Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > John Bolton is a Dangerous, but Standard, NeoCon Idiot: Mar 23, 2018

John Bolton is a Dangerous, but Standard, NeoCon Idiot: Mar 23, 2018

I am sure that, by now, most of you must have heard the news about Trump deciding to replace HR McMaster with John Bolton as his National Security Adviser. The reaction of media, both mainstream and alternative, to this appointment has been one of dismay and premonitions of doom. And you cannot blame them.. as some of you might remember- John Bolton as the guy who was too toxic for Bush43 to defend in 2006, which says a lot. Then again, “respectable mavericks” like John McCain and Lindsey Graham have expressed very similar views in the recent past.

So.. how did we reach the point where a guy who was considered too extreme to serve in the Bush43 administration is going to become the national Security Adviser? While it is easy to blame this particular decision on Trump being a demented idiot, the reality is unfortunately far more complicated. In the remainder of this article, I will try to show you that the policies and mindset of those who preceded him in that post for at least the last two decades made his rise almost inevitable.

In a way, this is similar to the concept that Trump’s rise was almost inevitable given the policies, actions and rhetoric of presidents and ‘mainstream’ presidential candidates who preceded him. I believe that it is important to realize that John Bolton is not an aberration or defect in a “great democratic experiment”.. aka the lies most Americans like to tell themselves about their country. The only difference between him and most people who have held that post before him is that Bolton cannot keep his mouth shut and act “civilized” and “proper”.

Think about it.. How many in the MSM were appalled by or shunned people like Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Condoleezza Rice and H. R. McMaster. In case some of you don’t remember, Kissinger is a war criminal who was responsible for death of a few millions in South-East Asia and for some “inexplicable” reason is considered a respectable commentator on international affairs in USA. You may know Zbigniew Brzezinski at the person responsible for the rise of Taliban and the post-1979 destabilization of the Middle-East which led to most of the subsequent conflicts and wars in that region. And yet, Brzezinski lived the rest of life in great comfort and prestige in addition to being proclaimed as a great statesman after his death.

Condi Rice was a rubber-stamp who supported the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 which ultimately led to a particularly humiliating defeat for USA a few years later. Even the less well-known sociopaths and failures who have occupied that position presided over a long string of unnecessary wars which the USA lost, but only after causing much death and suffering. Then there all those less famous but equally dangerous dummies whose actions almost caused full-scale nuclear war in the early 1960s and 1980s. And who can forget the more recent boneheads who went along with the creation of ISIS by Saudi Arabia and trying to destabilize Syria by cooperating with Islamic extremists.

John Bolton for all his obvious stupidity and incompetence is ideologically very similar to previous National Security Advisers. The unpleasant reality is that every single person who has occupied that post since it was created has operated with a mindset and worldview which are, for all practical purposes, identical to those of Bolton. If you don’t believe me, name two people who have occupied that post but did not push for more counterproductive wars, more defense spending and more hostile “diplomacy”. Alternatively, tell me how Kissinger, Brzezinski and Rice were “better” than Bolton.

To put it another way, the main reason for the establishment outcry against his appointment comes down to him being too stupid to keep his mouth shut or act “dignified”. Now.. this does not mean that he is harmless or that his actions won’t cause destructive wars and other assorted “problems”. Indeed, his appointment could very likely result in all of us finally finding out the true range and accuracy of DPRK’s ICBMs, not to mention the yield of their fusion warheads. It is also likely that this idiot will get USA involved in a war with Iran which will result in the former’s humiliation and final loss of status as a “superpower”.

In summary, Bolton is a symptom and product of American hubris, like Trump. It is just that he represents the ridiculous end-product of that mindset, again like Trump. While we can all agree that John Bolton is a dangerous idiot, let us not pretend that he is somehow fundamentally different from all the other National Security Advisers who preceded him.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. MikeCA
    March 23, 2018 at 11:29 pm

    I view these people somewhat differently.

    Henry Kissinger played a major role in improving relations with the Soviet Union and opening relations with China. Henry Kissinger did not get the US into Vietnam. Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson did. The US thought the Vietnam war was about Capitalism vs Communism. The Vietnam people thought it was about Colonialism vs self rule. By the late 1960s the US leaders all understood that the Vietnam war was un-winnable, but they were afraid to tell the American people. Nixon knew this, but he wanted to find “peace with honor.”
    Nixon was afraid to just pull out and wanted something he could claim was not a defeat. Nixon and Kissinger ended up escalating the Vietnam war and spreading it. Kissinger knew the war could not be won, but escalated it trying to get a deal that would satisfy Nixon.


