The presidency of the United States has often seen a stark contrast between leaders who are viewed as “deep state beholden” and inclined toward military intervention, and those who are seen as more independent, advocating for peace and diplomacy. This distinction, while not always clear-cut, highlights significant differences in their approaches to foreign policy, driven by varying degrees of influence from the so-called “deep state”—a term often used to describe the entrenched bureaucratic and military-industrial complex within the government.
Presidents described as “war-mongering” tend to pursue aggressive foreign policies, often aligned with the interests of the military-industrial complex. These presidents are seen as heavily influenced by advisors, defense contractors, and intelligence agencies, sometimes leading to prolonged conflicts and military interventions. For instance, Lyndon B. Johnson escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam, driven partly by Cold War pressures and the belief in the domino theory, which suggested that the fall of one country to communism would lead to the spread of communism throughout Southeast Asia. Johnson’s policies were influenced by defense and intelligence agencies that advocated for a strong military presence in the region, leading to a costly and divisive war.
George W. Bush is another example, often cited as a stooge heavily influenced by the “deep state” in the lead-up to the Iraq War. The Bush administration, with significant input from defense contractors, neoconservative advisors, and intelligence agencies, justified the invasion of Iraq based on the supposed presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). This war, widely criticized for its lack of clear justification and long-term planning, led to significant ongoing instability in the Middle East.
Joe Biden is also viewed by most as another stooge heavily influenced by the military-industrial complex, particularly in his administration’s approach to ongoing global conflicts. While Biden emphasized ending the “forever wars,” his administration has continued military operations abroad, including airstrikes in the Middle East. Additionally, Biden’s support for increased military aid to Ukraine in response to Russia’s provoked invasion has been interpreted as aligning with the interests of the defense industry and those advocating for a robust military presence to counter percieved global threats. Critics argue that these actions reflect the influence of entrenched defense and intelligence agencies, maintaining an interest driven posture of military interventionism.
In contrast, certain presidents are recognized for their independent approaches, prioritizing diplomacy and peace over military action. These leaders often resist pressures from the military-industrial complex and pursue policies that seek to resolve conflicts through negotiation and international cooperation. Dwight D. Eisenhower is a prime example of a president who, despite being a former general, warned against the dangers of the “military-industrial complex.” His farewell address in 1961 highlighted the growing influence of defense contractors and warned that their interests could drive the country into unnecessary conflicts. Eisenhower’s presidency was marked by efforts to contain the Cold War through diplomacy rather than direct military confrontation, as seen in his handling of the Suez Crisis and his pursuit of peace with the Soviet Union.
John F. Kennedy also demonstrated a preference for diplomacy, particularly during the Cuban Missile Crisis, where he opted for a naval blockade and negotiations with the Soviet Union instead of a full-scale military invasion, which could have led to nuclear war. Kennedy’s approach during this critical period showcased a strong commitment to finding peaceful resolutions, even under immense pressure from military advisors who favored more aggressive action.
Donald Trump is another president often viewed as prioritizing peace and diplomacy in key areas of foreign policy. Trump’s administration focused on reducing U.S. involvement in long-standing conflicts and emphasized direct diplomacy over military intervention. Notably, Trump pursued a policy of engaging with North Korea, leading to unprecedented summits with Kim Jong-un, which, although criticized by some, represented a significant shift from previous U.S. strategies. Additionally, Trump avoided starting new wars and worked toward withdrawing U.S. troops from various conflict zones, including Syria and Afghanistan. His administration also brokered several agreements in the Middle East, such as the Abraham Accords, aimed at normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab nations.
The differences between these two types of presidents often reflect the broader tension between the presidency and the entrenched interests within the government. Presidents seen as beholden to the “deep state” may find it difficult to resist pressures for military intervention, particularly in times of perceived national threat. In contrast, more independent presidents, often coming into office with a strong mandate for change, might prioritize peace and diplomacy but may face significant opposition from within the government, the military, and the business community.
