I am talking about Daniel Larison trying to figure out what really drives Trump-Bolton relations. Larison explains US getting into the regional wars' trap this way:
For someone “not playing along,” Trump has obediently given Bolton and the Iran hawks practically everything they have wanted so far. He has gone much further in laying the groundwork for war with Iran than any of his predecessors, and the only reason that many people seem confident that he won’t order an attack is their mistaken belief that he is a non-interventionist when all of the evidence tells us that he is no such thing. Trump presumably doesn’t want to start a multi-year, extremely expensive war that could also throw the economy into a recession, but then every president that launches an illegal war of choice assumes that the war would be much easier and take less time than it does. No one ever knowingly opts for a bloody debacle. The absurdly optimistic hawkish expectations of a quick and easy triumph are always dashed on the rocks of reality, but for some reason political leaders believe these expectations every time because “this time it’s different.” There will come a point where Bolton will tell Trump that attacking Iran (or Venezuela) is the only way to “win,” and Trump will probably listen to him just as he has listened to him on all of these issues up until now.
I disagree--see highlighted in yellow. Larison must ask himself a question--when was the last time POTUS was a man with serious military or intelligence background, not to speak of his national security team? Even when one discounts baneful corrupt influence of Israel and Gulfies' on the US foreign policy, how about we face the fact that in the last 27 years we have one non-stop reshuffling of the lawyers, entrepreneurs, media figures and political pseudo-scientists at the American political top and national security apparatus. Being former Attorney General or a journo does not qualify one for expressing competent opinions on the issues of real warfare or serious intelligence matters. US political top and decision makers are utterly ignorant and uneducated in these matters as are in actual practical geopolitics once one considers a disastrously pathetic level of geopolitical thought in the US in the last 30 years--no wonder, it was written by people who saw explosions on TV screen only. In other words, most people in US elites from POTUS position down lack every single quality imperative for running such a country as the United States or any other superpower. These are the real, not "some", reasons for "absurdly optimistic hawkish expectations"--ignorance. There is absolutely no mystery about it by anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of what real war is.
I know, it is a painful realization, but that is what one gets when electing a kindergarten to run a nation, which has NO real life experience with war and is absolutely confused by a real state of the affairs inside and outside its borders. I know, it is insulting to recognize that all those allegedly high IQ people in legislature, media and executive are not very bright and are not fit to offer any opinions on any issues related to real national security. This also explains not just forced but truly admired by many in US Israel's military "accomplishments"--it is easy to BS the Sect of Desert Storm Witnesses. But in the end, one has to ask this simple question--how all those, primarily humanities and social studies "educated", people constituting US political class can possibly think other than "this time is different"? They can not--they simply lack appropriate instruments, a cognitive apparatus, which require many years of study, practice, including in operational zones, and study again, especially when it goes for operational and strategic planning level. Without these instruments everything related to warfare in US is reduced to doctrine-mongering and ROI, and Hollywood. Real war? Forget it, after all these will be those deplorables who will be sent to die in some God-forsaken locality, while serving as mass murder instruments of an Empire which has no clue.
I am forced to use words of Russian intelligence professional Andrei Bezrukov:
What is THEIR weakness? As enemies these guys are mediocrities, second rate. They overate. Their previous generation was stronger. They respected us, we respected them. We don't respect these ones,they didn't deserve it. They can bully, as for the real fight--we'll see about that... They are enraged that soon they will have to live within their means.They forgot how to do so long time ago. That is why they want to solve a problem with us now, while others are still afraid of them.
I can only clarify Bezrukov--mediocrity is too noble a term to describe those who run this pathetic (and dangerous) spectacle. I wonder if Daniel Larison understands this.