The Deep State

A few days ago Donald Trump said he was pulling US forces out of Syria. Next day, pretty much, Syria’s Assad gassed a few dozen or few hundred people in Damascus, and a huge international outcry began, demanding that Assad be punished (and US forces remain in Syria). Tucker Carlson provided a penetrating analysis:

My take on it? Assad didn’t gas anyone. To go and kill hundreds of people in Damascus within hours of Trump’s announcement would have been an unbelievably stupid thing for Assad to do. So he didn’t do it. Somebody else did it (and poisoned Skripal as well), and did it in order to pin the blame on Assad and Putin, and keep US forces in Syria. What we’re seeing is an attempt by the US Deep State to bounce Trump into a war he doesn’t want to fight. It’s part of a power struggle that’s been going on in the USA since the populist Trump won a shock victory in the 2016 presidential election over the Deep State’s Hillary Clinton.

What is the Deep State? Every country has its deep state. America has a deep state, and so does Britain, and so does France, and Germany, and Russia, and China. There’s probably a deep state in the Seychelles. Most people in these countries worry about bread and butter issues like, well,… the price of bread and butter. But some people worry about the place of America or Britain or France or the Seychelles in the world. They don’t care about bread and butter: they care about keeping trade routes open, and projecting the power necessary to do this, and holding onto key strategic places.

And the interests of the deep state in any country can be quite different than those of the people of that country. They’re not actually opposed. But they’re different.

For example, why does Britain hold onto Gibraltar? It’s of no interest to anyone in Britain. It’s not a popular holiday destination. But Gibraltar is a vital British strategic possession. It provides Britain with a port at the mouth of the Mediterranean sea to protect the British trade that passes through the Mediterranean and Suez and on down through the Red Sea to India, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. For the British Empire was (and in many ways still is) a trading empire. And it was vital to keep this trade route open, usually with manufactured British goods flowing east along it, and raw materials flowing west. For it was upon trade and industry that Britain’s wealth was built.

I mentioned the 1956 Suez crisis a few days ago. Suez was also a vital strategic British asset, because British trade passed along the bottleneck of the Suez canal. So it was only natural when Egypt’s Nasser threatened to take control of it that a joint French and British (and Israeli) armed force was sent there to try to secure it. For the British (and French and Israeli) deep states desperately needed it. But US president Eisenhower vetoed the operation. He had different ideas what needed to be done. And the USA had become far more powerful and influential than both Britain and France.

And that marked the end of the British Empire. Britain could no longer control its sea lanes. And it no longer needed a powerful navy, or a powerful army. The British Empire was instead subsumed into what was now in effect the American Empire. And thereafter it was was the US Navy that controlled the high seas, and it was the US Army that was deployed everywhere in the world to fight wars to keep the trade routes open – like in Korea, and Vietnam.

In this respect, the US deep state took over pretty much everything the British deep state used to do. But the American Empire was much larger than the old British Empire. For it included not just the entirety of the the old British Empire, but also both North and South America, and Western Europe, and Japan and South Korea. About the only things it didn’t control were the Soviet Union and Red China.

The American Empire was a trading empire just like the British Empire. If there was any difference between them, it was that the American Empire didn’t install governors in its satellite states. It allowed them to run their own affairs. Instead the US Navy controlled the seas that connected the satellites. The US Navy controlled both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, as well as the Indian ocean and the Mediterranean sea (and both the Panama and Suez canals). If any client state got too far out of line, its trade links to the rest of the world could easily be cut, and it would be bankrupted.  Americans might elect their own representatives and senators and presidents, but the US deep state ran the world.

And this is where political fissures began opening up in the USA. There emerged a growing political divide between the US deep state in Washington and the American people, Because they had different interests, different concerns, and a completely different view of the world. Americans were primarily concerned with America, because that was where they lived. But the deep state always had a global outlook: it was concerned with the whole world.

And after 1945, Americans found themselves doing the kind of thing that the British used to find themselves doing. They found themselves being put in uniform and sent to fight in one god-forsaken country after another that most of them had never heard of. And that was what the antiwar protests of the 1960s were all about: Americans were getting fed up with being sent to fight and die for causes they couldn’t understand. (And at the same time, British boys stopped being sent to fight and die in those places. In another era, John Lennon and Paul McCartney would have been sent to fight in India or Burma. Instead, they could make music, and they did. The end of the British Empire marked the demise of (most of) the British deep state, and the liberation of ordinary Britons).

With the shock election of Donald Trump, the American people got a president who was going to serve their interests, and not those of the globally-powerful US deep state. And the struggle between Trump and the deep state has been bitter and acrimonious ever since he was elected. And it’s still far from clear who is going to win, as we have been witnessing over the past few days. If Trump wins, US forces will be pulled out of Syria. If the deep state wins, US forces will be thrown into Syria. We’ll find out pretty soon who wins.

One mistake by the US deep state was to start treating Americans in exactly the same way as it treated Venezuelans or Brazilians or Vietnamese: as people to be duped or tricked or bullied into doing what the deep state wanted. The EU deep state has been making the same mistake with the peoples of Europe. And people in all these countries are becoming aware that they’re being  lied to and propagandised and bullied by people with interests and aims quite different than theirs. Whereas once the interests of the deep state and the peoples they supposedly represented were pretty much the same, over the past 70 or more years they have steadily diverged from each other, to the point where the principal interest of the deep state is in itself.

