The New American
by William F. Jasper
In January 2019, President Donald Trump declared that America must “stop the endless wars.” And he announced that, in keeping with his campaign pledges, he would begin pulling U.S. forces out of Syria. Finally, in October, he began making good on the promise, only to be hammered by his usual critics in the media, the foreign policy establishment, and the War Party in Congress (the coalition of Democrats and Republicans who can be relied on to support U.S. involvement in any war, anywhere, any time).
“I held off this fight for almost 3 years, but it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home,” the president tweeted on October 7. “WE WILL FIGHT WHERE IT IS TO OUR BENEFIT, AND ONLY FIGHT TO WIN. Turkey, Europe, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia and the Kurds will now have to figure the situation out, and what they want to do with the captured ISIS fighters in their ‘neighborhood,’” he continued. “They all hate ISIS, have been enemies for years. We are 7000 miles away and will crush ISIS again if they come anywhere near us!”
The response of the Nancy Pelosi-run War Party in the House of Representatives was to pass a resolution condemning President Trump’s withdrawal of troops from Syria. The resolution, sponsored by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and the committee’s top Republican, Representative Michael McCaul (Texas), was overwhelmingly approved on October 16 by a vote of 354 to 60, with four members voting “present.” All 60 votes against the resolution came from Republicans, but 129 Republicans joined all of the House Democrats in sending the rebuke to President Trump. Republicans in the Senate held off a vote on the same measure.
In addition to the resolution, members of Congress from both parties have mobbed the news programs and talk shows to denounce the Syrian withdrawal as “shameful,” “terrible,” “disgraceful,” “disastrous,” and “a betrayal.” Senator Mitt Romney (R-Utah), a globalist and longtime Trump critic, harshly condemned the move as “a bloodstain in the annals of American history.”
The House vote and its attendant media spectacle underscores once again the ability of the Deep State and its Fake News Media allies to set the dials and call the tunes that the weak-minded and corrupt will dance to. Whether or not they realize it, the opponents of the Syrian troop withdrawal are merely mouthing the regurgitation fodder that is being fed to them by the ventriloquists at the Council on Foreign Relations and its globalist adjuncts, who are demanding a continuation of their Orwellian “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace” program.
“The High Price of Trump’s Great Betrayal.” That’s the title of an October 17 syndicated column by Richard N. Haass. Who is Haass? Regular readers of The New American know that he is an outspoken opponent of national sovereignty and the president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the premier brain trust of the Deep State that has dominated American politics for much of the past century. Haass was sitting on the stage with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she cooed to an assembly of CFR notables that she was so pleased the Council’s New York City-based “mother ship” had set up offices in Washington, D.C., because, as a result, she wouldn’t have so far to go “to be told what we should be doing and how we should think.”
Together with Secretaries of State Clinton and John Kerry, Haass and the rest of the CFR-led foreign policy establishment crafted and supported the Obama administration’s disastrous Middle East policies that have caused the region’s upheaval, as well as President Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional war in Syria. Now the globalist choir, led by choirmaster Haass, is condemning President Trump for attempting to make good on his oft-repeated promise to stop American involvement in “endless wars” and “bring our soldiers home.” According to Haass, the president’s Syria move “was a terrible one.”
“President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw American forces from northern Syria, and leave the region’s Kurds vulnerable to neighboring Turkey’s military incursion, was a terrible one,” Haass asserted in his column. “The Kurdish forces in control of the region had been the principal US partner in the struggle against the Islamic State (ISIS),” he continues. “Trump’s abandonment of them reinforced already existing doubts in the region and around the world that the United States remains a reliable ally.”
Then the CFR president gets on to the real target of his ire: Trump’s “America First” policy, which Haass, the archetypal globalist, disingenuously derides as “isolationism.”
“Trump’s ‘America First’ slogan is premised on the idea that the costs of US world leadership far outweigh any benefits,” complains Haass. Moreover, says the CFR chieftain — and this is his real concern — “Trump’s decision taps into an old American tradition of isolationism, which has a lineage traceable to America’s Founding Fathers.” In addition, he states, “the notion that the US can safely turn its back on the world and still thrive even as global order declines is seriously misguided.”
The CFR Record: One Betrayal After Another
Before moving on to some of Haass’s other specious claims, it may be worthwhile to dissect a few of his quotes above.
First of all, let’s look at Trump’s alleged “betrayal” of America’s “reliable allies,” the Kurds. It may be true that there are, indeed, some genuine American allies among the Kurds who have been fighting ISIS in Syria. However, the various “Kurdish forces” whom our Obama-era, CFR-run State Department and CIA selected to receive arms and training are hardcore communists and Islamists who can be counted on to turn on us, just as we have seen with our CFR-chosen “allies” in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In those conflicts, our CFR-laden State Department, Defense Department, and intelligence agencies have repeatedly engaged in a deadly game of musical chairs, arming and supporting ISIS, ISIL, al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, al Nusra, the Taliban, the PKK-YPG-SDF, and many additional criminal, terrorist, Islamist, communist, anti-American groups and factions. It is worth noting that these are not simply “rightwing conspiracy theories”; plenty of top sources and documentation have proven this. The sources include top players in Obama’s administration, including his vice president, Joe Biden; his Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, General Martin Dempsey; and his White House deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes.
Biden famously went off script in a 2014 speech at Harvard University during which he demolished the claim we were supporting Arab “moderates” and admitted that Obama’s “anti-ISIS” coalition was actually supporting ISIS, ISIL, al-Qaeda, and al Nusra.
