Press "Enter" to skip to content

Globalist Warmonger Choir: Trump’s U.S. Troop Withdrawal From Syria Is a “Betrayal”

Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass (shown) is leading a chorus of foreign policy “experts” and media commentators that is condemning President Trump’s actions and demanding a continuation of their Orwellian “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace” program.

“The High Price of Trump’s Great Betrayal.” That’s the title of an October 17 syndicated column by Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Deep State brain trust that has dominated American foreign policy for much of the past century. (See the stunning video recording of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telling Richard Haass and the assembled CFR notables that she is so pleased the Council’s New York City-based “mother ship” has set up offices in Washington, D.C., because now she won’t have to go so far “to be told what we should be doing and how we should think.”)

Haass and the rest of the CFR-led foreign policy establishment have been condemning President Trump for attempting to make good on his oft-repeated promise to stop American involvement in “endless wars” and “bring our soldiers home.” According to Haass, the president’s Syria move “was a terrible one.”

“President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw American forces from northern Syria, and leave the region’s Kurds vulnerable to neighboring Turkey’s military incursion, was a terrible one,” Haass asserts. “The Kurdish forces in control of the region had been the principal US partner in the struggle against the Islamic State (ISIS),” he continues. “Trump’s abandonment of them reinforced already existing doubts in the region and around the world that the United States remains a reliable ally.”

Then the CFR president gets on to the real target of his ire: President Trump’s “America First” policy, which Haass, the archetypal globalist, disingenuously derides as “isolationism.”

“Trump’s ‘America First’ slogan is premised on the idea that the costs of US world leadership far outweigh any benefits,” complains Haass. Moreover, says the CFR factotum — and this is his real concern — “Trump’s decision taps into an old American tradition of isolationism, which has a lineage traceable to America’s Founding Fathers.” In addition, he states, “the notion that the US can safely turn its back on the world and still thrive even as global order declines is seriously misguided.”

Over at The Atlantic, which vies with its larger media comrades for top billing status in the hate-Trump/impeach-Trump choir, Peter Wehner penned an attack piece titled, “Trump Betrayed the Kurds. Who’s Next?” Wehner’s subtitle: “He Couldn’t Help Himself. Humiliating his own Cabinet secretaries was bad. Putting faithful American allies in harm’s way is far worse.” At Slate, Fred Kaplan weighed in with “Trump Invites a New Killing Field: Trump’s betrayal of the Kurds isn’t just immoral—there’s no strategic reason for it.” Time magazine, in its print and online platforms, has been running a series of articles blasting the president’s troop withdrawal from Syria. Likewise for those other reliable ventriloquists for the Deep State at the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, NPR, CNN, et al.

The CFR Record: One Betrayal After Another

Before moving on to some of Haass’s other specious claims, it may be worthwhile to dissect a few of his quotes above.

First of all, let’s look at President Trump’s alleged “betrayal” of America’s “reliable allies,” the Kurds. It may well be true that there are, indeed, some genuine American allies among the Kurds that have been fighting ISIS in Syria. However, the various “Kurdish forces” whom our Obama-era, CFR-run State Department and CIA selected to receive arms and training are hardcore communists and Islamists that can be counted on to turn on us, just as we have seen with our CFR-chosen “allies” in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. (See here, here, here, and here.)

In truth, none of the warring parties in Syria can be considered “reliable allies” or noble partners worthy of the blood of American soldiers. Is it really in America’s national interest to take sides in the conflict between the tyrannical regimes of Recep Erdogan in Turkey and Bashar al-Assad in Syria? Is it in our “national interest,” as Haass claims, to continue supporting the Kurdish forces fighting under the banner of the PKK/YPG/PYD/SDF, the communist terrorist organization that has been conducting a decades-long terror war of bombings and assassinations?

