America’s Neoimperialists

by

Gadfly

           On October 7, 2019, President Trump decided to withdraw American troops from Syria after Turkish President Erdogan had decided to move forces into Syria.  Trump objected to this action; but, when confronted with this scenario, he decided not to leave 28 special forces members in the path as a speed bump.  When the Turkish action expanded, Trump then further directed other American forces to also withdraw.
  

Trump received immediate pushback and condemnation from America’s neo-imperialists, representing Democrats and Republicans.  Others seem to understand the logic for his decision, especially when factoring in the historical and geopolitical context.  In the final analysis, this particular decision combined with others in his first three years in office, should be recognized as President Trump’s well-developed capacity for strategic intuition (of course, my anti-Trump friends are likely laughing or snickering about this assertion because it is contrary to their caricature of Trump).

  

Let’s unpack key points in the preceding paragraph:  historical and geopolitical context, American neoimperialism, and Trump’s strategic intuition.

Historical and Geopolitical Context


           Why is the United States in Syria?  Most would answer:  to defeat or contain ISIS/ISIL.  While this is true, it obfuscates a much broader set of circumstances that make the answer significantly more complicated.

Speaker Pelosi is leading the charge in condemning Trump’s Syria decision.  Ironically, we should remind ourselves of an event that took place in April 2007.  Within three months of Democrats resuming control of both houses of Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi met with Syrian President Bashar al Assad.  This trip was in direct defiance of the President George W. Bush and State Department foreign policy to isolate Assad and his regime.  Through this action, Pelosi revealed her colors in terms of ideology and its justification for violating political norms.  In the process, she “greenlighted” Assad’s subsequent actions to stay in power.  Pelosi broadcasted to the world that political power in America was divided and that there was no loyalty to a duly elected President’s policy agenda.

  

Patterns are important in understanding the nature of behavior, whether virtuous or not.  This past week, Pelosi rebuked President Trump in the White House for his lack of loyalty to the Kurds.  On Saturday, she led a Congressional delegation (one token Republican who will not run for reelection) to Jordan to discuss the situation in Syria.  Pelosi’s message to the world:  Trump is not America’s legitimate President.

  

Article II of our Constitution gives foreign policy authority to the Executive branch (led by the President), not Congress.  Article I gives Congress legislative powers that may shape or constrain foreign policy; this is why they have oversight authority—but this is merely to ensure proper application of any legislation.

   

There is an old saying, “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”  The saying usually refers to adultery.  In this case, Pelosi is married to an ideology, and she will punish Trump or anyone else who does not submit to her ideology.

Let us also not forget that Pelosi was elected from one Congressional district in California—San Francisco.  While she and her husband live in luxury in a gated community, thousands of homeless and drug addicted persons wonder the city that was once a favorite tourist attraction.  She has done nothing for her neighbors but now wants to virtue signal about abandoning Kurdish people.

The leftist media were quick to say Trump “greenlighted” Erdogan’s actions.  When one controls a megaphone, he or she controls the narrative.  Framing is the most important part of the narrative.  So they suggest Trump violated some norms.  In this case that he abandoned “allies.”  The most reliable norms are those grounded in the law, such as international law, treaties, and so forth.  These are the norms (and framework) within which Trump operates.  Was the President supposed to coerce Erdogan, the elected leader of a sovereign nation, into not pursuing his actions?  By what authority?  Turkey is a sovereign nation and a member of NATO.  Syria is a sovereign nation and not a member of NATO.  The Kurds are an ethnic demographic that is not a sovereign nation (although it has been recognized as a quasi-state called Kurdistan since around 1970 by other political factions in the region), nor is it a member of NATO, nor is it homogenous.  There are Turkish, Syrian, and Iraqi Kurds (see LTC [USMC, retired] Mike Ford’s excellent article on Kurdish demographics here).  Some Kurds also live in Iran.

  

To complicate this quagmire are Russia’s interests.  Russia is a friend of Syria and is courting Turkey.  Is there an opportunity for Russia to be part of the solution?  Given Turkey’s proximity to former Soviet republics, Russia seems to have a greater interest from a geopolitical perspective.  Russia needs opportunities to be more constructive as a  former major power.  To understand this requires strategic intuition.  Perhaps, those not already blinded by America’s neoimperialists might envision a more stable and durable future with Russia (and Europe) as a positive player.  Trump understands this.

For a reasoned explanation of the Turkish, Syrian, and Kurdish situation see Mike Ford’s series of articles here, here, here, and here.  In the last article, Ford discusses the intentions and consequences of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement.  The imperialist nations involved in this action of redrawing national boundaries of the former Ottoman Empire were Great Britain, France, Russia, and Italy.  The United States played no role.  Today, Russia is still involved.  Where are the great powers of Great Britain, France, and Italy in mitigating the consequences of their imperialism from the early 1900s?

