« "Will Turkey's military turn East or West?" by Metin Gurcan | Main | Of Quarterbacks and Colonial Marines - TTG »

29 August 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Norbert M. Salamon

Thank you Dr. Benner for a very complete analysis of the foreseeable foreign affairs modus operandi of the USA.
While I am aware that this committee of correspondence posits a Clinton Presidency, however, there is still the 3 debates and Mr. Assage's present of things to remember by Mrs.[and Mr.] Clinton] past actions, which might destroy her chances at the top office.
While it is probable that the overall outlook is to a large extent static as per your above essay, it is possible that there might be some serious changes were Mr. Trump gain the office.

ISL

Thanks for a dose of cold water. Amazing how close your description of US Foreign Policy and its inability to adapt match the behavior of the Star trek Borg - adaptation is simply a challenge to assimilation.

Yet, any reasonable projection of China into the future indicates barring WWIII, dominance (in the firefly world, curses are in Chinese) based on economic might. Hence one might imagine that a wise choice would be to ally with Russia to counterbalance China, and maybe India too. Instead, the US pushes Russia towards a collaboration with China.

I feel that Trump still has a non-negligible chance of winning (black swan in October, Hillary's health could give out), but could even he imprint a different modus operandi on the deep state, given that Borg mentality has been imprinted deep and wide (call it careerism in your US continuity governments ...

LeaNder

some female pectoral flexing (e.g. calling Putin a “new Hitler”)

I like the coinage before the brackets, although the example should somewhat disappoint the feminists.

Didn't we hear that before? ;)

Babak Makkinejad

All:

"I hate War" speech of FDR:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15097

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhAFKMIyKW4

This speech cannot be given by any Western leader lest they be labeled "appeasers".

Valissa

Great post Dr. Brenner, thanks! Your reasoning is exactly why I am not concerned who is the next US president. Interested in who it will be as part of history unfolding, but I think it is highly unlikely to effect the direction of the country in any meaningful way.

In case people haven't seen these recent articles about "following the money" and the military-industrial-thinktank complex...

U.S. Defense Contractors Tell Investors Russian Threat Is Great for Business https://theintercept.com/2016/08/19/nato-weapons-industry/
The escalating anti-russian rhetoric in the U.S. presidential campaign comes in the midst of a major push by military contractors to position Moscow as a potent enemy that must be countered with a drastic increase in military spending by NATO countries. Weapon makers have told investors that they are relying on tensions with Russia to fuel new business in the wake of Russian’s annexation of Crimea and modest increases in its military budget. In particular, the arms industry — both directly and through its arsenal of hired-gun, think-tank experts and lobbyists – is actively pressuring NATO member nations to hike defense spending in line with the NATO goal for member states to spend at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense.

… Many experts are unconvinced that Russia poses a direct military threat. The Soviet Union’s military once stood at over 4 million soldiers, but today Russia has less than 1 million. NATO’s combined military budget vastly outranks Russia’s — with the U.S. alone outspending Russia on its military by $609 billion to less than $85 billion. And yet, the Aerospace Industries Association, a lobby group for Lockheed Martin, Textron, Raytheon, and other defense contractors, argued in February that the Pentagon is not spending enough to counter “Russian aggression on NATO’s doorstep.”

Follow the money trail for source of ‘Russian threat’ paranoia https://www.rt.com/op-edge/356726-russian-threat-paranoia-money/
By any objective assessment it's NATO - not Russia - with its build up of arms and soldiers on the borders of Russia, which threatens the peace of Europe. But anyone who points this out, and mentions the military alliance’s relentless Drang nach Osten, threatens the profits of US defense companies and is attacked as an ‘appeaser' or ‘Kremlin stooge’ by those with a vested financial interest in keeping tensions high.
--------------


Karl Kolchack

Another reason to hope for a Trump victory, and a POSSIBLE real change in foreign policy "thinking," particularly towards Russia. It could happen, given the huge amount of Hillary hatred out there and how blatant the media propaganda has been for her. Americans ultimately do not like to be told what to think or how to vote, and this election might end up being the shocker of all time.

Herb

Thank you for this thought-provoking essay, Dr. Brenner.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

August 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Blog powered by Typepad