Although he likes to talk with bravado – and frequently threatens retaliatory action if things don’t go his way – Trump, for all his faults and appearance as a schoolyard bully, has never embraced the mantle of a warmonger. I suppose the same could be said of just about any of the American presidents in the past century. What makes Trump stand out is that he not only resists the need or temptation to align himself with one side or the other of a conflict, he encourages the two sides to lay down their arms and get on with the business of improving life.
When you think of it, it’s the only rational resolution to conflict. Usually in any conflict the time has long past to adjudicate who is right or who is wrong or why. More importantly what counts is the termination of conflict at any cost – along with the ambition and devotion to make things better. Perhaps – in the least complimentary analysis – Trump doing so is merely betraying his inability to comprehend the depth of disagreement between people. By contrast, it may be a signal success of his to rise above conflict and instead pursue benefits and progress.
I suppose it is my personal hatred of war at any cost that motivates me in this dissection. Likewise it may be Trump’s overriding personal interest in development (normally for him, real estate development) that sanctions his seemingly doubtful relationships with known dictators and anarchists. But my conclusion by any standard is that anything which stops war between people has to be an improvement – whether Syria, Iraq, Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Ukraine or Russia. Obviously there is room for negotiation of minority interests in the final contract of accord, but before getting to the point of detail there must be an urgency to foster agreement to stop the fighting.
Characteristically Trump’s first international outing is with the richest countries in the world (his “Middle East” trip). It is no accident that internally he has already aligned himself with the richest people in the world. Nor is it any accident that the common interest of the rich worldwide is freedom from conflict. Therefore it should be no surprise that Trump and people of whatever persuasion are mutually agreed in this one purpose. From my perspective, if the alliances include at least the promise to address minority interests, that has to be better than war.
The American war machine is to my knowledge still considered the most formidable in the world. This overhanging threat – which Trump’s boisterousness is still willing to use – may however unwittingly preserve people from annihilation (though maybe not complete accommodation). War – by any account – is a relentless argument between competing interests. The dreadful truth and reality of existence is that we have to “bite the bullet”.
“Biting the bullet” is a metaphor which is used to describe a situation, often a debate, where one accepts an inevitable impending hardship or hard-to-refute point, and then endures the resulting pain with fortitude.
It has been suggested that it is derived historically from the practice of having a patient clench a bullet in their teeth as a way to cope with the pain of a surgical procedure without anesthetic.