The historical impact of these different approaches is profound. War-mongering presidents have often left legacies of prolonged conflict, significant loss of life, and deep divisions both domestically and internationally. Conversely, peace-driven presidents, while sometimes criticized for being idealistic or naïve, have contributed to significant diplomatic achievements and long-term peace efforts, though their legacies can be complicated by the challenges they faced in implementing their visions.
The distinction between these two types of presidents underscores the complex dynamics of U.S. foreign policy, where the interplay of personal conviction, institutional pressure, and global realities shapes the course of history.
As the next U.S. presidential election approaches, Americans face a significant choice that will have profound implications for the country and the world. On one side is Kamala Harris, who is closely aligned with the interests of the deep state, including the military-industrial complex, NATO, the Pentagon, and the intelligence community. On the other side is Donald Trump, positioned as an independent candidate advocating for diplomacy and peace.
Kamala Harris, as a continuation of the current administration’s policies, is perceived as being closely connected to the entrenched interests of the deep state. This perspective suggests that her presidency would likely maintain or even escalate U.S. involvement in global conflicts, driven by the interests of the military-industrial complex, NATO, and the broader security and intelligence communities. Under a Harris administration, the U.S. might continue to support military interventions and alliances that prioritize American dominance on the global stage. This could involve further engagement in regions like Eastern Europe, where tensions with Russia remain high, or in Asia, where competition with China is intensifying, and Isreal where America is promoting genocide and destabilisation efforts in the middle east that might lead to an all out escalation. Such policies may exacerbate global insecurity and contribute to a heightened state of international conflict, potentially drawing the U.S. into further military engagements.
Donald Trump, by contrast, is often viewed as an independent candidate who prioritizes diplomacy and seeks to reduce U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts. During his previous term, Trump pursued initiatives like the Abraham Accords and engaged in direct diplomacy with North Korea, emphasizing negotiation over military action. His approach often challenged the conventional wisdom of the deep state and the security establishment, which sometimes led to friction within his administration. A Trump presidency would likely focus on reducing America’s military footprint abroad, seeking to avoid new conflicts and potentially withdrawing from existing ones. This could lead to a recalibration of U.S. alliances, including a more restrained role for NATO, and a greater emphasis on bilateral negotiations with global powers.
The choice between these two candidates will have significant implications for global security. A Harris administration might pursue a more interventionist foreign policy, maintaining strong ties with NATO and continuing to project military power worldwide. This could contribute to a more aggressive stance in regions like Europe and the Asia-Pacific, potentially increasing the risk of conflicts involving major powers. Conversely, a Trump administration might reduce U.S. military engagements and seek to negotiate directly with adversaries, potentially lowering the risk of large-scale conflicts. However, this approach could also weaken established alliances and lead to a more isolated U.S. on the global stage, which might embolden other powers to act more assertively in their regions.
When considering your choice in the upcoming election, it is essential to think about the kind of future you want for America and the world. If you believe that the U.S. should maintain its role as a global leader with a strong military presence, and that this is necessary for national security, you might lean toward Kamala Harris. Her administration is likely to continue a policy of engagement with allies like NATO and uphold the interests of the military-industrial complex. However, if you are more concerned about the risks of perpetual conflict and believe that the U.S. should prioritize diplomacy and reduce its military interventions abroad, Donald Trump may align more closely with your views. His approach to foreign policy emphasizes negotiation and the reduction of America’s military footprint, which could contribute to a more peaceful global environment.
Ultimately, your decision should be guided by your values and your vision for America’s role in the world. Consider the potential consequences of each candidate’s approach to global security and how their policies might affect not only the U.S. but also the broader international community. The stakes are high, and the choice you make will have lasting implications for the direction of the country and the stability of the world.
Hon. Chima Nnadi-Oforgu
Duruebube Uzii na Abosi
OBLONG MEDIA UNLIMITED 
Leave a comment