Donald Trump, since deciding to run for President, has had a mixed record in his dealings with the military. On one hand, he has pushed for an increased military budget, given field commanders more freedom to conduct operations as they see fit and appointed several active and retired Army and Marine Generals to cabinet and White House posts. On the other hand he denigrated John McCain for having been captured during the Vietnam War, claimed that he knew more than "the generals" about ISIS, and accused "the generals" of having "killed Ryan", the Navy SEAL who died in a mission early in Trump's presidency. However, it's the latest tempest in a teapot, his conversation with the widow of a Special Forces Sergeant, that reveals deeper issues.
For one, I don't believe that Trump meant to be disrespectful to Mrs. Johnson. Her perception that he couldn't remember Sgt. LaDavid Johnson's name could have been just that: her perception. After all, Trump seems to struggle rhetorically at most times, and seems singularly unaware of how his words sound to others. While he appears to lake empathy, I'll give him credit for making the attempt, as it's part of the job. The part about him saying "he knew what he signed up for" I believe is a result of getting bad advice from John Kelly, a retired Marine General whose son was killed in action. Kelly, in a press conference, essentially confirmed that Trump said what Rep. Wilson said that he said, and that the guidance to say it came from him, Kelly. The problem is that "he knew what he signed up for" or words to that effect, would have a different affect on a parent who was a decorated service member himself than on a young, pregnant woman, who only knew that she lost her husband. In my opinion, Kelly gave Trump bad advice.
Trump could have still salvaged the situation if he had suppressed his inclination to viciously fight back and simply apologized and expressed sincere condolences. Instead he attacked a Member of Congress and in effect called a war widow a liar. President Bush was once faced with a widow who, upon encountering Bush at Dover Air Force Base when the body was brought home, was screamed at by her. He never attacked her or spoke badly about her. He let her vent, and then hugged her.
What was equally disturbing was Mr. Kelly's press conference and Kellyanne Conway's follow-up. He defended Trump's behavior and suggested throughout that the military were better, or above, non-military Americans, confirmed by his refusal to take questions from any reporters who were not either veterans or Gold Star family members. Conway extended the adoration of the military by suggesting that it was inappropriate for reports to question "a four-star general".
What?
One of the things enshrined in the Constitution that right-wingers claim to love so much is that the military in our country answers to a civilian, the President. In addition, the Secretary of Defense is customarily a civilian - it takes a Congressional waiver to appoint an active or recently retired service member. But our Secretary of Defense is a retired general. The National Security Advisor is a retired general, and the White House Chief of Staff, formerly Secretary of Homeland Security is a retired general. Trump has removed much civilian oversight and removed "restrictions" on what the military does. Do I think that the President should be micromanaging the military? No, but overall civilian control is essential. If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail; if your top advisors are all military, the all solutions look like military solutions. This is exacerbated by the under-staffing of the State Department.
Military solutions sometimes are the answer, but diplomatic answers must be on the table as well.
Despite Trump's attacks on individual military officers and his high opinion of his own strategic acumen, we are becoming a top-down, don't question authority type of nation.
And that's not a good thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment