The Spoils of War: Trump Lavished
With Media and Bipartisan Praise For Bombing Syria
April 7 2017, 7:43 a.m.
In every
type of government, nothing unites
people behind the leader more quickly, reflexively or reliably than
war. Donald Trump now sees how true that is, as the same establishment
leaders in U.S. politics and media who have spent months denouncing him as
a mentally unstable and inept authoritarian and unprecedented threat to
democracy are standing and applauding him as he launches bombs at Syrian
government targets.
Trump, on
Thursday night, ordered an attack that the Pentagon said included the
launching of 59 Tomahawk missiles which “targeted aircraft, hardened aircraft
shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air
defense systems, and radars.” The governor of Homs, the Syrian province where
the attack occurred, said early this morning that the bombs killed seven
civilians and wounded nine.
The
Pentagon’s statement said the attack was “in retaliation for the regime of
Bashar Assad using nerve agents to attack his own people.” Both Syria and
Russia vehemently deny that the Syrian military used chemical
weapons.
When asked
about this yesterday by the Globe and Mail’s Joanna Slater, Canadian Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau urged an investigation to determine what
actually happened before any action was contemplated, citing what he
called “continuing questions about who is responsible”:
But U.S. war
fever waits for nothing. Once the tidal wave of American war frenzy is
unleashed, questioning the casus belli is impermissible. Wanting
conclusive evidence before bombing commences is vilified as sympathy with
and support for the foreign villain (the same way that asking for evidence of
claims against Russia instantly converts one into a “Kremlin agent” or
“stooge”).
That the
Syrian government deliberately used chemical weapons to bomb civilians became
absolute truth in U.S. discourse within less than 24 hours – even though
Trudeau urged an investigation, even though it was denied in multiple capitals
around the world, and even though Susan Rice just two months ago boasted to
NPR: “We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and
verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”
Whatever happened
with this event, the Syrian government has killed hundreds of thousands of
people over the past five years in what began as a citizen uprising in the
spirit of the Arab Spring, and then morphed into a complex proxy war
involving foreign fighters, multiple regional powers, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and
Russia.
The
CIA has spent more than a billion dollars a year to arm anti-Assad
rebels for years, and the U.S. began bombing Syria in 2014 – the 7th
predominantly Muslim country bombed by Obama – and never stopped. Trump
had already escalated that bombing campaign, culminating in a strike last
month that Syrians say destroyed a mosque and killed dozens. What makes
this latest attack new is that rather than allegedly targeting terrorist sites
of ISIS and Al Qaeda, it targets the Syrian government – something Obama threatened
to do in 2013 but never did.
Leading
Congressional Democrats – including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi – quickly praised Trump’s bombing while
raising concerns about process. Hours before the bombing commenced, as it was
known Trump was planning it, Hillary Clinton – who has been critical of Obama
for years for not attacking Assad – appeared at an event and offered her
categorical support for what Trump was planning:
The Trump
White House is preliminarily indicating that this was a limited strike,
designed to punish Assad for his use of chemical weapons, rather than a new war
to remove him. But such aggression, once unleashed, is often difficult to
contain. The Russian and Iranian governments, both supportive of Assad, have bitterly
denounced Trump for the attack, with a Putin spokesman calling it a
“significant blow” for U.S.-Russian relations. Russia already announced
retaliation in the form of suspending cooperation agreements.
Even if it
is contained, there are endless implications from Trump’s initiation of
military force against the Syrian Government. For now, here are
ten critical points highlighted by all of this:
1. New wars will always strengthen Trump: as they do for
every leader.
The instant
elevation of Trump into a serious and respected war leader was palpable. Already,
the New York Times is gushing that “in launching a military
strike just 77 days into his administration, President Trump has the opportunity,
but hardly a guarantee, to change the perception of disarray in his
administration.”
Political
leaders across the spectrum rushed to praise Trump and support his bombing
campaign. Media coverage was overwhelmingly positive. One consummate
establishment spokesman accurately observed:
New wars
trigger the worst in people: their jingoism, their tribal loyalties, their
instinct to submit to authority and leaders. The incentive scheme here is as
obvious as it is frightening: great rewards await political leaders who start
new wars. In Federalist 4, John Jay warned of all the personal benefits
a leader obtains from starting a new war – which is the reason it was supposed
to be difficult for U.S. Presidents to do it:
It is too
true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general
will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute
monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but
for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military
glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to
aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a
variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead
him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of
his people.
Trump is
going to see – and feel – the establishment and media respect he craves,
the sensations of strength he most lacks, by dropping bombs. Every person, let
alone Trump, would be tempted to keep pursuing war as a result of this warped
incentive framework. Indeed, Trump himself has long been aware of this
motivation as he accused Obama in 2012 of preparing to start a new war in
response to falling poll numbers:
Those who
instantly fall in line behind Trump as he bombs people are ensuring that he
will keep doing it. As the instantly popular post-9/11 George W. Bush showed,
those praising Trump for bombing Syria are also building him up in general so
that he becomes stronger with everything else he wants to do.
