Trump vs US establishment

For the entire duration of the American presidential election campaign, almost all apologists for deep state interventions whispered aloud that the establishment and the military-industrial complex, a veritable arm of the deep state, are intrinsically opposed to the anti-war Donald Trump. Both flourished off the post 9/11 wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Africa, but Trump, as the 45th American President, loathed the US involvement in foreign wars. The underlying assumption was that the deep state would do its utmost to prevent his return to the White House.

However, the November 5 vote disproved the entire trumped-up narrative, with no apparent signs of overt or covert interference by the establishment in the electoral process.

The outcome points to a few critical elements of the American model of democracy.

The entire security apparatus of the US seemed to watch the electoral process as a silent spectator. Nor were there any attempts by parts of the judiciary or election officials to disadvantage either of the three candidates - Kamala Harris, Donald Trump and Dr Jill Stein, the Green Party's nominee. Undoubtedly, the status quo forces, including the establishment, would have attempted to influence the course of events and their outcome in their own way. Yet, there were no visible signs of any stakeholder subversion of the process.

Secondly, the stunning results in favour of Trump delivered a categorical message: while the American establishment may conspire, nurture and execute plots in other countries in support of like-minded political stakeholders or even help topple governments - as evident from the vast body of literature on US interventions abroad - it does not and cannot conspire against its own people. Plenty of institutional oversight and checks and political awareness preclude, if not minimise, blatant interference with the system.

It is quite in contrast to countries such as Russia, 'stans' in Central Asia, Pakistan and the Middle East states, where establishments act as pivots and engineers of the electoral process for favourable results.

Thirdly, the media can stoke sentiments and motivated narratives but cannot turn the tide of public sentiment, just as the results of the February 9 elections in Pakistan also underscored. The public looks for avenues to channel their resentment and frustration and is unwilling to buy officially peddled or motivated narratives.

Systematic, focused endorsements for Ms Harris by CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Times and The Boston Globe in the US as well as British media icons like BBC, The Economist and The Guardian failed to impress the common American. They all kept projecting Trump as a factor of fear, hatred and anti-democracy while foretelling Harris as a symbol of patriotism, hope and unity.

Soon after the results, Elon Musk, the billionaire Trump supporter, took on the traditional media - he also calls it the legacy media - claiming it misled the public. Musk also touted X as "an alternative for those seeking accurate information".

Fourth, and probably of significant consequence to countries such as Pakistan, the Trump victory may deliver a possible snub to fresh military adventures in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

Being anti-alliance, Trump is averse to the American wars abroad, disinclined to fork out American taxpayers' money for NATO exercises. Why is it always the US paying the money, why aren't Germany, France and the UK paying? Trump asked in a Fox News interview during his previous presidency. He also questioned the financial support given to Ukraine, calling it the third most corrupt country in the world.

Viewed against this, how will Trump position himself in Ukraine, Pakistan and Afghanistan, in addition to China, which Biden and ex-CIA chief John Burns described as the "most serious ascendent challenge to the US interests"? The China Mission Center, set up by the CIA in October 2021, was anchored in "fears" that Biden and Burns had expressed on multiple occasions.

Fifthly, will Trump allow the establishment to pursue plans that primarily involve deploying military and intelligence resources abroad as part of attempts to counter the expanding Chinese influence?

Although a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson welcomed the Trump victory as "the choice of the American people", observers will keenly await to see whether he carries over the past belligerence vis a vis China or moderates his approach towards that country. Remember Trump initiated a trade war with China in 2018 and President Biden continued the policy with greater ferocity.

Despite reservations, Chinese President Xi Jinping himself congratulated Trump, urging that the two countries will find the right way to get along in the new era while upholding the principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation.

Lastly, will Trump be able to review the US policy on Pakistan and Afghanistan?

Let us recall his warning he issued in a speech to National Guard Associatoon in August this year.

"We'll get the resignation of every single senior official in charge of the Afghanistan calamity to be on my desk at noon on Inauguration Day. You have to fire people," Trump had warned then. Will be interesting to see how much will Trump be able to walk his talk on Ukraine, China and Afghanistan.

As far Pakistan, a tweet by Zalmay Khalilzad, former Afghanistan trouble-shooter who initiated the Doha Peace process in late 2019, perhaps foretells what is in store for Pakistan.

"…It is time to release Imran Khan and others who are being held without a fair judicial process," Khalilzad wrote in the context of presidential election in which he referred to Imran Khan as a Trump friend.

Let us wait and see if this tweet reflects an individual aspiration or is part of the Team Trump agenda.