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.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Loess 20 January 2020 15: 21 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    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.
    1. Old Michael 20 January 2020 17: 34 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      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.
      1. Boa kaa 20 January 2020 20: 51 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: OldMichael
        So the world is changing.

        Right remark!
        In fact, according to the long-standing Anglo-Saxon tradition (paradigm), it is necessary to “wet” a competitor advancing on the heels of the hegemon ... But now it has turned out to be China, a nuclear power with a steady trend of progressive development ... The multipolar world is becoming more and more danced .. But this is what bothers me:
        Not for nothing that American experts and the media are discussing with might and main Thucydides trap - 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 US once got out of this "trap": they managed to destroy the Soviet Union thanks to its economic weakness and the ideological propaganda war won by Hollywood. With China, such successes have not been recorded. But this, from the point of view of the main ideologists of anti-Chinese politics (such as the head of the election headquarters of Trump, Steve Bannon), only means that you need to push harder, and do it at the same time for 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) of tens of millions of jobs and related production capacities and, if possible, to completely separate Beijing from the American and Western markets, and also prevent it from developing its own high-tech sector. All attempts to set fire to Hong Kong, to tear apart the “Uyghur issues”, to ban the European Union from using the products of the Chinese company Huawei, as well as all attempts to strangle the Chinese project “One Belt, One Way”, are links of the same chain. The very chain that Trump wants to use as a stranglehold on Beijing’s neck, and then use this chain to pull China into the past - about 30 years ago, in order to drive it into the state it was in before the era of globalization and relocation productions from all over the western world to the Middle Kingdom.
        1. Old Michael 20 January 2020 22: 32 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          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 seems to be a significant change in the channel of global financial flows. Europe quickly explained the border 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 the “noose” is more like a product for mutual satisfaction of perverts.
  2. prior 20 January 2020 15: 34 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    "In the world, Donald Trump has a reputation for being a hawk."

    Rather, Donald is our Trump - a Hamburg rooster (from the word hamburger).
  3. knn54 20 January 2020 15: 49 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    He is not a hawk, he is a HOOLIGAN.
  4. BARKAS 20 January 2020 15: 52 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    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.
    1. Berber 20 January 2020 16: 39 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      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.
      1. BARKAS 20 January 2020 17: 25 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I mean, you can’t invest money in new projects and wars without getting profit from the previous financial pyramid, lenders will not understand.
        1. Berber 22 January 2020 08: 52 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Even the “absolute monarch” does not have the full power. And the president needs to take into account many interests. And not everything depends on him. This is the success of the politician - to lead his line regardless of conditions.
    2. Lelek 20 January 2020 19: 49 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: BARKAS
      Under Trump, one complete failure in achieving his goals.

      hi
      Well, do not tell. Take the latest trade agreement with China. ”Trump won a brilliant victory.
      1. Boa kaa 20 January 2020 21: 11 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        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!
        1. Lelek 21 January 2020 14: 09 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: BoA 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.
  5. Masha 20 January 2020 15: 54 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    did not start a new war.

    He would have to deal with the old ones already untied .... where so much for the new ones .... yes
  6. Nait 20 January 2020 15: 59 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    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.
  7. Vasily Ponomarev 20 January 2020 16: 04 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    trump is generally a great guy, very cheerful if you listen to his speeches, everything is quite simple, although not without pride
  8. Romka 20 January 2020 16: 45 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Trump is an off-system president. In principle, he cannot make any “sudden movements,” even if he really wants to. The states still have balanced power. Perhaps the GDP also had a desire to put its "clown" in the president and manage it from the side.
    1. Old Michael 20 January 2020 17: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Trump is an off-system president.

      In terms of political preferences or support for the electorate?
      He is simply somewhat exalted and “unformatted” to the usual speaking stereotypes. But in fact - a vivid representative of industrial capital, now in the arms of the defense industry.
      If he can resolve misunderstandings with financial capital (and family ties give such an opportunity) - then all political opponents will go the forest.
      1. Romka 20 January 2020 19: 10 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        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.
        1. Old Michael 20 January 2020 19: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          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?
          1. Romka 20 January 2020 19: 27 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Remember George W. Bush? I remember everyone was amazed: how can this one govern such a country (at that time one can say the whole world)? The answer is simple: the country is controlled by a certain group of people and Trump is not from this sandbox. He does not have authority for them, so the fall of 2020 will be "very warm."
            1. Old Michael 20 January 2020 19: 43 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              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.
              1. Romka 20 January 2020 19: 54 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                I do not agree. Even China is forced to cave in, because initially it adopted the rules of the game called "international capitalism". How is it there? "Nothing personal just business".
                1. Old Michael 20 January 2020 20: 13 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  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. Born and already ate his first snacks 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.
                  1. Romka 20 January 2020 20: 25 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    This formation will definitely not have a nation or statehood (everyone will come with their own contribution, but the money will not smell). For films such as Oblivion, Elysium: Paradise on Earth, etc. sad I can imagine.
                    1. Old Michael 20 January 2020 20: 35 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      This formation will definitely not have a nation and statehood

                      But it is not there initially, and it cannot be - by definition.
                    2. Old Michael 20 January 2020 20: 38 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      everyone will come with his own contribution,