2. Democrats’ jingoistic rhetoric has left
them no ability – or desire – to oppose Trump’s wars.
Democrats
have spent months wrapping themselves in extremely nationalistic and
militaristic rhetoric. They have constantly accused Trump of being a
traitor to the U.S., a puppet of Putin, and unwilling to defend U.S. interests.
They have specifically tried to exploit Assad’s crimes by tying the Syrian
leader to Trump, insisting that Trump would never confront Assad because doing
so would anger his Kremlin masters. They have embraced a framework whereby
anyone who refuses to confront Putin or Assad is deemed a sympathizer of, or a
servant to, foreign enemies.
Having
pushed those tactics and themes, Democrats have painted themselves into a
corner. How could they possibly do anything but cheer as Trump bombs Syria?
They can’t. And cheering is thus exactly what they’re doing.
For months,
those of us who have urged skepticism and restraint on the Russia rhetoric have
highlighted the risk that this fixation on depicting him as a tool of the
Kremlin could goad Trump – dare him or even force him – to seek
confrontation with Moscow. Some Democrats reacted with rage yesterday at the
suggestion that their political tactics were now bearing this fruit, but that’s
how politics works.
Much as
George H.W. Bush was motivated to shed his “wimp” image by invading Panama, of
course Trump will be motivated to prove he’s not controlled by Putin
via blackmail by seeking confrontation with the Russian leader. And that’s
exactly what he just did. War is the classic weapon U.S. Presidents use to
show they are strong, patriotic and deserving of respect; the more those
attributes are called in question, the greater that compulsion becomes:
Trump is the
prime author of his wars, and of this bombing in Syria. He, and he alone, bears
primary responsibility for it. But Trump is not an island of agency; he
operates in the climate of Washington. A major reason why it’s so dangerous to
ratchet up rhetorical tension between two major nuclear-armed powers is because
of the ease with which those tensions can translate into actual conflict, and
the motivation it can create for Trump to use war to prove he’s a patriot
after all.
Whatever
else is true, Democrats – with very few exceptions such as Rep. Ted Lieu
and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard – have refrained from criticizing Trump’s bombing
campaign on the merits (as opposed to process issues). Indeed, Democratic
Party leaders have explicitly praised Trump’s bombing. They will have to
continue to do so even if Trump expands this war. That’s what the Democratic
Party has turned itself into to; indeed, it’s what it has been for a long time.
3. In wartime, US television instantly converts into
state media.
As it always
does, the U.S. media last night was an almost equal mix of excitement and reverence
as the bombs fell. People who dissent from this bombing campaign – who opposed
it on the merits – were almost entirely disappeared, as they always are in such
moments of high patriotism (MSNBC’s Chris Hayes had two guests on after
midnight who opposed it, but they were rare). Claims from the U.S. government
and military are immediately vested with unquestioned truth and accuracy, while
claims from foreign adversaries such as Russia and Syria are reflexively
scorned as lies and propaganda.
For all the
recent hysteria over RT being a propaganda outlet for the state, U.S.
media coverage is barely distinguishable in times of war (which is, for the
U.S., the permanent state of affairs). More systematic analysis will surely be
forthcoming of last night’s coverage, but for now, here is Brian Williams – in
all of his military-revering majesty – showing how state TV functions in the
United States:
And here’s
Fareed Zakaria declaring on CNN that Donald Trump has now been instantly
transformed into the President of the United States in all of the loftiest and
most regal senses of the term:
4. Trump’s bombing is illegal, but presidents are now
omnipotent.
It should be
startling and infuriating that Trump is able to order a new attack on the
Syrian Government without any democratic debate, let alone Congressional
approval. At least when Obama started bombing Syria without Congress, he had
the excuse that it was authorized by the 2001 Authorization to Use Military
Force, since his ostensible targets were terrorist groups (even though ISIS did
not exist until years after that was enacted and is hardly “affiliated” with Al
Qaeda). But since there’s no self-defense pretext to what Trump just did, what
possible legal rationale exists for this? None.
But nobody
in Washington really cares about such legalities. Indeed, we have purposely
created an omnipotent presidency. Recall that in 2011, Obama went to war in
Libya not just without Congressional approval, but even after Congress rejected
such authorization.
What
happened to Obama as a result of involving the U.S in a war that Congress had
rejected? Absolutely nothing, because Congress, due to political cowardice,
wants to abdicate war-making powers to the President. As a country, we have
decided we want an all-powerful president – one who can bomb, and spy, and
detain, and invade with virtually no limits. That’s the machinery of the
imperial presidency that both parties have jointly built and have now handed
to President Trump.
