How Trump Rebelled Against The Generals
DISPATCHES FROM MOON OF ALABAMA, BY "B"
This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches from Moon of Alabama
[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n early 2017, just as Trump was inaugurated, we wrote how an old power center theory that seemed to explain how Trump won the elections:
Seen from the perspective of power centers Clinton once had all the support she needed. But she then lost a decisive group due to her uncompromising neo-conned foreign policy. Here is an interesting take based on a theory from the 1950s:
[T]he power elite can be best described as a “triangle of power,” linking the corporate, executive government, and military factions: “There is a political economy numerously linked with military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to any understanding of the higher circles in America today.”
The 2016 US election, like all other US elections, featured a gallery of pre-selected candidates that represented the three factions and their interests within the power elite. The 2016 US election, however, was vastly different from previous elections. As the election dragged on the power elite became bitterly divided, with the majority supporting Hilary Clinton, the candidate pre-selected by the political and corporate factions, while the military faction rallied around their choice of Donald Trump.
...
The decisive political point in this election round was the fight between neo-conservatives/liberal-interventionists and foreign policy realists. One side is represented as exemplary by the CIA with the U.S. military on the other:
A schism developed between the Defense Department and the highly politicized CIA. This schism, which can be attributed to the corporate-deep-state’s covert foreign policy, traces back to the CIA orchestrated “color revolutions” that had swept the Middle East and North Africa.
The CIA created bloodthirsty future enemies the military will later have to defeat. ...
That explanation has held up well. At the beginning of his regime Trump stuffed the White House with the military faction while the executive government -the deep state- waged a war against him. The corporate side of triangle of power was quite happy with his tax policies.
But Trump soon discovered that the military faction did not concur with his 'America first' isolationist tendencies. The 'grown ups' and generals wanted to explain to Trump why they believe that the U.S. needs many allies and bases and why the many long wars the U.S. fights are sensible policy.
According to a new book, partly adapted in a Washington Post piece, that effort did not end well:
Trump organized his unorthodox worldview under the simplistic banner of “America First,” but [Secretary of Defense Jim] Mattis, [Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson, and [Director of the National Economic Council Gary] Cohn feared his proposals were rash, barely considered, and a danger to America’s superpower standing. They also felt that many of Trump’s impulsive ideas stemmed from his lack of familiarity with U.S. history and, even, where countries were located. To have a useful discussion with him, the trio agreed, they had to create a basic knowledge, a shared language.
So on July 20, 2017, Mattis invited Trump to the Tank for what he, Tillerson, and Cohn had carefully organized as a tailored tutorial.
The meeting in the Tank, a secure conference room in the Pentagon, were part of an effort to subdue Trump's insurgency against the top military's world view. and the presentation by top generals came off as a lecture which Trump immediately disliked:
An opening line flashed on the screen, setting the tone: “The post-war international rules-based order is the greatest gift of the greatest generation.” Mattis then gave a 20-minute briefing on the power of the NATO alliance to stabilize Europe and keep the United States safe. Bannon thought to himself, “Not good. Trump is not going to like that one bit.” The internationalist language Mattis was using was a trigger for Trump.
“Oh, baby, this is going to be f---ing wild,” [White House chief strategist Stephen K.] Bannon thought. “If you stood up and threatened to shoot [Trump], he couldn’t say ‘postwar rules-based international order.’ It’s just not the way he thinks.”
Bannon was right. Verbal scuffles about NATO, South Korea and U.S. bases followed. Then Trump took on the generals:
“We are owed money you haven’t been collecting!” Trump told them. “You would totally go bankrupt if you had to run your own business.”
The discussion turned to the war on Afghanistan:
Trump erupted to revive another frequent complaint: the war in Afghanistan, which was now America’s longest war. He demanded an explanation for why the United States hadn’t won in Afghanistan yet, now 16 years after the nation began fighting there in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Trump unleashed his disdain, calling Afghanistan a “loser war.” That phrase hung in the air and disgusted not only the military leaders at the table but also the men and women in uniform sitting along the back wall behind their principals. They all were sworn to obey their commander in chief’s commands, and here he was calling the war they had been fighting a loser war.
