Cold War II And The National Security State

20 December 2016

By Jacob G. Hornberger

The CIA and its mainstream media acolytes continue to blame Democratic Party Hillary Clinton's electoral loss on the Russians and, specifically, on supposed hacking by Russia of computers belonging to Clinton and Democratic Party officials.

But even if the CIA allegations were true, what all these people are missing is that the election result would not have been changed by the hacking itself but rather by the disclosure of the information that resulted from the supposed hacking.

Why is that an important distinction? Because it was the political corruption that was revealed by the emails that presumably influenced some voters to turn against Clinton. The supposed hacking was simply the means by which the truth about the corruption was brought to the attention of American voters.

In other words, if Clinton and her people had not engaged in wrongdoing, then the disclosure of their emails would not have any any adverse effect on them. It was their corruption itself, not the supposed hacking, that presumably led to their electoral debacle.

Instead of focusing on the wrongdoing itself, the CIA and the mainstream press are focusing on Russia by pointing out that Russia had no right to hack into the computers. If they're right about the Russian hacking, then they have a point, but it is besides the real point. The real point is that it is the corruption itself, whether it was disclosed by Russia or by a Democratic Party insider (as Wikileaks maintains), that presumably cost Clinton the election.

What these people are essentially saying is that if Russia had not supposedly hacked into those computers, Clinton would have won the election because the American people would not have learned about her and her party's corruption. That strikes me as a really weird argument. Isn't it a good thing that voters learn about a candidate's and a political party's corruption before an election?

But there is obviously something bigger going on here, which is that President-elect Trump is upsetting a big apple cart, one that the national-security establishment, the mainstream press, the interventionists, and the neocons were convinced was going to roll merrily on with Clinton's ascendancy to the presidency.

That apple cart is Cold War II, which was going to consist of a resumption of tension, crises, hostility, and rivalry with Russia, China, and the rest of the old Cold War I communist gang. Needless to say, Cold War II would accomplish the same purpose that Cold War I achieved: ever-growing budgets, influence, and power for the military establishment, the CIA, the NSA, and the rest of the national-security establishment.

All these people were 100 percent convinced that Clinton had the election in the bag. Equally important, every one of them knew that Clinton would have continued the Cold War II plan, especially given her personal hostility toward Russian President Vladimir Putin.

By electing Trump, a majority of voters have obviously upended the Cold War II apple cart by electing Trump instead. And as we all know, Trump has absolutely no interest in reviving Cold War II with the Russians. Instead, he wants to establish peaceful and friendly relations with them, much like President Kennedy was trying to do in the months before he was assassinated.

That has thrown the national-security establishment, the mainstream press, the interventionists, and the neocons into an absolute tizzy.

What do they do now?

As I have long been pointing out, the Pentagon's so-called ''pivot'' to Asia is designed to provoke crises and tensions with China. The plan is already working. Just a few days ago, China seized one of the Pentagon's underwater spy drones operating in disputed waters in the South China Sea. Just like clockwork, the Washington establishment, the mainstream press, the interventionists, and the neocons went into Cold War mode, demanding that President Obama get ''tough'' with the Chinese communists.

Prepare yourself: There will be more crises with China to come as a result of the Pentagon's pivot to Asia. That was the purpose of the pivot. Remember: The American warships that will inevitably provoke these crises will be operating over there thousands of miles away from American shores, not in the Gulf of Mexico or somewhere else close to home.

The plans for Cold War II obviously called for simultaneous crises with both Russia and China and probably North Korea as well. Such crises would keep Americans in a state of fitful anxiety, just like during the Cold War years, and, thus, extremely grateful that the old Cold War apparatus known as the national security state is there to protect them and keep them safe.

With Trump's election and his plans to establish peaceful and friendly relations with Russia, suddenly Cold War II is no longer a certainty, even with continued crises being provoked with China. And that might well cause Americans to finally ask two important questions: Why should there be ever-increasing budgets for the national-security establishment and, more important, if there is no Cold War II or Cold War I, why do we even need a Cold War-era national-security establishment?

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at and from Full Context. 


Add Comments

Comments 💬 التعليقات