Indeed, in
2013, Obama explicitly argued that he had the right to bomb Assad
without Congressional approval – a precedent the Trump White House will now
use.
5. How can those who view Trump as an Inept Fascist now
trust him to wage war?
Perhaps the
most bizarre aspect of the last 24 hours has been watching those who have
vilified Trump as an Evil Fascist and Bumbling Clown and Unstable Sociopath
suddenly decide that they want him to bomb Syria. Even if you’re someone who in
the abstract wanted the U.S. to attack Assad, shouldn’t your view that Trump is
a completely unstable and incompetent monster prevent you from endorsing this
war, with Trump as the Commander-in-Chief?
What
happened to all the warnings about Trump’s towering incompetence and core evil?
Where are all the grave predictions that he’s leading the world on a path of
authoritarianism, fascism and blood and soil nationalism? They all gave way to
War Fever:
During the
campaign, Trump explicitly vowed to commit war crimes: to torture detainees and
purposely murder the families of terrorists. Back in April of last year,
I summarized Trump’s mindset this way: “he favors fewer wars, but
advocates more monstrous, war-criminal tactics for the ones US does fight.”
Given
everything that has been claimed about Trump by his critics, how can any of
them justify cheering for a bombing campaign led by him? Do they experience no
cognitive dissonance at all in having spent months depicting Trump as a lying,
deceitful fascist, only to now turn around and trust him to bomb other
countries with care, humanitarianism and efficacy?
6. Like all good conspiracy theories, no evidence can
kill the Kremlin-controls-Trump tale.
Central to
the conspiracy theories woven for months by Democrats is the claim that Putin
wields power over Trump in the form of blackmail, debts or other leverage. As a
result, this conspiracy theory goes, the Kremlin has now infiltrated American
institutions of power and controls the U.S. Government, because Trump is
unwilling – indeed, unable – to defy Putin’s orders.
Yet here is
Trump – less than three months after being inaugurated – bombing one of
the Kremlin’s closest allies, in a country where Russia has spent more than a
year fighting to preserve his government. Will any of this undermine or dilute
the conspiracy theory that the Kremlin controls the White House? Of course not.
Warped conspiracy theorists are not only immune to evidence that disproves
their theories but, worse, find ways to convert such evidence into further proof
of their conspiracies.
Already, the
most obsessive Democratic conspiracists have cited the fact that the
U.S. military advised Russia in advance of the strikes – something they would
have been incredibly reckless not to do – as innuendo showing that Trump
serves Putin. If Trump tomorrow bombed Red Square, Democrats – after
cheering him – would quickly announce that he only did so to throw everyone off
the trail of his collusion with Putin.
7. The fraud of humanitarianism works every time for (and
on) American elites.
In the last
two months, Trump has ordered a commando raid in Yemen that has massacred
children and dozens of innocent people, bombed Mosul and killed scores of
civilians, and bombed a mosque near Aleppo that killed dozens. During the
campaign, he vowed to murder the family members of alleged terrorists. He shut
America’s doors to Syrian refugees, and is deporting people who have lived in
the U.S. since childhood despite committing no crimes.
Given all
that, could American elites possibly believe him when he says that he is
motivated by humanitarianism – deep-seated anger over seeing Syrian children
harmed – in bombing Syria? Yes, they could, and they are. That’s because
American elites always want to believe – or at least want others to believe –
that the U.S. bombs countries over and over not out of aggression or dominance
but out of love, freedom, democracy and humanitarian concern.
The U.S.
Government does not wage war, and the U.S. military does not blow things up,
out of humanitarianism. It does so when it believes there is some benefit to be
obtained for itself. Again, Federalist 4 warned us: “nations in general will
make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it.”
If
humanitarianism is what motivated the U.S. in Syria, it would take in massive
numbers of refugees, but it hasn’t. If humanitarianism is what motivated the
U.S. bombing of Libya, it would have given large amounts of aid to that country
in the aftermath to help it deal with the ensuing anarchy and misery, but it
didn’t. That’s because humanitarianism is the pretext for U.S. wars, not the
actual motive.
But the
psychological comfort of believing that the only reason your government bombs
more countries by far than any other is because your country is just so
uniquely devoted to humanitarian love is so powerful that it overrides all
rational faculties. That’s why all wars – even the most malicious and
aggressive – are wrapped in humanitarian packaging. And no matter how many
times we see that this packaging is a lie – in Vietnam, in Iraq, in
Libya – we keep wanting to believe that, this time, our bombs will
be filled with love, help and freedom.
8. Support for Trump’s Bombing Shows Two Toxic U.S. Conceits:
“Do Something” and “Look Strong”
Those who
oppose Trump’s new bombing campaign – or any U.S. bombing campaign – are
instantly met with the predictable objection: we must “Do Something” about
Syria. This mentality is predicated on a terribly false, and terribly
dangerous, premise: that the U.S. military can and should solve every world
evil.
