Pictured: RAND Corp. headquarters in Santa Monica, CA.
Don’t take anything at face value
Posted on akamaitree (scrubbed)
Every American president is covertly backed by a consortium of “deep political” factions and interest groups. These groups invariably wind up stacking the administrations they help parlay into power with members and associates of their clique. This factional quarreling and proxy activity is usually largely confined to the domestic sphere and in the United States almost always at its core runs along the lines of fundamental foreign policy differences. On the one hand, a liberal-internationalist-“globalist” wing supports multilateral foreign policy (the United Nations), typically restrains from interventionist misadventures (instead preferring to utilize soft power) and generally opposes increases in defense spending. On the other hand, a militaristic conservative-ultranationalist wing advocates unilateral foreign policy, is highly supportive of military intervention/rollback (hard power) and is fanatically in favor of increased defense spending and “national security” measures. Both of these viewpoints exist in both American political parties and along a gradation. The most important takeaway from this is that literally not a single American president has ever in any way been a “political outsider”. They virtually always have clandestine and/or open ties to foreign policy interest groups and think tank networks. From a deep political standpoint, domestic and economic policy is almost always an accessory to be used in the furtherance of some kind of foreign agenda.
What’s special about the 2016 election and the Trump apparatus is the extensive involvement of foreign groups (namely Russia, Israel and the Gulf States) that further complicates an analysis of the political circles involved. This article will examine not only the domestic covert politics behind the Trump presidency but also the numerous foreign reciprocities that are apparently present.
The Hard-Right National Security Establishment
Most of my research on Trump, his entourage and his benefactors up until this point has revolved around their deep-seated ties to the primarily US-based right-leaning ultranationalist national security establishment centered around the Pentagon (and in particular its internal advisory bodies), conservative elements in the CIA and militaristic national security-boosting think tanks and foreign policy interest groups such as the Center for Security Policy, American Security Council, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Jamestown Foundation, American Foreign Policy Council, Henry Jackson Society, Hudson Institute, Association of Former Intelligence Officers/OSS Society, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) before it was disbanded and last but not least, the Committee on the Present Danger (probably the most elite).
Founded in 1950 and populated by CIA men, top generals, and researchers/scientists around the RAND Corp. and its wartime predecessors, the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) was along with the American Security Council (the originator of the “peace through strength” doctrine) one of the original hard-right militarist foreign policy pressure groups and military-industrial complex lobbying organizations. The CPD — which remains dormant for extended periods of time before springing into action again — and American Security Council were immensely influential in establishing long-term US national security protocols and successful in lobbying for a post-World War II remilitarization and troop deployment that helped initiate the Cold War (NSC 68), for more aggressively articulating the Soviet threat and pulling away from detente, containment and the “mutually assured destruction”-arms control doctrine in favor of rollback and arms build-up in the ’70s and ’80s (CIA’s Team B) and for a number of actions taken by the Bush administration in the name of the “War on Terror” and 9/11, including initiating the Iraq War, identifying the “Axis of Evil” and seeding calls for regime change in Iran, a thread that carries on into the present and is quite obviously the conservative national security apparatus’s current favored undertaking.
In 1978 the ASCF created the “National Strategy for Peace through Strength,” and has been cited numerous times with providing the overall foreign affairs theme for the administration of former President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan personally gave the ASCF credit for this on several occasions and said America won the Cold War based upon the ASCF’s “National Strategy for Peace through Strength” doctrine.
Beginning in the ’70s (right around the time CIA-Mossad liaison James Angleton joined the American Security Council) this network shed its original anti-Zionist, “old right” baggage and has morphed into today’s “neoconservatives” and “Scoop Jackson Democrats” by joining with — and becoming almost indistinguishable from — the “pro-Israel” lobby which exists to promote the militaristic right-wing Likud elements in Israel by identifying Israeli national security issues with American national security and at this point constitutes a fifth column within the US establishment. Organizations representing this Israeli (Likud) fifth column include AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security of America), CPMAJO (Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations) and WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy), the Israel lobby’s primary liaison with the Eastern Establishment.
