The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Are the Forever Wars Really Ending?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“There is no… sound reason for the United States to continue sacrificing precious lives and treasure in a conflict not directly connected to our safety or other vital national interests.”

So said William Ruger about Afghanistan, our longest war.

What makes this statement significant is that President Donald Trump has ordered a drawdown by mid-October of half of the 8,600 troops still in the country. And Ruger was just named U.S. ambassador to Kabul.

The selection of Ruger to oversee the U.S. withdrawal came as Gen. Frank McKenzie of Central Command announced plans to cut the U.S. troop presence in Iraq from 5,200 to 3,000 by the end of September.

Is America, at long last, really coming home from the forever wars?

A foreign policy analyst at the libertarian Charles Koch Institute and a Naval officer decorated for his service in Afghanistan, Ruger has long championed a noninterventionist foreign policy.

His nomination tends to confirm that, should Trump win a second term, his often-declared goal of extracting America from the forever wars of the Middle East, unachieved in his first term, would become a priority.

Yet, we have been here before, bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, only to send thousands back when our enemies seemed to be gaining the upper hand at the expense of the allies we left behind.

Still, this time, Trump’s withdrawals look to be irreversible. And with the U.S. deal with the Taliban producing peace negotiations between the Kabul government and the Taliban, America seems to be saying to both sides of this endless civil war:

The destiny of Afghanistan is yours. The choice of war or peace is up to you. If talks collapse and a fight to the finish ensues, we Americans are not coming back, even to prevent a Taliban victory.

Speaking in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Trump made a remarkable declaration:

“We don’t have to be in the Middle East, other than we want to protect Israel. … There was a time we needed desperately oil, we don’t need that anymore.” If Trump means what he says, U.S. forces will be out of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan early in his second term.

But how to explain the continued presence of tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, Djibouti, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Diego Garcia?

Another indication of where a Trump second term is pointing is the naming of retired Col. Douglas Macgregor as ambassador to Germany.

The winner of a Bronze Star for valor in the 1991 Gulf War, Macgregor speaks German and is steeped in that country’s history. He has been highly visible on cable TV, calling for the transfer to our allies of the primary responsibility for their own defenses, and elevating the security of America’s Southern border to a far higher national imperative.

ORDER IT NOW

In 2019, Macgregor was quoted: “The only solution is martial law on the border, putting the United States Army in charge of it and closing it off would take about 30, 40,000 troops. We’re talking about the regular army. You need robust rules of engagement. That means that you can shoot people as required if your life is in danger.”

That Macgregor’s priorities may be Trump’s also became evident with the president’s announcement this summer of the withdrawal of 12,000 of the 35,000 U.S. troops stationed in Germany.

Yet, at the same time, there is seemingly contradictory evidence to the notion that Donald Trump wants our troops home. Currently, some 2,800 U.S., British, and French troops are conducting “Noble Partner” exercises with Georgian troops in that country in the Caucasus bordering Russia.

In Trump’s first term, his commitment to extricate America from the forever wars went unrealized, due in part to the resistance of hawks Trump himself appointed to carry out his foreign policy agenda.

Clearly, with the cuts in troops in Germany, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the appointments of Ruger and Macgregor, Trump has signaled a new resolve to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy in an “America First” direction, if he wins a second term. Will he follow through?

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has been in an extended argument with itself over America’s role, America’s mission in the world.

George H. W. Bush’s New World Order is ancient history, as are the democracy crusades his son George W. Bush was persuaded to launch.

But what will Trump’s foreign policy legacy be, should he win?

Joe Biden has signaled where he is headed — straight back to Barack Obama:

“First thing I’m going to have to do, and I’m not joking: if elected I’m going to have to get on the phone with the heads of state and say America’s back,” Biden said, saying NATO has been “worried as hell about our failure to confront Russia.”

Trump came to office pledging to establish a new relationship with the Kremlin of President Vladimir Putin.

Is that still his goal, or have the Beltway Russophobes prevailed?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2020 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Donald Trump 
Hide 49 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anonymous[675] • Disclaimer says:

    No mention of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. They have fought with the Taliban for the last 19 years. If the Taliban are victorious do they just turn on their allies or will they give Al-Qaeda an enclave to live and train in?

