American Dove of Peace: Will Trump Save US from a New War

Donald Trump is the only US president in recent decades who has not unleashed a new war over the years of his reign. But will they allow him to finalize his presidential term without ever starting large-scale hostilities anywhere in the world?

In the world, Donald Trump has a reputation for being a hawk. Sharp and assertive, aggressive, not reaching into his pocket for a word, Trump looks like a very belligerent politician. But this is only an external image. If we talk about real affairs, while Trump, against the backdrop of all his predecessors - Obama, Bush senior and junior, Clinton, Reagan - looks almost a "dove of peace." Not a single new war was launched during the presidency of Trump, there were preemptive strikes, including against Syria and the Iranian general in Baghdad, but it certainly (at least for the time being) did not lead to new wars.

Despite the terrible threats against the “wrong” states, Trump is in no hurry to start new military conflicts. Moreover, he repeatedly spoke about the need for the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Of course, the matter is not in the president’s peacefulness, but rather in economic considerations: an experienced businessman, Trump does not want to spend the American budget on constant military conflicts in faraway Asian and African countries. Moreover, he perfectly understands that against the backdrop of the real economic confrontation between the United States and China, minor wars in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen can only become a funnel sucking in American money without genuine benefit for the country.

However, Trump's personal views on the overseas US military campaigns are one thing, and the position of the American establishment is completely different. John Bolton was called one of the main real "hawks" in the Trump administration, since he insisted on starting a war against Iran and maintaining the active presence of American troops in Syria. Trump got rid of Bolton, but this does not mean that he completely protected himself from pressure from the "party of the war."

Interestingly, unlike many American presidents, Donald Trump, despite several years of training at the New York Military Academy, a paramilitary private school, did not serve in the American army and in every possible way evaded sending to Vietnam. Moreover, it is not a matter of the president’s personal qualities: Trump still does not hide his negative attitude to the fighting in Indochina, calling the Vietnam War a disaster for the United States.

Naturally, the head of state is guided not so much by pacifist considerations (it is still difficult to call him a pacifist), but by his understanding of Washington’s real political and economic interests. But trade wars and economic sanctions are a real "horse" of Donald Trump, who is convinced of the effectiveness of such leverage.

Supporters of the new war, who enjoy great influence in the Republican Party, however, can put pressure on Trump, threatening to deprive support of the impeachment procedure. Some experts do not in vain call the assassination of General Kassem Suleimani a kind of payment to Trump for the Republicans for their support. And Iran’s retaliatory strike for most Trump’s predecessors would be a clear signal of war. But not for the “dove of peace” with a billion-dollar fortune and understanding of how easy it is to lose everything.

But for many “hawks”, just a blow to the motorcade of the Iranian military leader is not enough - they want a full-scale war with Iran, which will also meet the needs of the military-industrial complex. Therefore, they will put pressure on Trump, and the president, despite his unwillingness to draw the States into a large-scale conflict in the Middle East, can ultimately submit to them.

However, if Donald Trump manages to survive until the end of 2020 without starting a war, then he will enter history the American state as one of its most peace-loving presidents since the beginning of the last century. Yes, to save the United States from a new war is primarily in the interests of the American people themselves. Trump understands this, and at this promise he could very well win the next presidential election.

Comments

[Loess]

However, if Donald Trump manages to survive until the end of 2020 without starting a war, then he will go down in the history of the American state as one of his most peace-loving presidents since the beginning of the last century

He will still have a chance to fix this if he is re-elected as president. In the meantime, yes, his behavior is slightly inconsistent with the behavior of American presidents in this regard.

[Old Michael]

his behavior is slightly inconsistent with the behavior of American presidents in this regard.

So the world is changing.
More than a century ago, Marx examined the origin and ways of existence of financial capital, then a whole bunch of classics did the same with respect to imperialism - the highest form of capitalism.
And now the time has come for a new Frankenstein - financial imperialism (sometimes modestly hiding behind the more neutral term "globalism").
And when the media fray the old tales of the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, for some reason they immediately see pictures of expressive mutual public attacks by Zhirinovsky and Zyuganov, followed by a kiss on the sidelines.
It is strange that philosophers and theorists of political economy are carefully avoiding in their arguments this very product of the century - “financial imperialism”. In this field, not plowed by dissertants, a lot of miraculous already hacked.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: OldMichael

So the world is changing.

Right remark!
In fact, according to the long-standing Anglo-Saxon tradition (paradigm), it is necessary to "kill" a competitor who is stepping on the hegemon's heels ... But now it turned out to be China - a nuclear power, with a steady trend of progressive development ... The multipolar world is dancing more and more clearly .. But here's what bothers me:

Not for nothing that American experts and the media are discussing with might and main "the trap of Thucydides" - the concept according to which the conflict between the existing great power and its younger, but more promising competitor cannot but end in war. The United States once got out of this "trap": it managed to destroy the Soviet Union thanks to its economic weakness and the ideological and propaganda war won by Hollywood. No such successes have been recorded with China. But this, from the point of view of the main ideologues of anti-Chinese politics (such as the head of Trump's campaign headquarters Steve Bannon), only means that you need to push harder, and do it simultaneously on all possible pain points.

