Mr. Trump Goes to War

By Stephen Eric Bronner, Reader Supported News

10 April 17

merica first!” was the slogan that helped elect Donald Trump president of the United States in 2016. He was insistent that engagement in conflicts abroad should occur only when the American “national interest” was explicitly being served. After waffling on the invasion of Iraq, Trump spent the Obama years warning against heightened involvement in the Middle East and, as late as March 30, 2017, Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley could state that deposing Assad was “no longer a priority.” The new president also maintained that solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict should be left to the combatants, thereby keeping in place the existing imbalance of power that favored America’s staunch ally: Israel. Determining the character of the national interest is, admittedly, difficult. Many shifting factors are involved. Ultimately, however, it privileges cold realism over the idealism associated with human rights. To this extent, indeed, there is a certain minimal logic to using the national interest as a criterion for conducting foreign policy.

But there was no logic in Trump’s shocking about-face of April 7, 2017, following Syrian president Bashar Assad’s alleged Sarin attack that cost the lives of more than 100 men, women, and children living in rebel territory. The American president had apparently seen television news about the atrocity before abruptly deciding to launch dozens of Tomahawk missiles against a Syrian airfield in an attack killing yet another nine civilians, including four children. Some suspicions exist regarding Assad’s guilt, and Trump was apparently warned about rushing to judgment by his own director of the CIA (Robert Parry, Consortiumnews.com, April 8, 2017). Whether the Syrian president was culpable or not, however, Trump’s response made no sense morally, tactically, or strategically. The bombing may have given a boost to his floundering presidency; it deflected attention from the many scandals (including “Russia-gate”) plaguing his administration; and it will undoubtedly be used to justify Trump’s demand for a 10% increase in defense spending. Nevertheless, serving the president’s interest is not the same as serving the national interest.

Bombing the Syrian airfield was an impulsive act driven by thoughts of revenge and the desire to “do something.” No mainstream commentator has provided a meaningful practical justification for the attack, specified what it will accomplish, or explained its beneficial implications for shortening the Syrian civil war or helping the battle against ISIS. Still, liberal-hawk leaders of the Democratic Party like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (again) fell into line. The support given Trump was reminiscent of that given George W. Bush in the early stages of the Iraq war. It seems that little has been learned.

Of course, the “facts on the ground” remain unchanged. Those rebelling against Assad’s regime are still fractured into competing factions and the strongest is still al-Qaeda and its offshoot the al-Nusra front. There is not a single national leader among them and, consequently, the United States still lacks a viable domestic ally. Bonds between Assad and his benefactors, Iran and Russia, remain intact. And Trump’s action doesn’t help the 500,000 Syrians killed in this worthless war or the millions more that have been displaced. Completely reversing policy because yet another hundred people tragically died in a chemical attack is absurd. The American bombing hangs in the abstract. The link between tactics and strategy is still missing.

Once again, the United States has unilaterally appointed itself the world’s policeman. The double standard that allows the United States to intervene arbitrarily, where other states may not, has again been employed. “Mission creep,” or the gradual slide from military intervention to regime change to nation building, which marked Bush’s Afghani and Iraqi policies, again looms large in Syria and, just as with his predecessor, Trump has no exit strategy. In fact, he has no strategy at all. A single strike is neither a “proportional response” (whatever that means) nor a tactic that will affect Assad’s conduct. If anything, it will strengthen the Syrian president’s bonds with Iran and drive a wedge between Putin and Trump. Indeed, this doesn’t bode well.