The deep state was never accountable to anyone, in the way that the US congress and senate were accountable to the US people. Nor was there anything transparent about what it did: everything was secret. And it was probably exactly the same in Britain at the height of the British Empire: the real controllers of the British Empire, the people who made all the real decisions, were not elected MPs in parliament. They were shadowy figures. Most people had no idea who they were. And it was probably exactly the same at the height of the Roman Empire: the people who ran it were not the senators that the Roman people elected, and maybe not even the Roman emperors either.

The deep state is really concerned with the exercise of raw military power. That’s what armies and navies do. And that means that the deep state isn’t very good at diplomacy or with persuasion. If there’s a problem somewhere, they just send in the US marines. It might not be the best solution to the problem, but it’s the only one they know. But again, this is another reason why the deep state is increasingly distrusted: they do the same ham-fisted thing every time. The only way they know how to get things done is with lies and bullying and outright force.

All the politics of the western world is now becoming a confrontation between the localist peoples of Europe and America, and their globalist deep state political elites. They should be in accord with each other, but they’re not. And the deep state has been losing control. It can no longer get its voice heard. It can no longer control public opinion like it used to do.

And that’s why the deep state wants a war that will put US and British and French boys back in uniform, and stop them questioning their elders and betters in Washington and Brussels. It doesn’t matter who they fight. All that matters is that they be got fighting with somebody or other so that the deep state can restore and consolidate its dwindling power. The deep state needs enemies. For if there were no enemies, there’d be no need for all these fleets and armies, and no need of the deep state either. If Vladimir Putin won’t step up to play the role of mortal enemy, then Kim Jong Un will have to do instead, or Bashar al-Assad.

Will US and British and French boys be glad to hear the call to arms from their deep state political elites when it finally comes? I rather doubt it. This isn’t 1914. Nor even 1939.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to The Deep State

  1. margo says:

    Good summary. Syria’s on the US ‘hit list’ (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran) drawn up for the Project for the New American Century, 1999 (see Paul Wolfowitz). Sorry I’ve got no link – I don’t do them, but it’s all out there. The aim is to dominate and get the resources of the Middle East, the method is the same for every country: create or use some event or minor civil war as a justification (9/11, maybe?), be outraged, demand regime change, get the public moved with pictures of bandaged children (are these faked?), use the phrases “killing his own people” and “chemical weapons” a lot, send in the troops (‘humanitarian rescue mission’ or whatever), cause havoc and mayhem, kill the elected leader, put a tame puppet leader in place – Bob’s your uncle.

    The Syria job went a bit wrong when Putin (for reasons of his own) stepped in on Assad’s side (that’s being fixed now by relentless propaganda and false flags) but mostly it’s all going more or less to plan, and any minute now there’ll be another parliamentary vote (as there was in 2013 but it was scotched) on whether to send British troops in to bash Assad and Syria to hell. Re-build the smashed country (lots of jobs there), get that oil-pipe laid that Assad refused to let them do, take over.
    Next: Iran?

    • Joe L. says:

      Here’s Gen. Wesley Clark describing what you call the “US ‘hit list’”:

    • Joe L. says:

      Next: Iran?

      That would make war hawk John McCain a happy man. The video below makes it clear. Also note his antismoking bias at 1:20, when told that during the Bush administration, the largest export to Iran was cigarettes, he “jokes,” “maybe that’s a way of killing them.”

  2. RdM says:

    And in the last half hour,

    A man who doesn’t read books I recall you noted. God help us all.

    Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!

    (I just noticed the above on Al Jazzera TV, about to retire for the night, and read more book!)

  3. smokingscot says:

    More from Al Jazzera. Not just the missiles, also the launch sites.

    As they’re be launched from submarines and really big destroyers, then we’re talking about an end to the proxy war they’ve been playing for the past 3 to 4 years. This’ll make it one to one.

    Unfortunately for the people of Cyprus, any British involvement will include their base at Episcopi. They don’t have the capability to launch missiles from it, rather to service and re fuel the aircraft that’ll be our launch platform.

    Then there’s our radar station slap bang on top of Mount Olympus. Kill that and we’ve lost our eyes and ears.

    May best ponder how a couple of hundred dead troops will look on the BBC news, for a conflict no one wants, except perhaps for a few well placed morons, like effing Blair. Damn his eyes.

  4. wobbler2012 says:

    This is about the closest we have come to WW3 in a very long time. Of course it’s bullshit, why would Assad risk doing something like that when they are making great progress??

    Also that war crazed walrus John Bolton is now back in a position of power, be very very afraid.

  5. Tony says:

    Off topic.
    Someone here noted that US Senator Paul Ryan is a fanatical anti-smoker. So maybe it’s good news that he’s resigning.
    There’s an odd twist in that story too about Ryan’s predecessor John Boehner. A keen smoker but one who never seemed to stand up for smokers. He is now jumping into the commercial cannabis industry having been strongly opposed in the past.