And China has enough pain points:
To win and restore its former greatness, it is necessary to deprive China (that is, return to America) tens of millions of jobs and associated production facilities and, if possible, completely separate Beijing from American and Western markets, as well as prevent it from developing its own high-tech sector. All attempts to set fire to Hong Kong, to stir up the "Uyghur problem", to prohibit the European Union from using the products of the Chinese company Huawei, as well as all attempts to stifle the Chinese project "One Belt, One Road", are links in the same chain. The very chain that Trump wants to use as a noose around Beijing's neck, and then with the help of this chain pull China into the past - some 30 years ago - in order to drive it into the state in which it was before the era of globalization and relocation productions from all over the Western world to the Middle Kingdom.

[Old Michael]

the chain Trump wants to use as a stranglehold on Beijing's neck

It seems that it's not even Trump.
What spread Yugoslavia? Excessive independence of the just-emerging EU, whose currency has taken the place to push the dollar? Accompanying these phenomena is the drop in US influence on the new Europe?
In part, yes.
But a more important factor is seen as a significant change in the channel of global financial flows. Europe was quickly explained the boundary of its "sandbox".
It's harder with China. Business and PDAs are not monolithic in any position.
And in the details of Chinese politics / economics, alas, I am not strong. But the escapade you called a "stranglehold" looks more like a product for the mutual satisfaction of perverts.

[prior]

"Donald Trump has a reputation as a hawk in the world."

Rather, Donald is our Trump - a Hamburg rooster (from the word hamburger).

[knn54]

He is not a hawk, he is a HOOLIGAN.

[BARKAS]

Under other presidents, the war happened and ended or turned into a sluggish current conflict, after which a new one was unleashed. Under Trump, one complete failure in achieving his goals.

[Berber]

Are you sure you know his goals? A trade agreement signed with China is a good achievement. Low unemployment and economic growth are also good achievements. He may not impress us, but he was elected president of the United States, which makes him an extraordinary person. Despite his simplicity, he is a very intelligent person.

[BARKAS]

I mean, you can’t invest money in new projects and wars without getting profit from the previous financial pyramid, lenders will not understand.

[Berber]

Even the "absolute monarch" does not have all the power. And the president has to take into account many interests. And not everything depends on him. This is what a politician is successful in - to pursue his own line regardless of conditions.

[Lelek]

Quote: BARKAS

Under Trump, one complete failure in achieving his goals.

Well, do not tell. Take the latest trade agreement with China. ”Trump won a brilliant victory.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Lelek

Take the latest trade agreement with China. ”Trump won a brilliant victory.

At first glance it seems so. But what really is? Here is the assessment of specialists:

The key condition of the first part of the deal is Beijing’s commitment to buy $ 2 billion worth of goods in the United States over 200 years. First of all, we are talking about the industrial sector - 75 billion energy resources - 50 billion, agricultural products - 40, the rest - services. In 2019, mutual trade turnover decreased by 14,6% to $ 541,22 billion. At the same time, China's exports decreased by only 12,5%, and US imports by almost 21%.
As a result, trade deficit reached $ 295,8 billion And if we assume that throughout the current year, Chinese exports (418,5 billion in 2019) will not increase at all, and the basket of goods from the United States will be replenished by 100 billion, minus almost $ 200 billion will remain.

But the Chinese obviously bargained for something on this deal. Otherwise, the text of the contract (as has always happened) would be published. And they hide him ... Democracy, damn it!

[Lelek]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

But the Chinese obviously bargained for something

With such an imbalance, and besides, during the debate in Washington on the imposition of sanctions against China for the theft of technology, it is unlikely that a monkey (China) is sitting quietly on a rock, chewing a banana and looking down as a tiger suffocates.

[Masha]

did not start a new war.

He would have to deal with the old ones already untied .... where so much for the new ones ....

[Nait]

then he will go down in the history of the American state as one of his most peace-loving presidents since the beginning of the last century.

Yes, why would?
And Bush and Obama began to be outrageous in the second term.

Quote: Less

He will still have a chance to fix it if he is re-elected as president.

So it will be, Iran will be squeezed.
It will be hot.

[Vasily Ponomarev]

trump is generally a great guy, very cheerful if you listen to his speeches, everything is quite simple, although not without pride

[Romka]

Trump is a non-systemic president. In principle, he cannot make any "sharp movements", even if he really wanted to. The states still have a balanced government. Probably, VVP has a desire to put its "clown" in the president and control him from the outside.

