Trump's Cabinet Picks: Neocons and Warhawks Signal Continued US Aggression

Trump's Cabinet Selections Raise Concerns

As President-elect Donald Trump announces his cabinet picks for his upcoming administration, many supporters are expressing disappointment and anger at what appears to be a betrayal of his campaign promises. During the 2024 election, Trump ran on a platform of ending America's "endless wars" abroad and instead focusing on domestic issues. However, his recent selections for key positions signal a continuation of aggressive neoconservative foreign policy.

Neocons and Warhawks Fill Top Roles

Some of Trump's most notable appointments include:

• Marco Rubio as Secretary of State
• Mike Walt as National Security Advisor
• Elise Stefanik as UN Ambassador
• Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense

All of these individuals are known for their hawkish foreign policy views, particularly regarding Russia, China, and Iran. Their past statements and positions indicate support for military interventions and an expansionist US role globally.

Broken Promises on "Draining the Swamp"

Trump famously promised to "drain the swamp" in Washington D.C. during both his 2016 and 2024 campaigns. Many supporters hoped this meant removing establishment neoconservatives from positions of power. However, these latest appointments suggest Trump is actually "restocking the swamp" with figures nearly indistinguishable from those in previous administrations.

For example, Mike Walt is considered an ideological twin of John Bolton, Trump's former National Security Advisor known for his extremely hawkish views. Elise Stefanik's foreign policy positions closely mirror those of Nikki Haley, another prominent neoconservative voice.

Continuity in US Foreign Policy

While disappointing to many Trump supporters, these selections actually represent continuity in US foreign policy across administrations. Despite rhetoric suggesting major changes, core US geopolitical objectives have remained remarkably consistent whether Democrats or Republicans hold power.

Some key aspects of this continuity include:

• Military encirclement of China in the Asia-Pacific region
• Efforts to weaken and contain Russia
• Maintaining US hegemony in the Middle East
• Supporting expansion of NATO
• Pursuing regime change against governments opposed to US interests

US Strategy of Global Primacy

To understand why US foreign policy changes little between administrations, it's important to examine the overarching strategy guiding American actions abroad. This strategy, articulated in policy documents since the early 1990s, aims to prevent the rise of any peer competitors to US global dominance.

The 1992 Defense Planning Guidance

A key document outlining this approach is the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, which stated:

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union."

It went on to say the US must maintain mechanisms "to deter potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

Preventing Rival Powers

This strategy of maintaining US primacy and preventing the rise of rival powers has guided American foreign policy for decades, regardless of which party controls the White House. It helps explain actions like:

• NATO expansion eastward toward Russia's borders
• The "Pivot to Asia" to contain China's rise
• Regime change operations against independent-minded governments
• Maintaining hundreds of overseas military bases

Trump's First Term: Continuity Despite Rhetoric

While Trump campaigned in 2016 on an "America First" foreign policy that would avoid entanglements abroad, his first term largely continued and even escalated many interventionist policies.

Escalation Against China

The Trump administration took an increasingly confrontational stance toward China, including:

• Initiating a trade war
• Attempting to ban Chinese companies like Huawei
• Increasing freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea
• Expanding military cooperation with Taiwan

Continued Middle East Interventions

Despite promises to end "endless wars," Trump maintained or expanded US military presence in the Middle East:

• Continued the occupation of eastern Syria, with Trump boasting about "keeping the oil"
• Assassinated Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, bringing the US and Iran to the brink of war
• Increased arms sales and support to Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen

Proxy War with Russia in Ukraine

While often accused of being soft on Russia, the Trump administration actually took several actions that increased tensions:

• Approved the sale of lethal weapons to Ukraine, crossing a red line for Moscow
• Withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
• Imposed new sanctions on Russia

These policies helped set the stage for the current conflict in Ukraine that erupted in 2022.

The Coming Pivot to Asia

While the rhetoric from Trump and some of his supporters suggests a desire to end US involvement in Ukraine, this likely represents a shift in priorities rather than an actual move toward a less interventionist foreign policy.

Refocusing on China

Many of Trump's cabinet picks, including VP selection JD Vance, have explicitly called for pivoting away from the Ukraine conflict to focus on confronting China. This aligns with the views of many foreign policy hawks who see China as the primary threat to US hegemony.

