Trump +730: Who's in Charge?

Politics always has its twists and turns but between Brexit and Donald Trump one never knows what is coming next. What a tumultuous time.

On 20 January 2019, Trump will have been in office for exactly two years or 730 days. It's a good moment to take a moment and reflect on many points but something has really been glaring to me as of late.

As far as Trump is concerned it is legitimate to ask 'who is in charge' as there have been definite occasions in which his rhetoric and orders seem to be countermanded.

The recent revelations regarding the FBI are telling. Apparently the ghost of J Edgar Hoover is alive and well though no one person is able to wield the kind of dominant power he was able to exercise. And yet it would seem the agency has long been monitoring and investigating major political candidates and even (as was recently revealed) sitting presidents.

Even a brief reflection on this point reveals something of the complexity and multifaceted nature of the Deep State. It's very real as the FBI investigation demonstrates. There are forces working within the executive that operate independent of those elected to political office. And yet anyone who has followed the host of scandals surrounding US foreign policy and intelligence will know that in many cases the FBI is playing a Spy vs. Spy game with the CIA and other agencies. Sometimes the FBI and CIA are working together. Sometimes they're rivals. Sometimes they're working against each other.

Once again the error in most 'conspiratorial' thinking and assessments is viewing the question and thus the solution in monolithic terms. There is a Deep State and there are conspiracies and yet they're not being run by one cabal but instead a multifaceted machine in which there is coordination as well as rivalry, betrayal, revenge and an ever vicious ambition. There are schisms, deaths and people rising and falling. Some scandals are real, others are manufactured and some are exploited and made into something much greater than what really took place.

These are the Praetorian networks. They can defend Caesar to the utmost and take care of his dirty work. Or, they can take him down. They are the power behind the throne and yet they have their own rivalries and allegiances. It's a multi-faceted and multi-layered labyrinth of power and the wars and struggles they engage in are no less complicated. They twist and turn and betrayals are common.

Is Trump at war with the Deep State? Are elements within the Deep State affiliated with Trump?

Yes.

And so because of its multifaceted nature and its seeming (and sometimes real) disunity, some can even deny its existence. They can say there's no 'Deep State' just a complex of social, political and business driven interests... and they have a point.

And yet there are circles of power with very aggressive and potent players who are directed by the power elite, praetorians or those aspiring to be. There are anti-democratic factions within these circles that are able (under certain circumstances) to wield tremendous power and do so in direct opposition to law and official policy... not to mention the will and/or consent of the people. It must be remembered that these are people who believe in democracy, only when it's convenient to do so.

Trump is at war with certain of these elements but he's also allied with some very powerful factions. That said, even those on 'his team' are in some cases part of a larger agenda and also answer to other powers. In other words I think it can be questioned as to just how many are truly loyal to him and this in part explains his heavy reliance on his own family. He does not have many people he can trust.

The president of the United States is an undeniably powerful position and yet the level of that power depends on the politics of the hour and the person wielding the office. Some know how to use it and some don't. Some know how to manage and others become managed. Some sit atop a colossal machine that they're able to steer and others operate in very narrow circles and are only able to pull very weak strings beyond the explicit limits of their political office.

Trump is by some estimates a 'strong' president as his iconoclasm has taken many off guard. The chaos he generates is something he has (at times) been able to exploit. But in many other respects he has proven to be a very weak president. Obviously he's not easy to manipulate but his managerial and intellectual faculties are so limited that he seems unable to reckon with those who simply circumvent him and in some cases countermand his orders. And so in that sense he can be manipulated. I think what is most telling is the point just made about trust. He has very few that he can legitimately rely upon and thus I think his power is pretty restricted.

At one time Trump seemed to be an opponent of the Neo-Conservatives that formerly dominated the policy of the White House. By the end of the Bush administration they had fallen out of favour and yet they've never gone away and in many respects their agenda has now morphed and mutated into a multi-pronged programme which has successfully infiltrated both major political parties. Ironically the Republicans have moved so far to the Right and have fragmented that at this point in time the 'NeoCons' are probably finding more resonance within the DNC which has in some areas moved far to the right.

And yet Trump has in many ways embraced certain aspects of Neo-Conservative thought. While he decries US policy in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan he's on board with their pro-Israel and anti-Iran policies. Trump's relationship with Erdogan has been pretty shaky and inconsistent. At present he seems to want to 'make up' with Erdogan and pull him back into the US/NATO orbit and yet clearly John Bolton and perhaps Pompeo represent the NeoCon faction that wants to see Erdogan removed. No fans of Obama, his administration's seemingly quiet support for the 2016 Turkish coup would have been something they supported as was the overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya. Their main criticism of Obama was the fact that he wasn't nearly aggressive enough. His 'weakness' allowed the Muslim Brotherhood in the person of Mohamed Morsi to briefly come to power in Egypt... though he was (after considerable violence) replaced by a largely pro-Western secular military dictator. Despite some bad press El-Sisi is just the sort of leader the US wants to see in a place like Egypt. And while these folks would have heartily supported the overthrow of Qaddafi, they will not vocalise support for what was largely a Hilary Clinton operation. Their criticisms of 'leading from behind' and 'lack of planning' are disingenuous and largely fallacious.

Likewise Obama proved 'weak' with regard to Syria. He didn't aggressively pursue the overthrow of Assad and backed down when Assad (supposedly) used chemical weapons on his own people. His 'weakness' left the door open for Moscow to step in. It's a false narrative and besides the fact it's not one that Christians can embrace from any angle.

Some NeoCons want to take on China which is the 'Blue Team' view Trump has subscribed to but most of them see the Middle East and Vladimir Putin as far greater threats to US interests.

Trump shocked NeoCon circles and various elements within the Establishment (and thus the Deep State) with his recent announcement that US troops would pull out of Syria.

Already Bolton, Pompeo and the NeoCons at work in the think-tanks, Pentagon and in the media have effectively countermanded his order. They've done their best to 'spin' his statements so as to save face but clearly, Trump is not fully in charge.

Those paying attention were especially shocked when he appointed John Bolton to the position of National Security Advisor. Bolton is a certified warmonger, a nationalist fanatic that would entangle the US in multiple wars if given the chance. Indeed the US is already involved in multiple wars but for Bolton, it's not enough.

Recently Bolton spoke of a Troika of Tyranny, something of an echo of Bush's Axis of Evil. Bolton identified Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua as threats to the United States and effectively called for regime change. Indeed the US has already sponsored a Venezuelan government in exile... waiting to step in when Maduro falls. Cuba's moves toward the United States were not enough and for people like Bolton, regime change is the only answer. They must be punished and brought into line. And even though Nicaragua's Ortega is no longer the fiery Leftist he was in the 1980's, powerful factions in Washington want him gone.

These along with Morales in Bolivia are the last resistors to the latest round of Monroe Doctrine implementation. Bolton will brook no dissent and while Trump continues his buffoonish antics about 'the wall' it's Bolton, Pompeo, the CIA and the Pentagon who continue to pursue the real policy with regard to Latin America.

And while a friendly Erdogan might be preferable to a Putin-allied Erdogan, the NeoCons really just want him removed and replaced with a good Kemalist who promotes Turkism as opposed to Islam and will see NATO as the necessary ally... and thus Moscow and Tehran as both historical and contemporary threats.

How long will Bolton and Pompeo last? Who knows? With Trump anything is possible. Personally I am also keen to know more about Pence's role in all this. It has not yet become clear and with Pence and Pompeo there are specifically 'Christian' elements to their involvement that require notice. Trump's presidency has now descended into a severe state of crisis but the battles and scheming continue and will continue even if he's gone.