The emergence of Hawk Trump dismayed some of his Maga base but students of US adventurism were unsurprised
So the military parade that brought tanks to the streets of Washington on Donald Trump’s birthday was more than just an authoritarian ego trip. It was a show of strength and statement of intent.
Exactly a week later, sporting a “Make America great again” (Maga) cap in the situation room, the American president ordered the biggest US military intervention in decades as more than 125 aircraft and 75 weapons – including 14 bunker-busting bombs – struck three Iranian nuclear sites. Trump called it a “spectacular military success” – but it remains unclear how much damage had actually been inflicted.
Trump’s gamble was cheered by Israel and Republican hawks. It alarmed some in his Maga base who fell for his rhetoric promising to be an isolationist who would end forever wars. It left egg on the face of Pakistan, which only a day earlier had said it would nominate Trump for the Nobel peace prize.
But there was no inconsistency for those paying close attention to the president’s war on democracy, which since January has included a draconian crackdown on immigration – including masked government agents grabbing people off the street and deporting them without due process – and the deployment of marines and national guard troops against protesters in Los Angeles.
He is not strong. It is all a show to him.
This is still a show. He’s still a weak old man. People kiss his ass for a proverbial toffee from his candy dish. He’s got the same energy as the Wizard of Oz; fake as fuck.
He doesn’t know the difference between a strong man and a strongman.
Wobble loudly and carry a grudge - the weak, incompetent, confused orange felon.
You’ve got to wonder about a system which allows a chorus of people saying it would be terrible to become involved in a war in the middle east to do a complete 180. Why aren’t their own words being quoted (by congress, by news) back to them?
Do you really think that would make any difference? Conservatism is about staying with the group. Despite the name, consistency has nothing to do with it. If the group leaders start saying something contradictory it just becomes the new group stance. What came before, even just yesterday, is entirely irrelevant. Those who critically evaluate individual ideas or policies are not conservatives.
This casts all people who vote for conservative parties as sheep who will blindly agree with whatever their leader says on a given day. For some that’s true, but most people recognise that unexplained U-turns are a sign of bullshit.
An amnesiac media laser-focused on the 24h news cycle lets the cult develop by not reminding people of what they believed the day before yesterday. Most people don’t like being confronted with this even if they can explain it away, and more focus on it would be an improvement.
Makes you wonder what class owns >50% of congress and the news?
“Perilous” is doing so much work here.