I know this is probably going to sound like some Glenn Beck level paranoia. Please bear with me.
I believe it to be accepted wisdom that World War II was the engine that brought us out of the Great Depression. A period of extreme economic inequality was ended by, among other things, an amazing propaganda campaign, an adversary worthy of it, and the resulting war. Focusing the energies of the nation against a single foe has proven an effective means to minimize internal conflicts. Providing a massive buildup of military spending provided economic stimulus, and paved the way for the post war boom. I submit that the national unity and economic benefits the US enjoyed afterward would not have occurred absent a war that decimated cities that were not within our borders.
If we accept the premise that war unites the people and stimulates the economy, can we not imagine a leader who could see opportunity in finding a new war to fight? This is the hypothetical I wish to allow for the purposes of this post: Someone somewhere sees a multinational war against Islam as a way to unite the country, increase military spending, and claim the natural resources in the Middle East.
If you’ve taken that leap with me, (and post-Iraq, how big a leap is that really?) then it won’t take long to realize that, as in Syria, you run the risk of getting into direct conflict with Russia, which would be a nightmare. What if you were able to form an alliance with Russia? A united US/Russian front against “ISIS” could invade much of the Middle East, with a goal of annexing territory for an expansionist Russia, while giving the US “another chance” to claim the oil reserves in countries like Iraq. An administration that aligns itself with Russian expansionism could accomplish this, could it not?
If you already had a map of which countries you wanted to invade, you could ban travel to the US from those countries before the conflict starts. If you were Exxon, you’d be well positioned to claim some of these spoils if your man was Secretary of State. If you wanted to make good on a promise to bring back manufacturing jobs, a war effort would be an expedient way to do so. Perhaps we should take more seriously Trump’s repeated indications that he was looking forward to “bomb the shit” out of ISIS, or as stated at the inauguration to “eradicate (them) completely from the face of the Earth.”
I know I’ve asked a lot of you, dear reader. I am not convinced it makes sense myself. The most obvious concern in my mind is Pakistan, who would reasonably find itself drawn into a “war against Islam” and who has nuclear capability. China is of course another glaring omission.
I can absolutely imagine a version of Donald Trump who sees the ends justifying the means. A glorious war that revives the economy, vanquishes the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, gives us access to more fossil fuels, and rallies the nation could be the goal. That concept helps me make sense of his behavior better than just saying “he’s unstable.”
Am I nuts? Maybe I’m nuts. But I’m going to be keeping an eye on how we talk to Pakistan.