President Donald Trump's decision to pull back U.S. troops from their positions in northeast Syria, which he announced on October 6, has provoked a virulent outcry against him from the war party, which dominates elected officials in both parties, think tanks in the Washington, D.C. area, and most of the nation's media. They responded to his announcement with a flood of disinformation and outright lies, which is typical of the anti-Trump diatribes that has been their modus operandi of the last three-plus years, as they have tried to protect the imperial geopolitical status quo, and its predilection for wars.
Trump's response to this onslaught has been straight forward. In a statement on October 9, he tweeted that U.S. forces "should never have been there in the first place." Later, he added, "I don’t want to stay there for the next 40 years. It’s not going to do anything.... I campaigned on the fact that I was going to bring our soldiers home, and bring them home as rapidly as possible.” Part of keeping that promise, he said, is not thrusting U.S. forces into even more conflicts that have no end in sight. “We interject ourselves into wars, and we interject ourselves into tribal wars and revolutions and all of these things that are very— they’re not the kind of thing that you settle the way we’d like to see it settled. It just doesn’t work that way. … And it’s time to come back home.
"From the first day I entered the political arena, I made it clear that I did not want to fight these endless, senseless wars—especially those that don't benefit the United States."
Pollsters looking into the reasons for his surprise victory in 2016 found that his campaign pledge to put an end to the permanent warfare, which has kept America fighting in wars since the invasion of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, was a key factor in his victory in the 2016 election. Trump devastated Jeb Bush and 16 other war hawks in his successful quest for the Republican nomination, then defeated Hillary Clinton, by warning that she was intent on expanding U.S. involvement in Syria, beyond that initiated by President Obama, with a reckless call for a U.S.-enforced "free-fly zone", which would have risked military conflict with Russia. He also made cooperation with Russian President Putin, to defeat ISIS and Al Qaeda forces, a priority of his campaign. In his first discussions as President with Putin, collaboration in ending the terrorist assault on Syria—which had been backed by the U.S. under President Obama, through military aid and training provided to Islamist forces—was high on their agenda.
Such cooperation with Putin and Russia was precisely what Russiagate was set up to prevent. The mouthpieces for the war party accused Trump of "doing a favor" for Russia, openly accusing him of paying Putin back for his alleged aid in winning the election. Now, three years later, as Trump is moving to fulfill his promise to end these destructive and futile wars, the same line is being repeated against him. For example, anti-Trump Congressmen from both parties say the main beneficiary of his decision will be Russia. The anti-Trump Newsweek cited "unnamed officials" as saying that the "U.S. withdrawal plays into the hands of the Islamic State group, Damascus and Moscow." Nowhere in that article is there a mention that U.S. coordination with Russia was a major factor in defeating the barbarous Caliphate.
TRUMP VERSUS "MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX"
One of the big lies coming from opponents of the President's decision is that removing U.S. troops will "destabilize the region". Such foolish assertions ignore the reality that it has been the continuous wars which actually destabilized the region! Further, it ignores that these wars resulted from the imposition of a geopolitical doctrine which was designed by British imperial strategists at the end of the 19th-early 20th centuries, to increase their control over the region. The British, in some cases with French collaboration—as in the infamous secret Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, which was a plan to carve up the Ottoman Empire after World War I—used religious, ethnic, political, tribal and familial fault lines in drawing the boundaries of nations in the region, to assure continuous strife. This set the stage for repeated destabilizations, and provided the excuse for recurrent British-directed interventions since the end of World War II. In many of those interventions, the United States was drawn in, to defend the financial, corporate and geopolitical interests of the Empire.
In his press conference on October 9, when President Trump forcefully defended his decision, he recalled President Eisenhower's warning in 1960 of the power of what he referred to as the "Military Industrial Complex" (MIC), to push the U.S. into conflicts. Trump commented that in these conflicts, many in Washington, D.C. "do very well with the Military Industrial Complex," which he said "has tremendous power. They like fighting. They make a lot of money when they fight." He went on to mock them, as "all these tough guys," who say "Let's keep fighting, let's keep fighting." But, as he has emphasized since he first announced the decision to withdraw, it is now time to end the fighting.
It is worth noting that Eisenhower stood up to those he called the MIC, during the Suez crisis, which erupted on October 29, 1956, when Israeli troops invaded Egypt through the Sinai desert. On November 5, by pre-arrangement, British and French forces joined them. Despite enormous pressure on the U.S. to participate on the side of the British-French-Israeli forces, Eisenhower—along with the Russians—warned them to back off, threatening London with economic warfare if they did not end their intervention.
Eisenhower had seen these same British imperial intelligence networks behind the Suez crisis at work several years earlier, when in 1953, working with the CIA, they organized the overthrow of Iran's democratically-elected President Mossadegh. While Iranian distrust of the British complicates relations with them today, as they have seen the U.S. operate against them in alliance with the Brits in recent years, Trump's recent decisions, twice, to reject strikes against Iran, should be seen as part of the same rethinking, by Trump, of U.S. policy in the region. The same individuals, including such disreputable war hawks as John Bolton, John Brennan, Senators Marco Rubio (Republican) and Bob Menendez (Democrat) who are blasting Trump for the decision to withdraw from northeast Syria, have been lamenting his unwillingness to respond to false flag events in the Persian Gulf and drone attacks on Saudi oil fields by unleashing military strikes against Iran. They are also insisting that he not pull U.S. forces out of Afghanistan.
NEW PUSH FOR IMPEACHMENT
In comments made in the last days, Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp LaRouche has emphasized that Trump's initiative opens the possibility of a real peace offensive. One possible venue for this, she said, could be the Astana process, in which Russia, Iran and Turkey have been meeting to forge a political settlement to the fighting in Syria. The U.S. has been represented by an observer at some of the sessions in Astana. President Trump's insistence that other nations beside the U.S. should step in to resolve the ongoing conflicts could lead to serious initiatives to end the domination of relations in the region by British geopolitics, especially if China were to be brought in, to make an extension into the region of the economic dynamic of its Belt-and-Road Initiative a foundation for peace. As her husband Lyndon LaRouche proposed, an initiative in the region backed by the U.S., Russia and China would have the firepower to overcome the efforts to sabotage such an initiative by the British empire.
It is this potential which is the cause for the latest howls for impeachment of Trump coming from the war party. The current Ukraine flap is even more transparently fake than the fraudulent Russiagate story. Not surprisingly, it has been concocted by the same networks, as the issue of Ukraine goes beyond the personal venality of the Bidens, to the role Biden played as the front-man for the coup in Ukraine in 2014. The neocon networks employed in that coup, in collaboration with British intelligence and the Obama team, are the same forces who ran Russiagate. Their intent, then and now, has been to prevent a shift out of the geopolitical paradigm responsible for the endless wars denounced by Trump.
Their latest conniving should provide the evidence necessary to put this corrupt British imperial gang out of operation for good. These "tough guys" ridiculed by the President, with their love of war, are in reality "chicken hawks", who are willing to fight to the last drop of other people's blood. But in their attacks on Trump's moves against permanent wars, and in their rush to impeachment over a call to Ukraine's new president, they are overplaying their hand. Their rapid downfall now, though long overdue, would be a blessing for all mankind.