“You’re all losers,” Trump said. “You don’t know how to win anymore.”
When one reads the recent Congress testimony of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan one can see that Trump has a point. The war is long lost and the military is lying about it:
“There’s an odor of mendacity throughout the Afghanistan issue . . . mendacity and hubris,” John F. Sopko said in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “The problem is there is a disincentive, really, to tell the truth. We have created an incentive to almost require people to lie.”
...
“When we talk about mendacity, when we talk about lying, it’s not just lying about a particular program. It’s lying by omissions,” he said. “It turns out that everything that is bad news has been classified for the last few years.”
Trump's rant during the meeting with the generals continued:
Trump mused about removing General John Nicholson, the U.S. commander in charge of troops in Afghanistan. “I don’t think he knows how to win,” the president said, impugning Nicholson, who was not present at the meeting.
...
“I want to win,” he said. “We don’t win any wars anymore . . . We spend $7 trillion, everybody else got the oil and we’re not winning anymore.”
...
“I wouldn’t go to war with you people,” Trump told the assembled brass.Addressing the room, the commander in chief barked, “You’re a bunch of dopes and babies.”
A drill sergeant act performed on recruits with four stars on their shoulders. I find that quite impressive. Those perfumed princes must have fumed.
While some will certainly say that Trump disgraced the military with his rant most of the soldiers in the field will likely agree with his opinion about their generals.
Most of the 'dopes and babies' who were in that room have since been fired or retired. Their replacements are yes-men more to Trump's liking. They did not even protest about Trump's latest blunder. He rented out scarce air defense units to Saudi Arabia and went on to murder Qassem Soleimani in Iraq while the U.S. bases there no longer had air defenses to protect them against the inevitable retaliation.
The anti-Trump leaders of the executive side of the triangle have likewise been removed and replaced with people who are unlikely to put up a fight against Trump.
The third side of the triangle, the corporate faction, is happy that Trump pressed the Fed to douse the markets with free money. Unless the inevitable stock market crash comes before the election, which is unlikely, they will stick to Trump's side.
With all three sides of the triangle of power inclined to favor him or neutralized Trump seems to have a good chance to win the next election.
That is unless he continues to follow the advice of neocons with a bad record and, by sheer stupidity, starts a war against Iran.
Posted by b on January 17, 2020 at 18:47 UTC | Permalink
Selected Comments
"[T]he power elite can be best described as a “triangle of power,” linking the corporate, executive government, and military factions: “There is a political economy numerously linked with military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to any understanding of the higher circles in America today.” "
Significant that Congress (which Eisenhower wanted to include in the MI(C)C) is not part of the triangle. The only remotely democratic element being the quadrennial plebiscite/election for President/Commander in Chief.
As to those "never ending wars". They are not so much wars as colonial police actions-casualties on the imperial side are rare and generally restricted to foreign mercenaries, Casualties on the part of the colonised are measured to keep the conflict boiling: massacres, murders and atrocities that ensure that, dreaded, peace is postponed indefinitely. In other words there is plenty of work for the military, which means budgets are unchallenged and recruitment continues. Which means regular promotions through the ranks until the long for nirvana of a cushy corporate billet in civvy street.
Your theory says as much: Hillary, unstable and vindictive, scared the shit out of the Pentagon for whom fighting any force better armed than the Sioux and the Apaches were, is a very dangerous business.
Posted by: bevin | Jan 17 2020 19:02 utc | 2
Trump can't start a war without ruling class backing any more than he can end the wars if the rulers veto it.
US foreign policy is not run by White House puppets.
The US trash-talked Saddam Hussein and starved Iraqis for 14 years, but didn't actually invade until he started trading oil in Euros.
The US trash-talked Ghaddafi for decades, and even launched missiles which killed his child in the 80s, but didn't destroy Libya until Ghaddafi decided to sell oil in dinars.
The US has trash-talked and sanctioned Iran for decades, but it was the threat of Iran and Saudi Arabia making peace that pushed them to assassinate General Soleimani, as he arrived at the airport on that diplomatic mission.
