Taking the Long View – Justin Raimondo

Taking the Long View – Justin Raimondo

Dismantling the empire (war party) won’t happen overnight

4
SHARE
Donald Trump and daughter Ivanka honour first military casualty of his presidency as they greet coffin of Navy SEAL’s killed in raid in Yemen at US air base.
Donald Trump and daughter Ivanka honour first military casualty of his presidency as they greet coffin of Navy SEAL’s killed in raid in Yemen at US air base.

by Justin Raimondo

Antiwar

The other day on Twitter someone tweeted me the news of the latest drone strike in Yemen, with the taunting message: “Congrats, @JustinRaimondo.” I had to laugh, and bemoan my fate: “I am now to be held responsible for everything the Trump administration does, especially their failure to go full pacifist!”

Chief Special Warfare Operator William “Ryan” Owens, from Peoria, Illinois, died in the operation in Yemen at the weekend

Of course, you don’t have to be a pacifist to oppose our drone campaign, in Yemen or elsewhere, as I do, but the comment and my response underscore a basic flaw in the thinking of Trump’s anti-interventionist critics.

I have been writing this column for over twenty years, commenting on current events as they impact the US on the international stage. I’ve watched as this country fought a series of unnecessary and debilitating wars, exhausting its resources and sacrificing the lives of its young people in bloody crusades from Belgrade to Baghdad. I’ve navigated the tides of public opinion, as support for this suicidal policy waxed and waned, according to the caprices of the moment and the push and pull of external events. And if I can draw a single important lesson from all this experience, it is this: the albatross of empire won’t be easily lifted from our necks.

Senator John McCain serves as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.

There are too many interest groups with both a financial and psychological stake in maintaining the status quo. The worldwide string of bases, alliances, protectorates, and US-protected corporate enclaves that make up the architecture of empire are so vast, and so profitable (for the war profiteers), that the task of dismantling it is the work of generations.

There was a window of opportunity that opened after the collapse of international communism and the end of the cold war that might have cut that timeline short. The events of September 11, 2001, put an end to that bright hope. Just as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor ended the hope of the biggest antiwar movement in our history – the America First Committee – that we might stay out of the European war, so 9/11 put on hold the idea that America could finally put down the sword and “come home” after the decades-long cold war.

In short, the lesson of the past twenty-plus years is that we must take the long view. As a corollary to that, anti-interventionists must understand that ours is a battle of ideas. The enemy is the concept that America must maintain a hegemonic position on every continent, that we are entrusted with upholding and defending the “international liberal order,” and that we alone are capable of carrying out that supposedly sacred task. It is a conceit that arose in the wake of World War II and it has guided US foreign policy since that time. Both parties have historically agreed that “politics stops at the water’s edge,” and, since 1952 – when the America First “isolationist” wing of the GOP led by Sen. Robert A. Taft was finally defeated — bipartisan support for our policy of global intervention has been de rigueur for all major presidential candidates.

That is, until now.

Although we are still in the grip of what I call the 9/11 Effect, the aftershocks of that seminal event have largely worn off. A war-weary public, and a visible decline in our economic condition, has turned the public inward and greatly decreased the War Party’s influence. The key to maintaining that influence was always in maintaining the political isolation of the anti-interventionist forces, which were largely confined to the far left wing of American politics.

As long as the neoconservatives dominated the GOP, and “centrists” maintained control of the Democratic party, the postwar foreign policy consensus reigned supreme for the simple reason that the American people were never given a choice. As Garet Garrett, the Cassandra of the Old Right, put it in 1952:

“Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one will forbid the other, or one will destroy the other. That we know. Yet never has the choice been put to a vote of the people.”

More than half a century after those words were written, it has been put to a vote in the 2016 election, and the winner is someone who is challenging – in a fundamental way – the very basis of the longstanding internationalist consensus.

I’ve detailed the various ways in which Trump has issued his challenge in this space, at length, and so I won’t repeat myself here. Suffice to say that his revival of the “America First” tradition is, in and of itself, a mortal threat to the War Party, and they recognize the danger he poses to them. That’s why every faction with an interest in maintaining the Empire – the neocons, the liberal internationalists, the national security bureaucracy, the CIA, the cold war Democrats – have pulled out all the stops in their unrelenting assault on the Trump administration. They know who their enemies are.

That Trump is inconsistent, and an imperfect vessel, hardly needs to be said. That the danger of war still looms over us is also a fact that none can deny. Yet all this is irrelevant in the face of the conceptual victory his winning the White House represents. Here is a candidate who campaigned against GOP foreign policy orthodoxy, explicitly rejecting the legacy of the Iraq war and even going so far as to call out the Bush administration for lying us into that war. Even if he had been defeated in the general election, Trump’s triumph in the Republican primary signaled the end of neoconservatism as a viable political force, at least inside the GOP.

Neocon Architects of Iraq War

What this means is that the War Party’s monopoly on the foreign policy positions of both parties is ended: Garrett’s lament is now outdated, because the voters do have a choice. They can choose between republic and Empire.

Yes, the Trump administration will take many actions that contradict the promise of their victory: that is already occurring. And we are covering that in these pages, without regard for partisan considerations: and yet it is necessary to step back and see the larger picture, looking past the journalistic details of the day-to-day news cycle.

