Friday, August 31, 2018

War as a Distraction, but Where?

On 21 August 2018, Trump's lawyer Cohen pleaded guilty to 8 counts, some of which were criminal conspiracy with 'a candidate for president'. Of course, we know which 'candidate for president', making a certain president an unindicted co-conspirator. The Democrats are saying it's the beginning of the end, the impeachment clock is ticking down. As it happens, Alan Dershowitz says that Cohen's confessions do not implicate Trump, while David Jolly says Trump is finished.

It is an old American tradition that, when a president is in trouble, he starts a war to distract the voters and tells them it would endanger the troops to change Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a war. But where? Trump was promising regime change in Iran back in '15, but his Cabinet wants regime change in Syria, Russia, and the DPRK. Iran is screaming 'Mother of all Wars' just like Saddam did, and war with Iran should go like Libya, but might be more like Iraq, whichever way Trump thinks will best distract the voters. Obama was going to win anyway, so a quick victory in Libya worked (and made a lot of money for the US/UK/France), but Bush, sr was not so popular, and, after he finished the First US-Iraq War, the voters said, 'Job well done, but it's done, and now we want Clinton.' So Bush, jr kept the Second US-Iraq War going (and it's still going 9 years after Bush, jr left office).

Candidate Obama said he'd end all the wars, and President Obama did pause the Iraq War briefly, but mostly, President Obama expanded all the wars he inherited, and added some new ones. Candidate Trump ran on ending the wars, but President Trump expanded the ones he inherited, and is in a corner where he needs one or more new ones.

Iran can scream, but they can't do much. Carpet bombing like Libya should force regime change about as quickly as it did in Libya, but ground troops like Iraq might be a better distraction for the voters, so Trump cold go either way. 

However, Trump's Cabinet, France and the UK all want regime change in Syria, which means also in Russia, and the Cabinet would also like to finish what Truman started in the DPRK. Truman, of course, fired his general for suggesting he risk a nuclear war against the only other nuclear power in the world, and one would hope Trump and his Cabinet would learn from Truman, but Trump and his cabinet don't seem capable of learning anything from anyone (and nor do the British and French governments). So they might try Russia and/or the DPRK. Russia might not be as strong as the USSR, but they still have MAD (the New York Times says Russia's MAD WMD are just Photoshop, but they now print whatever their readers want to be true, not necessarily the facts). China did not sit idly by when Truman tried regime change in the DPRK, and they're not going to sit idly by if Trump and his Cabinet try again, not to mention that the DPRK is almost certainly able to execute an EMP strike on the US all by itself.

If the Cabinet, Britain and France convince Trump to start a war anywhere except Iran, it'll be, 'So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye.' 

1 comment:

Bill the Butcher said...

I think you'll find Iran is going to be much tougher than Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan put together. For one thing, a few old ships towed out and sunk across the Straits of Hormuz alone should do a great job of turning the tables (Iran's own Arabian Sea ports would still be open). And Russia and China, de facto Iranian allies, won't stand idly by either. So the rather more likely target would be a country that isn't anyone's friend. The problem is that most potential target countries are now getting together to defend themselves against Amerikastani warmongering, so it won't be that easy anymore.