If Iran and Saudi Arabia make peace, and the Saudis drop the petro-dollar, the US Empire crumbles.
It doesn't matter at all who is in the White House at the time, the Empire will never allow that.
The elections are a farce, by the way. We have no way to know how people vote, because they put in electronic voting machines after the 2000 election was stolen by the Supreme Court. We no longer have any idea how people voted, the talking heads on the TV just give us the name of the selected on, on Election Night.
Posted by: wagelaborer | Jan 17 2020 19:04 utc | 3
Charlie Chan says
What exactly is "winning" in these wars? Millions already dead/dying,,, cities bombed out,,, infrastructure destroyed,,, oil stolen,,, mass starving,,,
There's more to do!,,, to win?
Posted by: Charlie Chan | Jan 17 2020 19:14 utc | 4
Any sense when "the inevitable stock market crash" can be expected?
Posted by: casey | Jan 17 2020 19:17 utc | 5
Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 17 2020 19:24 utc | 6
That Power Elite theory which was written in the 50s by C.W. Mills is incomplete for today because in the 60s there was a split among the power elite between the new "movement conservatives" and the old eastern bank establishment. The conservatives were more focused on the pacific region and containing China, and the liberal establishment were more focused on Europe and containing Russia.
The movement conservatives leader was Barry Goldwater who Trump's dad was a big supporter of, and Trump was raised in and among AND represents that faction of elite power. In fact he is the 1st president from that faction of the elites to hold the oval office, many people thought Reagan was, but he was brought under the control of George Bush and the liberal elites after taking office after he was injured by a Bush related person. The different agendas of the the two factions are out in the open today with one being focused on anti-Russia and the other being focused on anti-China. It has been like that since the 1960s.
The anti-China movement conservative faction which Trump represents (and led the Viet Nam War) is screwing up the "rules based order" aka "Liberal Internaltional Economic Order" aka Pax Americana which was set up after WWII at Bretton Woods and then altered in the 1970s with the creation of the petrodollar and petrodollar recycling into Treasury Bonds, by destroying the monetary scam they set up to control the world, it needed the cooperation of the elites of Europe and elsewhere, which Trump and his faction doesn't care about--they only care about short term profits on Wall St.
The LIEO or Rules Based Order is based on being closely allied with European elites against Russia to contain the Middle East and Central Asia (Iran and Afghanistan) based on Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard theory. China trade is important for them, Russia is their main enemy. (War of the Worlds: The New Class). Trump and his movement conservative faction is ruining their world order for their own short term gain on Wall St.
Posted by: Kali | Jan 17 2020 19:26 utc | 7
Sure, there was the fight … Trump’s political instinct got him elected … had to survive the attack from Intelligence community with allegiance to Democrats. The “progressive” blog community still does the DNC and HRC bidding by declaring all was lost due to Putin. Sanctions alert.
After surviving the Mueller investigation, Trump consolidated the advisors he liked.
Simple philosophy: Negate all that is Obama’s … Shia and MB became Sunni and the Arab Gulf monarchies of Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Bahrein belongs to KSA anyway. Trump’s winning bet to beat any Democrat was his allegiance to Israel and Netanyahu. The three gifts from King Donald went to Israel. The Arab States had learned to become an ally wit Israel, as Iran and its proxies were a pain in the a$$ and more in the ME and on the Arabian peninsula. Although the Arabs had covered the White House with a paper trail of multi-billion arms contracts during the Obama administration, the choice of Democrats was for Qatar, MB, Turkey and Iran with the Nuclear Deal. That sealed the loss for Democrats in 2016 to any contender.
Erik Prince, et al.
The US military, the various factions within the Deep State, political and corporate cabals has the attitude of a spoiled 3-year-old: If I can't have it, I'll break it so it is of little use to others.
Unfortunately, breaking other countries is just fine for the MIC... arms sales all around and chaos to impede non-military commerce with other major power centers like Russia or China.