Turkey is mostly Sunni.  Kurds are mostly Sunni.  Syria is mostly Sunni.  ISIS/ISIL is Sunni.  In other words, the players here are mostly Sunni Muslims.  Other players in the regional conflict are Saudi Arabia, mostly Sunni, and Iran, mostly Shia (which is but one manifestation of Islamism’s contradictions).

  

We are told Islam is a religion of peace.  If this were so, then why is the Middle East one of the most unpeaceful regions in the world?  Perhaps there is a simple clue:  the word Islam means submission. 

The absurdity here is that the Islamic model for peace requires total submission to an ideology that is flawed due to its internal contradictions.  The same is true for America’s neoimperialists (especially those who champion the oppressed while championing a mother’s right to kill the child in her womb).

America’s Neoimperialists


           What is imperialism?   According to Dictionary.com, imperialism is “the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.”   American domestic and foreign policy has manifested imperialism throughout our history:  internally in conquering native Americans in our westward expansion; externally in coopting proxy allies (like the Kurds) in its defense against communist expansion (like ISIS/ISIL).


           A new form of external imperialism (neoimperialism) took shape during the Clinton Administration in its series of military operations other than war (MOOTW).  We studied the MOOTW phenomenon when I was a student at the Air War College in the 1990s.  While prominent in the 1990s, the United States has a record of MOOTW beginning in 1916 (see Appendix A in a RAND monograph here), the same year as the signing of the Sykes-Picot Agreement.  Even in 1994, I realized American policy was imperialistic and argued this point in a paper that America’s Middle Eastern policy ignored or dismissed the sovereign role the Gulf Cooperation Council could play in managing the region’s conflict-related issues.


           Of course, George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four clearly understood the importance of imperialism in the disguise of Big Brother “protection” in Oceania’s endless war.  Big Brother (the establishment) preached “War is Peace.”  The ruled depended upon this power for their safety.  Nineteen Eighty-Four was merely a dystopian novel; but it stemmed from Orwell’s observation of socialism up through the mid-1940s.


           “Endless wars.”  Does this sound familiar?  Donald Trump campaigned on his opposition to endless wars.  Again, why do we have American forces in Syria?  Mostly to protect us from ISIS/ISIL.  In my opinion, the only way we can defeat this threat is to defeat the ideology.  But this is an unwanted challenge for America’s neoimperialists.
  

           America’s neoimperialists (an empire defined as a monolithic political ideology—Marxist progressivism) are still engaged in domestic conquest:  the progressive ideology must defeat any views that are different.  The progressive ideology is Marxist, which involves a ruling elite to liberate the oppressed.  This is why identity politics and illegal immigration are critical to this ideology.  To progressives, individual liberty is oppressive.  This is why progressives advance political correctness (some free speech is offensive) and safe spaces on college campuses.  To progressives, collective liberty is liberating.  Like Islam, Marxism and its neoimperialist facade called progressivism is based on contradictions: “War Is Peace,” “Political Correctness Is Truth,” “Submission Is Freedom,” “Criminal Activity Is Just” (e.g., sanctuary cities or states), “Plunder Is Just” (e.g., progressive tax schemes to redistribute wealth), and so forth.


           America’s neoimperialists no longer hide in the open.  They are now blatant because they control the narrative (in the media, academia, government, and Hollywood) that in turn shapes public sentiment, to include Republicans.


           In a recent New York Times Newsletter, David Leonhardt encouraged Elizabeth Warren to become “ruthless” toward President Trump.  Leonhardt and his leftist ideologues imply that President Trump is all by himself, as if he does not represent the political will of half of America’s population.  But, Trump and half of America have a view that is not consistent with the progressive ideology.  This is evidence of a civil war.


           The left talks about the political divide (that they arguably created and continue to magnify).  They presume they are the ones to unite Americans.  What do they mean by “uniting Americans”?  One party—just like Soviet Communism and Chinese Communism.  There is no compromise.  It’s progressivism or nothing.  If the left cannot win, no one can.


           As for Republicans, they either do not understand the strategic implications of America’s civil war, or they lack any ounce of a backbone (shall we say courage?).  This is not the first time Republican fecklessness led to a major shift in America’s political dynamics.  At one point early in his first term, President George W. Bush enjoyed nearly 90% approval.  This did not bode well in terms of political capital for Democrats.  Democrats, then the minority in both houses of Congress, orchestrated an anti-Bush campaign in concert with a leftist media.  By 2006, Democrats took back both houses of Congress and, using that momentum, prepped the political battleground for Obama’s election in 2008.  Where were the Republicans during this anti-Bush campaign?  Most slithered into the shadows and left Bush on his own to fight a two-front war:  America’s leftist neoimperialists and Islamic terrorism in the Middle East.


           Bush is not without some blame.  He had confidence in the “advice” from neoconservatives that were and are part of a neoimperialistic political establishment.  He would not admit it, but Bill Clinton as well as Hillary Clinton were and are neoconservatives (look at Clinton’s national strategies that involved democratizing the world).
  

