Tag: US Foreign Policy

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Peace Through Power or Peace Through War? The Militarization of Trump’s Doctrine

Introduction: The doctrine of “peace through power” has been a cornerstone of statecraft since the Roman Empire. But under Donald Trump, this historical concept has been reshaped into a tool for aggressive, unilateral action. This analysis argues that Trump’s version of the doctrine has not guaranteed peace but has instead fueled instability, humanitarian crises, and the erosion of international institutions, effectively becoming a doctrine of “peace through war.”

Roman Legionary - World History Encyclopedia
Note: The Roman legionary was a well-trained and disciplined foot soldier, fighting as part of a professional well-organized unit, the legion (Latin: legio), established by the Marian Reforms. While major tactical changes appeared during the final days of the Roman Republic and the early days of the Roman Empire, Roman armor and weapons, albeit with minor adaptations, remained simple.

From Hadrian’s Wall to the Cold War
The roots of “peace through power” run deep. The Roman Emperor Hadrian operationalized it by building his famous wall—a symbol of military strength meant to deter attacks and secure the empire’s borders. In modern times, U.S. leaders like Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan adopted this logic. Reagan, in particular, brought it to a crescendo during the Cold War, using massive defense budgets and arms superiority as a deterrent against the Soviet Union. The goal was to prevent war through undeniable strength.

President Trump will kick off Army's 250th birthday celebrations Tuesday at Fort Bragg - ABC7 Los Angeles
Trump kicks off Army’s 250th birthday celebrations at Fort Bragg, says he’ll restore base names

The Trump Transformation: From Deterrence to Aggression
Donald Trump has co-opted the phrase “peace through power,” but his application marks a significant shift. His policies have moved beyond deterrence towards what can be called “peace through aggressive military power.” This approach relies on:

  • Maximum Pressure: Severe economic sanctions and embargoes.

  • Military Threats: Overt and covert threats against adversaries.

  • Unilateral Action: Drone strikes and assassinations of key figures, such as Qasem Soleimani.

As Trump himself implied in a speech to the Israeli Knesset, his administration believed that military action (or its threat) was a necessary tool to force outcomes, like a peace agreement. This represents a fundamental change: military power is no longer just a shield for defense, but a sword to impose will.

The Destructive Age of Urban Warfare; or, How to Kill a City and How to Protect It
Note: Combat in urban areas is the most destructive type of warfare imaginable. Densely populated terrain, complex systems of systems that support human life, military weapons not optimized to these conditions, and asymmetric close-quarters battle tactics all make warfare in cities unforgiving for combatants, noncombatants, and cities alike. The unintentional—and at times intentional—destruction of the physical terrain, populations, and infrastructure of cities during combat leave effects that can be felt for generations.

The Cost of Militarism: Five Critical Failures
The real-world consequences of this aggressive doctrine reveal its profound flaws:

  1. It Fuels Instability, Not Security: Rather than preventing conflict, relentless threats and militarism spark arms races and regional tensions, creating a more volatile world.

  2. It Diverts Vital Resources: The trillions spent on expanding an already massive military budget are funds stripped from domestic needs like healthcare, education, and infrastructure, weakening the social fabric at home.

  3. It Erodes American Credibility: Unilateralism and constant threats have alienated traditional allies, weakened multilateral institutions like the UN, and driven some nations closer to America’s competitors.

  4. It Creates Humanitarian Crises: Airstrikes in Yemen, assassinations, and sanctions have resulted in thousands of civilian casualties, painting America as a nation that disregards international law and human rights.

  5. It Embraces Divisive Nationalism: The doctrine is often paired with a rhetoric of extreme nationalism, which deepens social divisions at home and exacerbates cultural and racial tensions abroad.

    Flags Handshake Stock Illustrations – 3,438 Flags Handshake Stock Illustrations, Vectors & Clipart - Dreamstime
    Note: A handshake between nations is a powerful symbol of peace and a commitment to cooperation, with its roots in showing peaceful intentions by demonstrating one is unarmed. While a handshake alone doesn’t guarantee peace, it is a crucial first step in a diplomatic process that can solidify agreements, build trust, and signify the end of conflict. It represents a mutual understanding and a desire for unity and collaboration.

Conclusion: The Need for a New Path
The “doctrine of peace through power” has been implemented under Trump in a way that guarantees the very opposite of peace. By choosing coercion over diplomacy and unilateral force over multilateral cooperation, this approach has damaged global stability and America’s moral standing. The world does not need more militarism. A secure and prosperous future must be built on the foundations of diplomacy, respect for international law, and genuine cooperation. The alternative—a path of endless conflict—is no path to peace at all.

“Nationalism is blamed for this century’s wars, but nationalism need not mean militarism. And the nation-state has been the laboratory of liberty.”

— George F. Will

twitterlinkedininstagramflickrfoursquaremail

Posted on by — Leave a comment

The Price of Complicity: Unmasking America’s Role as a Partner in the Gaza War

Introduction:
The word “peace” has been a constant refrain in American diplomatic statements regarding Gaza. But when examined against the totality of evidence—the financial flows, the arms shipments, and the political support—this claim rings hollow. This article argues that the United States has shed the mantle of a neutral mediator to become an active and essential partner in building Israel’s war machine, directly fueling a conflict that has created a profound humanitarian crisis.

Notes: Military aid for Israel includes missile defense funding starting in 2006, using data from the Congressional Research Service. All other data is from foreignassistance.gov. Aid to Ukraine for fiscal years 2022 to 2024 is reported by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy as being around $16 billion higher than figures from foreignassistance.gov. South Vietnam existed as a country until the end of the Vietnam War in 1975. Data for 2024 is partially reported.

