HomeArticleCentrists Are Very Concerned That Donald Fucking Trump Isn’t Hawkish Enough

Centrists Are Very Concerned That Donald Fucking Trump Isn’t Hawkish Enough

Today American centrists (who only get to call themselves that because plutocratic media control has made Orwellian neoliberal neoconservatism the dominant ideology in the US) are deeply, profoundly concerned that Donald fucking Trump is insufficiently hawkish.

This would be the same Donald Trump whose administration just facilitated the bombing of Yemen’s new cholera treatment center. The same Donald Trump who has increased US troops in Afghanistan, Somalia and Syria. The same Donald Trump who is openly pursuing regime change in Iran. The same Donald Trump whose administration committed war crimes in Raqqa. The same Donald Trump who has made many dangerous cold war escalations against Russia. The same Donald Trump whose administration has voiced a goal of regime change in Damascus and the intention of remaining in Syria indefinitely. The same Donald Trump whose air strikes are killing far more civilians than the drone king Obama’s did.

Centrist pundits and politicians on both sides of the aisle are saying that this very man is being too soft and cuddly toward North Korea. These would be the same centrist pundits and politicians who loudly cheered both of the times this administration bombed the Syrian government, effectively sending the message that the only way this narcissistic president can win praise by the manufacturers of the mainstream narrative is by rejecting peace and embracing war. Thanks guys.

In addition to bipartisan freak-outs from the punditry of the DC orthodoxy, Democratic leaders in both the House and the Senate have released statements criticizing the administration for not making more demands of Kim Jong-Un in this first extremely rudimentary initial meeting. To their credit, fifteen more progress-minded House Democrats signed a statement addressed to the president diverging from the mainstream position of their party and expressing concern that “some, from both parties and inside and outside of your administration, seek to scuttle progress by attempting to limit the parameters of the talks, including by insisting on full and immediate denuclearization or other unrealistic commitments by North Korea at an early date.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would be one such voice, again repeating his previous demands for the “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, nothing less” in a press conference today.

This is plainly insane. Demanding that North Korea immediately disarm as a condition of further peace talks will immediately end those peace talks, since North Korea has no reason to disarm at this time, or at any time in the foreseeable future. Insisting on an immediate and completely illogical capitulation from Pyongyang is the very kind of demand which has prevented these peace talks from happening in the past, and if Trump made them he would be ensuring a return to previous tensions.

North Korea is highly unlikely to ever denuclearize as long as the world geopolitical landscape remains as it is. The only way that would happen would be if Pyongyang decided to allow the DPRK to be fully absorbed into the blob of the US-centralized imperial alliance like Japan, and it has no good reason to do so at this time. The best way to ensure peace is to work toward making changes which shift North Korea’s standing to that of any other non-US-aligned nuclear power, and ideally that would include the US and China getting out of the way as soon as possible to allow the North and the South to conduct their own diplomacy.

But by far the most common concerns being expressed about the Singapore summit are based not on a fear of this administration making insufficiently aggressive demands of Pyongyang, but on pure ridiculous nonsense.

“President Trump seems to have given away two or three of the major things that Kim Jong-Un wanted,” Schumer complained at the aforementioned press conference. “A meeting. The flags next to each other. Now a delay of exercises with South Korea, without getting anything in return.”

Huh? A meeting? Flags next to each other? I can kinda-sorta-almost see into Schumer’s twisted reality tunnel when it comes to temporarily suspending military drills along the DPRK’s border as an act of good faith, but on what planet is having a meeting or putting two flags next to each other a win of any kind?

Well, going by the outcry I’m seeing from Twitter pundits, the concern appears to be that it “legitimizes” Kim Jong-Un. What exactly that means is hard to fathom in terms of actual, tangible reality, but for years that term has been passed around like it has as much relevance as war or starvation sanctions. This imaginary product of “legitimacy” is, according to influential mainstream political commentators, meant to be withheld from Kim until he gives up everything he has and grovels on his belly begging for it.

This just shows you the power of narrative, where repeating some meaningless placeholder syllables over and over again can create the illusion that a purely mental construct is as relevant in peace negotiations as nuclear warheads. It isn’t hard to see through for anyone who doesn’t have a vested interest in subscribing to that narrative, though, and Pyongyang certainly has no such interest.

There are many, many perfectly valid things to criticize the Trump administration for. Opening up peace talks with North Korea is not one of them, and anyone who says it is is not a friend of humanity. The fact that nobody on either side of the aisle seems to have their foot anywhere near the brake pedal when it comes to war should concern us all, and we need to do something about it.

______________________________

Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily articles is to get on the mailing list for my website, so you’ll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalor buying my book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon!

Latest comments

  • And now a word from our sponsor…Cognitive Dissonance..brought to you by exceptionalism…the key ingredient in all empires.

