Why the Deep State Is Dumping Hillary

Are you open to a somewhat unconventional perspective on this election? If so, read on. If you’re absolutely confident you know all there is know about this election (good vs evil, Democrat vs. Republican, etc.), well then let’s compare notes in five years and see which context provided more insight into the future.

In the context presented here, the personalities of the two candidates matter less than their perceived role in the changing of the Imperial Order. Let’s start with a quick overview of the relationships between each political party and the Deep State–the unelected power centers of the central government that continue on regardless of which person or party is in elected office.

Liberal Democrats have always been uneasy bedfellows with the Deep State. Republican President Eisenhower had the political and military gravitas to put limits on the Military-Industrial wing of the Deep State, so much so that Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy claimed the U.S. had fallen behind the U.S.S.R. militarily in the 1960 presidential election (the infamous “missile gap”).

Eisenhower was a cautious Cold War leader, wary of hot wars, wars of conquest, and the inevitable burden of conquest, nation-building. The military was best left sheathed in his view, and careful diplomacy was sufficient to pursue America’s interests.

Kennedy entered office as a foreign policy hawk who was going to out-hawk the cautious Republicans. A brush with C.I.A. cowboys (the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba) and a taste of Imperial meddling in distant, poorly understood lands (Vietnam) increased his interest in peace and reduced his enthusiasm for foreign adventurism.

Lyndon Johnson, perhaps the most activist liberal Democrat of the era, was not about to be out-hawked by the Republicans, and so he followed an expansive Imperial agenda into the 10-year quagmire of Vietnam.

Since the immense global enterprise known as World War II had taken less than four years to win, Americans had little patience for low-intensity wars that dragged on inconclusively for years while combat deaths mounted into the tens of thousands.

Liberal Democrats could find no easy political ground between the pressure to out-hawk the Republicans and the demands of an expansive Cold War Deep State. Both liberal Democratic presidents between 1965 and 1980, Johnson and Jimmy Carter, were one-term presidents, undermined by military/foreign entanglements.

The Republicans were given a freer hand; Nixon unleashed the B-52s on Hanoi in late 1972 until the North Vietnamese ran out of Soviet-supplied SAMs (surface to air missiles). Given a choice between a brokered peace or a flattened capital, they chose peace, and Nixon was free to declare victory and pull the majority of remaining American forces out of Southeast Asia.

The disastrous defeat in Vietnam of expansive Imperial ambitions (nation-building, etc.) led to an era of retrenchment and consolidation. Other than “splendid little wars” in Grenada and Panama and supporting proxies such as the Contras, the 1980s were years not of Imperial expansion but of Cold war diplomacy.

Republican President Reagan was also given a free hand to be a peacemaker, overseeing the fatal erosion of the U.S.S.R. and the end of the long, costly Cold War. President Bush Senior was a cautious Cold War leader, careful not to alienate the post-U.S.S.R. Russians and wary of over-reach and quagmires even in the newUnipolar world of unrivaled U.S. power.

The era’s one hot war, Desert Storm, restored the sovereignty of Kuwait but left Saddam Hussein in control of Iraq. Bush and his inner circle (and the Deep State they represented) were mindful of the lessons of Vietnam: Imperial over-reach led to costly, drawn-out failures of nation-building in the name of exporting democracy.

Though it was poorly understood by the public, Desert Storm played to American military strengths: a high-intensity conflict with concentrated forces, maneuver warfare with heavy armor protected by absolute air superiority, aided by proximity to allied bases and aircraft carrier groups. If you designed a war optimized to American military strengths, it would look much like Desert Storm. No wonder it was one of the most lopsided victories in history, with most American casualties resulting from random Scud missile strikes and accidents.

The end of the Cold War and victory in Iraq left the Republicans without their hawkish agenda and political raison d’etre, and Ross Perot’s third-party movement in 1992 effectively delivered the presidency to Democrat Bill Clinton.