  6. Dmitri says:

    I’ve just talked on the phone to a TV guy who have just returned from the Damascus suburb where the chemical attack was supposed to happen. Got a bullet scratch on his way back. He and several other Russian TV crews have interviewed people from all the 3 hospitals and clinics there, No medic in the area ever heard of any cases of any chemical poisoning. Getting in there is now easiest thing in the world, but my friend says no inspectors from anywhere were to be seen.
    I don’t trust the media, but I know that guy who went to inspect the place. It means I can afford to check facts. You don’t know such TV fellows, and they somehow are not there, either. Not even trying, too. Why, I wonder.
    Speaking about the Skripal affair, there is a cocktail called Novichok, popular in at least 3 cities here. And a buckwheat dish called Theresa. More, there was a TV show where the participants got up and observed 30 seconds of silence in memory of Scripal’s cat.
    British humor is the best in the world. The Jews are second. But give us at least the 3rd place.

    • Frank Davis says:

      The scandal with the poisoning of the former GRU agent Sergei Skripal is gaining momentum. Meanwhile, absolutely innocent creatures suffered because of the diplomatic war waged by the UK on Russia.

      Remember that two dead guinea pigs and a black Persian cat in a critical condition were found in the ex-spy’s home. Then the cat was taken to the Porton Down chemical weapons lab (not to a veterinary clinic which would be more expected).

      In the laboratory, chemists made a weird diagnosis, which they described as a “distressed state”. The cat was euthanized. Its body, as well as those of the two guinea pigs, were immediately incinerated which was confirmed by the British government.

  7. waltc says:

    Tucker Carlson was the first at least credible source to cast doubt on Assad’s involvment though not, as I recall, on the event itself. (i did not watch your clip; I saw the original broadcast.) As for the truth, I have no idea, nor do any of us. We’re awash in fake news from all sides. Things we believe we’ve “seen” and are therefore true, can be out of context, out of chronology, or simply photoshopped or acted. Reality is increasingly scarce and increasingly fungible. OTOH, I wouldn’t be quick to ascribe rationality to Assad any more than to Lil Kim.

    I agree with much, not all, of your analysis of America’s post-war role, which became an often mad battle for spheres of influence. In some cases our influence was positive (Eastern Europe) in others negative (Latin America, Asia). Otoh, the question of stay v go, fight v withdraw or simply laissez-faire and ” a plague on both your houses” is never simple nor the outcomes of either choice predictable.

    At this moment, however, both Dems and Reps are muscularly talking of some sort of limited intervention, based on…who the hell knows what? I think Trump himself may be genuinely conflicted and, while not influenced by what you see as a war-loving Deep State , may nonetheless come down on the side of American (and his) machismo. Only time will tell, as it will tell if Trumpian machismo (by word if not deed) is an actually effective tool. (China has backed off retaliatory trade wars and NoKo is suddenly willing to talk. Score 2 for Trump, at least tentatively. ) As for Syria itself, neither acting or not-acting will cure its internal problems. The time for that, if there ever indeed was one, is long past.

  8. Philip Neal says:

    Deep State? What Deep State? The sort of people who are invited to the Davos summit do not have coherent long term aims. They are high IQ sheep. They are “in the know” about what others of their kind have told them about what “most people don’t know”.

    Most people don’t know (but they do) that the earth is round, that carbon dioxide levels have doubled, that the ice caps are melting, that migrants are climate refugees, that the movement of people to the safe haven of their rule cannot be halted.

    Then somebody like that global menace, the prime minister of Hungary, halts the movement of people into his country by putting up a barbed wire fence patrolled by an armed guard. Would you believe that he won a third general election?

    It can’t have happened. President Putin must have hacked the election. Viktor Orban must be a hater who hates the sight of foreigners in his country and spreads hate speech. He must be a climate denier. He must be a populist who seeks the votes of the stupid, ignorant majority who think the earth is flat.

    Similarly Brexit and Trump.

  9. “The deep state needs enemies.”

    Most, if not all, of the reported terrorist attacks against the West since 9/11 have been all too real, yet if one cares to set aside the media hype and connect the remaining dots, this ‘common enemy’ comes out as a pure and simple invention of the ‘Deep State’, which is just another name for spectacular domination. IOW a reign of make-believe, a cynical fraud, and a vast and universal mockery.

    • smokingscot says:

      “a reign of make-believe, a cynical fraud, and a vast and universal mockery”


      Been doing this for decades with the tobacco scam. And it works… well up to a point it works. Trouble is us lot and our access to broader platforms. So it’s really the elite vs the people – and the people right now are avoiding MSM, except to take the piss out of it – and listening to people who have gained our trust and respect by consistency and example.

      In short, it’s earned.

      • margo says:

        Exactly. And hence Spectacular Domination is trying to censor the Internet (so we watch this Facebook/Cambridge Analytica Scandal).

  10. RdM says:

    Completely off topic, and local, I apologise, but what’s happening here with a new socialist government, or Coalition Of Losers, as some commenters have it.

    The comments, while extensive, may be interesting (rewarding?) reading.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.