Dueling Pundits: Mac And Crooke

Not really a duel, but some nuance and perspective. Let’s start with a transcript (partial) from a stimulating Judge Nap exchange with Doug Macgregor. We’ll also get an assist from Larry Johnson.

The exchange begins with Russian matters, and that’s where Alastair Crooke’s latest article will be important (below).

COL. Douglas Macgregor: Can the US Own Gaza?

Judge: …, has General Kellogg, president Trump's emissary on Ukraine, offered yet another plan to end the Ukraine war--which presumably wouldn't be offered without the president's approval--that is an utter nonstarter?

Mac: Yeah, apparently that's the case. This looks like the same plan that he and Mr [Fred] Fleitz put together. I don't think it's going to go anywhere because it involves the things which Lavrov and Putin have said are unacceptable to them. I don't see any evidence that the Russians are going to change their position. They are not going to accept some sort of line based on a frozen conflict. They're not interested in a Korean style solution that leaves a demilitarized zone between East and West Ukraine and they don't like the idea--obviously--of British troops or any NATO troops inside Ukraine policing the DMZ. ... I don't think the president understands he has no leverage over the Russians--none--and the Austrian model [of neutrality, which might be acceptable to Russia] would be total and complete neutrality: non-membership in NATO and no foreign forces at all, anywhere, inside the country. No such thing as a so-called demilitarized zone where soldiers are standing across from each other ready to shoot at each other. What the Russians want to do is put together a a regional design that would provide for the security not only of Russia--which they are obviously interested in--but also Europe and us. I think it's a grave error to misinterpret and misunderstand what the Russians want. This is an opportunity that should not be missed by president Trump to sit down with his advisers and find a new way forward for security in Europe that does not involve any future conflict, [a way forward] that will reduce the tensions, change the way we do business. It's so vital at this stage because the Russians are not interested in attacking anybody in the West.

Judge: Well, General Kellogg is not stupid. Doesn't he understand the Kremlin's attitude on this? Doesn't he see what's happened in the past two and a half years? Doesn't he know what their goals are?

Mac: I think General Kellogg, like most people in Washington, are permanently frozen in the Cold War. They see everything through a lens that is distorted. They don't understand how the world has changed. They don't understand our limitations and our capabilities any longer. They're living in a world that passed over the last 30 plus years. They think this is 1991--it's not.

Judge: Here is an abbreviated version of one of the more to tumultuous statements made by an American president in the modern era, made in the presence of a genocidal murderer and wanted war criminal who was standing next to him:

Trump: The US will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it, too. We will own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site, level the site, and get rid of the destroyed buildings, level it out create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area.

Q: You are talking tonight about the United States taking over a sovereign territory. What authority would allow you to do that? Are you talking about a permanent occupation there? Redevelopment?

Trump: I do see a long-term ownership position and I see it bringing great stability to that part of the Middle East, and maybe the entire Middle East. Everybody I've spoken to--this was not a decision made lightly--everybody I've spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land, developing and creating thousands of jobs with something that will be magnificent.

Judge: What are the geopolitical considerations obviously not taken into account to an announcement of this magnitude that the United States would own the Gaza Strip?

Mac: Well, judge, this is really breathtaking. he says that everyone he's talked to is wildly enthusiastic. Well, I'm sure his Jewish friends in New York City and Las Vegas and elsewhere are enthusiastic. No doubt Mr Netanyahu, grinning like a Cheshire cat, is delighted with the prospect of having the United States permanently embroil itself in the tar pit of the Middle East on behalf of Israel. We need to point out to the listeners and the viewers that this has been walked back. If you go towards the end of the day yesterday when all of this developed, this new woman who is the spokesman in the White House, Mrs Leavitt, she made it very clear that this this was not something that was going to go forward. She was very politic about it and very diplomatic, but this is dead in the water. The other thing is that, if [Trump] had been serious about this and his staff was doing their jobs, if the National Security Adviser was advising him and, for that matter, the Secretary of State, they would have all waited and said: 'Mr President, let us talk to the people in the region. What do the people in Cairo think, what do the people in Riyadh think, what do the people in Ankara think?' I mean, all of these people have a stake in what happens in Palestine and, to sort of say, 'Well, everybody I've talked to thinks it's a great idea,' and he finds out overnight--immediately--everyone else says: 'Absolutely not, it's horrific!' He's now not just complicit. He seems to be trying to extend this wholesale ethnic cleansing operation, mass deportation or mass murder operation, in Gaza as far as possible. And then he tells everyone, 'Well, you know, once we've done this and we've rebuilt this place and it looks like Las Vegas on the Med, anybody can come and live there,' well, that's like saying, we're gonna roll over everything on the coast of Florida and Tampa and St Petersburg to rebuild everything, and then anybody who wants to live there can come and live there. Well, this is America. In the case of the Palestinian Arabs, Gaza is their home, that's their country. How can you dispose of all this without any consideration whatsoever for any feelings or interests? So I think this has harmed us, I think it's harmed him, I think it's made us look ridiculous, it makes us look as though we are the willing puppet of this small state called Israel in the Middle East. That's unfortunate. ...