Clinton was blessed with a booming domestic economy and a peace dividend from the end of the Cold war. Though Clinton reportedly hankered for a great crisis he could exploit to burnish his place in the history books, alas none arose, and the 20th century ended with a decided absence of existential threats to the U.S. or even U.S. interests.

The incredible success of Desert Storm and the temptations of Unipolar Power birthed an expansionist, activist Imperial doctrine (neoconservatism) and a Deep State enthusiasm for flexing America’s unrivaled power. What better place to put these doctrines into practice than Iraq, a thorn in the Imperial side since Desert Storm in 1991.

Alas, Bush Junior and his clique of doctrinaire neoconservatives had little grasp of the limits and trade-offs of military tactics and strategies, and they confused the optimization of Desert Storm with universal superiority in any and all conflicts.

But as veterans of Vietnam knew, low-intensity war with diffused, irregular combatants is quite a different situation. Add in the shifting politics of Sunni and Shia, tribal allegiances, failed states and a post-colonial pot of simmering resentments and rivalries, and you get Iraq and Afghanistan, two quagmires that have already exceeded the cost and duration of the Vietnam quagmire.

A decade after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and 25 years after Vietnam, the Deep State was once again enamored of expansion, hot wars, conquest andnation-building. Fifteen years on, despite endless neocon PR and saber-rattling, the smarter and more adept elements of the Deep State have given up on expansion, hot wars, conquest and nation-building.

Even empires eventually taste the ashes of defeat when expansion and hubris-soaked ambitions lead to over-reach, over-extended military forces, and enemies who are not just undeterred but much stronger than when the over-confident expansion began.

In my view, the current era of U.S. history shares parallels with the Roman era of A.D. 9 and beyond, when a planned expansionist invasion of the Danube region in central Europe led to military defeats and insurgencies that took years of patient warfighting and diplomacy to quell.

Which brings us to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. President Obama, nominally a liberal Democrat, has pursued an extension of the neocon Bush expansionism, with the key difference being Obama has relied more on proxies and drone strikes than on “boots on the ground.” But the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan have not only persisted, they have expanded under Obama’s watch into Syria and Libya.

War by drone and proxy is even more tempting than outright invasion, as American casualties are modest and the responsibilities for failure are (it is fervently hoped) easily sidestepped. Alas, fulfilling Imperial ambitions via proxies has its own set of limits and trade-offs; proxy wars only get the desired results in very specific circumstances.

The Democrats have out-hawked the Republicans for eight years, and the Deep State is in disarray. I have been writing about this for several years now:

Is the Deep State Fracturing into Disunity? (March 14, 2014)

When we speak of the Deep State, this ruling Elite is generally assumed to be monolithic: of one mind, so to speak, unified in worldview, strategy and goals.

In my view, this is an over-simplification of a constantly shifting battleground of paradigms and political power between a number of factions and alliances within the Deep State. Disagreements are not publicized, of course, but they become apparent years after the conflict was resolved, usually by one faction winning the hearts and minds of decision-makers or consolidating the Deep State’s group-think around their worldview and strategy.

Even the Deep State only rules with the consent of the governed. The wiser elements of the Deep State recall how the Vietnam War split the nation in two and exacerbated social upheaval. These elements recognize America is tired of Imperial expansion, quagmires, proxy wars and doomed nation-building.

This exhaustion with over-reach shares many parallels with 1968 America.

In this long view of Imperial expansion, defeat and retrenchment, Hillary is holding down the status quo fort of failed expansionism and proxy wars. Her ability to out-hawk the Republicans is unquestioned, and that is one of her problems:

Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary? (August 8, 2016)

When the governed get tired of Imperial over-reach and expansion, they are willing to take chances just to get rid of the expansionist status quo. In this point in history, Hillary Clinton embodies the status quo. The differences in policy between her and the Obama administration are paper-thin: she is the status quo.

The governed are ready for a period of retrenchment, consolidation and diplomatic solutions to unwinnable conflicts, as imperfect as the peace might be to hawks.

