Trump's Words vs. Trump's Advisors

By Chris Rossini

President Trump's inaugural speech contained words that would create a smile for any liberty-loving individual: 

"We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world, but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first. We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example. We will shine for everyone to follow."

Fulfilling those words would truly be revolutionary. Trump really would be different if he chooses to govern by them.

Unfortunately, the views of the National Security Advisors that President Trump has picked don't seem to jibe.

For example, General Michael Flynn, who recently resigned, had a couple of positive views, especially with his desire to work with Russia (which is probably the view that made him a target of the deep state). 

But Flynn also had terrible views when it came to the Middle East, and specifically with Iran. President Trump barely finished draping the new curtains in the White House, and Flynn was already putting Iran "on notice".

​Flynn has had a bone to pick with Iran for a long time, as those who have read his book could clearly see.

Flynn even said the following (very false) statement in his book:

Most Americans mistakenly believe that peace is the normal condition of mankind, while war is some weird aberration. Actually, it is the other way around.

There's a HUGE difference between "mankind" and governments.

So Gen. Flynn did not live up to the words from Trump's inauguration speech. He's a war hawk plain and simple.

Today, President Trump replaced Flynn with Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster. 

Will McMaster advise Trump towards a more peaceful foreign policy?

It doesn't look like it. 

Wouldn't you know, he's a major hawk on Russia. Look how that happened.

Target Liberty also provides the following on McMaster's thinking:

[McMaster] holds the view that U.S. troops on the ground are the only way to solve many conflicts. He holds that simple air bombardment, which the U.S. is presently doing in the Middle East, is "George Costanza-type" fighting.

This type of Costanza style fighting via air bombardment is, according to McMaster,  You "do a lot of damage and leave on an up note," but not really "win."

He holds that success requires that ground troops must gain land from the enemy and maintain contact with civilians in the area and also the enemy. He views local troops as "so-called partners." To him "outsourcing the fighting" is an error. Some use of local troops can occur but the driver and main component must be U.S. troops. It can't simply be done with U.S. military advisers.

For McMaster, it is all about "land control" that also includes "military support of governance" for "sustainable political outcomes." ...

With McMaster being named National Security Adviser, you can throw away the idea that Trump is going to disengage the United States from military adventures. The troops that are already deployed are not coming home. The Empire is about to intensify its global entanglements, with new or additional combat troops, at a minimum, in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Presidents have promised peace (and have been awarded Nobel Peace Prizes) only to provide us with more war.

Trump is yet to make his mark in the history books as to which road he will choose.

But he's not setting himself up for peace based on the people he's surrounding himself with.