Trump's brinkmanship will bring the world closer to war: Scholar

President Donald Trump has declared that he wants to increase the US military budget so he can negotiate with other countries from a position of strength, but his policy of brinkmanship will bring the world closer to war, according to Professor Dennis Etler, an American political analyst who has a decades-long interest in international affairs.

Etler, a professor of Anthropology at Cabrillo College in Aptos, California, made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Friday while commenting on a statement by former US Congressman Ron Paul, who recently pointed out the existence of a neoconservative group in the Senate working against the country.

Dr. Paul said on Thursday that there is a neoconservative axis in the Senate, made of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, which might destroy America by increasing the military spending up to five trillion dollars over the next five years.

Senate Armed Services Chairman McCain has published a 35-page white paper, “Restoring American Power,” in which he says the US military must achieve the capability of waging and winning conventional warfare in three priority theaters — Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.

In the paper, the hawkish senator also outlined his plans to counter the new threats of battlefield nuclear weapons, cyber attacks and irregular warfare, which would cost $430 billion more than current plans over five years. Last month, Congress passed the US military budget of $618.7 billion for the next fiscal year.

US ‘defense budget’ is in fact war budget

Professor Etler said that Dr. Paul “is a longstanding critic of the US war budget and the congressional/military–industrial complex.”

“It doesn't, however, take much insight to realize that the so-called ‘defense budget’ is in fact a war budget meant to keep the US in a position of global dominance, it has nothing to do with ‘homeland security’ as there is no credible military threat to the US from any foreign power be it state or non-state in nature.,” he stated.

“Takfiri terrorists, known by their Arabic acronym Daesh, or more commonly ISIS, have served as shock troops for US intervention in the Middle East and North Africa. Like an abused attack dog once unleashed it may turn on its master and need to be put down. That is the situation we now see wherever Daesh operates. It serves as a US surrogate on one hand and as a useful target on the other. Both sides use the other for their own purposes and will not hesitate to attack when it serves their own interests,” the analyst explained.

“But to suggest that the US must budget trillions of dollars to combat Daesh is absurd. The bloated US war budget must serve other purposes besides homeland defense. The war hawks in the US, both in Congress and the White House, be they of either party, have been bent on maintaining US global and regional hegemony in all parts of the world and are intent on intimidating and bullying all who stand up to them,” he added.

Neocons and neo-libs engaged in militaristic aggression

“Both Republican and Democrat administrations, be they neoconservative or neo-liberal have followed the same policy of direct and indirect foreign intervention, be it by interfering in the internal affairs of other nations by subversion and ‘color revolutions’ as in Ukraine, military coups as in Honduras, soft governmental coups as in Brazil, proxy wars as in Syria and Yemen or outright invasion as in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Professor Etler said.

“In order to facilitate this wide-ranging program of militaristic aggression the US must station troops around the world, maintain a blue water navy that plies the seven seas and have air bases and aircraft carriers that can project power across the seven continents,” he noted.   

“This policy of military aggression and power projection has had as its ultimate targets both Russia and China, the two powers that have the potential to challenge US hegemony in their respective regions. Neither country however has the interest or ability to challenge the US militarily. Their primary aim is to secure their borders, maintain territorial integrity and resist US encroachment on their core regional interests,” the scholar said. 

“As a result they must respond to US military spending by increasing their own military preparedness. This in turn serves as a red herring for US war-mongers to lobby for increased military spending in response, creating a tit for tat escalating arms race, as witnessed during the Cold War,” he stated.

60% of US budget spent on military

“As nearly 60% of the US discretionary budget is spent on the military it should be obvious that the US economy as presently constituted is extremely dependent on the congressional/military-industrial complex for its survival. There are powerful vested interests that want to see it maintained as such," Professor Etler said. 

"That amount of money however could be much better spent on meeting the needs of the people of the US for refurbishing the declining US infrastructure, education, healthcare and social security,” he added. 

“With the election of Trump as US President and his promises to end US intervention abroad and focus on rebuilding the US infrastructure and creating jobs, it is hoped by many that the US will change its ways and seek national security by creating a climate of peace and reconciliation, rather than a climate of war and antagonism,” he  emphasized.  

What Trump's overtures to Russia mean

The political commentator said that “Trump's overtures to Russia have buoyed many people's hopes in that regard. But Trump has also proclaimed that he wants to increase military spending to even greater heights so he can negotiate with other countries from a position of strength.”

“But what does that mean?” Etler asked.

“If Trump succeeds in accommodating Russia the only targets of Trump's enhanced military are the countries that want to maintain their independence and sovereignty against the wishes of the US. These include China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and various other countries in the world that have stood up to US hegemony. But Trump's brinkmanship will only create more tension and bring the world closer to war,” he pointed out.

“Trump when all is said and done is an imperialist. There is a growing realization amongst the ruling elite that the US must better pick its fights and not squander its resources as it has done under the Bush and Obama administrations on needless wars and confrontations. Hence the retreat from regime change and the rapprochement with Russia, all the better to turn their guns against those countries that they deem are true economic and political threats to continued US hegemony, with China leading the pack,” the scholar concluded. 

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.co.uk