Trumpize the world: what game do we play?

(To Alessandro Rugolo)
18/04/17

In these days the television and the main national newspapers have devoted ample space to the war enterprises of the new American president Donald Trump.

First the attack in Syria, conducted through the attack of the US Navy with cruise missiles Tomahawk against the Al Sharyat air base, an attack that took place through the launch of 59 cruise missiles. In terms of declared costs, only for the missiles, about 112 million dollars were literally "burned" ...

Then, a few days later, the news from the American central command that it had used a super bomb, the GBU-43 Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB), against a target consisting of a complex tunnel network used by ISIS in Afghanistan. The MOAB due to its size and destructive power is also called "Mother Of All Bombs", a bad nickname since the mother is usually associated with the "birth" of life and not with destruction. The bomb, operational since 2003, was commissioned in four copies in 2009. The cost of the attack against the network of tunnels (with reference to the single device!) Was almost 15 million dollars.

Finally, the bellicose declarations against North Korea, called to order. American statements with an equally bellicose response from Marshal Choe Ryong Hae who responded to American threats with a curt: "We will respond to war with total war and nuclear with nuclear power." But it seems the US doesn't understand reasons.

Da world policeman have they become masters of the world?

That's how it seems. Not that it gave you much astonishment since the assignment of the task of regulating the thorniest issues to the UN through its main body, the Security Council, has so far led to nothing.

What can we say, who could expect such behavior from President Trump, who rose to the White House behind the hope of peace with Russia?

In fact, some time ago I was reflecting on this. The idea for reflection was given to me by an article read in the January issue of "The Economist". The piece, entitled "Briefing the Trump administration" illustrated the composition of the new president's team and highlighted the main differences between this and President Obama's team. 
The thing that struck me the most is the percentage of ex-generals present, the 9%!
The second thing that struck me is related to the billionaires: a percentage even greater than that of the ex-generals, the 14%!

I wondered what this combination of potentials could mean within the president's team. Maybe I was wrong and I'm still wrong, but the union of men of war and finance where do you want to bring?