    Kissinger was responsible for the deaths of more people in SE Asia than the Nazis killed in the Jewish Holocaust. Maybe you can see the irony in that.. or maybe not.

    Kissinger operated within the political constraints he was given. Kissinger and Nixon did some good things and some very bad things. They both though they had to do the bad things because they could not tell the American people the truth.

    Zbigniew Brzezinski was a hard line anti-communist. He viewed the world through that prism. He saw supporting the Taliban as a way of fighting communism, and that was all that mattered to him. He failed to anticipate that the Taliban would birth al Qaeda and attack America as well.


    And he was the idiot who set the stage for bin Laden, 9/11, Al Qaeda, the Iraq War which USA LOST and the Afghanistan war that it LOST and the Syria war that its LOSING.

    Condi Rice I view as just a deer in the headlights. She was an academic expert in the Soviet Union, which no longer existed when Bush was elected. She did not have the management skill or the expertise in the Middle East to cope with all the Neocons in the Bush administration and she went along for the ride.
    —-

    She was a mediocre idiot who went along with pretty much anything the more senior NeoCons wanted. That, however, does not absolve her of responsibility any more than the guys who ran death camps in Nazi-era Germany.

    Bolton was one of the Bush Neocons. He was an advocate of the Iraq war and the Bush hardline on North Korea that resulted in the nuclear program being accelerated. Bolton apparently learned nothing from the Iraq war and still claims the Iraq war was the right thing. Even Trump says the Iraq war was a disaster, but Bolton is so stupid he refuses to admit it. Bolton continues to advocate regime change in North Korea and Iran both of which would unleash a world wind of chaos greater than Iraq. Bolton is way more ignorant of the world than Kissinger or Brzezinski, although many of the underlying believes are similar.

    And that is my point! Bolton is not different from his predecessors to a degree which would make him more dangerous. His only fault is that he is incapable of telling pleasant sounding lies like many of his predecessors.

    • webej
      March 24, 2018 at 7:18 pm

      Condi Rice was not just a mediocre official. Her comment on 9/11 was ” who would have thunk of such an attack”, while the security agencies had already been publishing documents sporting the twin towers in the cross hairs as a watermark for a decade; there were also simultaneous exercises going on practising just that scenario. In other words, a malevolent liar.

  2. Gp
    March 24, 2018 at 2:10 am

    AD, do a piece on the “trade war”. Do u think US can win it or has it miscalculated like it did in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Of course, it is miscalculated. They are about to get their asses handed to them, especially in the medium- to longer- term.

  3. Shiningtime
    March 24, 2018 at 2:00 pm

    I’m not very worried. The myth of American military might has been thoroughly shattered over the last 15 years. There’s no way Bolton or Trump is going to talk America into attacking n.korea. Further, the nation itself is experiencing greater stresses as the population ages. The values of the new generations do not favor pointless wars as those of the mostly white older generations.

    I doubt a voluntary force would be capable of fighting a major war in n.korea along with all the other proxy wars we’re fighting. That means a draft, which is a non-starter. A draft would lead to incredible destabilization of the nation. Bolton can say what he wants, but the reality is America will likely have to accept a nuclear armed N.korea.

  4. webej
    March 24, 2018 at 7:18 pm

    I don’t disagree with AD. But there is a difference, namely that Bolton might well get us into nuclear confrontation, which is certainly a step up from previous idiocy. Even a war with Iran may result in the Persians trying out a few Russian missiles on a few carriers, prompting tactical nuclear response by the USA, in accordance with official military doctrines. This all represents a new level of danger and escalation.

    • P Ray
      March 25, 2018 at 11:23 am

      I’m going to go with “high-stakes careers” create and place people who are very good at office politics, but out of their depth when it comes to thinking about consequences or developing communication towards people who aren’t in their group.
      In short, like all technology giants caught up in scandals, they can’t fix an issue and have terrible PR … despite working with and only hiring (at least as workers or low-level staff) the very best.
      They’re just managers who expect their staff to take the blame. And of course, live their public lives in a scripted, deliberate way, with no room for a conscience or slowing down.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.

%d bloggers like this: