Despite the inherent instability evident in the whiplash inducing moves in American foreign policy over the past week, (“He should stay. No wait, he should go. Btw, we just bombed Syria” etc) it should be stated that yesterday’s air strikes on a Syrian airbase was probably the right thing. Anybody who believes that America, notwithstanding some major missteps — *cough* Iraq *cough* — is overall a force for good in the world understands that America cannot simply do nothing in the face of the horrific crimes against humanity currently being perpetrated out in the open in Syria. The attacks (assuming it doesn’t escalate) were proportional, appropriate, and just. Moreover, it appears to represent a major shift in not just American policy, but Donald Trump’s policy. Attacking Syria is a direct refutation of the xenophobic/nationalistic “America First” outlook of America and it’s place in the world, as well as it’s primary patron, one Stephan K Bannon. It is no coincidence that this occurred days after Bannon’s humiliating demotion. Not that Bannon, were he still on the principles committee, would have necessarily prevented this attack. Just that his demotion crystallized the waning influence of his world view in Trumps eyes, thus making yesterdays actions much more likely then had Bannon retained his out sized influence with the President. The hysterical reaction from the alt right/Breitbart part of the internet suggests all you need to know about how they — and their patron saint Steve Bannon — feel about the attacks (as a side note, WHY they are so opposed is a very interesting question, and likely an entire article in and of itself. My gut feeling is two fold: we know that Putin’s bot army tends to launder it’s memes/disinformation through right wing blogs/alt media, and that the Kremlin is clearly not happy about what’s unfolding in Syria. Thus even if most of the commentators are not themselves Russian disinformation agents, it makes sense that Kremlin approved views will matriculate to the “legit” alt right community. Second, ANY international adventurism, no matter how morally justified, is an inherent threat to the alt rights brand of ethno-nationalism. Such operations inevitably lead to coalition building, strengthened alliances and, increased economic ties and, by extension, more overall global cooperation leads to *gasp* more globalism).
My question: If Trump’s actions appear appropriate and just, dramatically reduce the likilihood of another chemical weapon attack (more so from the political messaging rather then the physical damage), and simultaneously provide concrete proof of Bannon’s toxic ideology losing influence on the POTUS...why do I have a sinking feeling in my gut?
To explain this sinking feeling, it’s best to back up a bit and do some armchair psyciatry on Donald Trump. It is evident to most that the man has no real ideology. He has no ideological red lines in his toolbox. The only thing he truly cares about is his image, his money, and receiving the worshipful priase he feels he is at all times entitled too. Everybody with common sense and a basic understanding of the human psyche knows when he rails against the “lying press” or the “fake news” it’s not really hatred in his eyes; it’s longing. He longs to be adored, and his “hatred” of them is the same as the guy who tells his friends about how much happier he is now that his ex broke up with him, and how he “hates that bitch” but then goes home and cries himself to sleep every night because he misses her so much. That dynamic is why I’m a little worried: Watching the reaction today from the “fake news” MSM, it seems like Trump is being treated with the respect and deference given to most presidents for the first time in, well, ever. And like a puppy eager to be praised and loved by her master, he is going to respond positively to the positive reinforcement. This kind of media treatment is going to be like catnip for Trump. Like a meth addict, is he going to “chase the high” doing more and more outrageous things to try to recapture the magic? Without doubt, Trump is going to take a message away from this. The problem is, what is the message Trump is going to take away from this? Is it:
“if I act like a leader, accept my global responsibilities as America’s president, and use only appropriate and proportional force and only when absolutely necessary, I can get this sort of treatment all the time”
or is it going to be:
“All I need to do to get the bipartisan praise I so richly deserve is bomb some shit hole?! Man, what a sweet job! OK, who’s next?”
Without doubt, some good has already come from this. The positive reviews from the “fake news”, the broad and wide ranging (and, it should be said, appropriate) bipartisan support from players from John McCain and Lyndsey Graham and Ted Cruz to Al Franken and Chuck Schumer will further marginalize Bannon’s toxic influence. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that move with Bannon’s fingerprints on it has led to failure and ridicule (the travel ban parts 1 and 2, the Obamacare repeal, the absurd Nunes affair) and the one major move that is explicitly anti Bannonesque seems to be his biggest winner will almost certainly further move Bannon out the door. This is an unequivocally good thing.
But with that said, of the two messages that Trump could potentially take away from this whole affair, my gut tells me it’s the latter, and not the former.
And that feels a little…..ominous.