  2. Exile says:

    There is nothing about this move that is any more firm, reliable or lasting than the previous back-and-forth on troop levels over the last four years.

    Whether it’s simply Trump himself playing games or a genuine lack of loyalty and surfeit of subversive intent among the military brass, I’ll believe this when I see it first happen, then last. Until then, it’s just more wishcasting, hot air and coping by those who want Trump to be more than he apparently is.

    • Replies: @Amerimutt Golems
  3. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    That all of these autumnal announcements, appointments, speeches, “signals,” and “indications” in the weeks preceding the next Most Important Election Ever are blah blah for the baa baas is obvious. Even Mr. Buchanan has to toss in a couple of skeptical observations:

    Yet, at the same time, there is seemingly contradictory evidence to the notion that Donald Trump wants our troops home. Currently, some 2,800 U.S., British, and French troops are conducting “Noble Partner” exercises with Georgian troops in that country in the Caucasus bordering Russia.

    In Trump’s first term, his commitment to extricate America from the forever wars went unrealized, due in part to the resistance of hawks Trump himself appointed to carry out his foreign policy agenda.

    But if you want to know where “Mr. Paleoconservative” stands, here’s the “yet” paragraph to read carefully:

    Yet, we have been here before, bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, only to send thousands back when our enemies seemed to be gaining the upper hand at the expense of the allies we left behind.

    Pronoun propaganda, to keep Americans identifying with their Beltway rulers. And, more subtly, the Exceptional! presumption that “we” will always have “enemies” and “allies” in all of these places, because they all remain legitimate subjects of Washington concern, if not control.

    Mr. Buchanan’s no dissident. Questioning only the affordability and efficacy of Uncle Sam’s wars, he’s just a right-sizing imperialist. Like his GOP cheerleading, this serves the Establishment by defining the scope of acceptable discourse.

    • Replies: @Emslander
    , @Realist
  4. One can only hope that President Donald Trump will prevail over the demented Joe Biden and his instigators. The U. S. should not only withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and the other corrupt Arab autocratic regimes but also from Europe, especially from Germany. What do 35.000 U. S. occupation troops still in my country? Russia isn’t a threat to anyone. Instead, the U. S. poses the greatest threat to world peace. The chimerical “Russiaphobia” is all in the heads of the Western warmongers in NATO and the U. S. security establishment.

    For what propose are the U. S., France, and the Brits conducting military exercises in Georgia? The George W. Bush/ Dick Cheney gang wanted Georgia in NATO, which would have been a casus belli for Russia. Imagine Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela would conduct military exercises along the U. S. Mexican border? If the Taliban retake Afghanistan, it’s only legitimate. Let them fight their internal disputes out themselves. The U. S. attacked the country, although it had nothing to do with 9/11. Osama bin Laden was never wanted by the FBI for )/11. Whether Trump can order the troops’ home is not cut and dried. He has done it before, and nothing happened. The Deep State, the fat cats in the military, and the military-industrial complex torpedoed it. The ware-prone Democrats and their media instigators did the rest with their fear-mongering. A good U. S. Russian relationship is long overdue.

    • Agree: follyofwar, FLgeezer
    • Replies: @dvorak
  5. If Trump was serious, he’d draw them totally down, but I guess you need a few around while the last of the cash is handed out or burned.

  6. Here is an interesting look at the issues which concern China about the U.S. threats in the Asia-Pacific region:

    https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/08/chinas-view-on-americas-presence-in.html

    China obviously views the presence of the American military in its own backyard as a significant threat to its own stability.

    • Replies: @Realist
  7. KenH says:

    “We don’t have to be in the Middle East, other than we want to protect Israel. … There was a time we needed desperately oil, we don’t need that anymore.”

    He’s supposed to speak in deep state code and say we have to stay in the Middle East to spread democracy, women’s rights and freedom (homosexuality) which always means a regime change war for our greatest ally ever in the history of allies.

    I’ll believe it when I see it. In 2019 troop levels were cut in Syria and Afghanistan only to be quietly redeployed to Iraq.

    Both presidential candidates are whores for Israel but Trump’s independent streak makes Bibi, his likudniks and their large American fifth column nervous and apoplectic.