    “After 16 years of war, about 6 million violent deaths, 6 countries utterly destroyed and many more destabilized, it is urgent that the American public come to terms with the true human cost of our country’s wars and how we have been manipulated and misled into turning a blind eye to them – before they go on even longer, destroy more countries, further undermine the rule of international law and kill millions more of our fellow human beings.”

    https://www.mintpressnews.com/how-many-millions-have-been-killed-in-americas-post-9-11-wars/241144/

  • I only just subscribed to having email notifications for new articles, thanks Caitlin Johnson for being a true progressive and a true Australia I put you just under Julian Assange and hope you never get silenced like him?
    Keep fighting the good fight.

  • Yes, we can’t have our flag next to that of a dictator. Pity Obama and Kerry were photographed in front of our flag and the Kazakhstan flag, while meeting with President (dictator) Nazarbayev, who, according to some sources, has personally killed people who opposed him
    https://astanatimes.com/2014/03/kazakhstan-us-discuss-expanding-trade-nuclear-security-cooperation/

  • Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.
    Failed journalist!

    • If you’re relying on tired maxims to guide your thinking you’re not ready for CJ’s ideas yet.

    • Profanity will often convey essential invective’s in a timely, succinct manner. So here’s a fuck you for your weak commentary and failed understanding.

    • she’s australian. that’s just how they talk. all of them. from an american that has lived in australia for 20 years.
      p.s. caitlin is awesome.

  • Thanx for pointing out the schizophrenia of US policy…well anywhere. It’s still early in Albuquerque, NM and already I’ve been told I didn’t know what I was talking about on other sites when commenting on the ‘talks’. I just don’t get why US aggression is a ‘good’ thing. The world would be a much safer place with less US aggression. Also barely a peep has been uttered since Mr Trump shredded the JCPOA Iran deal heightening tensions in that area. Yep, it’s in the national security interest to be more aggressive anywhere. Bomb the shit out of every country on the planet the US govt can’t get to bow to their demands. Kill and starve women and children everywhere, national security! Topple govt’s forcing millions of refugees to flee the violence and create vacuums of instability in whole regions with no plan for an endgame, yep, national security. Create conditions where young men want to be terrorists, again, national security. You all can see the schizophrenia I refereed to in US foreign policy and the delusional members of Congress go along or want more concessions for any deal the the US will break anyway. It lets me get my “two minutes of hate” out of the way quickly. That or go mad myself. I’ll write more at the Medium site later today. That or go mad. Peace, The Ol’ Hippy

  • Based on the length of time it took for the liberal all-right to respond about an historical conference (exactly when did a US president last meet with a leader from North Korea since its inception), it appears that to acknowledge that reality means that they approve the fact that this meeting occurred. As they were expecting it not to occur, in hindsight they are complaining that certain conditions haven’t been met, forgetting the fact that there will be more ongoing meetings and discussions already planned.
    As far as I am concerned with these naysayers (Schumer and Pelosi,especially) they had the chance to contribute with suggestions, now they need to control their negative rhetoric .
    Thanks for a refreshing view of the reactions.

  • Speaking of conferring legitimacy! Shumer, Pelosi are having another “Look over there–nothing to see here!” moment, apparently. We have rampant corruption in primaries and fund raising in 2016 election, a something they are calling President and and EPA administrator still around after he should long be gone, still selling off the future of our children, and on and on ad infinitum, and they seem to think their only responsibility is to flap their gums, rig the primaries with more people who are complicit and tell us to vote for their choices. They are all in a crisis of no credibiity.

  • “Legitimate” , per Oxford : 1) Conforming to the law or to rules. 2) Able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.

    So , according to the above , which was the last U.S. Presidential administration that qualified as being “legitimate” ? I think you’d have to go back many decades to make a decent case for one. Thus the idea that U.S. negotiations with North Korea risks conferring legitimacy to them is a non-starter. If anything , North Korea should fear being tainted by the exposure.

    • Maybe President Lincoln was the last US could consider legitimate.

      • In the U.S. , being assassinated while holding office is probably a pretty good marker for legitimacy.

  • The World cannot survive much longer with this Yankee madness!

  • To start, US is not a democracy, and probably never was. Remember that 2014 study that *proves* that the median voter has zero influence on the country’s policy?No? Here it is:
    https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

    OK, here’s the TL,DR: _America isn’t a democracy and never was, average Joe influence on actual policy is exactly zero, nil, zilch_. Happy to help.
    Cheers.

    • In practice, the rejoinder that the US is not a democracy always feels like a No True Scotsman fallacy. People are always keen to say this or that country is not a true example of this or that style of governance. You’re not going to get a pure democracy, or a pure republic, or a pure socialism or a pure communism. Because people aren’t bricks and a country is not a house. There are more interesting things to talk about.

  • Nancy, Chuck, et al. of the Dem Party’s ”we-are-hawks-too” caucus
    accuse Trump of being ”soft” on Russia, China and North Korea.
    Perhaps they should remember that JFK was not ”soft” on
    communism as the war-hawks who surrounded him believed,
    but rather, he wanted to advance world peace.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fkKnfk4k40
    ”Make Art, Not War”

leave a comment