WW I French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau was right, saying: “War is too important to be left to the generals.”
Trump delegated warmaking to neocon hawkish generals, favoring belligerence over diplomacy – heading toward escalated war on Syria along with possibly striking North Korea preemptively.
Trump’s geopolitical agenda risks confrontation with multiple countries. It risks nuclear war in Europe and East Asia.
Russia warned it’ll down US warplanes and missiles if its personnel in Syria are endangered. US policymakers and Pentagon officials know it.
So far, they’ve restrained their actions to avoid confrontation with Russia. Following the US attack on Syria’s Shayrat airbase, do Trump and hawkish administration officials feel emboldened to escalate war for regime change?
Has the die been cast? Is another false flag planned as pretext for more aggressive attacks, risking direct confrontation with Russia?
Did the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) dropped on Afghanistan for the first time in combat anywhere signal escalated US aggression in multiple theaters?
Was it a show of force for this purpose? Russia has a weapon nicknamed the Father of All Bombs, claimed to be four times more powerful than America’s MOAB, with twice the blast radius, affecting around a 2-mile area in circumference.
A bomb this powerful could destroy Chicago’s loop, including everything up to where I live two miles north of center city, a frightening prospect.
East Asia tensions are rising with the deployment of the USS Carl Vinson strike group off North Korea’s coast.
Its Vice Minister Han Song-ryol warned Washington against provoking his country militarily, saying “(w)e will go to war if they choose.”
“If the US comes with reckless military maneuvers then we will confront it with the DPRK’s preemptive strike.”
“We’ve got a powerful nuclear deterrent already in our hands, and we certainly will not keep our arms crossed in the face of a US preemptive strike.”
His remarks followed the Trump administration’s possible military option to counter Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic missile capability.
It could come ahead of or following a possible nuclear test to commemorate Kim Il-sung’s 105th anniversary on Saturday, North Korea’s founder.
According to Han, “(t)hat is something that our headquarters decides. At a time and at a place where the headquarters deems necessary, it will take place.”
He blamed Trump administration officials for rising tensions, including provocative US/South Korean military exercises and deploying the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group close to its border.
Also a Tuesday Trump tweet, saying “North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them! USA.”
“Trump is always making provocations with his aggressive words,” said Han. “It’s not the DPRK but the US and Trump that makes trouble.”
“The (North Korean) problem will be taken care of,” Trump blustered. Does he have “decapitation strikes” in mind?
Will he recklessly attack North Korea, risking a nuclear response with thousands of US forces in harm’s way?
China warned against it. So did South Korea. Japan wants to be consulted before any military action.
Trump’s possible North Korea solution may be far worse than the so-called “problem” he cites.
On April 12, China’s government-connected Global Times headlined “Is North Korea nuclear crisis reaching a showdown” – what Beijing very much wants avoided?
“Washington’s latest threat to Pyongyang is more credible given its just launched missile attack at an air base in Syria,” said GT.
“The Korean Peninsula has never been so close to a military clash since the North conducted its first nuclear test in 2006.”
Another on its Saturday Day of the Sun Kim Il-sung commemoration would be its sixth. “Pyongyang hopes its gamble will work, but all signs point to the opposite direction,” said GT.
China supports resolving the North Korean issue diplomatically, GT saying “(i)f the US takes unilateral action, it will win little international support.”
Beijing doesn’t oppose Pyongyang’s “tough stance,” provided it halts provocative nuclear and ballistic missile tests – risking unacceptable war on the Korean peninsula.