Before we all forget about Steve Bannon and his role as the former White House Chief Strategist I have a theory about why he REALLY left his position [ and it has nothing to do with Charlottesville, Virginia]. Mainstream media talking heads have led us to believe Steve Bannon was a violent, racist, hate-monger who injected his evil beliefs and policies into the Trump administration at every turn. But is it possible that beyond the media sensationalism he was actually a voice of non-interventionism and peace in the counsel of Trump? Hear me out for a second...
Back in April during one of the first Trump administration so-called shake-ups, you might recall Steve Bannon was removed from the National Security Council. It didn’t seem like a big deal at the time, but there was clearly far more happening behind closed doors than we initially realized. Two days later, on April 7th, Trump launched an attack on a Syrian military base. This was a big surprise to populist Trump-supporters who were told during the election that attacking Syria was a horrible idea. Even before the election President Trump was very critical of Obama's "red line in the sand" moment in regards to Syria and Russia, and he made a lot of people think if they supported him we'd never go to war with those two countries. It's possible that a discussion about war with Syria was a popular idea with Trump's military advisers [some of whom may or may not be in bed with lobbyists for the military industrial complex], and it's even more possible that Bannon was strongly opposed to this idea. By taking Bannon off the National Security Council convincing the remaining advisers to attack a Syrian military base was far easier to make happen.
Fast-forward four months to the end of last week when Bannon was removed completely from his position as Chief Strategist. Once Bannon was finally out Trump announced he'd be sending more troops to Afghanistan. This wasn't a complete surprise. Back in mid-April, shortly after Bannon was taken off the National Security Council, Trump dropped the Mother Of All Bombs [MOAB] on Afghanistan. Then in July President Trump's spokesperson suggested he was reviewing the situation in Afghanistan so he could decide if more action was required.
Once Bannon was out of the White House he headed back to Breitbart, his previous place of employment, and released a piece that was highly critical of national security adviser H.R. McMaster.
The article suggested McMaster is soft on Islamic extremism leading many of the cable news talking heads to conclude Bannon wanted more military intervention, but is it possible this public attack actually has more to do with McMaster's feelings towards war with Syria?
And if true, would Bannon be wrong to push Trump away from more acts of war? The Afghanistan war is 16-years-old – if it was a person it would be old enough to drive a car. We’ve spent over $2.4 trillion dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq [that’s trillion with a “T”] and we have little to show for it. During that time 2,258 Americans died as a result of our engagement in the Afghan region and an additional 20,257 Americans were wounded. Add in the countless number of PTSD-related suicides back home and you have a war that was arguably as unpopular and unsuccessful as America’s involvement in Vietnam.
Again, CNN, MSNBC, the Democrats, Saturday Night Live and the leftist bloggers of the Internet have all told us Steve Bannon is a blood-thirsty, evil, racist, violent hate-monger who wants to see the world burn, but what if his populists beliefs actually made him an anti-war advocate in the Trump administration? It's just a theory - but it's hard to ignore the timing of Trump's military strategy in regards to Bannon's removal.