For these reasons, the more adept elements of the Deep State have no choice but to dump Hillary. Empires fall not just from defeat in war with external enemies, but from the abandonment of expansionist Imperial burdens by the domestic populace.

Put another way: drones and proxies don’t pay taxes.


My new book is #16 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition)For more, please visit the book’s website.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Sarastro92

    Hugh… you have not presented a single shred of evidence that the Deep State is in any way “dumping Hillary”… they had plenty of room to do that with the email servers and conspicuously refused to do so.

    If anything, the Deep State is preparing for a hot war, starting with Russia and also by scuttling the Syrian cease fire.

    • This could help you out she is embraced like Donald. Apr 17, 2016 Abby Martin Exposes What Hillary Clinton Really Represents

      Digging deep into Hillary’s connections to Wall Street, Abby Martin reveals how the Clinton’s multi-million-dollar political machine operates.


      • Sarastro92

        Abby Martin is not the Deep State

        • You should view or listen before commenting. I call this a best practice policy.

          Jul 7, 2016 The Close Relationship Between Donald Trump and the Clintons

          Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton act as if they are arch enemies. But is it all just politics?


          • Sarastro92

            I did. Both videos. There’s nothing in either video about the Deep State “dumping Hillary”. That’s what the article is about…

            Are you just thick? A little slow on the draw? Recovering from a 3 Martini lunch?

            Stop wasting our time.

          • “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.” Martin Luther King, Jr.. There is nothing I posted that stated anything about anyone getting or being dumped. Maybe you should consider and take your own advise. P.S. – If you do not like replies do not blog!

          • Sarastro92

            Sometimes I make the mistake of giving the benefit of doubt to all replies… that can be a mistake…

        • Tim Chambers

          She has a platform does she not? That she is permitted to speak says a lot, given that so much of what we might say is dismissed as “beyond the pale.”

      • wunsacon

        Lincoln, you misread Sarastro82’s comment. Sarastro82 didn’t doubt with the proposition that the Deep State loves Killary. Sarastro82 doubts the Deep State is dumping her.

    • cstahnke

      The Deep State i deeply divided some see Hilary and the pretend left as their saviors but many others have different views, constituencies and goals. We have to also remember that the Deep State is now solidly “international” in scope because the Empire is an international Empire and thus money stream into the U.S. from everywhere.

      • Sarastro92

        Ok… but where’s the Dump Hillary consensus? And who would replace her 5 weeks out from the election?

    • wunsacon

      I reacted to the title the same way. I’ve not seen any “dumping”.

      Also, CHS’s is wrong in accepting the popularly held but incorrect assessment of Eisenhower (based off a single paragraph of his farewell speech):

      I appreciate CHS work on various subjects, to varying degrees. On this subject and judging by this article alone, I suspect most regular WB readers are “at least as” informed and thus won’t really learn any more “truth” from CHS than we obtain from reading each others’ comments.

      • Sarastro92

        thanks wuns… I was not aware that Ike wanted to nuke Vietnam…

        I am puzzled by Ike… note for example, “By 1960 President Eisenhower’s biggest wish
        was to end his presidential service with a massive world around
        “Crusade for Peace”. For example, more than one million people had
        gathered in New Delhi to honor his visit to India.

        A significant step along this crusade was to be a High-Power Summit
        Conference in Paris on May 1, 1960 between Eisenhower, Macmillan,
        DeGaulle and Khrushchev; to be followed by the most massive of all
        meetings with Eisenhower as a guest of Khrushchev in Moscow in mid
        summer 1960. This was to be the goal of his “Crusade for Peace.”


        The Powers U-2 landing in the USSR did end a major peace initiative. But at the same time Ike was planning to install missiles in Turkey pointed at the USSR. This started the process hurtling towards the Cuban Missile Crisis. Once deployment began in 1961, confrontation was inevitable. So it’s hard (for me) to know what Ike really thought, and what was deception or sabotage by the CIA/ Dulles Brothers.

        But again I agree, Ike was not a wise peacenik. Not be a long shot. But During his tenure he did tend to avoid open major military commitments, preferring sneaky coups and dirty tricks.

