So it looks like the United States military forces are being pushed towards becoming a mercenary outfit, if President Trump has anything to do with it. From a WhiteHouse.gov transcript of a traditional Trump helicopter press conference:
Q Mr. President, why are you sending more troops to Saudi Arabia when you just said it’s a mistake to be in the Middle East?
THE PRESIDENT: So we’re sending more troops to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a very good ally, from the standpoint that we get along with them very well — a very important player in the Middle East. The relationship has been very good. And they buy hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of merchandise from us, not only military equipment. In military equipment, about $110 billion. It’s millions of jobs.
Now, with that being said, we are sending troops and other things to the Middle East to help Saudi Arabia. But are you ready? Saudi Arabia, at my request, has agreed to pay us for everything we’re doing. That’s a first.
But Saudi Arabia — and other countries, too, now — but Saudi Arabia has agreed to pay us for everything we’re doing to help them. And we appreciate that.
It really makes me wonder what Trump would do if Iran began bidding for American military services. Would he abandon the Saudis if the price were right?
No doubt some readers wonder why we send military aid without financial compensation to other nations. The reason is that the system of international diplomacy doesn’t operate on a financial basis, nor can it; the goals of diplomacy are not facilitated by the transactional nature of the financial system. Why? A financial system is not about national existential questions, it’s about facilitating economic activity. It doesn’t foster analysis, or institutional memory.
And those two latter elements, among others, are critical elements of international diplomacy. Understanding what another nation’s ruling class intends to do – to you -requires institutional memory and analysis. Making wise decisions which increase your country’s prosperity by discouraging or, worse, defeating, an adversary’s armies and, thus, ambitions is the role of government.
On the other hand, sending your army off at the beckon of a pocketbook may increase accounts temporary, and they may not be used against you, but it may deprive you of needed troops elsewhere.
But that’s just the surface layer. A mercenary player in international diplomacy may think they’re taking advantage of international tensions to reap a windfall, but they’re assuming a static situation. Their clients soon become aware of the chaos caused by mercenaries who are allies in one conflict, enemies in the next, and always collecting intelligence on their own clients.
This is not a stable situation, and soon the mercenaries are dispatched. If they’re lucky, they’re boycotted; the unfortunate mercenary armies are massacred. Allegiance to national interests remains the gold standard, even today; the blue helmets of the United Nations are not considered to be an elite fighting force.
And the reputation of the mercenary army’s homeland? Besmirched. Funny word, isn’t it? It means a lower level of trust, less influence in the world.
President Trump has proven to be a very limited man. He’s a real estate developer of mediocre ability, who moved on to television stardom as the guy whose primary talent was his catchphrase: You’re fired! Not electrifying credentials for holding the top job in the United States, and he’s proving it. His emphasis on money puts his limits up in neon: I’ll do anything for a bit of cash.
United States parents, for all President Trump tells us he hates foreign wars, don’t believe him, it’s not true.
He hates not being paid like a mercenary for a foreign war.
It’s not nearly the same thing.
