'Political leaders have increasingly deployed the military in a costly, counterproductive, and indiscriminate manner, normalizing war and treating armed dominance as an end in itself.'
Quincy Institute
Both Charles Koch and George Soros have been known and criticised for their involvement in politics. Hailing from different perspectives - Soros leans to New Deal politics, Koch to a reduction in big government - they have found common ground and are jointly financing a new think tank in DC. This think tank is to be called the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft after John Quincy Adams who declared on Independence Day in 1821 that the US “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.”
The Quincy Institute's stated mission is to promote ideas that move U.S. foreign policy away from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of international peace. This is a significant departure from the usual discourse of US politics and therefore must be welcomed by peace seekers everywhere. Politics makes for strange bedfellows as they say.
This new think tank shows us deep divisions within the US ruling elite are opening up. There is a growing section that wants to reign in the foreign adventurism. There has always been a current within the US political elite that has favoured non-interventionism. A lot took place behind the scenes to get the US to enter the world wars of the twentieth century. Now the US is in a never ending 'war on terror', and has now reignited Cold War 2.0. These wars do have domestic consequences though - for one, people get war weary.
Some will call this policy initiative appeasement. The world stage has changed and it can take a while for consciousness to catch up to events. We no longer live in a world where the US is the only super power and we are seeing the emergence of a multi-polar world - a new world order if you like. Neither Russia nor China are acting as defensively as they have in the past. Hence Russian annexation of Crimea following the US coup in Ukraine; Russian critical intervention in Syria; likely meddling in US and British elections. Not to mention Chinese trade deals with Russia; threats to sell US stocks and bonds; not bowing to pressure of US tariffs. Military action in Syria also demonstrated that the US does not have full spectrum dominance. In other words it appears that Russia and China are no longer willing to appease the US.
No-one should underestimate the strength of the US, especially militarily, but nonetheless there is currently significant unaddressed economic weaknesses. The collapse of the economic system threatened by the 2008 crash has only been postponed. Are there discussions behind the scenes for a worldwide currency reset? I would say this was a strong possibility. The current wars must be understood as the US defending favourable trade relations, sustaining enormous trade deficits and ensuring the dollars for oil swap is maintained. However, behind the scenes there is no doubt a lot of positioning required in advance of this currency reset (if it happens).
War or appeasement?
I think likely Trump will look to bring home some troops before the election for a boost to ratings, however nationalist populism nearly always results in foreign military adventures eventually - and in case it doesn't there's always the CIA! An article at the Boston Globe concludes that "Its founders plan to become involved in grass-roots campaigns, especially in minority communities" this could easily be a blueprint to break up Russia or other enemies by targeting and stirring up dissent amongst their ethnic minorities. Or maybe I'm just being cynical. Whilst Brezinski's plan to dismember Russia continues with Iran as an important stepping stone - the last of the seven countries as identified by General Wesley Clark. It bears noting that the co-founder of the new think tank is Trita Parsi, former president of the National Iranian American Council.
The Institute says that current US foreign policy undermines American interests and tramples on American values while sacrificing the stores of influence that the United States had earned.
All in all I would say this was a significant move by an important section of the ruling class in the US. As the worldwide crisis deepens we need more high profile names putting forward a counter argument to military intervention. When all else fails let's not go to war.