  8. Emslander says:
    @anonymous

    Mr. Buchanan’s no dissident. Questioning only the affordability and efficacy of Uncle Sam’s wars, he’s just a right-sizing imperialist. Like his GOP cheerleading, this serves the Establishment by defining the scope of acceptable discourse.

    It’s clearer every day that Ron Unz is just a Never Trumper and liberal Republican who has his little idiot minions go after the real conservative points of view he publishes.

    You, sir, don’t know Pat Buchanan if you think he’s for imperialism. He campaigned against it as a presidential candidate and has always written in opposition to the Washington Warmongers.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Exile
  9. Realist says:

    Are the Forever Wars Really Ending?

    No.

  10. Realist says:
    @anonymous

    Excellent observations. Those who defend Trump’s failures with he tried to keep his promises, but his enemies obstructed him leave us with only one of three logical conclusions…either he is stupid…he is ineffectual or both.

  11. Realist says:
    @Sally Snyder

    China obviously views the presence of the American military in its own backyard as a significant threat to its own stability.

    Imagine that.

  12. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Emslander

    Instead of calling names, why not argue the merits? I tried to do that with you under Mr. Buchanan’s column published here August 7 — where you at one point seemed sympathetic to my position — but you cut it off:

    My point is that you and others “like Pat Buchanan” for what he said decades ago. If Joe Schmoe were “on the scene today” submitting these creaky columns, you would see them as bilge. Mr. Buchanan for years has been writing two basic pieces. Consider:

    – domestic issues like race, policing, sex, are all addressed in the context of Beltway politics as Red v Blue sportsball

    – on matters of foreign policy, Uncle Sam is whitewashed as the overextended but Exceptional! leader of the free world

    And your “more correct more often” is loyalty running on fumes. Did you know that Mr. Buchanan is still on record here endorsing the bipartisan narrative that Russia hacked the 2016 election?

    Disagree: Emslander

    Now, with the passing of another six weeks, you’re all fired up to vote GOP, which is Right where your hack hero wants you.

    • Replies: @Emslander
  13. Emslander says:
    @anonymous

    You are correct. I was wrong to call names. Please excuse that lapse.

    However, don’t mistake silence with agreement. Pat Buchanan has been and is still clear in his conservatism, which includes a disdain for senseless imperialistic adventure. His being old is not to be criticized. Most successful civilizations listen carefully to the advice of older thinkers.

    Given a choice between Democrat Biden and Republican Trump, I don’t apologize for supporting the Republican. I don’t exactly know what other solution there is under the current circumstances. We’re far from a takeover by an authoritative leader and the military won’t save us in this country. They are too well softened by the liberal paymasters.

    If you have another non-elective solution, please educate me.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    , @anonymous
  14. I did not know that the President had appointed Douglas Macgregor as his new ambassador to Germany. The Colonel had become a favored guest on Tucker Carlson, where he consistently spoke out against our perpetual wars, and in favor of securing our Southern border with active duty troops. I had wondered what happened to him as he hasn’t been on Tucker’s show for some time.

    In any case, this appointment is too little, too late. It will have no impact on the upcoming election, and will mean nothing if Trump is not re-elected. When Trump finally fired John Bolton (why was he hired in the first place?) there was talk of naming Macgregor to replace him. It would have sent a tremendous message that Trump really meant what he said in the 2016 campaign.

    An ambassador, unlike a National Security Advisor, has no power to set the agenda. With millions watching his appearances on Fox News, Macgregor could have been a valuable asset in helping Trump’s re-election campaign. Now he’s been silenced.

  15. Phipps says:

    The “Russophobes” are the all-powerful neocons — which is to say Jews. Jews have been in charge of American foreign policy in general and Middle East policies in particular since the Johnson Administration. Now Jews are supporting the BLM movement. Do the parasitic Jews not understand what will happen to them if they kill heir Gentile host?

    • Thanks: FLgeezer
  16. @Emslander

    Buchanan was well ahead of the curve in his prediction that free market trade agreements would not turn third world countries into American enclaves and would instead depress wages for American workers.

    Most Republicans in DC still haven’t figured this out.

    They are sticking to the belief that race doesn’t exist and everyone just needs more capitalism and posters of Reagan.

    Pat Buchanan was pointing out problems with conservative globalism before anyone knew what that really meant.

    He also forewarned that demographic changes would cause problems for Republicans and this is exactly what happened in California.

