There's been something of a military schism at work within
the Trump administration. For some time it's been an open secret that the special
forces are more or less out of control. Twenty years of endless war, and certainly
war of this kind has proven to be a golden
age for these groups and they've grown wild and undisciplined.
The stories of murders and posing with corpses have shocked
some but that's because their memories are short or they remain ignorant of just
what war really is. Vietnam was replete with stories of American soldiers
committing large-scale massacres, rape, taking trophies, mutilating enemy
bodies and the like. That's what war is. It turns men into beasts, more animals
than men. If you go digging, you'll find similar stories in Korea and certainly
in World War II. Many Americans would be shocked by some of the stories of how
their 'boys' behaved in France, Germany, Italy and Japan.
And the stories have been leaking out for years about the
conduct of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The senior military
leadership has grown alarmed and they're determined to get a handle on the
situation. They either remember directly or have heard the stories of what
happened to the US military by the early 1970's. It was in a state of near
collapse and this was amplified by the day-to-day dangers of the Indochina
theatre as well as growing aggravation with the draft. The war was unwinnable
and everyone knew the US was just looking for an exit strategy. No one wanted
to die for that, for a war that had already abandoned its meaning and goals.
This was especially true of those had been conscripted. There were mutinies, open
drug use and other defiant behaviour but there were also the mental breakdowns
and the bad conduct.
While the American wars of the 21st century have
been able to avoid the conscription related issues of mutiny and general
insubordination they have not been exempt from the barbarism that all war
generates... especially counter-insurgency. An army of occupation fighting a
semi-underground paramilitary or guerilla force will always result in great
anger and violence toward the civilian populations... and nothing less than
rage directed at captured enemies.
It's obvious some of these soldiers have 'snapped' and have
abandoned any modicum of humanity and yet the propagandised and provincial
public, frustrated by wars that cannot be won and wars they cannot understand,
continues to cry for blood and vengeance and many support this sort of
behaviour and some even publicly admit it. Decades of video game and Hollywood
violence and no small dose of xenophobia and a bit of racism also factor into
the equation, producing a public that celebrates blood and violence and in some
cases they really want to see more of it. It's a refrain I hear all the time.
But this is dangerous and the military leadership knows it. Hotheaded behaviour
undermines authority and in other situations it can aggravate already delicate
situations and lead to undesired results. The military doesn't want superheroes
or Rambo's. It wants obedient robots that follow orders and don't exercise
individual initiative or allow themselves to be overwhelmed by personal
emotions.
The US military has attempted to 'clean house' and was in the
process of clamping down on the military when Trump intervened and pardoned the
SEAL Edward Gallagher who has been accused of war crimes. This played to his political
base and proved popular among those who have the 'wipe them all out' mentality .
However the military leadership was furious and tried to resist.
They have been largely appreciative of Trump but many of these men treasure the
institution they've given their lives to and believe Trump's actions are
working to undermine it and in the long term, damage it. They wanted to make an
example of Gallagher and as such resisted Trump, and there were open attempts
to block Trump's orders. He was making some of the military leaders look like
fools. This resulted in the firing of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer at the end
of November 2019. The media should have made more of this but with impeachment
and a reticence on the part of the media to shine a light on military
problems... the story was sidelined. It's actually been quite scandalous and
divisive within DoD circles.
The simmering controversy all but exploded as of the end of
November 2019 and it's led to a sharp division within the military itself.
Senior members have been shocked to see active duty military members appearing
on the news denouncing either Trump or members of the military leadership that
have resisted him. This in violation of all previous protocols, written and
unwritten. Additionally some within Gallagher's unit were so appalled by his
behaviour on the battlefield that they've taken to the airwaves to denounce
him. If the 'Band of Brothers' mentality, the cohesion that governs special-ops
is broken, then you can be sure the leadership is alarmed.
Again, people are upset and many are utilising the 'this
isn't us' argument, which is actually untrue. It's very much in line with
historic actions and behaviour. There were many Gallagher-types in Vietnam.
There were even some cases of some very sick, sadistic almost serial killer
types that were on the loose and served multiple tours resulting in dozens and
perhaps hundreds of civilian deaths. Their behaviour was tolerated and again,
this tends to happen in all wars. Those who think there are 'good wars' have
been reading the wrong sorts of books, if any at all.
Trump has literally divided the military over his actions.
This is true of the Gallagher case and of course there are other tensions with
regard to his mostly backtracked moves in Syria. The present situation and
state of tension has not been seen since the Vietnam era.
But now with the assassination of Iranian Revolutionary Guard
general Qasem Soleimani, the military will be galvanised and all but forced to
unite around Trump in the face of the external threat of Iran. The military is
on high alert... and guess what nobody is talking about as a result?
In that very cynical sense, there is a degree of political
brilliance in Trump's move. In addition to solidifying the military he has combined
this action with a new campaign geared toward America's Evangelicals which he
launched at a mega-church in Florida. He was cheered and applauded as he spoke
of killing Soleimani. And as expected the prayers demonstrated the heretical confusion
and idolatry within Evangelical thought. Trump is a Cyrus, a messiah for the
movement and they have (blasphemously) confused the wars of the Empire with the
flourishing and strength of the Kingdom, the political success of Trump with
the cause of Christ.
