Anti-Imperialism/Foreign Policy

CIA veterans who monitored crackdowns abroad see troubling parallels in Trump’s handling of protests

The Washington Post has long been known in “foreign policy dissident” circles as the “voice of CIA.” The WaPo is now owned by Bezos which indicates that an alliance has formed between the Deep State and the techno-oligarchs (the rising wing of the ruling class, gradually eclipsing the old monied elites and Sunbelt industries). The Deep State exists to protect the interests of the military-industrial complex on a permanent basis irrespective of shifting political winds and power dynamics elsewhere in the government or the economy.

In recent years, the Deep State seems to have seen the writing on the wall and moved toward the rising ruling class of techno-oligarchs and the new clerisy (see Joel Kotkin). Hence, the seeming alliance between the Deep State, neoliberals, techno-oligarchs, and new clerisy against the Trumpists. The CIA-FBI-DNC-Pelosi-Bezos-Maddow axis. The closest parallel I know of to something like this from elsewhere is the conflict between Turkey’s Deep State and the Erdogan regime. Factions of Turkey’s Deep State actually attempted a coup against Erdogan a few years back.

However, there also seems to be some sectors of the military-industrial complex that have thrown in their lot with Trumpism as well. Elements of Trump’s foreign policy seem rooted in the ideas of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which is a Kissinger-affiliated group. Some arms merchants such as Raytheon are clearly aligned with Trump (which is why former Raytheon lobbyist Mark Esper is Secretary of Defense).

The surface-level impression I get is that the private civilian sectors of the military-industrial complex (like arms merchants, who are concerned about war profiteering) are more friendly to Trump and his standard Republican “rebuild the military” rhetoric, along with think-tank strategists who favor a more “realist” approach to foreign policy, knowing that the empire is overextended and cracking (i.e. the Steve Bannon types). However, the state sectors of the MIC (particularly the intelligence services and upper strata military) and those with a more conventional liberal internationalist and/or neoconservative perspective on foreign policy, seem to be more hostile to Trumpism.

By Greg Miller

Washington Post

The scenes have been disturbingly familiar to CIA analysts accustomed to monitoring scenes of societal unraveling abroad — the massing of protesters, the ensuing crackdowns and the awkwardly staged displays of strength by a leader determined to project authority.

In interviews and posts on social media in recent days, current and former U.S. intelligence officials have expressed dismay at the similarity between events at home and the signs of decline or democratic regression they were trained to detect in other nations.


Leave a Reply