Let me interject here to say that I agree with Mac that this is a very bad look. Later, we’ll see LJ and Crooke offer a view that differs from Mac’s in some respects. Their views are valid, too, but I agree with Mac that this was not handled well at all. Rhetoric does matter and Trump projected an extremely unfortunate image of being callous and uninformed—which I don’t believe was his intent.

Judge: At one point he actually wrote on Truth Social, "Israel will turn over Gaza to the United States." I don't know if he actually personally writes these things that come out under his name in the middle of the night under Truth Social. Let's assume he does. How could he possibly be so ignorant as to think that Israel could turn Gaza over to the United States? Israel has failed miserably in its efforts in Gaza to rid it of Hamas, to return the hostages, to mow the lawn--whatever language Netanyahu and his buddies like to use.

Mac: … for us to step in and say, 'We'll now pick up Gaza as the 51st state and we'll protect it, put American soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines on duty there to protect it 24 hours a day seven days a week’ is ludicrous. The good news is [Trump has] figured it out. The bad news is that these impulsive statements are dangerous and the same thing is going on with the Russians. He's got major, major issues in the United States to deal with. He's talked about those. He was voted into office on that basis. He knows the border is a disaster--he's talked about it. He needs to disengage from these places overseas. What happens in these places is just not important to us.

…

Mac: Well, you just stated the main point that has yet to be acknowledged by either president Trump or secretary Rubio--it's this callous disregard for the lives of human beings. However much you want to support Israel, we as Americans are not interested in the destruction of human life in Gaza. That's not something that we all agreed to do. It's something that should be judged as reprehensible. The idea that we will take this over and rebuild everything sounds wonderful until you get to the question of, What happens to the population that lives there? And the underlying truth is that president Trump and Netanyahu are both agreed that these people will be forcibly removed. To where? Under what circumstances? Hopefully now that you've gotten this dramatic response out of the whole Islamic world--and not just there, but also president Xi in China, President Putin in Moscow, everyone has said: ‘This is unacceptable! We wouldn't support this anywhere in the world!’ … he must be operating in an echo chamber. Somebody has got to step inside and tell him, 'Look, this is not what we are about. This is not what we as Americans support. Why are we doing this?

...

Judge: I'd like your thoughts on this:

Hegseth to Netanyahu: You have a long memory, we have a long memory, and may our relationship continue to endure. We're going to continue to grow our defense industrial base. We've supplied munitions that were previously not supplied that are useful in eradicating radical enemies and we are committed to continuing to do so. So I hope you've noticed, here at the Defense Department under President Trump we are laser focused on reviving The Warrior Ethos, on rebuilding America's military and reestablishing deterrence--just something you, prime minister, have done in your neighborhood in impressive, aggressive, and important ways.

Judge: What general Brown was thinking while the Secretary of [Defense] was kissing up to prime minister Netanyahu!

Mac: Well it looks like [Hegseth] recognizes who the real boss in charge is, and that's obviously Netanyahu. This is a shameful display of subservience that is completely inconsistent with the interests of the United States and the American people. It's hard to fathom how we got here, but let's be frank. The president would not now be in the White House were it not for the enormous quantities of money that were poured into his campaign by donors who are enthusiastic Zionists, wealthy Jews. We we understand that. But he's still the president of the United States. Hegseth is probably on the ragged edge of getting himself into very serious trouble. He needs to look at the limitations of our assets and our resources. ... The intelligent thing for the president to do right now is to say, 'We've got to disengage and retrench.’ …

…

Today Larry Johnson responds straightforwardly, sketching out the reality we’re seeing after the virtually immediate walkback:

Looks Like Trump Learned Something From His First Term — Control the Money, Gut the Bureaucracy

Let me start by noting that Trump’s callous, alarming plan to launch another Nakba in Palestine is not much of a plan. Trump added some caveats today, which make it highly unlikely that the Gazans will be forced from their homeland any time soon. First, the relocation will only be possible after the fighting ends. Second, the US will not pay for this. Third, there will be no US boots on the ground. In other words, Trump was spinning an idea that has no actual plan for implementation. While Zionists are celebrating Trump’s proposal, their euphoria is nothing more than a sugar high. The Gazans are safe, for now at least.

