World War Trump

by Hall Gardner

  Trump's support for torture denigrates traditional American values and constitutional rights. The American military knows that it should not willingly do what is known to be illegal and immoral—and that they should resist illegal orders in order to preserve the civilian control over the military. The use of torture is counterproductive and does not necessarily obtain useful information for “actionable intelligence,” despite what its proponents have claimed.22 A Trump-Pence administration decision to relegitimize the use of torture would furthermore feed into the propaganda machines of the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and other anti-state sociopolitical movements and countries that oppose US foreign policy and US interests.

  On the international side, Trump's calls for “patriotism” and “loyalty” have sounded like President George W. Bush, who declared to the countries and populations of the world, “either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”—in initiating the war against the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003.23 Yet despite Trump's disclaimers, as long as Washington continues to assert its own hegemonic interests first, the United States will not find itself cultivating the friendship of all countries. Instead, it will soon find itself as acting alone in an even more grotesque geopolitical context—in which conflicts, with unclear or complex causes, could break out unexpectedly.

  In such a world, each major country, ruled by plutocratic elites, will be destabilized by the burgeoning gap between the very, very rich and the poor. Millions will be concentrated in overcrowded, highly polluted, and crime-ridden megacities—and those megacities along the coasts will increasingly be impacted by Arctic and Antarctic flooding while other regions will become increasingly arid.24 In addition to the massive pollution and overheating of the environment caused by carbon emissions, the tons of plastic waste dumped directly into the ocean is already causing unresolvable damage to aquatic ecosystems and to our bodies. As plastic breaks up, it, along with other poisonous pollutions, is ingested by fish and climbs up the food chain and into humans.25

  It will be a world in which the national security apparatus of states and their cyber wizards possess almost total informational control over their citizens, while seeking to root out more information, from friends and foes alike—in rivalry with “enemy” states and anti-state actors and mad computer hackers. In this global context, each government will seek to control media and information that might delegitimize or oppose the official line and policies.

  In such a global situation, “friend-enemy” distinctions will not be as crystal-clear as they at least appeared to be during the Cold War. Enemies in one situation could become friends, and vice versa, much as George Orwell stated in his book 1984: “The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.”26 Orwell's comment appears to fit the present situation of US-Russian relations.

  And, just as anarchists once claimed that sticks of dynamite could equal the score between themselves and the superior force and manpower of the police and military, lesser sociopolitical anti-state actors will continue to undermine reasonable diplomatic efforts to achieve “peace.” This will prove particularly true in situations in which those anti-state actors interpret the grandiose claims of major powers to seek peace as actually intended to preserve their own hegemony. Major powers may appear to talk peace, but only in Orwellian doublespeak. Their leaderships may not at all be concerned with actually resolving complex political, economic, and social problems. In such cases, authoritarianism and repression becomes the status quo.

  The geopolitical rivalries of such a world could be even more abominable than the fictional dystopia depicted in Orwell's 1984. In that book, the planet is plagued by potentially nuclear conflicts between three major powers: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. In the contemporary geopolitical context, in which the world is under the constant threat of hybrid, if not nuclear, warfare, Oceania can be considered the United States, plus the Europeans, Japan, and its remaining allies; Eurasia is Russia and its allies; while an increasingly powerful Eastasia is now China—in a geopolitical rivalry in which Eurasia and Eastasia are presently threatening a full-fledged military alliance against Oceania for control over the world and over outer space as well. Concurrently, each of these powers are also be competing for the political-economic and military allegiance of a fourth power, amphibious India—the rising power of “Southasia,” which was not foreseen in Orwell's otherwise-prescient geopolitical vision. In this view, India could play a potentially positive role of mediator, or a negative one of antagonist—that is, if India does not succumb to its own significant internal and regional conflicts.

  Such a world is in obvious contrast to the liberal vision of a world of total interdependence.27 Nevertheless, such a horrific world could become closer to reality if the United States takes an extreme America First position. The Trump administration dumped the TPP accord, which will assist China's rise as a major authoritarian and anti-democratic actor. It also dumped the important COP 21 agreement, which unilaterally relinquishes American leadership in the area of alternative and sustainable energies and carbon emissions control. And it is not impossible for the European Union to break up into nationalist rivalries in the next five to ten years, in part with Trump's blessing. Moreover, Moscow and Beijing could both refuse to accept geo-economic compromises with the United States and Europeans, while the United States and North Korea could continue to threaten nuclear war against each other. And all sides could concurrently refuse to reduce, if not eliminate, their nuclear weaponry. An arms race and buildup of military forces would remain a permanent feature of the highly polluted geopolitical landscape.