[Old Michael]

Trump is an off-system president.

In terms of political preferences or support for the electorate?
He's just somewhat exalted and "unformatted" under the usual speaking stereotypes. In fact, he is a bright representative of industrial capital, who has now fallen into the arms of the military-industrial complex.
If he can resolve misunderstandings with financial capital (and family ties give such an opportunity) - then all political opponents will go the forest.

[Romka]

Trump is a stranger among the established political elite. He took off like hell out of a snuffbox. This is not needed there. Power in the states exists for the sake of power itself (control), as indeed almost everywhere. Trump has no way to control. Therefore impeachment to begin with. As a hint.

[Old Michael]

Trump has no way to control. Therefore impeachment to begin with.

Undoubtedly, and such can to happen.
However, see again the last paragraph (if / then).
Which option do you think is more likely?

[Romka]

Remember George W. Bush? I remember everything was amazed: how can this one rule such a country (at that time one can say the whole world)? The answer is simple: the country is ruled by a certain group of people and Trump is not out of this sandbox. He is not an authority for them, so the fall of 2020 will be "very warm".

[Old Michael]

Remember George W. Bush?

Yes. And an actor with a red nose, and a saxophonist. And a long-playing NB advisor.
But it seems that both sandboxes will play those toys that they have already prepared. And handed without a pump with Santa Claus. Just in the sandboxes, something will change.
Because industrial capital did not notice how it itself turned into an instrument for solving other tasks of a different scale.

[Romka]

I disagree. Even China is forced to cave in because it initially adopted the rules of the game called "international capitalism." How is it there? "Nothing personal just business".

[Old Michael]

I do not agree. Even China is forced to bend

Yes. But before whom? Who today sets the rules? Already not the military-industrial complex. And not even promkapital as a global single player.
"International capitalism" is already an empty metaphor. Was born and already ate his first sweets financial imperialism.
I will not develop the idea in the comments, it has a lot of obvious.

a country is governed by a specific group of individuals

And this is not just a group, but (according to Marx) the embryo of a socio-economic formation, which is still hard to imagine.

[Romka]

This formation will definitely not have a nation and state affiliation (everyone will come with their own contribution, and the money does not smell). Based on films such as Oblivion, Elysium: Heaven on Earth, etc. I can imagine.

[Old Michael]

This formation will definitely not have a nation and statehood

But it is not there initially, and it cannot be - by definition.

[Old Michael]

everyone will come with his own contribution,

Already come. Others will not be allowed. And so two chairs for three.

[Romka]

Well, maybe so)))

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Romka

Even China is forced to cave in because it initially adopted the rules of the game called "international capitalism"

The experts have a different opinion:

"It is quite difficult to bend Beijing," notes Leonid Krutakov, associate professor of the Department of Political Science at the Financial University under the Government of Russia. calculated their benefits. I believe that China's preferences will be discussed in the second part of the deal or outside the public field. ".

[Romka]

I will quote:
"According to the agreement, China undertakes the following obligations:

guarantees protection of intellectual property and takes measures to solve the problem of forced technology transfer;
refrains from devaluing the renminbi for the sake of competitive advantages in foreign markets;
provides Wall Street with access to its securities market in April, with bids starting on February 1. World investment banks get the opportunity to create fully owned units with the right to engage in investment projects and securities transactions in the capital market of China;
Obliges to issue licenses to companies specializing in asset management for the purchase of overdue loans from Chinese banks;
guarantees the provision of licenses to electronic payment providers such as Mastercard, Visa and American Express Co., within 90 days after the application;
increases US imports of goods and services by at least $ 200 billion over two years.
The obligation of the American side also not to devalue the dollar in order to gain advantages in foreign markets looks more like a formality. On this issue, President Donald Trump has such a much more serious controller and interest as his electorate - American citizens, so the inclusion of this clause in the agreement is just a curtsey towards Beijing to help keep the "capitulator" face.

Much more important for China is the US commitment not to put in place a threat to raise duties on Chinese products even higher (in some cases up to 30%).

[Nikolai Petrov]

The only and, incidentally, quite possible way to save the planet from upheavals and the next wars "for democracy" is to set fire to a civil war in the "stronghold of democracy". Yes, expensive, but it will be worth the expense. While blacks, Jews, and so on ... will find out who is more important - the planet will breathe easy. And there will be no terrorism, no fascism and other disgrace. And as the southern neighbors of Syria say - to wish victory to both those and others and the third. Well, at the same time to trade in weapons, helping with both. Cynically? Yes! But effective.

[kjhg]

Quote: Nikolai Petrov

The planet will breathe calmly. And there will be neither terrorism, nor fascism and other disgrace.

Holy naivety. Both terrorism and fascism existed before the United States became the leading country in the world. And wars have existed since the inception of mankind. Contradictions will not disappear. Wars were, are and will be regardless of the existence of the United States or any other country.