The Foundation of Support: A Long-Standing Partnership
The history of American military and financial aid to Israel is not new, but its scale and intensity during the Gaza war have reached unprecedented levels. Since 1948, the US has been Israel’s primary military patron, with billions of dollars flowing through long-term contracts. This support, often framed as ensuring an ally’s security, has in practice facilitated the continuation of violence and occupation.

This structured support was solidified in agreements like the Obama-era 10-year memorandum, guaranteeing $3.8 billion in annual military aid. However, since October 2023, the US has approved emergency aid packages pushing direct military assistance to at least $17.9 billion, with some estimates suggesting the total, including indirect support, may exceed $30 billion.

US-taxpayers file a historic lawsuit charging Washington with complicity in Gaza genocide - TRT World
Image: no taxes for war and militarism. War tax resisters are taking to the streets to call for an end to genocide and endless war. They are divesting from the taxes that fund war and investing in people, planet, and justice. 

The American Taxpayer: Financing a Distant War
This colossal financial support does not come from a surplus; it is funded directly by American taxpayers. Statistical estimates break this down to a cost of approximately $85 to over $165 per American taxpayer. This expenditure occurs while the United States faces domestic crises in healthcare, education, and infrastructure. The equivalent funds could have provided health insurance for millions of children or hired hundreds of thousands of new teachers, revealing a stark misalignment between public need and policy priorities.

Note: Lockheed Martin is an American aerospace and defense company, formed by a merger of Lockheed Corporation and Martin Marietta in 1995. It is headquartered in North Bethesda, Maryland, and provides innovative solutions for aerospace, defense, and security challenges worldwide. The company’s main business is with the U.S. Department of Defense and federal agencies, but it also has international and commercial sales

 

A displaced family sit in front of their tent in Gaza.
Image: UNICEF/Mohammed Nateel A displaced family sit in front of their tent in Gaza.

 

The War Economy: Who Really Benefits?
A critical question is: who profits from this cycle? A significant portion of US military aid is designed as a subsidy for American defense contractors. Israel is often required to spend the aid on weapons purchased from US companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon. This creates a profitable feedback loop where aid money cycles back into the pockets of American corporations, making war a lucrative business for the US’s war-oriented economy.

 

The Human Cost and Shifting Public Opinion
The tragic reality of this support is measured in the devastation in Gaza: thousands dead, hundreds of thousands displaced, and critical infrastructure like hospitals and schools destroyed by American-made bombs. This reality is reshaping American public opinion. Polls show a majority of younger Americans (ages 18-29) oppose continued military aid. Within the American Jewish community, movements like “Jews for Peace” are gaining traction, challenging unconditional support for the Israeli government.

Calls for a Ceasefire Get Little Traction in Congress
Image: Demonstrators on the National Mall in Washington, DC, call for a ceasefire in Israel’s assault on Gaza on October 21st, 2023.

Conclusion: A Partner, Not a Peacemaker
The evidence paints a clear and damning picture. The United States is not a mediator or a pacifist in the Gaza war; it is an active partner. By bankrolling the war machine with taxpayer money and ensuring the flow of arms, America has become complicit in the resulting humanitarian catastrophe. It has abdicated its claim to moral leadership on the world stage. As long as this partnership continues, American talk of “peace” will remain nothing more than a political show, a cover for a policy rooted in conflict.

2+ Thousand Make Peace Not War Royalty-Free Images, Stock Photos & Pictures | Shutterstock

twitterlinkedininstagramflickrfoursquaremail

Posted on by — 1 Comment

From Iraq to Iran: The Same Old Lies

  1. Iraq (2003): The Original Sin

  2. Libya (2011): NATO’s Slave State

    • Hillary’s “We Came, We Saw, He Died” Gaddaffi’s death → Open-air slave markets by 2015 (UN Report).https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/1/26/slavery-in-libya-life-inside-a-container

      Image 2: Human trafficking networks have prospered amid lawlessness, created by the warring militias that have been fighting for control of territories since the toppling of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011

    • Visual: Libya chaos map vs. pre-2011 GDP.

      Image 3: Contemporary Libya is less a nation than a geographical construct populated by competing and often interlocking tribes and clans. The Zintan (here Zentan) of the western regions and the Misrata (here Misurata) are perhaps the most prominent today locked in a deadly battle for control of the country and its resources.

  3. Iran (2024): Sanctions = War Crimes

  4. The BRICS Escape Plan

 

In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq based on fabricated evidence of ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ Today, we hear identical rhetoric about Iran’s nuclear program—despite the IAEA’s repeated confirmations that no evidence of weaponization exists. The parallels are chilling:

 

  • Then: Colin Powell’s infamous UN speech waving a fake vial of anthrax.
  • Now: Netanyahu’s cartoon bomb theatrics at the UN (2012) and recycled ‘imminent threat’ claims.
    The lesson? When governments cry ‘WMDs,’ always ask: Where’s the proof? And why does Israel—with 600+ undeclared warheads—get a free pass while Iran faces bombs and sanctions?

 

Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility (600+ warheads) vs. IAEA-monitored Iranian sites. Who’s the real threat?


1. For Citizens of NATO States:

STOP FUNDING THIS MADNESS.

  • Boycott war corporations (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BlackRock).

  • Flood your MP with this article (+ use #AskYourPM).

  • Convert $ to gold/crypto—starve the war machine.

2. For Global South Audiences:

JOIN THE REVOLUTION.

  • Demand your govt fast-tracks BRICS membership.

  • Share this article with #WestInDecline.

  • Learn yuan/ruble trades—be sanctions-proof.

    Image 6: revolution

 

 

twitterlinkedininstagramflickrfoursquaremail