Trump’s right-wing populist rhetoric has already alienated leaders of the European Union like Angela Merkel, and his recent meeting with the Chinese president, Xi Peng, has not decreased tensions. Trump’s perverse version of Disraeli’s “splendid isolation” is anything but splendid. His few remaining friends in the Middle East include Israel plus the authoritarian and deeply reactionary Sunni nations like Bahrain, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia and the Syrian rebels. No less than ISIS, indeed, the latter poses a genuine danger to the Alawites, Christians, Shia, and other groups (now protected by Assad) whose interests demand recognition in any new Syrian state. Trump’s action privileges deposing the Syrian tyrant over battling ISIS, whose own barbarian agents have butchered about 200,000 people while engineering countless terror attacks in Europe and the United States. Shia states and organizations have been the most effective forces fighting ISIS and, given the rivalries within the Sunni opposition, a new Syrian civil war is a distinct possibility after this one ends.

Gandhi once famously stated that “an eye for an eye only ends by making the whole world blind.” Neither humanitarian values nor interests have been served by Trump’s actions. American officials have already directed threats of military strikes against North Korea and Iran. The prospects for intensified involvement in Iraq have also been raised. Consensual support for this attack only strengthens the temptation of a president desperately seeking approval to take the next step. Americans rally around the flag when the country goes to war — any war. But sustained support for policies that don’t serve the national interest have been difficult to sustain. It’s worth remembering Iraq. Trump’s show of force in Syria is exactly the kind of action that the American public initially applauds — and then lives to regret.

Stephen Eric Bronner is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University. His most recent works are The Bigot: Why Prejudice Persists (Yale University Press) and The Bitter Taste of Hope: Ideals, Ideologies and Interests in the Age of Obama (SUNY Press).

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

Can the Democrats Find America Again?

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

10 April 17

ne of the most brilliant political campaign advertisements I have ever seen was this Bernie Sanders “America” ad.

This should be what politics is all about, seeking an America that we all believe in. Barack Obama understood that in his campaign. He presented a vision of hope and change that inspired millions of Americans to believe that “Yes We Can.”

Donald Trump, no matter what you think about the divisive campaign tactics he used, also inspired millions of Americans to believe in an America that they could be proud of again.

Bernie understood the American people’s yearning for an America that represents their values. We don’t agree on how to get there, but we all seek the America that people dream about.

We all seek an America with opportunity for all. We are all looking an America where everyone has a quality standard of living. That includes a job that doesn’t leave them in poverty. That includes a quality education. It includes quality health care.

For many of us, that is what we are looking for. But for too many, the dream is about greed and narrow-mindedness. I don’t have anything against wealth: it’s stepping over others to achieve it that is the problem. It’s leaving others in poverty and not wanting to help them have the same opportunities that is a problem.

I believe we can all be successful if we provide an opportunity for everyone. Education and healthcare for all with a living wage would give us all a quality life. It is time for another war on poverty. We will never achieve the America in Bernie’s commercial until we eradicate poverty.

Education, jobs, and healthcare are the keys to ending poverty.

Everyone deserves an education, and if they want to go to college, it should be free just like K-12. When you get sick, you should be able to go to a doctor and not go without something else to pay for it. When you work 40 hours, you should not still be in poverty. You should make enough money to support your family comfortably.

Common sense stuff, right? A political party that commits to those three goals as its core mission is guaranteed to succeed. There is already a party that represents big business. Their mission is to make sure that business can profit in America. They care more about getting rich than taking care of people’s human needs. What is lacking in this country is a party that at its core guarantees health and opportunity.

I hear many of you shouting other concerns now. The environment, civil rights, defense and many other issues have to be included. I just believe that health care, education, and economic opportunity should be guaranteed. If they are, the rest will come.

A healthy, educated population will take care of the environment. A healthy, educated population will make wise decisions on the country’s defense. Hate and greed will not cloud their view of the world. We will still have to fight racism and bigotry. If everyone has a living wage, we won’t be divided by demagogues who use fear keep us from uniting.

As Democrats across the country try to figure out what has been going wrong, I suggest looking at the big picture. What is America? What do we need to build the America that we dream about? It is not about “Making America Great Again,” it’s about making America America again.

Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott moved to Des Moines in 2015 to cover the Iowa Caucus.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.