After the Cold War ended, much of the American Security Council’s funding dried up and it was replaced by its spiritual and intellectual successors — stereotypically “neoconservative” think tanks such as the Center for Security Policy, American Foreign Policy Council and Foundation for Defense of Democracies, all of which are as militaristic as its predecessors and overlap considerably with the Israel lobby and pro-Israel interest groups. Several key members of this group today such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Edward Luttwak, Frank Gaffney, Douglas Feith and Elliott Abrams sprang out of the offices of anti-communist, pro-Zionist Cold Warrior senator and ultra-right CIA asset Henry “Scoop” Jackson, who ran a small army of nuclear alarmists and anti-Kissinger “detente-wreckers” during the Cold War. Perle and Wolfowitz were dispatched to Jackson’s office by proto-neoconservative RAND nuclear strategist, Albert Wohlstetter.
Indeed, a large number of those in this conservative faction appears to simply be high-level informal liaisons between the United States and hard-right Likud factions in Israel. Top neoconservative Richard Perle and his aide, Stephen Bryan, were actually caught passing classified information to Israel embassy officials while working for Henry Jackson in the ’70s. In 2004, the FBI was engaged in a frantic molehunt for a suspected Israeli spy in the Pentagon passing classified information on US deliberations on Iran to Israel who had close ties to Jewish neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. However, this is not to say that neoconservatism/hard-right national security is purely an Israeli or Jewish project. Virtually every hawkish policy coup involving Jewish neoconservatives (NSC 68, Team B, Reagan administration/”Star Wars”, Rumsfeld Commission, Iraq War, etc.) has been enabled and managed at the higher levels by non-Jewish, typically more moderate hawks/unilateralists such as George H.W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Nitze, Dean Acheson, Bill Casey, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Carlucci, Cap Weinberger (ethnically half-Jewish, religiously Episcopalian), etc. All of these people know that the Likud interlopers like Perle, Wolfowitz and Feith are there, but never do anything about it because they’re protected — there has been deep national security state support for Israel since the days of James Jesus Angleton intrigue with the Mossad and Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger and Richard Helms giving Israel carte blanche to develop nukes, even going so far as to not even bother taking any action against Israel after it was caught stealing highly enriched uranium from NUMEC and smuggling it out of the country.
While many in conspiracy circles try to ascribe very abstruse, esoteric and sometimes almost occult-like or racial motives and beliefs to this war-hungry hard-right network, this is misguided. While certain bodies aligned with the American conservative defense establishment such as the hyper-shadowy, bizarre, extreme-right Le Cercle “black network” do have essentially unknowable motives, the foreign policy school of thought held by the hard-right faction in the United States (and Britain, to an extent) can be traced back to a school of thought in the development of systems analysis, operations research, applied science and war-gaming by the WWII-era Office of Scientific Research and Development and later the RAND Corp. under people like Albert Wohlstetter, Andrew Marshall (Office of Net Assessment), James Conant and Vannevar Bush (CPD & Raytheon). Author Craig Unger writes, “to join Team Wohlstetter, apparently, one had to embrace unquestioningly his worldviews, which eschewed old-fashioned intelligence as a basis for assessing the enemy’s intentions and military capabilities in favor of elaborate statistical models, probabilities, reasoning, systems analysis, and game theory developed at RAND … Even a small probability of vulnerability, or a potential future vulnerability, could be presented as a virtual state of emergency … If you look down the road and see a war with, say, China, twenty years off, go to war now.”
This fusion of highly rigorous and technically/mathematically-informed game theory and strategy with paranoid, survivalist, preemptive instincts (very present in Israel and in Zionist Jews such as Wohlstetter and his pupils Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz) seen in the CPD, American Security Council and similar hard right think tanks contrasts sharply with the realist-realpolitik-“geo-strategic”-“grand chessboard” worldview found in most (but certainly not all) Eastern Establishment types like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who constitute the core of liberal “realist” think tanks such as the CFR, Trilateral Commission, etc. The kernel of the rift that evolved between the anti-detente game theorists and the pro-detente “geo-strategists” during the Cold War was a game theoretic dispute over whether a nuclear conflict would consist of preemptive nuclear strikes on only military and nuclear installations (the scenario envisaged by the proto-neoconservatives) or of a tit-for-tat escalation precipitating retaliatory strikes on population centers (the “mutual assured destruction” scenario subscribed to by liberal “realists”).
Editor’s note: This is a gold mine of information. Be sure to click on the blue text to read the reference articles.