IS TRUMP USHERING IN A ‘FINANCIALLY-RESPONSIBLE EMPIRE’?

October 27, 2019 – 5:07 am

HOW TO DONATE

Our costs will always be there. So readers who can donate towards the cost of the site, please open a Skrill account. Readers who wish to contribute to BigO will now have to use Skrill (click here). We are no longer able to use PayPal to receive donations. Register an account at Skrill. To make a payment, use this e-mail address as recipient’s e-mail address in Skrill: mail2[at]bigomagazine.com. Looking forward to hearing from you.

+ + + + +

JUST TO LET YOU KNOW
To reduce spamming, the BigO website is going through Cloudflare. What it does is scan your browser to ensure the visitor is not a spam. Do not be alarmed as this usually takes only a few seconds. Email us if you still have difficulty accessing the BigO site; or playing or downloading the tracks. If you know a better way of reducing spam, do let us know.

+ + + + +


Even a wannabe policeman for the world needs to be paid. You need a businessman president to figure that out. By Tim Kirby via The Strategic Culture Foundation.

It is nice to finally have a US President who is not a career politician. There is some truth to the Republican/Libertarian trope that lifelong politicians who know nothing but politics are perhaps not the best people to be making decisions on the military, medicine or education as they don’t know about life beyond getting reelected and “working” with lobbyists. Trump’s business background has led him to making a major policy change that the Mainstream Media has surprisingly ignored that could actually be very good for America’s future.

If we remember back to Trump’s presidential campaign, he rather brazenly promised that he would build The Wall and make the Mexicans somehow “pay for it”. Trump later claimed that through renegotiating trade deals (NAFTA) he ultimately fulfilled his promise, although some would debate this. The interesting thing about this moment in Trump history is that he demonstrated a very different, business oriented way of thinking that wouldn’t have come from other Republicans/Democrats in Washington.

Candidate Trump was also very vocal on NATO spending and the spending of taxpayer money on the US’ many wars of luxury. President Trump hasn’t ended the Military Industrial Complex but he has been forcing NATO members to pay their dues, which are in the realm of tens of billions of dollars.

This is a much more “realist” perception of NATO by Trump. Officially the organization is a group of allies for self-defense but as we know factually it works like means for the US colonization of Europe. The US military does almost all the work, they project their bases onto the Europeans (never the other way around) and, with the recent exception of Turkey, all NATO members essentially bow down to any demands made by Washington.

However, in the past, this has come at a price. Empire isn’t cheap and we all know who ultimately paid for the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan after WWII - US taxpayers. The US has financed the farce of NATO, but Trump wants to change this.

President Trump hasn’t ended the Military Industrial Complex but he has been forcing NATO members to pay their dues, which are in the realm of tens of billions of dollars.

Now breaking with over half a century of a particular tradition Trump is allowing 3,000 US troops to go to Saudi Arabia on the Saudi’s dime. Now Trump is offering to provide NATO defense to vassals and “make them pay for it”. This profit-driven policy is a radical departure from the status quo and, to be honest, is a much wiser wiser way of doing things in the long term with one huge exception depending on your view.

If US forces are to be used under the influence of “market demands” that could really put a dent into the seemingly endless national debt. The US has by far the biggest most expensive military in the world and Washington’s vassals at this point have no other choice but to pay the master for protection, making maintaining US military dominance much cheaper. The only disadvantage (depending on your view) is that if Trump pushes for profitability as a key factor in military decisions/policy then we will never be able have another Vietnam.

There is no way the South Vietnamese could have afforded to pay for US security. Their resources would have run out in a matter of weeks or days. If Trump wants the US to act on a “no money no honey” policy then it makes intervention in a Vietnam-like scenario ultimately impossible. This is good for those of us who want a powerful but respectable America, but for the warhawks this is a nightmare. Financial viability as a key concern in military decisions could spell doom for the parties of war, at least while Trump or a like minded individual is in power.

The Russians have also made a major shift in defense policy. The Soviet Union with less money and a distinct lack of the world’s reserve currency played by similar rules during the Cold War - we will throw money, men and resources at any conflict we see fit in order to ultimately win. But today’s Russia is different and when they entered Syria they made it clear to Assad that they are there to “help” and that Assad’s army is going to have to fight its own battles on its own manpower and resources.

If Russia were to enter a long term expensive military conflict it could possibly sink the entire economy or eliminate for generations Moscow’s debt free status. Sending officially invited advisors and selling top-notch equipment - has no negative long term effects. Trump isn’t the only one who sees the value of playing geopolitics on a strict budget.

This decision by Trump to send troops to defend Saudi Arabia at cost or even for profit could have a much grander resonance than it would seem at first. And, hopefully, finally, the burden of Empire can be moved from the shoulders of US taxpayers so that they can enjoy the fruits of that which they have financed for decades.

Note: Tim Kirby is an independent journalist, TV and radio host. The above article was posted at strategic-culture.org and at zerohedge.com.

+ + + + +

  1. 7 Responses to “IS TRUMP USHERING IN A ‘FINANCIALLY-RESPONSIBLE EMPIRE’?”

  2. Best satirical column I’ve read for ages!

    By Kiwi on Oct 28, 2019

  3. We need more of this type of reporting in the U.S. instead of the ratings driven, biased, fake news most of the U.S. networks go with.

    By Nick on Oct 28, 2019

  4. Yeah, while Trump acts like a 12-year-old name-calling sociopath, if you think the column is satirical, you’re lost to the vitriolic confusion of the far left still reeling from losing the election - and acting like an even sillier 12-year old. Having a businessman run the country has always made sense - we are competing if not to be the biggest business in the world, at least one that survives in a business sense. Going into the kind of debt we have for the control we’ve desired, under presidents of both sides of the fence, is finally being challenged by our idiot (yet business-saavy) president. While Trump is a total embarrassment, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is surely a sign of political ignorance.

    By Cook on Oct 28, 2019

  5. Hey guys, I think we’ve entered the twilight zone or maybe Big-O and Co. just fixin’ to purge us ‘righties’ outta here.
    I don’t understand either. An objective article on President “orange man bad” Trump? Where am I again?
    More fake news!

    By otis t on Oct 28, 2019

  6. The U.S. military is a volunteer force, not a mercenary “guns for hire” operation. Using it for profit is wrong, un-American, and a disaster for national security. Trump is running a $986 billion annual deficit, even though the economy is healthy. We’re going broke, just like Trump University, Trump Shuttle, and every other business that he ran with his Dad’s money. His only income for the past 20 years was reality TV, selling his name to put on other people’s projects, and laundering money for Russian oligarchs. Fake news? His supporters just ignore anything that contradicts their feelings.

    By Eric on Oct 30, 2019

  7. Hey Eric,
    it’s government, there are no “feelings” involved, that is unless you’re a….”post modernest” = marxist. The State has no emotion for people, so how can people have emotion for the State.

    By otis t on Nov 2, 2019

  8. The political left has lost any/all objectivity if it ever had any in the first place. Making utter fools of themselves in a civilized world. They (politicians) think we should be applauding the circus impeachment of a duly elected president by the PEOPLE. In the end voters (the PEOPLE) will tire of the charade and it will backfire in spades.

    By otis t on Nov 3, 2019

Post a Comment