Trump is the product of a dysfunctional family, a "greed is good" trust-fund social circle and a sociopathic US bully/gun culture.
The fact "bone spurs" Trump weaseled out of the draft will also not play well with the generals, let alone the grunts who suffer most from endless POTUS idiocy (not limited to Trump, see Prince Bush/Bandar the 2nd)
All the more proof that most Western "democracies" would be better served with a lottery to choose their Congressional and POTUS chair-warmers. Joe Sixpack could do a better job. A 200-lb sack of flour would do better than any POTUS since Kennedy.
Posted by: A P | Jan 17 2020 19:33 utc | 9
Charlie Chan @4--
What exactly is "winning" in these wars?
Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 17 2020 19:35 utc | 10
What purpose do these regular attempts to spin Trump into some sort of anti-establishment hero, and excusing him from having to take responsibility for his actions, serve?
Do you really think he is being controlled by his neocon inner circle and if it were up to him he wouldn’t be assassinating foreign leaders, increasing the already massive military budget, starting a “space command”, going back on his promise to pull troops out of Syria and Iraq, threatening Iran with war and genocide, waging siege warfare with his sanctions against Russia, Venezuela and Iran, giving the Zionists everything they want, selling nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia, torturing Assange and Manning and so forth?
Yeah, Trump would be a wise man of peace and multipolar coexistence if only he wasn’t constantly under the spell of neocon mind controller rays. Or maybe you are just doing it for financial reasons...because praising Trump for the adoring fan boys is good for business? Whatever your reason, this is why you can’t be taken seriously as a political analyst despite being on the ball much of the time.
Trump is president and commander in chief. The buck stops with him. If he is too weak or stupid to prevent himself from getting manipulated by his creepy cadaverous son-in-law and the bunch of fanatics he hired and surrounds himself with he is unfit for the job. But given his many transgressions and war mongering ways, it’s more likely he’s just another fraud like every other POTUS.
At this stage in the game anyone who still thinks Trump is an honest man with noble intentions is a compete fool, a 2020 version of the 2012 Obot.
(Here again, for your convenience as you seem to suffer from memory retention issues, is a partial list of the unfortunate actions your man Trump was “tricked” into doing. Enjoy!
assassinating foreign leaders, increasing the already massive military budget, starting a “space command”, going back on his promise to pull troops out of Syria and Iraq, threatening Iran with war and genocide, waging siege warfare with his sanctions against Russia, Venezuela and Iran, giving the Zionists everything they want, selling nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia, torturing Assange and Manning)
Posted by: Daniel | Jan 17 2020 19:57 utc | 13
" the U.S. bases there no longer had air defenses"
That's the official story, but it does not pass the smell test.
I wasn't there and have no way of knowing, but find it easier to believe the base did in fact have Patriots but 1) the Patriots failed to detect the Iranian missiles 2) Iran jammed the Patriots 3) the Patriot operators were cowering in bunkers or 4) since the U.S. had been warned of the strike and had even suggested a "pretend" strike for show, there was no real need to employ the Patriots or 5) if the Patriots had been engaged but failed to neutralized the Iranian missiles, that would make Raytheon look bad so we musn't go there.
Posted by: Dan Lynch | Jan 17 2020 20:01 utc | 14
The WaPo depiction sure is calculated to reinforce whatever perception one already had of Trump: His fans will love that thrashing of the pompous high-ranking snowflakes, while the cognoscenti will cluck their tongues and deplore such loutish disrespect for Our Military Leaders.
Interesting that the alleged Adults in the Room evidently weren't capable of assessing the psychology of the target of their persuasion attempt and tailoring their presentation to fit his mentality. Sounds more like the Keystone Kops than a sane, sober, rational, Adult plan.
interesting theory on the triangle of power... i agree with @3/12 wagelaborer's comments and many others comments too.. the issue regarding afganistan @10 karlof1 articulates very well.. of course this info can't be made public knowledge and as karlof1 says - the usa empire at this point stands for everything that is in direct opposition to it's constitution.. the fact that as@ 12 wagelaborer says - "...the Deep State, the Democrats and the media 24/7 since 2016 ... only complaint they have about his blatantly illegal assassination of Soleimani is that "he didn't tell us first". " that tells everything anyone needs to know right there..
