be.

And in the latest projection development, the Pentagons European Command announced on September 4 that three B-52 nuclear bombers had been deployed to conduct "vital integration training with Ukrainian fighters inside Ukraines airspace."

If Donald Trump continues in the White House, we can expect the Pentagon to carry on its antics around the world, and things will not alter much if Joe Biden becomes president, as he has announced that "to counter Russian aggression, we must keep the alliances military capabilities sharp while also expanding its capacity to take on nontraditional threats" while regarding China, he intends to "rally our allies to set the rules of the road and push back on Beijings aggressive and predatory behaviour."

But as with most international affairs, for the Pentagon it is probably better to stick with the devil you know rather than get used to a new (if old) one. Four more years would be welcomed by the Pentagon.

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.