Vice president Pence is playing his part in trying to promote
the patent lie that Soleimani was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. This
too is directed at the mostly ignorant Trump base that will fall for it just as
they did the argument that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and in other cases
that they really did find WMD.
This is also a pre-emptive move on the part of the
administration to cover for what was by all accounts an illegal strike. By
tying Soleimani to 9/11, Pence is trying to justify the attack in terms of the
Congressional authorisation for use of force... an authorisation that continues
to migrate in terms of its scope. While there's little fear of international
law violation, the Trump White House doesn't want to give its domestic enemies
additional ammunition... whether in terms of the impeachment or the 2020
campaign. To be honest I don't think they need to worry on this point. The
public won't get behind a condemnation of the killing.
Finally the attack is also a gift to the Pentagon in that
Trump has continued to expand the scope of presidentially sanctioned assassination,
euphemistically called 'Targeted Killing'. The definition of 'terrorism' is also
being re-worked in that basically anyone opposed to US policy now falls under
the designation. Terrorism which is a battlefield tactic (not a concretised
movement or entity) was associated with paramilitary groups that did not
operate under the aegis of a legitimate (internationally recognised) state.
Members of al Qaeda were thus reckoned as de facto illegitimate. The Bush
administration played this card in the whole 'detainee' game in order to circumvent
the Geneva Accords, and they got away with it.
But under Trump, a terrorist is now anyone who opposes the
US, apparently even if they are a uniformed member of a legitimate state. This
is a line that had not previously been crossed. Don't be fooled by
Congressional protests. They are certainly insincere. It's a case of theatre
and token opposition. The Democrats have consistently supported the expansion
of these policies. They supported Bush, Obama and now (after some smoke and
mirrors) they'll support Trump too... at least on this point. They still want
to take him down and may make some noise about it, but the policy shift will
certainly survive the political process.
But consider the ramifications. Under the reasoning being
used to justify the Soleimani strike, Trump could likewise assassinate a
Russian general within Syria or even Eastern Ukraine. There are American troops
occupying parts of Syria and there have been occasions when Russian troops/mercenaries
and US forces have come into close proximity and even conflict.
Of course the Ukrainian government is a de facto Washington
dependency. Its wars and policies are America's wars and policies... not unlike
the Baghdad government.
How would the assassination of a Russian general sit in terms
of the 'terrorist' argument? It wouldn't. Or imagine a situation in which the
Uighurs rose up and had (with US help) carved out an independent 'East
Turkestan' enclave within Xinjiang. What if the US took out a front-line Chinese
general under such circumstances? The door is being thrown wide open and what
some in the US Establishment fear is that the 'other side' will (in light of
such policies) act along similar lines. If that's the way the game is going to
be played the next Petraeus is a dead man.
The Right-wing media is already spinning this and presenting
anyone who questions Trump's actions as being 'upset' that a 'terrorist' was
killed. This is completely disingenuous reporting and is deliberately choosing
to ignore the larger set of questions surrounding these events. This is in
keeping with the campaign of deception being waged by Pence, Pompeo and others
in the administration.
And while Pompeo can speak of Soleimani and his 'thugs', the
truth is the US has its thugs too. One man's thug is another man's
patriot-hero. From CIA operatives and assets to the death squads the US has
utilised across the globe, to the out-of-control Special Forces units and the
large numbers of mercenaries and 'contractors', the US has its thugs too. But
once again, these terms and this mafia-esque posturing by the administration is
theatre, meant to play to the base. And so far it seems to be working. And you
can be sure that Evangelical leaders will rush to the fore and harshly condemn
any such 'moral equivalence' in comparing 'us' and 'them'. Court theologians
are always the same and we've seen it before.
While the Evangelical leadership has lashed out, attacked and
effectively denounced and discredited Christianity
Today over the recent pro-impeachment editorial, the truth is the editorial
rattled Trump and his advisors. This explains at least in part the timing of
the campaign and the Baghdad strike.
All things considered the Soleimani strike was an act of
political cunning that has the potential to solve many issues for the
administration and its 2020 campaign.
However the move was by all accounts reckless and for every
political and domestic problem solved it has generated multiple problems in the
realm of foreign policy and geopolitics. Some see it as a desperate move by an
empire that sees the dream of unipolarity rapidly disappearing over the
horizon. The story isn't over and so at present we cannot tell just what the
results will be. Tehran is certainly weighing its options and I don't doubt
that targets such as Pompeo and Pence are being considered. But they have to
weigh not only the military backlash but the result in terms of American politics.
Taking out prominent Evangelical politicians has the risk of backfiring and
empowering Trump. Right now he's listening to the likes of Lindsey Graham and
while John Bolton is out of office, clearly members of his faction are still
whispering in Oval Office ears. Khamanei has to save face and I'm sure he
legitimately wants to wound and certainly humiliate the Trump administration
but it's no easy task. There are risks on all sides. There are lies on all
sides.
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.