Posted by: james | Jan 17 2020 20:43 utc | 16
Reading the WaPo article, I didn't get the impression that Trump objects to endless wars, he just wants to create another revenue stream out of them. In other words, how to squeeze more money from allies by getting them to pay a fee for US troops based in their countries and from enemies by stealing their oil/other natural resources.
I'm not sure if he understands that Saudi and the oil rich countries of the Persian Gulf are already paying in the form of billions for weapons they can't use and treasury bonds that will never be repaid. Other countries wouldn't mind at all if US troops leave, so they won't pay more.
So no, Trump is not at all an anti-interventionist. He just is looking for a way to make imperialism (even more) profitable and just wants to end the no performing wars and start money making wars.
Iran might be his only exception. That war most certainly will not be profitable but for the sake of Israel, Trump can make sacrifices
Posted by: Lysander | Jan 17 2020 21:55 utc | 30
Even if the election is stolen, the Democrats will win. With a huge Republican crossover. That's my prediction. Even if we are totally shafted now and the people have no say. Deep state don't want him and the people don't want him.
I think there's a good chance from what all of you are saying that impeachment will succeed - how could it not?- but what do I know, very little really. All I am saying is it won't be the people's choice as it hasn't been all this century. And I can't see the Deep State wanting him either.
Posted by: juliania | Jan 17 2020 21:56 utc | 31
Dan Lynch | Jan 17 2020 20:01 utc | 14
Dan there were no Patriot missiles at the Al Assad base. It is hard to hide a patriot missile launcher. I and many others have looked over the photos of the base after bombing. They did have a M 901 (TEL) tracked vehicle that launches up to six TOW missiles. TOW= anti equipment/vehicle/tank etc.
They did have arrogance in spades.
Posted by: diveshopingoa | Jan 17 2020 21:57 utc | 32
steven t johnson@24
"The intense campaign to keep blacks from turning out is proceeding on all fronts."
That, to me (and hopefully for most people), is very disturbing. I have been loosely following Greg Palast and his team for about 15 years, and it would appear that the rot in the US electoral system has only escalated since the 2000 election farce.
In my mind it is a class-war, and it is being waged against the most marginalised, especially if of a darker skin tone (by the 'Elites', and with the acquiescence of the ever-dwindling middle-classes).
It is a horror-show.
I know it may be old hat to many here, but I would highly recommend to any who are interested in some of the manouvres (c.2000-present) that have led the US electoral system to the sewer it resides in to read:
- The Best Democracy Money Can Buy
- Billionaires and Ballot Bandits
Both by Greg Palast.
Posted by: Jon_in_AU | Jan 17 2020 21:59 utc | 33
Thanks A P @ 25. I agree with you about both parties. I'm ready to start again. I won't be voting for either one.
It's a long time till November. And who knows what will happen, especially in the rest of the world. Look at what has already happened in the last couple of weeks. OK though, no predictions from me. I'm a very small fish in a very big, polluted and warming ocean.
Posted by: juliania | Jan 17 2020 22:02 utc | 34
Not a very good analysis by b because this does not explain why 90 % of US corporate media is hostile to Trump. This does not happen without significant elite support.
That Trump is backed by the military faction is something i have been saying often. But there are forces within the government faction that dislike him, for example the CIA.
As for the corporate faction, it is not true that free money made them supportive of Trump. Rather the faction is divided - between the globalist corporate faction, relying on globalisation, including most tech companies, and US nationalist faction, such as local US businesses, big oil, shale gas, etc.
Another point - jews have large influence within the US, and 80 % voted against Trump regardless of his Israeli support. They again voted 80 % Dem in 2018. Having 80 % of US jews against you means encountering significant resistance.
Demographically speaking, most women, jews, muslims, latinos, asians, afroamericans, lgbt people, young people, etc. are strongly against him so i think that he will lose. Unless for some reason they do not vote.