                      Already come. Others will not be allowed. And so two chairs for three.
                      1. Romka 20 January 2020 20: 40 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Well, maybe so)))
                2. Boa kaa 20 January 2020 21: 28 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Romka
                  Even China is forced to cave in, because initially it adopted the rules of the game called "international capitalism"
                  The experts have a different opinion:
                  “It’s quite difficult to get through Beijing,” said Leonid Krutakov, assistant professor of political science at the Financial University under the Government of Russia. “The Chinese have a soft position, designed for several areas of negotiations at once. Therefore, I think if they agreed on something, then probably already calculated their benefits. I believe that China’s preferences will be discussed in the second part of the transaction or outside the public field ".
                  1. Romka 20 January 2020 21: 41 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    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 to gain advantages in foreign markets looks more like a formality. In this matter, 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 simply a curtsy in the direction of Beijing to help preserve the "capitulant" 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%).
  9. Nikolai Petrov 20 January 2020 16: 46 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    The only and, by the way, quite possible way to save the Planet from shocks and the next wars "for democracy" is to set fire to a civil war in the "bastion of democracy" itself. Yes, it’s expensive, but it will be worth the cost. While the blacks, Jews, etc. ... will find out who is more important - the Planet will breathe calmly. And there will be neither terrorism, nor fascism and other disgrace. And as the southern neighbors of Syria say - wish victory to both those and others and the third. Well, at the same time, trade in arms, helping both of these. Cynically? Yes! But effective.
    1. kjhg 20 January 2020 16: 55 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      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.
      1. Nikolai Petrov 20 January 2020 17: 01 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        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.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 20 January 2020 17: 12 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: Nikolai Petrov
      The only and, by the way, quite possible way to rid the Planet of shocks and the next wars "for democracy" is to set fire to a civil war in the "bastion of democracy" itself. Yes, it’s expensive, but it will be worth the cost.

      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

      C'mon :))))) Tell me, why do I need a black civil war? They can kill him there ... Why is he feeling bad now? If you want to work, you will get a normal job, the main thing is to yell 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 Negro give the revolution that he does not have now?
      1. Altona 20 January 2020 21: 10 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        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 won’t even understand what it is for. The fact that White “oppresses” him is understandable to him, the rest does not matter. As for killing, ethnic crime is blacks, Latinos, all kinds of Indo-Chinese, and so it kills up to 40 people daily in the form of street crime and the rights to dominate this activity in the field of drugs, weapons and prostitution.
  10. rocket757 20 January 2020 17: 07 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    As the manager of "Istanbul, the city of contrasts!" Said
    The same can be said about America, and about their president, the contrast in Cuba.
  11. Altona 20 January 2020 18: 00 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    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 USA is not so bad as they write. And Donald Fredovich is not in vain eating his bread 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 doesn’t matter how you shout "work, travos, arbeiten, praz, etc." Compare with our 4,5% plus 30 million "self-employed ". The number of people receiving food stamps decreased by 2 million people, that is, people began to earn money themselves. Real incomes grew whether by 3%, and not by 0,1, as in our fairy tale, while people are waiting in line for meetings with Trump (there will be elections at the end of the year), and at the meeting, for example, with the well-known democrat Joseph Biden, 300 people most likely its employees. Trump has signed a strategic agreement with China and China has opened the market for American food products and LNG. And you say why he suleimani banged? He threw Iran and China with elegant tricks. "
    hi
    1. Boa kaa 20 January 2020 21: 55 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      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, surely all the anger will be swallowed up on Israel. China just buys oil from Iran. And the fact that he agreed to cede and buy American LNG for 50 billion. So this is to supply areas where the "Power of Siberia" did not reach. You don’t stretch a pipe in the mountains! Therefore, goods from the United States 100 billion dollars. 1,5 billion Chinese people survive and do not frown. A drop in the sea does not add its level to the loss of the coastline!
      1. Altona 20 January 2020 22: 45 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: BoA KAA
        Eugene, I'm sorry.

        -------------------------
        Sasha, well, you at least confirmed my theses with a digital figure (I didn’t write this, so as not to disturb link lovers) that Trump by manipulating the Strait of Hormuz (just a bluff) showed how he "cuts off" China from energy resources. It is difficult to refuse him global lobbying for US interests, and Trump is waging any real, non-declared, fight against poverty. hi The Persians, yes, became embittered, but they shouldn’t have to choose with a small amount of money, apparently having counted the cash register, Iran even acknowledged the downing of the Ukrainian airliner, I don’t think that with the declared flight level (in the time interval) someone in his right mind and hard memory pressed start". hi
  12. Fishery 20 January 2020 18: 09 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    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 .....
  13. parusnik 20 January 2020 18: 31 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    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 ...
    1. Old Michael 20 January 2020 19: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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.
  14. kind 20 January 2020 20: 13 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I wonder if in the United States a war will begin or what cataclysm that will change in the world? Yes, and also, where will our "patriots" like Rodnina run to? The question is of course ambiguous, but still ...
    1. Altona 20 January 2020 21: 15 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      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. laughing
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. Astronaut 21 January 2020 00: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    He is not a hawk, he is a heavily armed pigeon (c)