Home | About | Donate

Trump’s National Defense Strategy


Trump’s National Defense Strategy

Danny Sjursen

Think of it as the chicken-or-the-egg question for the ages: Do very real threats to the United States inadvertently benefit the military-industrial complex or does the national security state, by its very nature, conjure up inflated threats to feed that defense machine?

Back in 2008, some of us placed our faith, naively enough, in the hands of mainstream Democrats -- specifically, those of a young senator named Barack Obama. He would reverse the war policies of George W. Bush, deescalate the unbridled Global War on Terror, and right the ship of state. How’d that turn out?


It should also be noted that the “national interests” of the USA are largely based upon the control/influence on energy (primarily oil & gas) flows throughout the world in order to keep the petrodollar from collapse. War is a racket, after all; follow the money.


To resolve the madness, we need to repair the broken language which hides its actual meaning.
“Trump’s National Defense Strategy” - nope.
“Trump’s (America’s) National Offense Strategy” - yup.
“How to Bankrupt America” - yup.


It is good to know that there are people like Major Sjursen in the military. At least some are able to think critically and sanely about these matters.


Forgive me for repeating “Connecting the dots to WWIII” not to me alone is becoming more clearly our worst nightmare fears about hair Twitler and his racist, elitist of the elite golf buddies around the world.
The list of dots is getting longer, but to me ends with genocidal population control.
It is snowing outside my window. So peaceful and beautiful.
Remember, don’t eat the yellow snow!


Thanks Maj. Sjursen for a peek into dangerous strategy of our top military leaders. I hope you were allowed to transfer you’re thoughts on this matter to you’re students at West Point (our future military leaders). And with a little luck, that information will compel them to rethink our military strategy in the future.

I’ve read some of you’re other articles on another site, great work, please continue. It seems the military’s critical thinkers come from the reconnaissance community, who would have thought that ?

Thank Common Dreams for presenting this author, more please.


But…but…but, that’s our “trickle down” benefits.


My dyed in the wool Republican neighbor was a high ranking US military officer in 1990 when he was selected to tour the former Soviet Union with a US military delegation tasked to determine the actual threat posed by the Soviets during the just ended 45 year long cold war.

His observations lead him to conclude that the magnitude of the Soviet threat was overblown by the US government and media, and the duck and cover drills were just one of many ways to push our fear buttons.

We don’t need to read lefty literature to confirm that the cold war was the biggest corporate welfare program in history, soon to be outdone by the current mafia disguised as our government in DC. Everybody who analyzed the Soviet threat came to the same conclusion.


Booooooooooo!!! :roll_eyes::upside_down_face:


Yes, Tom Engelhardt and his many warrior writers keep us all well informed-


I tried to ameliorate the frightening prospect of WWIII with the beauty of falling snow, but couldn’t resist warning “Don’t eat the yellow snow” only to point to a white wash occurring to keep us in the dark as the lights go out. Prose meant as dark humor not a joke. Public broadcasting Frontline special last night was Part 1 of our era Middle East continuing wars starting with the 1953 US installation of the Shah of Iran. Part II will follow next week on the current disaster in Syria and Yemen. We are headed toward World War III.


The Iranian threat to us is bogus. Israel doesn’t like that Iran is aiding the Palestinian resistance, and the House of Saud doesn’t like being criticized as a dictatorship. They are causes not worth my fighting - how about you?


Wellan, try not to get upset at nighthawk. Making jokes in the middle of dark times is a mechanism for some people to cope with the situation they find themselves in. As an ex-firefighter I can relate. Ever seen firefighters laughing and joking at a bad emergency scene and think to you’re self dam those people are sick ? They aren’t laughing about the scene, they are laughing to deal with the tragedy they see on a daily bases.


Sorry. I just have to occasionally laugh at the absurdities all around us. No reflection intended toward your comment at all.


Once a fire fighter, never an ex-firefighter. Good people will count on you to put the fire out.
Remain strong. Your job is to fight fire wherever it erupts. Keep the extinguisher handy.




It’s plain the military agenda is greased into every congressional crease in the country. There are big payoffs for somebody. But why ignore the corporate jerkers & berserkers, who pull those big strings? It can be endlessly debated and confused, so I prefer to keep track of who did what by how they got used : Clinton, the rise of globalists upon mighty clouds of bi-partisan jubilee, with those cut loose destined to “choose” delayed gratification until forever; Junior Bush, rise of the oil men and their big push for forever wars & tortured laws with a mix of banksters, gangsters & bill of rights repo men (lawyers) pooling their shots (stripes & solids all triple banked, as if fixed, into greedy pockets); No Drama Obama, financiers quietly flourish and set the pace, illegal laws smoothed into place while media lies flaunted right in your face (and don’t forget, Bomb Every Day, Keeps Warmongers in Pay); Trump, enamored of the tweety not the treaty, so the generals now say, take five to take a dump, while we steamroll these bumps, then veer out-of-control ‘cause that’s just how we roll. Better count all your plump chickens before they return to roost in a melted lump, huffing methane with a radiation boost. As long as arguers continue to need more proof, chances to name what is plain go poof.


Danny, I liked everything except the caption. Was it a cover? Maybe you didn’t write it? It doesn’t seem to go with your article.

"Is the US Military really the correct tool with which to combat persistent terrorism?"
Presumes that the US Military is a manageable tool, that it is even necessary to combat terrorism in other countries, that terrorism exists as presented by media.

For example, the Iraqi opposition was always referred to by Western media as terrorists. As were Afghan opposition.