Wednesday, August 2, 2017

On the Intelligence Wing of the Deep State vs. The Military Wing

It's so bad that I find myself cheering most often for the evil intelligence wing of the Deep State (against the military wing) and the crony Goldman Sachs wing of the Administration (against the anti-trade wing).
 Shimshon comments:
Robert, you have jumped the shark. At least before, you wanted to see the state fighting itself. Now you're cheering on the part of the state that is more responsible for fomenting war and revolution around the world? Was the military wing responsible for Syria? Ukraine? The other shady color revolutions and the like?
Followed by this comment from  Veritas2017:
Your sense of proportion is what I find most troubling. This is a war - and there is no Libertarian alternative faction to back. All those other groups you mention are actually in league together.
Look, in my post, I called the intelligence wing "the evil intelligence wing." They do nothing positive but they are small time thugs compared to the military.

The CIA runs guns to rinky-dink bans of marauding criminals. This not good. But the military wing is talking about sacrificing the people of South Korea and Japan. That's insane.

From The Hill:
This dynamic was on display last week in comments from Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who on Saturday publicly pushed for serious consideration of U.S. military intervention in North Korea. “Many people have talked about military options with words like ‘unimaginable,’” Dunford said. "I would probably shift that slightly and say it would be horrific, and it would be a loss of life unlike any we have experienced in our lifetimes, and I mean anyone who's been alive since World War II has never seen the loss of life that could occur if there's a conflict on the Korean Peninsula.”
"But as I've told my counterparts, both friend and foe," he continued, "it is not unimaginable to have military options to respond to North Korean nuclear capability. 
From the Boston Globe:
Last week he [new chief of staff Marine General John Kelly] delivered one of the more unhinged speeches that you will ever hear from a Cabinet secretary. It was a terrifying reminder of the depths this administration will sink to in order to sell its toxic policies...

Kelly jumped out of the crazy tree and hit every branch on the way down. In discussing his agency’s mission, Kelly said this (slightly annotated).

“Make no mistake — we are a nation under attack.”
The intelligence wing of the Deep State does nothing good, but the military wing is seriously whacked. I have no idea whether the unpredictable, military infatuated Trump, with no sense of history, would pull the trigger on some crazed attack but it is much more likely with military men around him plotting out such an attack than it coming from the intelligence wing.

Bottom line: Would rather come up against a roughian pick pocket or a serial killer?  You wouldn't want either but if those are the only two choices, the choice is pretty obvious.



  1. Bob, the military wing, though whacked, still, to some degree, submits to elected civilian authority. If Trump orders the evacuation of Afghanistan, short of an act of Congress barring it, or an outright coup (come on, they're not that stupid), the military will actually carry out his order. Can you really say the same about the intelligence wing?

    1. Excellent point Shimshon! The Intel Wing is the true "Deep State", with many documented ties to the Wall Street/Financial establishment - they operate rogue with minimal oversight by the "visible" government, which is only partially accountable to the citizens in any event. I will take the Military wing over them, as they are much more likely to be more reserved in foreign adventurism than the Intel Wing having actual experience with warfare and its consequences. They are also more likely to act in the U.S. national interest.

  2. Isn't this the same logic employed by Walter Block in starting Libertarians for Trump that you criticized so fiercely?

    1. NO!

      This is what I wrote on the subject (

      "I see no significant difference between Trump and Hillary. They are both interventionists who think they should be in charge of interventions. Trump mumbles something about reducing business regulations at the same time he warns businesses about opening plants in Mexico.

      There is just nothing non-interventionist about this guy. Even from a political correctness perspective, he is weak. He wants to coerce employers to grant mothers six weeks paid family leave after the birth of a child. It's the right thing to do, you know.

      When you have two interventionists where the differences do not appear significant,(I would expect Trump to use American troops on the ground before Hillary) you then have to look at things from a strategic perspective. And from this perspective, Hillary is the preferred candidate. There are literally tens of millions who will object to Hillary policies. It is extremely fertile ground for libertarians to provide the intellectual arguments to the anti-Hillary crowd,

      A Trump presidency would be different. It would dilute the anti-interventionist roar of the crowd. Whenever, I post a comment about a horrific Trump economic policy, I never get the outraged feedback that I get when I write something about Hillary.

      The Left will be anti-Trump during a Trump presidency but there first instinct is interventionism so they are going to be difficult converts and to many Trump supporters he can do no wrong.

      Thus from a strategic perspective, Hillary will provide many more opportunities to advance the libertarian argument. She is the better strategic option, although she will be terrible on almost every issue.

      Ho, ho, Ho, Hillary must go."

    2. Robertm, I have to back you 100% as Trump has done nothing as president he said he would do and his mindset he wears on his twitter sleeve indicates his intentions are not in the same hemisphere as what he espoused before the white house.

      Still he is a known idiocy where Hillary wasnt likely will never be. A large difference

  3. The drug cartels (El Chapo and assorted CIA lackeys) and drug war for the most part isnt on the scale of death, destruction and cost as war with North Korea, Iran and Venezuela so I understand the logic. But in the end we're screwed either way

  4. One is not any better than the other. CIA are the ones that, may be embbed with the military, that do yhe clandestine destabilizations that give the covil government the excuse to send the military.


  5. The deep state is far from unified. Plenty of them are sick of left wing social experimentation, transgenderism etc. [see] Then there are all those generals that Obama pressured out of their jobs and they are waiting in the wings. Flynn knows them all by name and they have likely already been told to bide their time and have faith. Remember, the existing top brass are all well over 55yrs old and that means they started their careers under Reagan long before the confusion of social experimentation began under Slick Willie. The thought of Hillary turns their stomach no matter how much of a hawk she is on policy. The military are much more nationalist in their thinking. It is the State Dept that drives globalism as a tool of the transnational corporations and their installed deep state puppet masters. The intel community is in between these two. They don't mind being dirty for a "patriotic" cause (like the GWOT) but they are starting to resent that they are being used as tools to benefit transnationals and their bottom line. e.g. Kerry's pipeline deal