Do Britain and America allow their citizens democratic choice on foreign policy?
My answer is a fundamental NO and recent events make that very clear. Whoever is elected US President is pressurised into having a hawkish foreign policy by the deep state. My native Britain is effectively a US puppet in foreign policy terms and will gladly oblige, irrespective of the views of its own citizens.
The President's newly confrontational attitude to Putin, following his airstrike, has received a lot of praise from establishment figures; across the political field and the media and on both sides of the Atlantic. I am particularly referring here to 'mainstream' Conservatives (which includes a US Senator who said picking Trump as Republican nominee was 'like getting shot' and the UK Government), as well as mainstream liberals. Over here, Jeremy Corbyn is the only major politician to criticise the airstrike and he has been roundly attacked by the Atlantacist right of his own party and our media. Pundits and politicians who have spent months calling Trump a fascist and saying that he is a threat to US Democracy have now seemingly decided that he is more acceptable President because his choices are now within the 'mainstream' of US foreign policy objectives.
Now that is not to say that praise has been universal. Liberal critics will typically say that Trump is erratic and will still question his suitibility and judgement as commander-in-chief. These are quite reasonable points IMO but real significance lies in what they don't say. The strategy can be questioned on tactical grounds, as can the person doing it. What can't be questioned is what the objectives are and whether they are honorable.
The best way to achieve peace in Syria would be to negotiate a settlement with all groups bar ISIS and use diplomatic pressure to stop arm shipments from Iran and Saudi Arabia. That hasn't happened because the US and Russia are both more interested in their own power than they actually are about peace. The same goes for regional interests such as the aforementioned Saudis, Iran and Turkey etc. This is not what is presented. What is presented is that the US and her allies are the 'good guys' up against the 'bad guys'. Also because America's interests. Whatever that means.
There are lots of reasons why many Americans voted for Trump, some more honorable than others. However, part of his appeal was with his playing of the anti-establishment card and his claim to believe in a nationalist pacifism compared to Hillary Clinton. Under siege from agencies of the US deep state over his (perhaps true) links with Russia, Trump has won friends in the US establishment by doing what they wanted him to do. This is not democracy and I refuse to believe that American people (Trump's base or otherwise) actually want an escalation of things in Syria.
People who have read my posts will know that I am no fan of Trump or the right-wing nationalism which he represents. This though is about a different problem and a different facet of political power. The MIC, US intelligence agencies and the US bureaucracy have tremendous authority and it is almost completely unaccountable. The British State is of course much the same on a smaller scale. Elections can make a difference and can change some aspects of power but what goes on behind the throne deserves more attention.
Sorry that was so long. thanks for reading it all if you did.
The President's newly confrontational attitude to Putin, following his airstrike, has received a lot of praise from establishment figures; across the political field and the media and on both sides of the Atlantic. I am particularly referring here to 'mainstream' Conservatives (which includes a US Senator who said picking Trump as Republican nominee was 'like getting shot' and the UK Government), as well as mainstream liberals. Over here, Jeremy Corbyn is the only major politician to criticise the airstrike and he has been roundly attacked by the Atlantacist right of his own party and our media. Pundits and politicians who have spent months calling Trump a fascist and saying that he is a threat to US Democracy have now seemingly decided that he is more acceptable President because his choices are now within the 'mainstream' of US foreign policy objectives.
Now that is not to say that praise has been universal. Liberal critics will typically say that Trump is erratic and will still question his suitibility and judgement as commander-in-chief. These are quite reasonable points IMO but real significance lies in what they don't say. The strategy can be questioned on tactical grounds, as can the person doing it. What can't be questioned is what the objectives are and whether they are honorable.
The best way to achieve peace in Syria would be to negotiate a settlement with all groups bar ISIS and use diplomatic pressure to stop arm shipments from Iran and Saudi Arabia. That hasn't happened because the US and Russia are both more interested in their own power than they actually are about peace. The same goes for regional interests such as the aforementioned Saudis, Iran and Turkey etc. This is not what is presented. What is presented is that the US and her allies are the 'good guys' up against the 'bad guys'. Also because America's interests. Whatever that means.
There are lots of reasons why many Americans voted for Trump, some more honorable than others. However, part of his appeal was with his playing of the anti-establishment card and his claim to believe in a nationalist pacifism compared to Hillary Clinton. Under siege from agencies of the US deep state over his (perhaps true) links with Russia, Trump has won friends in the US establishment by doing what they wanted him to do. This is not democracy and I refuse to believe that American people (Trump's base or otherwise) actually want an escalation of things in Syria.
People who have read my posts will know that I am no fan of Trump or the right-wing nationalism which he represents. This though is about a different problem and a different facet of political power. The MIC, US intelligence agencies and the US bureaucracy have tremendous authority and it is almost completely unaccountable. The British State is of course much the same on a smaller scale. Elections can make a difference and can change some aspects of power but what goes on behind the throne deserves more attention.
Sorry that was so long. thanks for reading it all if you did.
41-45, M