Now, having created another conflagration, the globalist CFR cabal is using its tragic victims — particularly the Kurdish refugee women and children — as human shields to prolong its destructive policies. They are playing upon our compassion and sense of fairness. But Haass’s appeal concerning loyalty to allies belies a century of betrayals of our allies by CFR henchmen, especially the betrayal of national leaders and whole nations to communist dictatorship and mass anihilation: Think, for example, China, Cuba, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Baltic States, Iran, Nicaragua, Rhodesia, South Africa, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc. (For details on these betrayals, see: In the Shadows of the Deep State: A Century of Council on Foreign Relations Scheming for World Government and The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline.)

The Council’s record of treachery, treason, and betrayal — from CFR founders Edward Mandell House, Walter Lippman and the Dulles brothers, through Soviet agents Alger Hiss and Lawrence Duggan, to pro-communist globalists Thomas Lamont, David and Nelson Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and George Soros — includes consigning hundreds of millions of victims to tyranny, torture, persecution, slave labor, and/or genocide. Given the Council’s pitiless, bloody record, only those who are hopelessly gullible will be fooled by the current round of CFR crocodile tears for the Kurds.

The real problem is that when you have disloyal Americans (whether communist, globalist, or both) running your foreign policy and determining who our “allies” will be, you can count on your real allies getting betrayed and your enemies getting rewarded as allies. And that kind of treachery will continue, as long as the CFR globalists continue to wield untrammeled power throughout the federal government, aided by their fellow internationalists in the media and academia.

The “Isolationist,” “America First” Bogeyman

Secondly, Mr. Haass’s decrying of President Trump’s “America First” and “isolationist” policies is to be expected. As the late Admiral Chester Ward, former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy, noted decades ago, “In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First.'” Why is that? Because, said Adm. Ward, the goal of the CFR is the “submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government.” Adm. Ward, who was himself a CFR member for 16 years, noted that “this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership.”

Thus, the CFR thought cartel has ever tried to equate foreign entanglements, international agreements, foreign intervention, and foreign wars with “world leadership,” since all of all of these roads lead to further weakening of the United States, while simultaneously enhancing and empowering the United Nations. According to Haass, the idea that America can “turn its back on the world” is a notion that is “seriously misguided.” But Americans have never been “isolationist” in the sense that Haass insinuates, and have never advocated turning our nation’s “back on the world.” Now, as in the past, Americans want to have full, friendly people-to-people relations with all friendly nations — for commerce, trade, and travel. And now, as in the past, Americans are leery of foreign entanglements; that is, government-to-government relations. Haass notes, with apparent dismay, that a recent Pew survey shows large majorities of U.S. military veterans, as well as the general public believe that the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria “were not worth fighting.”

The CFR major domo is upset that Americans are succumbing to “intervention fatigue” and are objecting to an endless “open-ended military presence” in whichever crisis du jour hellhole Haass and company decide to send our troops. Americans are weary of, and leery of, calls for more war. Haas is correct in seeing this aversion to interventionism as being in “a lineage traceable to America’s Founding Fathers.”

Perhaps the most famous line from Thomas Jefferson’s first inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1801, is this: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” He also said, in the same address: “Peace, justice, and liberal intercourse with all the nations of the world, will, I hope, characterize this commonwealth.”

Jefferson’s prescription for peace followed the earlier advice of George Washington, who, in his farewell address, said: “Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world …”

President John Quincy Adams similarly counseled that America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own…. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”

This October marks the 18th year of our “Forever War” in Afghanistan. You know, the war that was going to be over in a few months, but which CFR’s propagandists now insist we must continue for “as long as it takes.” They are demanding, in Haass’s words, “an open-ended military presence,” with constantly shifting objectives and definitions. Will America follow the counsels of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, as they pertain to foreign entanglements and endless wars, or will it follow the destructive advice of Haass and the CFR’s self-styled “Wise Men of foreign affairs” that leads to national suicide? President Trump is making efforts to reverse the treacherous policies of the CFR cabal, but we still have a very long way to go.