In short, it is necessary to take the long view and try to see what the ideological victory that was won this past November augurs for the future.

If we look past Trump and his administration and scout out what the road ahead looks like, the view is encouraging: the obstacles that loomed large in the past – the neoconservative hegemony in the GOP, the war hysteria that dominated the country post-9/11, the public’s largely unquestioning acceptance of what the “mainstream” media reported – have been swept away.

That’s more, a global rebellion against regnant elites is threatening the status quo. All the elements that make for the restoration of our old republic are in place, including a growing mass movement in this country that rejects the old internationalist dogma.

Ideas rule the world: not politicians, not parties, not range-of-the-moment fluctuations in public opinion. This isn’t about Trump, the politician, or the journalistic trivia of the moment: we are engaged in a battle of ideas – and, slowly but surely, we are winning.

No matter what one thinks of Trump, or his appointees, the election of 2016 is without doubt the biggest victory opponents of empire have enjoyed since the country turned its back on the interventionism of Woodrow Wilson and enjoyed a “return to normalcy” in 1920. The victor that year was Warren Harding, who declared: “America’s present need is not heroics but healing; not nostrums but normalcy; not revolution but restoration.” After the posturing Teddy Roosevelt’s aggressive imperialism and the more studied “idealism” of Woodrow Wilson, America was ready to return to the foreign policy of the Founders.

This time, after years of constant warfare, and the stunning realization that our empire has brought us nothing but financial and moral ruin, Americans are again seeking a return to normalcy – or, as Trump would put it, they want to “make America great again.” Having gone down the road that Rome once trod, Americans stand at the abyss of inexorable decline – and they want to turn back.

Architects of “Regime Change” wars

Yet the road back is by no means an easy one. External events – unpredictable by their very nature – may intervene once again.

After all, the history of mankind is the record of chance, human caprice, and endless folly. Yet I am optimistic at this recent turn of events: barring some unforeseen catastrophe, the future is brighter than it has been for quite some time. The chances are good that we may yet become a normal country again, as opposed to a bloated empire beset by external enemies and internal rot. Perhaps not in my lifetime – I’m 65! – but, if all goes well, at least I’ll have seen the beginning of the end of the War Party’s bloody reign.

Since I take the long view, that’s good enough for me.

4 COMMENTS

  1. Yes, and how many times must the cannon balls fly

    Before they’re forever banned?

    The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind

    The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

    Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head

    And pretend that he just doesn’t see?

    The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind

    The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

    Yes, and how many ears must one man have

    Before he can hear people cry?

    Yes, and how many deaths will it take ’til he knows

    That too many people have died?

    The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind

    The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

  2. Justin Raimondo continues to be a remarkable and enlightening writer. The picture of the brave, young and smiling Navy Seal William “Ryan” Owens is particularly heartrending, because his death reminds us, we are still enmired, after all this time, in endless, pointless, Empire wars- despite Trump’s promise to put “America first”. Trump was elected, in great part, because he promised to get us out of war. Get on with it, Mr. President!

  3. Hi Raimondo, I’m not as familiar with you as Pepe, my favourite journalist 🙂 although i’ve probably read your work without realising it in the past. I’d like to ask your opinion on a couple of matters where i feel like i’ve lifted a veil but i don’t know if i’m suffering from cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias.

    I have tried to start a conversation on different forums but not had much response, in fact i’m going to copy and paste the comment i made a few days ago on Youtube (no responses)…………..and i just looked and it’s been deleted from the comments section…..so basically i was watching episode 911 of the Joe Rogan podcast where he has Alex Jones and Eddie Bravo on, it’s very entertaining and i enjoyed listening to it but i couldn’t shake the feeling that Alex Jones is a limited hang out because he mentions some important information but never directly points to those really pulling the strings, it’s always “the globalists” or “the elite” and anyone who spends a good amount of time researching things cannot help but come to the conclusion that there is a large Zionist element to the equation, a very large element i think. So is he a disinfo shill? seems almost too obvious that he is, i mean imagine if he was a CIA plant all along, Infowars would be the absolute perfect title to put it in plain sight. Ok so second point, and i’ll try and summarise………so the idea im toying with is that prior to the election cycle it was known that the people were becoming restless with the liberal media/political establishment and wanted the change they never got with Obama, they needed a populist to run for president that they could ultimately control……enter Donald Trump, who apparently is in the hole with the global zio-banking elite, they knew he would be unpopular with many and so they needed someone already deeply disliked and un-trusted to run against him…..enter Hillary Clinton, the fact that Hillary was running even though she appeared to be fairly ill confirmed this further to me…….why would she run into the most stressful job in the world if her health were already poor? Trump is surrounded by Zionists both in his family and politically and has been for a long time, he is totally pro-Israel and anti Palestine/Iran, he appointed Skull and Bones, ex Goldman Sachs banker and Zionist Steve Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary…..surely that’s pretty swampy….amongst other questionable characters….and some good to be fair……….and now he’s running around trying to fulfill every campaign promise within the first month, i don’t see him keeping it up…..i’d love to believe in him but i have one important pre-supposition: the controllers have always been several steps ahead, why not this time?

LEAVE A REPLY