The agreement reached between Turkish President Erdogan and U.S. Vice President Pence for a temporary ceasefire in the Turkish incursion into northern Syria demonstrates a strategic principle which has reduced the war party in the U.S. to impotent flailing and hysterical threats. While there is still much more to do to consolidate a new era which would end the "unending wars" in southwest Asia, Trump has temporarily successfully outflanked his war-loving opponents.
When he announced on October 9 that he was pulling U.S. troops out of northern Syria, Congressional Democrats and Republicans were joined by media hacks and think tankers in insisting that the Turkish onslaught, which they predicted would follow, would lead to unprecedented disaster. Trump was accused of "selling out the Kurds," of "turning the region over to Putin," and of "destabilizing" the region. These supporters of permanent warfare somehow missed the fact that the American people elected Trump precisely because he said he would end the wars, and that what destabilized the region is not withdrawal of American forces, but the American troop buildup and intervention begun by George W. Bush's Iraq war and Barack Obama's commitment to regime change in Libya and Syria.
As for Putin, Trump made improving cooperation with Russia a major issue in his campaign, and presidency. Yet, for nearly three years, those using the geopolitical script, which was written at the end of the 19th century by British imperial apologists—which prescribes permanent confrontation as the normal condition of the region—acted against Trump, using a narrative written by the same British networks, Russiagate, to keep Trump from fully coordinating with Putin.
They have failed. The temporary agreement between Trump and Erdogan is backed up by Trump's openness to Russian deployment in the region, and to his support for Syrian government forces reasserting sovereign control over its territory. In other words, Trump is acting on behalf of Syrian sovereignty, to be protected by an agreement between other nations in the region, including Russia, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq—and even Saudi Arabia. This is not a U.S. surrender, or dereliction of duty, but a recognition that nearly two decades of war, based on British geopolitics, has led to the destruction of nations, millions of refugees, millions of dead, a waste of over eight trillion dollars, and an ever-present danger that the regional conflicts would spread to a world war, even one involving use of nuclear weapons.
It also demonstrates that Trump's idea of sovereignty is not narrowly restricted to that of the U.S., but is an inherent right of all governments. As he has stated in his speeches to the United Nations each of the last two years, every government ought to act in the interests of its people, not in subservience to globalist forces representing private financial and corporate interests.
Instead of praising Trump, the war party, once famously identified by President Eisenhower as the "Military Industrial Complex", voted for a nonbinding resolution against U.S. withdrawal in the U.S. House by 354 to 60, while the Senate, had they voted, would likely have had 99 votes out of 100!
It is the fear of those running the war party that Trump's moves in Syria are just the beginning of a peace offensive, that could spread to a permanent agreement with North Korea and resolution of the Ukraine crisis; an agreement to work with China in reconstructing the region, through extension of the Belt-and-Road Initiative; possible action against the never-ending bailout of bankrupt banks and financial institutions; and full exposure of those behind the fake Russiagate story.
And this fear, that he intends to fulfill his election campaign pledges made to American voters, and not a legitimate phone call to Ukraine's President Zelensky, is what is behind the new race to impeachment, one based on even more fraudulent claims than the disgraced and disproven Russiagate narrative.