  • How Do You Kill 11 Million People?

    This whiteboard animation shows what happened when Hitler lied to get elected and people don’t care or pay attention to the lies of their leaders, until they do care…and at that point, it is too late.


  • Steven

    Ever the optimist! One can only hope Smith is right and the Deep State will not destroy the country and the world with terminal stupidity.

    My personal take is that US Super Imperialism, i.E. conquering the world with (money as) debt is too much, too great an “exorbitant privildge” to expect the likes of Donald Trump to relinquish. With it you can ‘borrow’ from resource rich 3rd world countries and laborers in “communist” countries (not to mention the ‘Social Security’ of your own debt peasants).
    As Hudson notes, you can even borrow from those nations that question the indispensibilty of the American people and their vasals around the world – then use the money to buy the necessary harddware to keep them down on the farm.
    (Who said history doesn’ t have a sense of humor?)

  • DiveshopinGoa
  • In his book The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World, Col. Fletcher Prouty, who was the briefing officer to the President of the US from 1955-1963, writes about “an inner sanctum of a new religious order.” By the phrase Secret Team he means a group of “security-cleared individuals in and out of government who receive secret intelligence data gathered by the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA) and who react to those data.” He states: “The power of the Team derives from its vast intra-governmental undercover infrastructure and its direct relationship with great private industries, mutual funds and investment houses, universities, and the news media, including foreign and domestic publishing houses.” He further adds: “All true members of the Team remain in the power centre whether in office with the incumbent administration or out of office with the hard-core set. They simply rotate to and from official jobs and the business world or the pleasant haven of academe.”

    I have adopted the view outlined by Joseph Farrell in his Nazi International, The Reich of the Black Sun and The Third Way, by Alfred W. McCoy in his The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade and by William Engdahl in A Century of War, Anglo-American Oil Politics And The New World Order. See also Peter Dale Scott´s writings.
    Essentially I am referring to a consortium of intelligence agencies, their bankers and the drug cartels who finance themselves off money laundering and resource expropriation. Post WW2 theft of Axis booty was used to finance intelligence agencies (see Seagrave: Gold Warriors: America’s Secret Recovery of Yamashita’s Gold) and the transfer of control over the Asian heroin trade from the French to the CIA (see: McCoy: The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade) has been used to finance off-budget operations of intelligence agencies worldwide. The western deep state’s object is to capture the resources of eurasia and prevent a geopolitical alignment of Russia and Germany, formulated by MacKinder: The Geographical Pivot of History (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1775498?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) and the modern exponents of western hegemony, such as George Friedman (http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=22223) and Brzezinski, of course. With regard to Russia, didn’t we seen a version of this movie in 1918? (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/museum/ruscivil.jpg)


    In pertinent point:
    London is now the global money-laundering centre for the drug trade, says crime expert

    Gomorrah author Roberto Saviano says ‘the British treat it as not their problem’


    “The City of London is the money-laundering centre of the world’s drug trade, according to an internationally acclaimed crime expert.”


    In my view, any attempt to analyse geopolitical machinations that doesn’t recognize the everyday efforts of the entities alluded to above will lack depth. I’m not referring to the holdover, identifiable bureaucrats who survive from one political administration to the next. I’m referring to those who administrate the funds laundered by the too-big-to-fail-too-big-to jail banks as well as the funds disappearing into the black holes of the defense department: see:

    Pentagon Claims That It Has ‘Lost’ Over $18 Trillion, Which Probably Paid Foreign Army

    9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon

    Cynthia Mckinney questions Rumsfeld and Myers about 9/11 War Games [and accounting]


    As they say, follow the money. All the money.

    • sometime

      thank you for this truly concise reporting of the subject of the CIA also, note William Blum’s work as a scholar regarding the CIA….
      there is not 1 in a million American’s who understand this info you posted…..Thumbs up there!

  • ruxpert

    has anyone answered Sarastro92 yet?