    Given a choice between Democrat Biden and Republican Trump, I don’t apologize for supporting the Republican.

    The problem I see is that we are supposed to punish Trump by electing a Democrat that other Democrats have called on to not debate. We are supposed to trust this Democrat to run the entire country and handle foreign affairs even though his allies don’t trust him in a public debate????

    If we were actually given a moderate and thoughtful Democrat that would be a different situation.

    I’m a swing voter and not happy about my choices but Democrat nominees have stunk from the beginning. Gabbard was OK but she was too practical and was kicked early on.

    Something is very wrong with the nomination process. There are a lot of good Democrats out there that would make fine presidents but the DNC ended up with this motley group of mulattoes and bitter women with sordid pasts. I still have no idea as to how Warren ended up on stage when her fake Indian career was unveiled by her own doing.

  17. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Emslander

    Your premise is flawed. Why assume responsibility for a “solution”?

    What we (not Pat Buchanan’s “we”) can do is to stop propping the rotten system up by voting. Then, steer clear as it falls over, helping others do so. Nothing better is going to happen in the meantime, especially through RedBlue politics.

  18. bob sykes says:

    Our longest war is Somalia, going on 28 years. We still have several hundred troops and a few bases in Somalia, and we are actively fighting jihadists there. Nowadays Aidid is long dead, but he and his have been replaced by al-Shabaab, which attacked an American base near Mogadishu a few months ago.

    We have so many wars, we keep forgetting some of them.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  19. @anonymous

    I agree with your solution, but not how we get there. Right now we are stuck with a chessboard with two colors playing the same game. A Biden victory would likely keep it going. A Trump victory might be the checkmate — not to win the game, but to end it.

    Trump is not somebody to be voted for; that seems pretty clear to everybody but his most faithful supporters. However, he is definitely the president that will cause the most distress about the effectiveness of the two-party system.

    At the end of his second term, there will be a lot of people who can’t hang on to “anybody but Trump,” which is more than half of Biden’s appeal. The Democrats are alienating a LOT of people (both in and out of their own ranks) by putting all their eggs in that one basket. There will be loyal Democrats who will NOT be rewarded for putting aside their own interests, and will look a lot harder at other options. The Sanders hat trick won’t work a third time.

    But all of this depends upon a Trump victory; otherwise everything will be spun so that our continuing failure is perceived as either a relief from Trump (for the gullible mainstream) or inevitable fallout from his policies (for the educated and informed gullible mainstream).

    And even those who hold their noses and vote for him this time around will be more than ready for someone who they can feel better about. Nobody but the most deeply loyal Party Republicans are excited about the left-appeasing centrists representing the dying GOP.

    An intelligent third party candidate could attract a lot of independents and disaffected party members of both sides. All they have to do is hammer “anybody but them” the same way that our current two-headed beast hammers each other. And of course appeal to common sense and a return to civility etc…

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @John Johnson
  20. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sollipsist

    Thanks for a thoughtful comment.

    But aren’t you playing secret 4-D chess, counting on Trump to serve as Trojan jackass to hasten the fall? You don’t get to submit an explanation with your vote. And your vote is all that the RedBlue Establishment needs to claim support and cover its bloated, foul ass with “democracy.”

    Never in human history has a government as powerful as Washington been reformed or replaced by an election.

    • Replies: @Sollipsist
  21. @anonymous

    Your premise is flawed. Why assume responsibility for a “solution”?

    What we (not Pat Buchanan’s “we”) can do is to stop propping the rotten system up by voting.

    The system is certainly rotten but how would not voting change anything?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  22. @Sollipsist

    I agree with your solution, but not how we get there. Right now we are stuck with a chessboard with two colors playing the same game. A Biden victory would likely keep it going. A Trump victory might be the checkmate — not to win the game, but to end it.

    A Biden vote is a vote for the establishment and the MSM. Hate Trump if you want but voting Biden means we tell the establishment that we accept the system along with their Manchurian candidate.

    It shouldn’t be that way but that is the situation we are in.

    An intelligent third party candidate could attract a lot of independents and disaffected party members of both sides.

    The right third party could completely disrupt the system. Not so much in this election but there is a growing desire on both sides for a populist party. I fully expect one to form in California. There are too many districts where Democrats have zero competition. I just hope it isn’t a globalist left party.