Even if he somehow wins again, this will lead to civil war like situation and extreme polarisation in the US.
Posted by: Passer by | Jan 17 2020 22:04 utc | 35
I've joked before that Trump is the most peaceful president since Carter. There is some truth to this insofar as Trump's narrow cost-benefit analysis (as opposed to incoherently broad, even internally contradictory, cost-benefit outlook promoted by 'national security' interests) means he doesn't want to commit to expensive long-term interventionist projects, which is what unites the right-wing neocons and the liberal interventionists (Pelosi, Schumer). Trump is happy to throw money at the military (like the recent 750 billion re-up approved by Congress) but also wants to keep costs down. Like a real estate developer, he spends the money to maintain the Trump brand (tough guy, not like Carter), while extorting and cheating 'contractors' (client states like S. Korea) to keep costs down, hence his wanting to pull back from Syria and Afghanistan, meeting with hysteria-level resistance from the 'deep state.' It's no Carter, but certainly better than the Bushes, Clinton, Obama/Hilary. Military still ballooning though.
The problem with the corporate/executive/military theory of elite power is that there are factions within factions, so the theory has limited explanatory power. The 'corporate' faction has largely turned against China (hence the push or approval of the trade war) but there are also important elements like Google and Apple who abhor the trade war and want to maintain the status-quo. And within the military/CIA/national security, there are vectors working at cross purposes. In some ways, the complexity can be parsed by neocon versus liberal interventionist, but these two have more commonalities than differences, while 'Full Spectrum Dominance' has different interpretations and emphases that, as a whole, can look incoherent. The rationale behind Afghanistan being one example.
karlof1, thank you for that summary, which is probably the most concise formulation of it I've seen, and it reminds me of importance of the CIA and the opiate trade. While, taken individually, those points look like they 'make sense', but as a whole -- especially the support of proxy groups via opium funds and happily 'mispent' money like US aid -- the net result is more chaos than actions with discrete goals. If there's anything that can be said about US foreign policy, it's that the chaos is by design, not so much because it benefits 'national security interests' but because it benefits the MIC. Chaos is the biggest subsidy.
Posted by: Harrison | Jan 17 2020 22:06 utc | 36
@ 30 lysander.. "So no, Trump is not at all an anti-interventionist. He's just looking for a way to make imperialism (even more) profitable and just wants to end the none performing wars and start money making wars." i tend to think the usa - wall st and the military complex for sure - make money off these money losing wars as well... why end them either, when it is working for the top %? what i don't understand is any american thinking they are going to get anything different with either repubs or dems... i guess that is where all the msm back and forth bullshit works to keep people brainwashed and unable to see the bigger picture here.. that and americans for the most part seem totally obsessed with their own little exceptional world with little thought about there foreign policy... to me it is all about fp, but to most americans it is all about trump or sanders, or football and that is it! they seem quite happy to stay in that small little loop.. i honestly think it will not be unable they are bombed on their own soil will the collectively wake the fuck up and even then, i somehow doubt it as the brainwashing has been so successful..
Posted by: james | Jan 17 2020 22:11 utc | 37
[premium_newsticker id="213661"]
"b" is Moon of Alabama's founding (and chief) editor. This site's purpose is to discuss politics, economics, philosophy and blogger Billmon's Whiskey Bar writings. Moon Of Alabama was opened as an independent, open forum for members of the Whiskey Bar community. Bernhard )"b") started and still runs the site. Once in a while you will also find posts and art from regular commentators. You can reach the current administrator of this site by emailing Bernhard at MoonofA@aol.com.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Trump being surrounded by yes men is a recipe for disaster, which is already happening. The simple fact is the US military is not very good, certainly nowhere near where it thinks it is. A commander in chief, surrounded by political and equal opportunity hires, with zero military experience in the modern era is ludicrous. And there are crack heads who think they could take on China, or God forbid, Russia. Even Iran would hand them their fat asses. That Trump judges the military by how much it spends shows how totally out of touch he is.
Posted by: cdvision | Jan 17 2020 18:59 utc | 1