During the Democratic National Convention, the party in one
fell swoop exemplified how their foreign policy platform is characterized by superficiality
with no substance, dishonesty absent an ounce of shame, and downright
immorality when their intentions are laid bare.
One of the main and recurring arguments that was made against Trump (in the few short
instances when they actually deigned to discuss policy at all) was that he is
unfit to lead because Russia put a bounty on US soldiers in Afghanistan, and since
he didn’t do anything to stop it he can’t be trusted to protect the troops.
Note
that the argument was not that Trump is an imperialist warmonger who breaks
international law as easily as he steps on cracks on the sidewalk. Nor was it
that he is aiding Saudi Arabia in a genocide in Yemen. Nor even that he has and
is currently supporting the overthrow of democratically elected leaders
throughout the world. No, instead it is that he hasn’t been hawkish enough in
colonizing Afghanistan and leading the world further toward a confrontation
between its two biggest nuclear superpowers.
This,
however, is a very enlightening example of how propaganda functions within our
current political climate, and as well gives good insights into both how the Democratic
establishment operates and how easily public perception can be manipulated by
intelligence agencies.
First
off, the Russian bounty story that blared across the headlines of every major
newspaper and TV station is completely unfounded
and untrue.
The original
New York Times report quoted anonymous, unnamed “intelligence officials” without
any further evidence. The authors even admitted that these same sources “did
not describe the mechanics of the Russian operation” and that they were “not
clear” about its details. When the
Washington Post “corroborated” the Times report, they included the caveat
“if confirmed”, admitting that the story was, in fact, not confirmed. Both
stories included denials from every party involved: the White House, the
Taliban, and Moscow.
So, if
the story is baseless, why has it been repeatedly cited as fact?
It must firstly
be understood that American foreign policy is not determined by considerations
of morality, defense, or the desire to spread democracy. Instead, it is based
on the interests of expanding and protecting state and corporate power. Areas
of the world where interference can be seen to benefit state influence or the enrichment
of US investors will be targeted for such ends. Trump’s
own advisors explained to him, in presentations that AP has titled
“American power 101”, that an expanded American footprint abroad is necessary “in
making the world safe for American businesses.” This, of course, is then
defended based upon a moral justification such as democracy promotion or the
eradication of some great evil, much like the British justified their
colonization based upon “the white mans burden.”
Indeed,
it was revealed in the beginning of the Trump presidency by a
State Department memo that Washington views “ideals and interests” “in
relation to our competitors” as something to be used “to pressure” and
“outmaneuver” them, because “pressing those regimes on human rights is one way
to impose costs, apply counter-pressure, and regain the initiative from them
strategically.”
Specifically,
Afghanistan has always been understood as a key strategic prize, the control of
which would grant access to the energy resources of the region and help
maintain influence over the wider Middle East, which itself is a primary lever
of global power.
So it is
not surprising that the initial Russian bounty story came at a time when the
Trump administration was negotiating with the Taliban and had committed itself
to pulling all troops out of the country. Nuclear weapons reduction treaties
with Russia are also set to expire and face the possibility of being renewed. The
commotion caused by the story had the effect of pressuring the administration
to backtrack
on troop withdrawal and to further stoke confrontation with Russia, with
the New START nuclear accord still hanging in the balance, set to expire in
early 2021 while Trump remains “ambivalent”
about re-signing it.
As well,
at a time when the longest war effort in American history is not going well, with
the population turning against it, and when the original justifications have
been exhausted of their legitimacy, a newfound reasoning for why the US must
stay there is required.
So,
anonymous spooks “leak” out a completely baseless story about Russia killing
American troops, and now anytime someone brings up, say, the fact that invading
and colonizing other countries is bad, they can be summarily dismissed as
unpatriotic and having loyalty to our enemies that mean us harm.
The
effect, therefore, is to pressure the administration to remain committed to the
interests of US global hegemony.
This
entire scenario perfectly exemplifies the propaganda notion that if you say a
big enough lie enough times it will become true.
Now,
imagine you are an average American who doesn’t have time to verify every
political argument that is made. You read a headline one day about Russia
paying for the killing of American soldiers in Afghanistan. You might even hear
a soundbite of it on the nightly news. Then you’re watching the DNC and
important people repeatedly bring it up and state it as fact. How would you
respond to that? Of course, you would likely accept it as true. This is how easy
it is for intelligence agencies to manufacture “truth” within the minds of the
populace given a compliant media that does not question them.
The
Democrats, of course, then go full-in on weaponizing this against Trump,
because fundamentally they are the same imperialist warmongers as the
Republicans (just go watch John Kerry’s DNC speech on ‘American Exceptionalism,
a.k.a. American Supremacism, if you’re in doubt).
The
Democrats and Republicans are merely two factions of the same party, one that
represents the business and investor interests of the country’s major elites.
The Democrats might make more effort to couch their imperialism with pretty
words and a nice smile, but at the end of the day they want to make the world
safe for American businesses too.
It is
therefore not surprising that they have decided to attack Trump most strongly
from the jingoistic, hawkish right, as they have continuously done throughout
his presidency with the ridiculous Russiagate debacle or when trying to derail
peace negotiations with North Korea.
Furthermore,
if the Democrats truly cared about “protecting our troops”, they would advocate
for the obvious: bringing the troops home out of harm’s way, and the reinvesting
of military funds into education, healthcare, and jobs that would actually
improve the lives of their working class constituency.
Yet this
all does provide an instructive example of how propaganda functions. Whenever a
“big scoop” like this comes out, it is important to always demand sources and
evidence before accepting it, as well as to ask “who benefits” from the
conclusions that are derived.
If the
sole source of the claims are “unnamed intelligence officials,” go grab for
your wallet, because you know someone is trying to pull one over you.