But
sometimes, the U.S. lacks the ability to solve other problems. Often, having
the U.S. drop bombs exacerbates suffering, rather than alleviates it. As
upsetting as it is to accept, sometimes doing nothing is the least bad of all
the options. Again, if humanitarianism really were the motive, there are many
things the U.S. could do besides bombing Syria and killing civilians, such as
giving refuge and humanitarian aid. But the idea that a war can be justified by
appealing to the vague imperative that we must “do something” is
incredibly irrational and immoral.
The same is
true – indeed even more so – of this horribly toxic premise long endorsed by
the world of U.S think tanks that a President must go to war to preserve
“credibility” – meaning that he must drop bombs and kill people to show the
world that he, and the country he leads, is “strong.” To see that hideous
premise in action, look at how the New York Times gloriously depicted Bush 41’s
senseless invasion of Panama in the above article, or how the NYT yesterday
described the view of “experts” about Trump’s need to bomb Syria:
There may be
some things more evil and immoral than starting a new war based on the desire
to avoid “looking weak,” but it’s hard to think of many things that qualify.
And yet this belief continues to be gospel among America’s war-loving think
tank and Foreign Policy Community.
9. Obama’s refusal to bomb Assad hovers over
everything.
Despite
insisting that he had the power to do so without Congress, Obama resisted
bipartisan demands to use military force against Assad. I personally view this
as one of Obama’s smartest and best decisions and, according to today’s New
York Times, so does he: “Mr. Obama said he was ‘very proud of that moment’
because he had stepped back from the Washington establishment’s warnings. Few
of his top foreign policy advisers agreed.” Indeed, by the end of his
presidency, the U.S. stopped claiming it was even seeking regime change.
But those
who insist that the U.S. has a moral obligation to remove Assad or at least
bomb him become tongue-tied when it comes to assessing Obama. If, as many
claim, Assad is our generation’s Hitlerian figure – and recall how many recent
foreign leaders were depicted as The New Hitler when some wanted them
attacked – does that make Obama this generation’s Neville Chamberlain for
his refusal to attack Assad? And does it mean that Trump has acted more morally
than Obama by doing what Obama refused to do?
Again, I
side with Obama in this dispute because I never believed that U.S. military had
any positive role to play in Syria. But those who have long insisted that U.S.
military action against Assad is morally imperative should follow those
premises through to their conclusions when it comes to Obama and Trump.
10. None of this disproves, obviously, that Hillary
Clinton was also a dangerous hawk.
Every time
Trump drops another bomb, Democratic pundits declare vindication over those
always-unnamed people who they claim argued during the campaign that Trump was
more anti-war than Clinton:
Who are the
people who argued that Trump would be more anti-war than Clinton? Their numbers
were tiny; Maureen Dowd is one of the very people with a prominent platform to
claim this. Trump expressly vowed to bomb more frequently and more
aggressively, as was often pointed out.
It’s
certainly true that any attempt by Trump to remove Assad would violate his
oft-stated campaign vows. But whatever else is true, this specific bombing
campaign is a bizarre instance to try to defend Clinton given that
Clinton, for years – and again yesterday – endorsed this military action.
Indeed, Clinton has long endorsed far more extensive military action in
Syria than what Trump yesterday ordered, often advocating a no-fly-zone over
parts of Syria – which would be a massive and incredibly dangerous
military undertaking – and even yesterday calling for the destruction of
Assad’s air force.
It’s
certainly true that Trump vowed to involve the U.S. in fewer wars than Clinton
wanted, and for a narrower range of reasons. And that may still end up
happening. Indeed, many of Trump’s most vocal supporters yesterday were
expressing anger even over this limited bombing campaign in Syria. But to take
a military action that Clinton herself favored and try to use
it to suggest that Clinton would have been less hawkish is just bizarre
and deceitful beyond belief.
Ultimately,
what is perhaps most depressing about all of this is how, yet again, we see the
paucity of choice offered by American democracy. The leadership of both parties
can barely contain themselves joining together to cheer the latest war. One
candidate – the losing one – ran on a platform of launching this new war, while
the other – the victor – repeatedly vowed to avoid it, only to launch it after
being in office fewer than 100 days.
The one
constant of American political life is that the U.S. loves war. Martin Luther
King’s 1967 denunciation of the U.S. as “the greatest purveyor of violence in
the world today” is more accurate than ever.
UPDATE: While
Prime Minister Trudeau yesterday urged an investigation before any action is
taken, once Trump’s bombs fell, he issued a statement expressing full
support, directly contradicting his earlier statements: “President Assad’s use
of chemical weapons and the crimes the Syrian regime has committed against its
own people cannot be ignored.”
