The Hill Discovers 'Imperial Overreach' Only When Trump Does It
This op-ed frames Trump's potential for 'imperial overreach' as a unique, clear, and present danger. One might wonder where this prescient analysis was during the actual, concrete 'imperial overreach' of the last two decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The 20-year Afghan war, the invasion of Iraq based on phantom WMDs (a bipartisan affair in its initial support), and
endless interventions in Libya, Syria, and Yemen weren't just 'missteps,' they were textbook imperial overreach that created a very real 'war economy trap' – one that enriched defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon to the tune of trillions (source: Department of Defense reports, publicly available budget documents). Instead of critiquing the systemic, bipartisan nature of the
military-industrial complex that ensnares every president, The Hill chooses to localize the 'danger' to a specific, future Trump administration. It's almost as if the 'trap' only becomes visible when a particular political boogeyman is at the helm, conveniently ignoring how a continuous cycle of interventions, drone strikes, and military aid (like the billions voted for by figures who receive
significant AIPAC donations ) has been the de facto American foreign policy for decades. The real danger isn't one man; it's the bipartisan consensus on perpetual war.