Military Preparations Already Underway

Interestingly, while Republicans often portrayed the Biden administration as soft on China, it actually oversaw a major reorganization of US military forces specifically to prepare for a potential conflict with Beijing. This included:

• Reshaping the Marine Corps into a mobile anti-ship missile force
• Adopting the Air Force's "Agile Combat Employment" strategy to disperse bases
• Strengthening military ties with regional allies like Japan, South Korea, and Australia

These preparations will now be in place as a more openly hostile administration takes power, increasing the risk of conflict.

Implications for Global Stability

The continuation of aggressive US foreign policy under Trump's second term has serious implications for global stability and the risk of major power conflict.

Increased Tensions with China

Trump's hawkish cabinet picks and stated desire to confront China more directly could lead to:

• Intensified military standoffs in the South China Sea and around Taiwan
• Escalation of economic warfare through sanctions and trade restrictions
• Arms races and military buildups throughout the Asia-Pacific region

Potential for Conflict over Taiwan

Perhaps the most dangerous flashpoint is Taiwan. Many of Trump's advisors have called for abandoning the "One China" policy and more openly supporting Taiwanese independence. This could provoke a strong, potentially military response from Beijing.

Middle East Powder Keg

While attention may shift to Asia, tensions in the Middle East are likely to remain high:

• Increased pressure and potential military action against Iran
• Continued support for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies
• Ongoing occupation of Syrian territory

Russia and Eastern Europe

Even if the US seeks to wind down direct support for Ukraine, tensions with Russia will likely remain high:

• Continued NATO expansion and military buildup in Eastern Europe
• Maintenance of sanctions and other economic pressure
• Proxy conflicts in areas like the Caucasus and Central Asia

The Illusion of Choice in US Elections

The continuity in US foreign policy despite changes in administration reveals the limited impact of elections on core geopolitical strategy. While rhetoric and specific tactics may shift, the overarching goal of maintaining US primacy remains constant.

The Real Power Behind US Foreign Policy

Rather than being determined by elected officials, US foreign policy is largely shaped by:

• The permanent national security bureaucracy ("deep state")
• Think tanks and policy planning organizations
• Defense contractors and other corporate interests
• Influential foreign lobbies

These forces ensure that regardless of campaign promises or public opinion, interventionist policies persist across administrations.

The Role of Managed Democracy

Elections in this context serve more as a pressure release valve and a means of manufacturing consent than as a way for citizens to actually influence policy. By creating the illusion of choice and change, they help defuse public opposition to continuous war and intervention abroad.

Resistance to US Hegemony

As the US continues its aggressive foreign policy regardless of election outcomes, other nations are increasingly working to create a multipolar world order that constrains American dominance.

Economic Alternatives

Countries like China, Russia, and others are developing alternative financial systems to reduce vulnerability to US sanctions and economic coercion. This includes:

• New international payment systems separate from SWIFT
• Increased use of local currencies for trade
• Development of central bank digital currencies

Military Deterrence

Nations threatened by US intervention are also strengthening their military capabilities to raise the costs of potential conflict. Examples include:

• Russia's development of hypersonic missiles and other advanced weapons
• China's rapid naval expansion and anti-access area denial capabilities
• Iran's missile program and network of regional proxies

Diplomatic Realignment

Many countries are forming new alliances and partnerships outside of US-dominated structures:

• Expansion of groups like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
• Increased South-South cooperation
• China's Belt and Road Initiative creating new economic corridors

Conclusion: The Need for Real Change

The appointment of neoconservatives and warhawks to top positions in Trump's incoming administration dashes hopes that his second term might see a real shift away from interventionist foreign policy. Instead, it signals a continuation and potential escalation of America's aggressive posture abroad.

This reveals the deeper truth that US elections, while important in many ways, have little impact on core geopolitical strategy. The pursuit of global primacy continues regardless of who occupies the White House.

For those hoping to see genuine change in US foreign policy, several key realizations are necessary:

1. The problem goes beyond any single administration or party
2. Real change will require confronting the permanent national security state and military-industrial complex
3. Building robust anti-war movements and alternative foreign policy institutions is crucial
4. Supporting the development of a multipolar world order may be necessary to constrain US aggression

Ultimately, until the American people can break free from the illusion of choice offered by the current political system, US foreign policy is likely to remain on its dangerous, interventionist course regardless of election outcomes. The task of those seeking peace and stability is to relentlessly expose this reality and build movements capable of enacting real change.

Article created from: https://youtu.be/lsJaumSS9QU?feature=shared