  In such a global context, any number of overseas conflicts could drag the United States in to protect a strategically significant ally against a presumed threat. But what if an opposing regional major power—or even a lesser state potentially backed by a major nuclear power—decides to call the American bluff? Or what if anti-state terrorist organizations, with differing social and political ideologies, not just Islamist, ostensibly operating alone, purposely seek to spark conflict between major and regional powers—which is even more plausible if alliances continue to polarize?

  A self-isolated United States, as it attempts to bully its allies and rivals (and citizens) alike, could then find itself pressed to choose which international conflicts represent an existential priority and which do not. The country would be pushed to engage in a form of strategic triage that would seek to determine which areas and countries might be worth the risk of “hybrid” conflict against rival nuclear powers, and which areas and countries would not.

  INTRODUCTION: A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY

  1. See Hall Gardner, Dangerous Crossroads: Europe, Russia and the Future of NATO (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997). The original adage has been attributed to Lord Ismay but probably came from one of his assistants.

  2. Stan Resor, “Opposition to NATO Expansion: Open Letter to President Clinton,” Arms Control Association, June 26, 1997, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_06-07/natolet (accessed May 22, 2017).

  3. On alternatives to NATO enlargement considered in the late 1990s, see Gardner, Dangerous Crossroads.

  4. See Mikhail Zygar, All the Kremlin's Men (New York: Public Affairs, 2016). See also Hall Gardner, NATO Expansion and the US Strategy in Asia: Surmounting the Global Crisis (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); Hall Gardner, “The Genesis of NATO Enlargement and of War ‘Over’ Kosovo,” Central and Southeastern Europe in Transition: Perspectives on Success and Failure Since 1989, ed. Hall Gardner (Westport, CT: Praeger, March 1999).

  5. Most of my books have addressed the question of Russian revanche since 1994: Dangerous Crossroads; Surviving the Millennium: American Global Strategy, the Collapse of the Soviet Empire, and the Question of Peace (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994); American Global Strategy and the “War on Terrorism” (Ashgate, 2005; revised and updated, 2007); Averting Global War: Regional Challenges, Overextension, and Options for
American Strategy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007); NATO Expansion and the US Strategy in Asia: Surmounting the Global Crisis (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); Hall Gardner, Crimea, Global Rivalry, and the Vengeance of History (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).

  6. On the costs of post–September 11, 2001, wars, see the Watson Institute, “Costs of War” Project, http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/ (accessed October 17, 2017).

  7. Ibid. These huge costs are, to a large extent, due to the new form of post–Cold War “short war illusion” in which the initial military interventions are rapid, but the peacekeeping and peacemaking have proven to be very long term. See Gardner, American Global Strategy.

  8. Donald J. Trump, “Remarks of President Donald J. Trump, as Prepared for Delivery, Inaugural Address,” Washington, DC, January 20, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/inaugural-address (accessed November 13, 2017).

  CHAPTER 1: THE PERILS OF THE NEW “AMERICA FIRST” NATIONALISM

  1. Nick Gass, “Trump: Taking Back Crimea Would Trigger World War III,” Politico, August 1, 2016, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-crimea-ukraine-war-226522 (accessed May 22, 2017).

  2. Jordan Fabian and Evelyn Rupert, “Trump Promises Chinese President He'll Honor ‘One China’ Policy,” Hill, February 10, 2017, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318874-trump-to-honor-one-china-policy (accessed May 22, 2017).

  3. Austin Ramzy, “Kim Jong-un Called Trump a ‘Dotard.’ What Does That Even Mean?” New York Times, September 22, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/world/asia/trump-north-korea-dotard.html (accessed November 5, 2017).

  4. Robert Helbig and Guillaume Lasconjarias, “Winning Peace and Exporting Stability: Colombia as NATO's Next Global Partner?” NATO Research Paper 138 (May 2017), http://www.ndc.nato.int/news/news.php?icode=1056 (accessed October 17, 2017).

  5. Ruth Sherlock, “America's Allies Are ‘Ripping Us Off’ Says Donald Trump,” Telegraph, March 27, 2016, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/27/americas-allies-are-ripping-us-off-says-donald-trump/ (accessed November 5, 2017).