[Nikolai Petrov]

Unfortunately, I have limited time. I meant World Wars. But who sponsored and created fascism, terrorism, this is far from a military secret.
War will be, I agree, but local.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Nikolai Petrov

The only and, incidentally, quite possible way to save the planet from upheavals and the next wars "for democracy" is to set fire to a civil war in the "stronghold of democracy". Yes, expensive, but it will be worth the expense.

It is not that expensive, it is impossible. Simply put, there is no revolutionary situation and there are no conflicts of interest that would require war to resolve them.

Quote: Nikolai Petrov

While the blacks, Jews, etc. ... will find out who is more important

Come on :))))) Tell me, why does a Negro need a civil war? They can kill him there ... Why is he bad now? If you want to work, you will get a normal job, the main thing is to shout louder "This is because I am black !!!" If you don't want to work, you will receive benefits and steal / sell drugs. What will the revolution give a negro that he does not have now?

[Altona]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Tell me, why do we need a black civil war? They can kill him there ... Why is he feeling bad now?

----------------------------------
Well, he doesn't even understand what it is for. The fact that whites "oppress" him is clear to him, the rest does not matter. As for the murder, the ethnic criminality - Negroes, Latinos, all sorts of Indo-Chinese, and so carries away up to 40 people daily in the form of street crime and the right to dominate this activity in the field of drugs, weapons and prostitution.

[rocket757]

As the building manager said, "Istanbul, a city of contrasts!"
The same can be said about America, and about their president, the contrast in Cuba.

[Altona]

Too lazy to write a new comment about Fredovich, so I quote myself:
“Now let's talk about the United States, which is about to“ fall apart. ”Contrary to official television, everything in the United States is not as bad as they write. And Donald Fredovich is not eating his bread in vain as president. Official unemployment has already gone below 4% and is striving to 2,3% (!!!), that is, the American economy is actively attracting workers, and it does not matter how you shout "work, grasshopper, arbeiten, pratsu, etc." Compare with our 4,5% plus 30 million "self-employed ". The number of people receiving food stamps has decreased by 2 million, that is, people began to earn money themselves. Real incomes increased by 3%, and not by 0,1 as in our fairy tale. At the same time, people stand in line in the rain to meet Trump. (there will be elections at the end of the year), and at a meeting, for example, with the well-known Democrat Joseph Biden, there are 300 people, most likely his employees. Trump signed a strategic agreement with China and China opened the market for American food products and LNG. And you say, why did he slam Suleimani? Iran, and China."

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Altona

With elegant tricks spread both Iran and China.

Eugene, I'm sorry. And with what did he divorce both players?
Iran became embittered and hid. In the future, he will probably take out all the anger on Israel. China has bought oil from Iran and is still buying it. And the fact that he agreed to give up and buy US LNG worth 50 billion. So this is for the supply of areas where "Power of Siberia" did not reach. You can't stretch a pipe over the mountains! Therefore, goods from the US $ 100 billion. 1,5 billion Chinese will chew and not grimace. A drop in the ocean will not add its level before the loss of the coastline!

[Altona]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Eugene, I'm sorry.

-------------------------
Sash, well, you at least confirmed my theses with numbers (I didn’t write this, so as not to agitate link lovers) that Trump showed by manipulating the Strait of Hormuz (just a bluff) how he “cut off” China from energy resources. It is difficult to deny him global lobbying for the interests of the United States, and Trump is waging any real, not declared, fight against poverty. The Persians, yes, they got embittered, but with a minuscule money they do not have to choose, apparently counting the cash desk, Iran even admitted the shooting down of the Ukrainian liner, I do not think that with the declared echelon (in the time interval) someone in their right mind and strong memory pressed on " start".

[Fishery]

the feeling that the time of the regular army’s wars against the regular army has passed, some minor skirmishes, hybrid wars, terrorism and partisanism .....

[parusnik]

What does Trump have to do with it? Trump expresses the interests of certain transnational corporations, which lack local ones, as long as they have enough of the roasted chestnuts that others drag from the fire. To kindle, roast chestnuts themselves, snatch them out of the fire is costly, dangerous and painful ...

[Old Michael]

Trump, expresses the interests of certain TNCs,

Does he have a choice?
Probably not. But it may appear (see above). And as usual - between what is difficult to accept and what is impossible to refuse.

[kind]

I wonder if a war or cataclysm starts in the USA, what will change in the world? Yes, and also, where will our "patriots" like Rodnina run? The question is, of course, ambiguous, but still ...

[Altona]

Quote: Good

I wonder if in the United States a war will begin or what cataclysm that will change in the world?

-------------------------------
I wonder how you imagine the war in the United States? The country has a powerful army machine and a police apparatus, the population is completely armed.

[Astronaut]

He is not a hawk, he is a heavily armed pigeon (c)