    • Replies: @Sollipsist
    , @Reg Cæsar
  23. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Johnson

    See #20, above.

    My comments in this thread are about the role played in the Beltway puppet show by Mr. Buchanan. Extensive, well written essays on the inefficacy of voting — especially for either Establishment party — are readily available on the internet.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  24. @anonymous

    You may be right. But boycotting the vote doesn’t have much historical precedent for regime change either (record low turnout gave Bill Clinton his second term). The only other option is revolution…

  25. Jimmy1969 says:

    Pat you never tell us how you feel about Kissinger or if he was good for the Nixon administration?

  26. @John Johnson

    That’s what I’m afraid seems most likely. A big progressive defection from the Democratic Party would basically mean three parties competing for globalist goals, and dollars. A whole new layer of the old “whoever wins, we lose” equation, but with a younger and less compromising option.

    I’m sure the DNC has thought of that, but I don’t see much sign that the right realizes how much potential there is to be outflanked into irrelevance. I’m just hoping that Trump’s continued disruption will cause the Dems to overreact so outrageously that the average person will be thoroughly sick of both sides’ escalating rhetoric, and be more sympathetic to a pragmatic third way.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  27. Emslander says:
    @anonymous

    That sounds a lot like nihilism.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  28. @Exile

    Whether it’s simply Trump himself playing games or a genuine lack of loyalty and surfeit of subversive intent among the military brass, I’ll believe this when I see it first happen, then last. Until then, it’s just more wishcasting, hot air and coping by those who want Trump to be more than he apparently is.

    The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

    Despite the rhetoric military spending has actually been increasing under his administration.

    According to some investment analysts the best defense stocks to hold long-term are Boeing (F-15EX/AH-64 Apache helicopters), General Dynamics (Abrams tanks/land vehicles/Arleigh Burke-class destroyers/Zumwalt-class next-generation destroyers/Virginia-class and Columbia-class submarines), Lockheed Martin (F-35/Sikorsky helicopters/Trident II D5 missiles), Northrop Grumman (B-21 Raider/nuclear missiles/submarines), and Raytheon Technologies (aircraft engines/electronics/Patriot).

  29. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Emslander

    Not at all. I believe that something better than what we have now will come, but only after the collapse.

  30. no, Pat,

    the Greater Israel War will continue, because

    Drumpf and the rest of the ‘Murkan political class

    are owned by Zionist billionaires. And

    the Petrodollar Wars will continue because

    either Uncle Schmuel keeps the world on the dollar,

    (by keeping the oil producers accepting nothing but dollars),

    or ‘Murka’s domestic debt-drowned, dollar montized ponzi’conomy

    will spin into hyperinflationary collapse. .

  31. @bob sykes

    Our longest war is Somalia, going on 28 years.

    Russia may have entered the conflict against Japan rather late– Aug 9, 1945– but the two countries are technically still at war, 75 years on.

  32. @John Johnson

    There are too many districts where Democrats have zero competition.

    And they hate it, because it’s the result of successful Republican gerrymandering. Every vote you get over 50% is “wasted”. You want to win many districts narrowly. To do that, you have to cram the opposition into its own 90% bailiwicks.

    The right third party could completely disrupt the system.

    For an election or two. But how many third parties have even finished second? Only in 1856 (Republicans), 1872 (Liberal Republicans, because Democrats stood aside and endorsed them), and 1912 (Progressives). The GOP jumped from third to first in 1860. The other two were re-absorbed.

    Cross-endorsement is a powerful tool for third parties, but one only used in New York, and illegal most everywhere else.

    Note, too, that third parties go nowhere in presidential elections unless they are sectional. Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace received almost identical percentages of the vote, but one won 38 electors (and one “faithless”) and the other none.

    The other Wallace, George, got three times their combined percentage in 1968, yet only got a handful more electors than did Thurmond. Perot, of course, got none, and only attained second place in two states, one of which can split. He could have gotten a single elector from his best state, Maine, and didn’t.

    One thing you rarely see is third-party runs in congressional districts, especially the more lopsided ones. There would be little fear of loss to the other major party.

  33. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:

    Trump wins again in Nov.

    The forever wars end.