  6. Peter Navarro, who was appointed as head of the newly created National Trade Council, blames Beijing for the loss of 57,000 American factories and 25 million jobs. He has called China a “global pollution factory” and “disease incubator.” Tom Phillips, “‘Brutal, Amoral, Ruthless, Cheating’: How Trump's New Trade Tsar Sees China,” Guardian, December 22, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/22/brutal-amoral-ruthless-cheating-trumps-trade-industrial-peter-navarro-views-on-china (accessed October 17, 2017).

  7. On the failure of new technological innovation to produce jobs relative to previous epochs, see Robert J. Gordon, The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The US Standard of Living since the Civil War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016); Elena Holodny, “Trump Vows to ‘Crack Down’ on Anyone Who Violates Trade Agreements,” Business Insider, January 20, 2017, http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-deal-plans-on-whitehousegov-2017-1?r=US&IR=T (accessed October 23, 2017).

  8. Ken Moak, “A US-China Trade War Is the Last Thing the World Needs,” Asian Times, August 9, 2017, http://www.atimes.com/us-china-trade-war-last-thing-world-needs/ (accessed October 23, 2017).

  9. Tom Murse, “How Much U.S. Debt Does China Really Own?” ThoughtCo, February 28, 2017, https://www.thoughtco.com/how-much-debt-does-china-own-3321769 (accessed November 5, 2017).

  10. “There is surely something odd about the world's greatest power being the world's greatest debtor. In order to finance prevailing levels of consumption and investment, must the United States be as dependent as it is on the discretionary acts of what are inevitably political entities in other countries?” Lawrence H. Summers, “The United States and the Global Adjustment Process,” speech at the Third Annual Stavros S. Niarchos Lecture, March 23, 2004 (Washington DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2004), https://piie.com/commentary/speeches-papers/united-states-and-global-adjustment-process (accessed November 16, 2017).

  11. President Donald J. Trump, quoted by CNN on its Twitter account @CNN, February 24, 2017, https://twitter.com/cnn/status/835157246212460546?lang=en (accessed November 13, 2017).

  12. David Brunnstrom and Matt Spetalnick, “Tillerson Says China Should Be Barred from South China Sea islands,” Reuters, January 11, 2017, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-congress-tillerson-china-idUSKBN14V2KZ (accessed October 23, 2017). Tillerson later softened his position; Jesse Johnson “Behind the Scenes, Tillerson Tones down Rhetoric on South China Sea,” Japan Times, February 7, 2017, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/07/asia-pacific/behind-scenes-tillerson-tones-rhetoric-south-china-sea/#.WR7k6PqGP8Q (accessed October 23, 2017).

  13. Alec Luhn, “Russia Bans Siberia Independence March,” Guardian, August 5, 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/05/russia-bans-siberia-independence-march-extremism-law (accessed October 23, 2017).

  14. Ben Aris, “Moscow Blog: Is Russia Seeing the Start of a Colour Revolution?” Intellinews, March 26, 2017, http://www.intellinews.com/moscow-blog-is-russia-seeing-the-start-of-a-colour-revolution-118327/?source=blogs&inf_contact_key=a4781fd4783dd3593aaa41c8da6700a29bf3206cfe5b7795e3d64b33000606fb (accessed October 23, 2017).

  15. Donald J. Trump Presidential Campaign, “Donald J. Trump Military Readiness Remarks,” press release, September 7, 2016, https://warsclerotic.com/2016/09/07/donald-j-trump-%e2%80%8bmilitary-readiness-remarks/ (October 23, 2017).

  16. In Trump's October 2016 debate with Hillary Clinton: “Our nuclear program has fallen way behind and they have gone wild with their nuclear program. Not good. Our government shouldn't have allowed that to happen. Russia is new in terms of nuclear and we are old and tired and exhausted in terms of nuclear. A very bad thing.” Staff, “Full Transcript: Second 2016 Presidential Debate,” Politico, October 10, 2016, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/2016-presidential-debate-transcript-229519 (accessed May 22, 2017).

  17. Ploughshares Fund, “Obama's Prague Speech: A World Without Nuclear Weapons,” Ploughshares Fund, December 8, 2016, http://www.ploughshares.org/issues-analysis/article/obamas-prague-speech-world-without-nuclear-weapons (accessed May 22, 2017).