“The fact is, the ability to identify a moderate middle in Syria, um, was, uh — there was no moderate middle,” Biden acknowledged. “What my constant cry was, that our biggest problem was our allies — our allies in the region were our largest problem,” he went on, noting that “the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.”
Biden was merely confirming what this magazine and other responsible media organs were reporting: that the CFR-led “war on terror” was a gigantic lie, that our nation’s blood and treasure were being treasonously sacrificed to build what the globalists call their “new world order,” an order that envisions a world government ruled by an internationalist elite. Biden’s Harvard speech should have been immediate and ongoing front page news and the cause for a genuine congressional investigation. Instead, the Fake News Media buried it and told the American public, “Never mind. Nothing to see here. Move along.” Ditto for the admissions against interest by General Dempsey and Ben Rhodes, as well as the revelations of government whistleblowers.
This treachery, lying, double-dealing, and coverup has been going on in Syria for more than five years. In truth, none of the warring parties in Syria can be considered “reliable allies” or noble partners worthy of the blood of American soldiers. Is it really in America’s national interest to take sides in a conflict between the tyrannical regimes of Recep Erdoğan in Turkey and Bashar al-Assad in Syria? Is it in our “national interest,” as Haass claims, to continue supporting the Kurdish forces fighting under the banner of the PKK/YPG/PYD/SDF, an umbrella communist terrorist organization that has been conducting a dec-ades-long war of bombings, kidnappings, drug dealing, and assassinations?
Representative Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), one of 60 members of the House of Representatives to vote against the resolution condemning President Trump’s removal of American troops from the Syrian conflict zone, noted about our Kurdish “allies”:
The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) is a militant group, designated by the United States and the European Union as a terrorist organization. The PKK is a coalition of Maoists, Marxist-Leninists and other Communists. While America shares a common enemy with the PKK — the Islamic State (ISIS) — the PKK doesn’t share American ideals or have anything else in common with Western values.
Now, having created another conflagration, the globalist CFR cabal is using its tragic victims — particularly the refugee women and children — as human shields to prolong its destructive policies. They are playing upon our compassion and sense of fairness. But Haass’ appeal concerning loyalty to allies belies a century of betrayals of our allies by CFR henchmen, especially the betrayal of national leaders and whole nations to communism: Think, for example, China, Cuba, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Baltic States, Iran, Nicaragua, Rhodesia, South Africa, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc. (For details on these betrayals, see: In the Shadows of the Deep State: A Century of Council on Foreign Relations Scheming for World Government by Arthur Thompson and The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline by James Perloff.)
The council’s record of treachery, treason, and betrayal — from CFR founders Edward Mandell House, Walter Lippman, and the Dulles brothers, through Soviet agents Alger Hiss and Lawrence Duggan, to pro-communist globalists Thomas Lamont, David and Nelson Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and George Soros — includes consigning hundreds of millions of victims to tyranny, torture, persecution, slave labor, and/or genocide. Given the council’s pitiless, bloody record, only those who are hopelessly gullible will be fooled by the current round of CFR crocodile tears for the Kurds.
The real problem is that when you have disloyal Americans (whether communist, globalist, or both) running your foreign policy and determining who our “allies” will be, you can count on your real allies getting betrayed and your enemies getting rewarded as allies.
The “Isolationist,” “America First” Bogeyman
Second, Haass’ decrying of President Trump’s “America First” and “isolationist” policies is as predictable as it is disingenuous.
As the late Admiral Chester Ward, former judge advocate general of the U.S. Navy, noted decades ago, “In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First.’” Why is that? Because, said Admiral Ward, the goal of the CFR is the “submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government.” Admiral Ward, who was himself a CFR member for 16 years, noted that “this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership.”
Thus, CFR thought leaders have ever tried to equate foreign entanglements, international agreements, foreign intervention, and foreign wars with “world leadership,” since all of these roads lead to further weakening of the United States, while simultaneously enhancing and empowering the United Nations. According to Haass, the idea that America can “turn its back on the world” is “seriously misguided.” But Americans have never been “isolationist” in the sense that Haass insinuates, and have never advocated turning our nation’s “back on the world.” Now, as in the past, Americans want to have full, friendly people-to-people relations with all friendly nations — for commerce, trade, and travel. And now, as in the past, Americans are leery of foreign entanglements — that is, government-to-government relations. Haass notes, with apparent dismay, that a recent Pew survey shows large majorities of U.S. military veterans, as well as the general public, believe that the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria “were not worth fighting.” The foreign policy establishment is upset that Americans are succumbing to “intervention fatigue” and are objecting to an endless, “open-ended military presence” in whichever crisis du jour hellhole Haass and company decide to send our troops.
Americans are weary of, and leery of, calls for more war. Haass is correct in seeing this aversion to interventionism in “a lineage traceable to America’s Founding Fathers.”
Perhaps the most famous line from Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1801, is this: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” He also said, in the same address: “Peace, justice, and liberal intercourse with all the nations of the world, will, I hope, characterize this commonwealth.”
Jefferson’s prescription for peace followed the earlier advice of George Washington, who, in his farewell address, said: “Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”
President John Quincy Adams similarly counseled that America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own…. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”
Will America follow the counsels of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, as they pertain to foreign entanglements and endless wars, or will it follow the destructive advice of Haass and the CFR’s self-styled “Wise Men of foreign affairs” that leads to national suicide? President Trump is making efforts to reverse the treacherous policies of the CFR cabal, but we still have a very long way to go.