While President Donald Trump’s statement on future military plans in Afghanistan were praised by many mainstream conservatives, his future commitments have alienated major sectors of his broad base.
What we saw during that statement was not the same Trump who drummed up massive populist support not one year ago. It was something else. What it was, few can say for sure, but people like Dick Morris, Roger Stone, and other former pro-Trump insiders are saying that the words coming out of his mouth during that speech were those of the deep state.
Has yet another ambitious politician been co-opted by corrupt bureaucrats?
For many, only a scenario like this could explain Trump’s speech on Afghanistan. His stated position on the topic runs directly contrary to everything he said as a candidate, and everything he’s done as president. It violates his focus on placing America first. It contradicts his usual policy of not announcing military actions ahead of time. And it is unlike the two bombings he authorized, neither of which committed any troops to the ground.
To be fair, the war in the desolate country is so old many may have forgotten the details, so let’s recap: Afghanistan was invaded as a response to 9/11 after Osama bin Laden took credit for the attack. When the country refused to give up the terrorist, President George W. Bush authorized an invasion. After it became clear bin Laden was no longer in the country, military policy shifted from a classic “seek-and-destroy” mission to a full-blown experiment in nation-building – exactly what President Trump ran against.
Despite his harsh criticism for how the war was handled by both previous administrations, President Trump now appears just as committed to the dated “War on Terror” as anyone else has been. His promise to send thousands of additional troops into Afghanistan has earned scorn from one of the war’s earliest critics.
The Ron Paul Institute released the following statement in response to the speech:
“Gen. Mike Flynn had it right in 2015 when he said that the US drone program was creating more terrorists than it was killing. Trump’s foolish escalation will do the same. It will fail because it cannot do otherwise. It will only create more terrorists to justify more US intervention. And so on until our financial collapse. The US government cannot kill its way to peace in Afghanistan. Or anywhere else.”
The statement went on to lay out the following points; 1. The majority of 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals; 2. Osama bin Laden’s group occupied Afghanistan for a short time in the late 90s; 3. Bin Laden’s Saudi fighters attacked the US on 9/11; 4. After 16 years, there is no stated final objective from the Pentagon, or the White House.
It is dismaying that Trump would express an interest in ramping up the occupation there. But, it is fair to take a close look at the style of the rhetoric he used in that speech, which marked a notable detraction. It was far more scripted and far more conventional. Obama could have delivered that speech. George W. Bush could have delivered it — but not Trump.
And as if to drive this home, the president immediately held a rally in Arizona. It was a thrilling pro-America, pro-middle class message with huge enthusiasm from a huge crowd. He reminded us who he is, and made it clear that it was not him speaking during the Afghanistan speech.
Now, it is certainly true that Trump has far more access to critical national security information than anyone else in the United States. His stated goal to bring about a swift end to the conflict may in fact be realized, considering how successful his hands-off approach to military management has been so far. But, foreign occupation stories usually have the same ending: operations in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have all concluded with America having more enemies than it used to.
Of course, all of this is good news for military contractors, intelligence agencies, and deep state operatives.
At this point, it may be reasonable to consider the possibility that Trump has been threatened by deeply entrenched establishment powers to prosecute a war for control over Afghanistan’s opiate supply.
~ Conservative Zone