    Long black convoy keelhauling
    sewer rats to Guantanamo to hang like bats.
    Forever.

    Food and drink: bat soup.

    Bleeding in the streets: ISISAntifa.

  34. dvorak says:
    @Ludwig Watzal

    The U. S. should not only withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and the other corrupt Arab autocratic regimes but also from Europe, especially from Germany. What do 35.000 U. S. occupation troops still in my country?

    Ben Rhodes, an Obama alum, is already releasing trial balloons for Color Revolutions in Hungary and Poland. American troops in Germany stand ready to liberate Eastern Europe in the name of Anal Marriage.

  35. @anonymous

    My comments in this thread are about the role played in the Beltway puppet show by Mr. Buchanan. Extensive, well written essays on the inefficacy of voting — especially for either Establishment party — are readily available on the internet.

    You haven’t given a rational explanation of how not voting will change the system.

    Telling people to “read the internet” is not an argument.

    I have given a lot of thought to the left. Too much thought most likely.

    If I was a leftist and a rational person I would conclude that:

    1. The modern leftist position falls apart on a website like Unz. It is too heavily based in emotional manipulation and indoctrination. It simply does not hold when any form of criticism is allowed. There is no point in trying to argue the leftist position if the opposition can make any argument.

    2. Due to problem #1 it is assumed that rational arguments cannot be made in favor of the left. Thus the best course of action is to encourage anti-establishment types to not vote at all.

    Thus if I was anti-Trump and trying to troll this website I would argue that not voting is the best solution. Arguing for Biden would be futile. Unz readers are too advanced for the typical modern leftist appeals.

    Now tell me again why I shouldn’t vote.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  36. @Sollipsist

    That’s what I’m afraid seems most likely. A big progressive defection from the Democratic Party would basically mean three parties competing for globalist goals, and dollars. A whole new layer of the old “whoever wins, we lose” equation, but with a younger and less compromising option.

    I’m sure the DNC has thought of that, but I don’t see much sign that the right realizes how much potential there is to be outflanked into irrelevance.

    A whole new layer indeed and the DNC would simply play it to their advantage.

    The AOC wing starts their own People’s party and makes outrageous demands as they have bought into globalist propaganda. They really think that racial problems are caused by the police and a lack of spending on public programs. So they write up trillion dollar bills and without any idea of how to pay for it or even what a trillion means.

    In steps the Democrats to compromise as the good and moderate party that scales down the New New Deal. Well by doing so they get what they wanted the entire time.

    The Republicans would be outflanked as you say.

    Now this all this sounds like a winning proposition for Democrats but here is the problem: Leftists are more deluded than ever. We see this in the riots where far left types are burning buildings in areas that are 90% liberal. The left has really been cracking up over the issue of race. I’m not convinced they are able to organize and take on the system. I think a lot of them are suffering from serious psychological issues. In the riots they are relying heavily on burnt out agitators that simply hate the system.

    A non-globalist party is what we need. It actually doesn’t matter if it is left or right. A non-globalist left would still get the ball rolling in the right direction.

    • Replies: @Sollipsist
  37. Renoman says:

    Trump’s had 4 years to get this done and he hasn’t done it, this is just another lie, what a giant lying sack of shit he is.

  38. “Vital national interests” are the only reason a nation must go to war – even interventionism. The challenge is when the competing interests of major powers clash. History warns that such collisions need to be avoided: the consequences will serve nobody’s interests.
    https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

  39. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Johnson

    Too much of your ink is squid. Under Mr. Buchanan’s previous column, you wouldn’t even tell me who you were going to vote for, calling my question “rude.” And you expect me to “tell [you] again why [you] shouldn’t vote”?

    As you already know from my several comments, I believe (i) that voting — especially RedBlue —only supports the system and (ii) that the system should and will be replaced when enough of that support is removed as more people see that the Establishment doesn’t care about them. Mr. Buchanan serves the Establishment by staving this off with his GOP cheerleading.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  40. anon[327] • Disclaimer says:

    Pat,

    is/are he/they hanging by the neck(s) yet?

