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.

Cierzo · M

This is a very complex post. I will try to answer it the best way my limited intelligence and knowledge of the English language allows me.

This situation dates back to the cold war, in my opinion. After WW2 Western Europe does not have a voice of its own in the chessboard of international relationships, but it is just a pawn (or a rook if you prefer) in the American side.

The same bipartisan scheme that dominates American politics, with two political parties disagreeing in certain issues, but agreeing in the most important ones (economics, foreign policy) took root in Europe. In most countries a false conservative/socialdemocrat dichotomy still rules. During the cold war communist parties were the ones who could put in danger this scheme of things. The US of course did not allow it to happen and nipped in the bad any chance of them reaching in power. I am sure you have heard about Operation Gladio.

The situation has not changed much. Neocons of both parties control American policy and the deep state. Here in Europe some have set there hopes in leftist parties or leaders like Tsipras, Corbyn, Iglesias on one side; or nationalists like Le Pen, Farage, Petry on the other side. So far more hopes than realities.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

I agree. The cold war is a good point and it was always more about international power accumulation than the fight against Communism. Even when the US was much further to the left on economic policy, both US parties were still hawkish. Nixon once tried to implement an Universal Basic Income. I would like Lyndon Johnson apart from his own role with Vietnam.

Don't be too down on yourself btw. Your command of English is excellent and I don't know any other language. Even though I strongly disagree with your solutions and the politicians you like, I respect your intelligence greatly.