  18. Dov H. Levin, “When the Great Power Gets a Vote: The Effects of Great Power Electoral Interventions on Election Results,” International Studies Quarterly 60, no. 2 (2016): 189–202, https://www.isanet.org/Publications/ISQ/Posts/ID/5027/When-the-Great-Power-Gets-a-Vote-The-Effects-of-Great-Power-Electoral-Interventions-on-Election-Results (accessed October 23, 2017); Dov Levin, “Database Tracks History of US Meddling in Foreign Elections,” interview by Ari Shapiro, NPR, All Things Considered, December 22, 2016, http://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections https://academic.oup.com/isq/article-abstract/60/2/189/1750842/When-the-Great-Power-Gets-a-Vote-The-Effects-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext (accessed October 23, 2017).

  19. Hall Gardner, “Iranian and Russian Versions of ‘Little Green Men’ and Contemporary Conflict,” NATO Defense College Research Paper 123, December 15, 2015, http://www.ndc.nato.int/news/news.php?icode=885 (accessed November 5, 2017).

  20. Darya Korsunskaya, “Putin Says Russia Must Prevent ‘Color Revolution,’” Reuters, November 20, 2014, https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-says-russia-must-guard-against-color-revolutions-135807378.html (accessed October 23, 2017).

  21. Brendan I. Koener, “Inside the Cyberattack That Shocked the US Government,” Wired, October 23, 2016, https://www.wired.com/2016/10/inside-cyberattack-shocked-us-government/ (accessed October 23, 2017).

  22. Andy Greenberg, “The WannaCry Ransomware Has a Link to Suspected North Korean Hackers,” Wired, May 15, 2017, https://www.wired.com/2017/05/wannacry-ransomware-link-suspected-north-korean-hackers/ (October 23, 2017).

  23. “At this time, roughly 30 nations employ offensive cyber programs…. [The] future is burdened by an irony: Stuxnet started as nuclear counter-proliferation and ended up to open the door to proliferation that is much more difficult t
o control: The proliferation of cyber weapon technology.” Ralph Langner, To Kill a Centrifuge: A Technical Analysis of What Stuxnet's Creators Tried to Achieve (Arlington, Hamburg, Munich: Langner Group, November 2013), http://www.langner.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/To-kill-a-centrifuge.pdf (accessed October 31, 2017).

  24. Hall Gardner, The Failure to Prevent World War I: The Unexpected Armageddon (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2013).

  25. See Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Thompson, Politics Among Nations, 6th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985); Hall Gardner, American Global Strategy and the “War on Terrorism” (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2007).

  CHAPTER 2: INAUGURATION TREMORS

  1. In addition to expanding sales of George Orwell's 1984, Trump's unexpected presidential victory brought back the book It Can't Happen Here, by Sinclair Lewis (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran, 1935). In the book, the “Respectables” (respectable individuals) are unable to accept the fact that “justified discontent…against the smart politicians and the Plush Horses of Plutocracy” had permitted the largely unexpected rise to power in the United States of a right-wing authoritarian leader, Buzz Windrip, who bears some resemblance to Trump.

  2. Trump won the electoral college votes by 306 to Clinton's 232. Clinton won the popular vote by 48.2 percent to Trump's 46.1 percent, with roughly 58 percent of eligible voters voting. Trump was supported by roughly 58 percent of all white voters, as compared to only 8 percent of African American voters, and 29 percent each of Hispanics and Asian Americans, according to exit polls at the time of the vote. More males voted for Trump than did females (but he still obtained 42 percent of the women's vote); more people over forty and with incomes higher than $50,000 voted for Trump than Clinton; and Trump also obtained more rural and suburban votes than Clinton, who obtained more urban votes. Skye Gould, “7 Charts Show Who Propelled Trump to Victory,” Business Insider, November 11, 2016 http://nordic.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11?r=UK&IR=T#while-people-living-in-urban-areas-predictably-voted-democrat-and-those-in-rural-areas-voted-republican-its-interesting-to-see-that-trump-captured-more-votes-from-people-living-in-the-suburbs-than-clinton-did-6 (accessed May 23, 2017); Philip Bump, “Donald Trump Will Be President Thanks to 80,000 People in Three States,” Washington Post, December 1, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/donald-trump-will-be-president-thanks-to-80000-people-in-three-states/?utm_term=.19386fdf51fa (accessed May 26, 2017).