I believe this is correct. It remains that walkbacks of blunders are not a good look. Trump came across in a buffoonish and demeaning light. He should have known better and, hopefully, will resolve that he’s got to be in control in this relationship and show it. Make no mistake about it. As I’ve maintained, when Trump forced the ceasefire he took ownership of the entire situation. He can’t back out of that—it’s a reality now, one which he created—so he needs to exert leadership rather than appear to be the tail that’s getting wagged. As an actor himself, he needs to embrace the new role that the new reality calls for.

(The rest of the article talks about how Trump is destroying the financial foundations of the Deep State, and focuses—as I did this morning as well—on Russ Vought’s role. Good Read.)

Alastair Crooke tries to provide a bigger picture view, and there’s truth in this, too. He argues that Trump is employing in foreign policy an “inside out” solution to imperial dilemmas. Furious restructuring at home while gradually disengaging from unwinnable situations abroad—while appearing to be winning. In all this he plays to different audiences, sometimes multiple different audiences.

Here Crooke applies this to Palestine:

And were Trump’s egregious comments about ‘cleansing’ Gaza’s Palestinians to Egypt or Jordan (co-ordinated with Netanyahu, according to an Israeli Minister) intended primarily for the ears of the Israeli Right? According to that Minister, the issue of encouraging voluntary Palestinian migration is now back on the agenda, just as the Right-wing parties have long wanted – and many in Netanyahu’s Likud had hoped. Music to their ears.

Was it then a Trumpian pre-emptive move, designed to save Netanyahu’s government from imminent collapse over the ceasefire’s second-stage, and the threat of a walk-out by his Right Wing contingent? Was Trump’s target audience in this case then Ministers Ben Gvir and Smotrich?

Trump pointedly confuses us – by never making it clear to which audience he is addressing his ruminations at any one time.

…

Netanyahu faces harsh criticism for mis-handling both the Gaza and Lebanese ceasefires. He has been guilty of promising one thing to one party and the opposite to the other (an old vice): He has promised the Right a return to war in Gaza, yet committed to the unequivocal end to war in the actual ceasefire agreement. ...

Consequently, Netanyahu at this juncture is utterly dependent on Trump. The PM’s wiles will not be enough to get him off the hooks: Trump has him where he wants him. Trump will get ceasefires, and will tell Netanyahu, no attack on Iran (at least until Trump has explored the possibility of a deal with Tehran).

But if Trump has Netanyahu cornered (“trapped”, as Haaretz puts it), that also means that Trump has ownership of the entire mess.

Applying the same idea to the war on Russia leads to different conclusions—actually quite similar to Mac’s ideas. It may be time for Trump to simply pull the plug and walk away. There’s no way to win the war itself, so staying there is pointless. BUT, Crooke also suggests what I have also advocated for Trump—Trump can at least appear to be a winner by doing an arms control deal. Putin knows his Sun Tzu, and has left this option open for Trump:

With Putin and with Russia, the opposite is the case. Trump there has no leverage (the favourite word in Washington). He has no leverage for four reasons:

Firstly, since Russia steadfastly refuses the idea of any compromise that “boils down to freezing the conflict along the line of engagement, that will give time to the U.S. and NATO to rearm the remnants of the Ukrainian army – and then start a new round of hostilities”.

Secondly, because Moscow’s conditions for ending the war will prove to be unacceptable to Washington, as they would not be susceptible to being presented as an American ‘win’.

Thirdly, because Russia holds the clear military advantage: Ukraine is about to lose this war. Major Ukrainian strongholds are now being taken by Russian forces without resistance. This ultimately will lead to a cascade effect. Ukraine may cease to exist if serious negotiations do not take place before summer, the head of the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Kyrylo Budanov recently warned.

But fourthly, because history is not reflected at all in the word leverage. When peoples who occupy the same geography have different and often irreconcilable versions of history, the western transactional ‘split the power spectrum’ simply doesn’t work. The opposed sides will not be moved – unless some solution recognises and takes account of their history.

The U.S. always needs to ‘win’. So does Trump understand that the ineluctable dynamics of this war militate against presenting any transactional outcome as a clear ‘win’ for the U.S.? Of course he does (or will do, when professionally briefed by his team).

The logic of the Ukraine situation, to be blunt, suggests that President Putin should quietly advise President Trump to walk away from the Ukraine conflict – to avoid taking ownership of a western débacle.

Putin hinted this week that the Ukraine conflict could end in weeks, so Trump may not have a long wait.

Should Trump want a ‘win’ (highly likely), then he should be steered by Putin’s many hints: Intermediate missile deployments by both parties are creating heightened risk and ‘cry out’ for a new limitation agreement. Trump could say that he saved us all from WW3 – and there could be more than a grain of truth to it.

Trump needs to get this done quickly to be rid of distractions from the main job at hand. Draining the Swamp. That’s what he was elected to do.