As in the anti-Bush campaign, today’s Republicans are demonstrating how easily duped they can be by recklessly voting along with Democrats to condemn President Trump’s decision in Syria.  Of all of them, perhaps the most self-serving Republican leading the campaign against President Trump is Mitt Romney (I voted for him; he did not appear to be ruthless at the time).  Unfortunately, evil is banal until it achieves momentum; then it fully displays its true nature.

           As much as the left and many feckless Republicans caricaturize and resist President Trump’s authority as a duly elected President, they do not recognize, let alone appreciate, his strategic intuition.
              

Trump’s Strategic Intuition


           I first learned about strategic intuition from a book by William Duggan, Strategic Intuition:  The Creative Spark in Human Achievement.  (Note:  for context, I read this book along with a lot of others and journal articles during my work as a strategic analyst in addressing Islamist counterterrorism).


           According to Duggan, there are three types of intuition:  ordinary, expert, and strategic.  Ordinary intuition is a feeling or an undeveloped hunch about something.  The leftist media seems to demonstrate this type in its constant narrative against Trump. House Republicans who voted to condemn Trump’s decision about Syria demonstrated this type of intuition.

Expert intuition represents snap judgments requiring action in familiar circumstances.  Napoleon exercised expert tuition on the battlefield.  Current anti-Trump flag officers such as Admiral McRaven (see for example his recent New York Times op-ed here) attempt to inject their geopolitical views from an expert tuition perspective.  Firefighters demonstrate expert intuition when fighting fires in different scenarios.

  

Regarding strategic intuition, here is how Duggan describes it on his book jacket: “Strategic intuition is a clear thought.  And it’s not fast like expert intuition.  It’s slow.  That flash of insight you had last night might solve a problem that’s been on your mind for a month.  And it doesn’t happen in familiar situations, like a tennis match.  Strategic intuition works in new situations.  That’s when you need it most.”  Recent Presidents who demonstrated strategic intuition are Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Trump.  Recent flag officers who demonstrated strategic intuition are Generals Fogelman (institutional character-based culture), Petraeus (regional cultural diversity), and Schwartz (institutional relevance into the future).

     

Duggan, by the way, is highly critical of President Trump (see here).  Duggan has written three books, was a strategy consultant for 20 years, and is a professor of business at Columbia University.

  

Of course, Columbia has become somewhat of an echo chamber for leftist ideologies and ideologues.  American Communist Bella Dodd and her academic cohort received their first indoctrination and training in communist methods at Columbia.  Richard Clowan and Frances Fox Piven found tenure at Columbia and fertile ground to advance their socialist strategies involving the collapse of capitalism to open the door for a socialist government.  For example, see here.  When one looks at the accumulation of national debt and unfunded liabilities, the Clowan-Piven strategy to achieve national bankruptcy appears to be working.

  

One final note about Columbia.  Following World War II, Dwight Eisenhower was hired to serve as President of Columbia University.  While his tenure was relatively short, there is no mention of Eisenhower on Columbia’s website history.  Eisenhower understood the threat of Soviet and Chinese Communism and initiated policies to contain it during what is known as The Cold War.  Eisenhower was not a leftist ideologue; thus, Columbia expelled him from their elitist club.

In comparison to Duggan, Trump has owned and run businesses for five decades, worked the complicated nexus between political power players (government) and the private sector, and has authored at least 14 books.  Three of Trump’s books laid the groundwork for becoming the duly elected President of the United States:  The America We Deserve (2000), Time to Get Tough:  Make America Great Again (2011); and Crippled America:  How to Make America Great Again (2015).  Trump’s books revealed his thinking over many years.

  

Contrary to Admiral McRaven’s assertion that “Trump is attacking on our republic,” Trump believes very strongly in the foundational principles of a Constitutional Republic.  He believes in the checks and balances of our Constitution.  He believes in federalism.  He believes in the rule of law.  He believes in truth (which he knows is distorted by fake news) and justice.  He also believes in God and that our inalienable rights were granted by God.  As one of our nation’s Founders/Framers observed, a constitutional republic can only work for a moral and religious people.

  

There are no surprises in Trump’s agenda.  He wrote about it, promised it in his presidential campaign, and is now fulfilling his promises except where he is being blocked by a leftist House of Representatives and leftist federal judges.  These are America’s neoimperialists, totally committed to uniting America under one progressive political party.

The leftist progressives, publicly led by their poster child Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are ruthless.  Ruthlessness is not a virtue.  And even acts that appear virtuous, such as virtue signaling compassion for the Kurds, do not reveal the motivation for “virtue signaling.”  It is the motivation that determines virtue or vice and a pattern that is consistent with the motivation.  In this case, the Kurds are mere instruments (as are blacks, the LGTB, women, illegal immigrants, etc.) in the left’s scheme to continue their broader leftist cabal to undermine and remove a duly elected President who seeks liberty and justice for all.

The Department of Justice Inspector General Report (when finally released) and the Barr/Durham investigations might be enough to disrupt the leftist grip on America.  If not, we may all soon be addressing each other as “comrade.”