    Mattis Told Then-DNI Coats They May Be Forced to Take ‘Collective Action’ against ‘Unfit’ Trump, According to New Woodward Book

    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/mattis-told-then-dni-coats-they-may-be-forced-to-take-collective-action-against-unfit-trump-according-to-new-woodward-book/

    • Replies: @anon
  41. @John Johnson

    Absolutely. There’s enough common ground to overcome the artificial divisions between left and right. Leftists once chiefly campaigned for the working class, and many are still committed to reining in the excesses of the 1% — probably why the Occupy movement was diluted and squashed so quickly. All it depends upon is them overcoming their fear of being labelled as “right-wing,” and the right overcoming their reflexive distaste for anything vaguely “socialist.”

    The Yellow Vests are a perfect example of a bipartisan populist movement. Maybe it’s once again time for a French Revolution to inspire another American Revolution.

  42. @anonymous

    As you already know from my several comments, I believe (i) that voting — especially RedBlue —only supports the system and (ii) that the system should and will be replaced when enough of that support is removed as more people see that the Establishment doesn’t care about them. Mr. Buchanan serves the Establishment by staving this off with his GOP cheerleading.

    Around 45% of the population doesn’t vote.

    If you somehow how increased that to 65% then a smaller proportion of the US would choose the candidates. That’s all that would happen.

    It simply wouldn’t change anything.

    The are two ways to bust the two party system:
    1. Run a third party in unopposed districts.
    2. Reform one of the parties as populist/nationalist

    The GOP should have gone the #2 route years ago. But they seem to be fine with losing.

  43. Anonymous[343] • Disclaimer says:

    Doubtful….specially now that Jared Kushner had succeeded in pushing Bahrain an UAE to sign a peace agreement with Israel. This will be a DISASTER for the Middle East. Israel will feel embolden to invade Lebanon which they already attacked before, continue breaking up Syria, control Libya , Sudan …and manipulate the USA to declare war on Iran. Both Bahrain and UAE had signed their death sentences, since neither of them are constitutional democracies and this agreement with Israel will lead to grass roots internal revolts which will put more popular pressure in already weak unpopular ilegitimate monarchies. Jared Kushner had promised BILLIONS for both nations WHO HOW is such luminous plan be financed????…The crux of the Middle East problem cannot be resolved withouth a PALESTINIAN STATE ….participation…You can not redeem a ZIO CRIME with more crimes, wash away blood with more palestinian blood, …thi aggreement can olnly be sustained with MORE AMERICAN BLOOD AND MONEY…In 1933 Chamberlain and Hitler agreed to peace and less than 2yrs later WW II exploded…we shall see if Kushner suffers the same fate.

  44. JasonT says:

    The forever wars of the U.S. will end in a few years. The U.S. deep state will start a major war because of their inability to accept the fact that their power is waning, and then the U.S. and its vassal states will be nuked to the ground. Trump is trying to stop that but will fail.

    Shortly after that, the deep state’s successors in Europe will try again for world domination and will fail also.

  45. Exile says:
    @Emslander

    Pat showed me how to break the neocon spell but it’s obvious he is no dissident at heart. Pat cannot break his own chains of loyalty to the GOP and call out what has been a rotten administration since 2016 sitting atop a party that’s been rotten since 1860.

    Both parties are cancers on the body politic that exist only for the sake of the bloated elite that despises their rank-and-file. Every election is an exercise in cynical, manipulative kosher-sandwich Finklethink from both sides. Heads we lose, tails Jews & their shabbos-collaborators win.

    At this point anyone who is not willing to speak truth about and to that power elite is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    Pat is a boxer who’s stayed in the ring at least a decade past his dangerous years, shadow-boxing and taking swings at Demonrat tomato-cans in a rigged match.

    Shut it down.

    • Replies: @Emslander
  46. Emslander says:
    @Exile

    Your point of view is a dead end. If you think the executive of this massive and expensive government cancer should be thrown to whatever street mongrel can snarl most convincingly, you’re way wrong.

    • Replies: @Exile
  47. Jimmy1969 says:

    This article is unfocused and is rambling all over the place. I would not even give it a grade of C on a grade nine essay. The part about “protect Israel” needs another 10 pages and the military industrial intelligence mafia needs 100 pages and the Congressional districts with weapons manufacturers and military think tanks and bases in them needs 1000 pages of explanation.

  48. Exile says:
    @Emslander

    What’s your “non-dead-end” solution?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings