Trump better choice by far – Alan Sabrosky


Trump vs Clinton
An exclusive interview with Dr. Alan Ned Sabrosky for Veterans News Now

alan sabrosky thumb.php Alan Ned Sabrosky (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is a writer and consultant specializing in national and international security affairs. In December 1988, he received the Superior Civilian Service Award after more than five years of service at the U.S. Army War College as Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, and holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research.

He is listed in WHO’S WHO IN THE EAST (23rd ed.). A Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Army War College, Dr. Sabrosky’s teaching and research appointments have included the United States Military Academy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Middlebury College and Catholic University; while in government service, he held concurrent adjunct professorships at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Dr. Sabrosky has lectured widely on defense and foreign affairs in the United States and abroad.

Q. As an American, Alan, how can you be enthusiastic about America’s choices of US Presidential candidates in 2016?

A. I do not know how anyone except Israel can be enthusiastic about a “choice” (such as it is) between Trump and Clinton internationally. The major difference is that Trump will likely be less inclined to be an interventionist militarily, and to attack Iran on Israel’s behalf, than Clinton.

Domestically, Trump would be a great improvement over Obama now and Clinton after 2016, and the changes in the US internally under a Trump presidency make him the better choice by far – and even internationally, if Netanyahu & AIPAC (The Israel Lobby) tried their usual brow-beating routine on a President Trump, he would likely brow-beat back and give them some very rude surprises. He may be a modern Andrew Jackson – a bully who threw temper tantrums at the drop of a hat (his hat), but a very strong president (and of course, a decent general).

Q. Does a US-inspired NATO-generated Cold War climate already exist?

A. Not yet, but it is heading that way. Watch for it to intensify under Clinton, and to ameliorate under Trump.

Q. What is it about the USA that permits them the right to promote and support the NATO warmongers placement of 29 missile bases around Russia. Is that deadly confrontation in your opinion?

A. Not “warmongers,” just hardball politics. Putin is bringing Russia back fast – no, he HAS brought Russia back fast – and placing missile bases is one of those confrontational gambits of which we saw so much in the Cold War. Not likely to be “deadly” in a strategic sense, since nothing is at stake between the US & Russia that would make a nuclear confrontation worthwhile. Think chess, not boxing.

Q. It seems to me as a very active and I hope, informed, reader of the US political climate, the Democratic candidate has a record in public service and privately that warrants her and her husbands’ incarceration in a prison, Is this so?  Some might say, “History” is being made, the first presidential nominee under investigation by the FBI for careless handling of classified information and neck deep in corruption?

A. Absolutely. For that matter, given the trail of bodies surrounding her & her husband, conviction and execution for capital crimes would not be out of place – coincidences happen, but there are way too many conveniently dead people out there for it all to be coincidence.

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

But she will not be indicted, nor will her husband, under Obama and AG Lynch – in exchange, I suspect, for Lynch either continuing as AG or being appointed to the Supreme Court (if Obama does not want the seat vacated conveniently by Justice Scalia) under a Hillary Clinton presidency – in which case she is home and free.

This is the person likely to be Hillary‘s Secretary of Defense: Michele Flournoy. Think of her as a more  personable Democratic Party counterpart to Richard Perle (who was initially a Democrat as well).

Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

Q. Many people believe that based on the lack of quality of the two likely US Presidential Candidates WWIII will occur under the next administration. Is it possible that this could be as soon as December, 2017 in your opinion?

A. No. Nonsense.

Q. In your opinion, where will World War III commence? From which direction will it come…. the much publicized “pivot into Asia” or the NATO surrounding of Russia with missile bases ?

A. Neither of the above. IF it happens (other than at the level of diplomatic maneuvering), it will probably follow a US/Israeli attack on Iran, especially if Russia and/or China have air defense forces engaged in or on behalf of Iran. But if those forces are in place, such an attack becomes far less likely – so good advice to Iran is to do whatever is necessary to get some Russian and/or Chinese SAMs and/or interceptors there!

Manning and Snowden - Whistleblowers
Manning and Snowden – Whistleblowers

Q. Why are there not enough people out of 330 million that would give the USA a chance of avoiding WWIII, recovering some respect and setting an example for the rest of the world to follow? Where are the likes of Daniel Ellsberg?

A. I do not see it as avoiding WWIII, and you have already had two Ellsbergs: Manning & Snowden .

Remember that in Ellsberg’s day, most of the media was on his side, and nowhere near as controlled by the Zionists. Moreover, most of the rest of the world wallows in its own morass of dictatorship, governmental incompetence and/or corruption.

What costs America most of whatever respect it had is the general sense that it staggers around the global sandbox like a drunken bully, clumsily doing the bidding of Israel, and has a habit of savaging onetime allies – such as Saddam Hussein – when Tel Aviv wants it to do so. No one likes a bully and no one respects a puppet, especially when its own people are almost totally unaware of either status.

aipac 1

Q. When will the USA act to legislate against the likes of AIPAC (Israel Lobby), clearly a foreign controlled fifth column operating within America, classified as either a spying operation using corruption and graft to achieve its objectives or as an agent of a foreign government?

A. When? Barring a Second American Revolution or a bloody reverse overseas, never. AIPAC (Israel Lobby) owns the Congress, both houses and both parties. Through its ownership of the Senate, it controls the political appointments process. Through Jewish domination of the mainstream media – all major networks, all major national newspapers, all three weekly news magazines, most political journals across the political spectrum, and almost all film & TV studios in Hollywood and New York City – the American people are subject to such a warped perspective on world affairs generally and the Middle East in particular, that they have less capacity for independent thought than Pavlov’s dumbest dog. And the money pouring into the US political process makes changing any of the above – barring revolution at home or a bloody setback abroad – a practical impossibility.

Q. Will the people of the USA ever insist on an indictment of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Blair for leading America into an illegal war under false pretexts killing hundreds of thousands innocents and thousands of its own soldiers ? How can America ever gain any respect or credibility while that kind of behavior is not challenged by the people?

A. No, for the same reasons as above – plus doing so would expose the real culpability for 9/11 and Israel’s role in our wars.

Q. Why does the USA continue to kill Syrian civilians by the hundreds?

A. Same reason the Russians & everyone else engaged there is doing it: the fighting is so close civilians are caught up in it. The problem is the intervention itself, which in my mind is absolutely unjustified under international law and the UN Charter. The Russians are at least supporting the legitimate government. The US and its partners are trying to overthrow that government. Somehow, I must have missed the UN authorization for the US to do that, or the designation of the US as global policeman.

Q. What was the turning point for Israel to have become the controller of all US foreign policy?

A. Started in the mid-1960s after the assassination of President Kennedy. AIPAC (Israel Lobby) came into its own then, followed by CUFI (Christians United for Israel, whose executive director and communications director are Jewish [!] and usually former AIPAC officials), with extensive and assiduous cultivation of evangelical Protestant pastors, on the assumption that where the pastors led the flocks would mostly follow. This intensified through the 1970s and 1980s, with increasing Jewish control of the mainstream media and influence on Capitol Hill – but even then, President Reagan could send Marines to the Lebanoon to block Israeli forces.

The Clinton administration put Israel over the top – or rather, Israel went over the top during that administration. By the second Bush administration, the US government became for all intents and purposes a partial clone (in defense and foreign affairs) and a de facto puppet of Israel. Oddly enough, only Obama tried to kick off those controls – I think his speech in Cairo in June 2009 and his effort to halt settlement construction were genuine – but he had virtually no support even from his own party in the Congress, and it, too, failed.

Q. Are you aware of the disdain in which America is held throughout the world ?

A. The strong are never liked, and dislike morphs very easily into disdain. The difference is that not too many decades back, there was a general envy of the US, coupled with a modicum of grudging respect. Now I would not use the word “disdain.” I would use a combination of fear and, perhaps, disrespect bordering on disgust.

Q. Finally, how much support do Obama and Hillary Clinton have in the senior leadership of the US military?

A. Scores of senior officers here (including Zinni) who were temperamentally disinclined to support what Obama and his political appointees have been pushing, either retired or resigned. Most of the senior leaders now – including Dunford – may not agree with Obama and (e.g.) Ashton Carter, but they will “go with the flow.” Issue is what happens next – I get the sense (but am NOT sure) that most ranks in all of the services loathe Obama and his buddies, which is why so many support Trump as opposed to Hillary Clinton, sensing that her presidency would make them look back with longing on Obama’s years.



FaceBook Comments


  1. The big fear by the Establishment is that Trump is a “loose cannon” who might careen around a bit on deck. The rest of us fear that Hillary is a very fixed cannon, with pre-selected targets already in mind, such as Syria and Ukraine. She won’t hesitate to be spontaneous either when boots on the ground might be needed in a moment’s notice in a place such as Venezuela.

    Has she ever balked at any sign of a conflict? As the first female Prez, she’ll have to go demonstrate that she can do war as well, and do so in a predictable fashion.

    Trump might however do anything- or nothing. That Gingrich is now on his short list for the VP slot indicates he has no devotion to principles- even his own. Newt and Bill Clinton together brought a baby named NAFTA into this world. Newt’s as Establishment as it gets. and if Trump selects him, its only because he’s a Repug brand name.

    I can easily see Gingrich finishing out a Trump term if the situation arose- and then going on to another term of his own. Personally, I’d feel a lot better voting for someone like Jill Stein. And that’s just what I’ll do if Gingrich is anywhere near the ticket.