Why military leaders reacted so strongly to Trump's use of troops

[mystery-ak]

Why military leaders reacted so strongly to Trump's use of troops
By Dov S. Zakheim, opinion contributor — 06/05/20 10:30 AM EDT

It was not only Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley who publicly distanced themselves from President Trump’s intention to employ the military to disperse protests rocking the country over the past week. Each of the military’s chiefs of staff, at least one service secretary and a senior enlisted military official all weighed in as well.

Indeed, despite having been told twice not to comment on the situation before Esper made a statement of his own, a senior military leader spoke out anyway on June 1, the very day that force was used to clear a path for the president to walk from the White House to St. John’s Church.

Chief Master Sergeant Kaleth Wright, the Air Force’s top enlisted official and an African American, tweeted that his “greatest fear” is “that I will wake up to a report that one of our Black Airmen has died at the hands of a white police officer.” The following day, again before Esper held his press conference, Wright’s chief of staff, the highly popular Air Force Gen. David Goldfein, sat alongside Wright in a video taken in the chief master sergeant’s office. Wright again did not mince words: “I’ve been really outraged, not just for the last week. It drew up a lot of rage and a lot of anger from the past because I’ve just watched this over and over and over again.”

more
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/501185-why-military-leaders-reacted-so-strongly-to-trumps-use-of-troops

[skeeter]

This is the most chilling aspect of the institutional opposition to Trump's administration. No reasonable person should welcome insubordination from the military, regardless of political leaning.

It should be utterly crushed on the spot. Its far too dangerous to tolerate.

[Right_in_Virginia]

This is the most chilling aspect of the institutional opposition to Trump's administration. No reasonable person should welcome insubordination from the military, regardless of political leaning.

It should be utterly crushed on the spot. Its far too dangerous to tolerate.

 

[EdinVA]

This is the most chilling aspect of the institutional opposition to Trump's administration. No reasonable person should welcome insubordination from the military, regardless of political leaning.

It should be utterly crushed on the spot. Its far too dangerous to tolerate.

It is not just the military either and unfortunately is not just against Trump, although he did shine the light on it.
I have been in meetings during the bush and obama administrations when the senior agency executives would laugh at the thought of following the administrations directives.
"We run xxx agency, not the president" was the rebuttal.
Unelected executives are making the decisions that is why nothing changes...

[Slide Rule]

Well Generals, I accept your resignations.

Good luck to you.

[rangerrebew]

This seems a continuation of the Obama policy of making the military the 4th branch of government - as long as you agreed with the Imam which means disagreeing with Trump.  I'm sure the Imam loaded the military with a bunch of toadies at the upper levels, just as he did in the State Department, and Justice Department,  and now they see themselves as co-equal with congress. the supreme court, and the presidency.  When the military decides which other equal branch they want to partner with they will drive the demise of America by rendering useless the other two since the military has all the power.

[Fishrrman]

"Seven Days in May":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_in_May

[Absalom]

Repeating, since 1789 the core purpose of our Military has been to protect and serve the
people and nation of the USA, which they have done honorably for more than 200 years.
As such, is it not highly plausible that the opposition of numerous Military Men to Trump's
intention to employ our Military in dispersing/disarming protestors and looters has little
to do w/any selfish interest and everything to do w/Trump's mercurial/volcanic temperament?
Consider if the plan goes wrong, who will carry the can??? Why the Military of course;
unless the usual suspects expect our 'stable genius' to stand up and accept responsibility!!!

[truth_seeker]

Repeating, since 1789 the core purpose of our Military has been to protect and serve the
people and nation of the USA, which they have done honorably for more than 200 years.
As such, is it not highly plausible that the opposition of numerous Military Men to Trump's
intention to employ our Military in dispersing/disarming protestors and looters has little
to do w/any selfish interest and everything to do w/Trump's mercurial/volcanic temperament.
Consider if the plan goes wrong, who will carry the can??? Why the Military of course;
unless the usual suspects expect our 'stable genius' to stand up and accept responsibility!!!

Uses of military at home, which have nothing to do with your deranged Trump disdaim

1967 Detroit (not Trump)

1970 Kent State (not Trump)

1992 Los Angeles (not Trump)

[dfwgator]

Yes it was so much better when Bushie had us fighting those pointless wars.

[Absalom]

Yes it was so much better when Bushie had us fighting those pointless wars.

--------------------------------
Repeatedly stated that all the Bushes were clowns and morons.

[Smokin Joe]

Well Generals, I accept your resignations.

Good luck to you.

THIS ^^^^^

[sneakypete]

Because they were all PC Obomber appointees.

Do I win anything?

[Cyber Liberty]

Repeating, since 1789 the core purpose of our Military has been to protect and serve the
people and nation of the USA, which they have done honorably for more than 200 years.
As such, is it not highly plausible that the opposition of numerous Military Men to Trump's
intention to employ our Military in dispersing/disarming protestors and looters has little
to do w/any selfish interest and everything to do w/Trump's mercurial/volcanic temperament.
Consider if the plan goes wrong, who will carry the can??? Why the Military of course;
unless the usual suspects expect our 'stable genius' to stand up and accept responsibility!!!

A rather long, roundabout way of saying "Trump's Fault!"

[sneakypete]

A rather long, roundabout way of saying "Trump's Fault!"

@Cyber Liberty

Well,in his/hers/multiple choices defense,they are running out of ways to say it.

Maybe they are white,and the DNC is no longer returning their phone calls?

[dfwgator]

Military Leaders were happier when Bush sent them to wars.

[EdinVA]

Military Leaders were happier when Bush sent them to wars.

Because the military industrial complex was stuffing their offshore accounts...

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Yes it was so much better when Bushie had us fighting those pointless wars.

You're 100% correct. If you had said this in 2004 btw you'd be a sworn enemy of talk radio conservatism.

Now? Not so much.

[txradioguy]

This is the most chilling aspect of the institutional opposition to Trump's administration. No reasonable person should welcome insubordination from the military, regardless of political leaning.

But at the same time Trump needs to wake up and realize that if his top General and his SecDef (former Army Officer) are saying pump the brakes he might wanna let off the gas.  There were several things Trump blasted out on Twitter in regards to use of military that were legally wrong and just blatantly false.  This isn't a debate about whether to send troops into a war zone...this is sending them in on American people.  And that's a very VERY fine line that trump needs to stay as far to onside as possible.

Those that can't see that need to take off the blinders.

It should be utterly crushed on the spot. Its far too dangerous to tolerate.

Then he's not any better than Obama.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Uses of military at home, which have nothing to do with your deranged Trump disdaim

1967 Detroit (not Trump)

1970 Kent State (not Trump)

1992 Los Angeles (not Trump)

 

QFT.

I feel like we're actually in an existential crisis at this point.

[truth_seeker]

It is not just the military either and unfortunately is not just against Trump, although he did shine the light on it.
I have been in meetings during the bush and obama administrations when the senior agency executives would laugh at the thought of following the administrations directives.
"We run xxx agency, not the president" was the rebuttal.
Unelected executives are making the decisions that is why nothing changes...

You might enjoy the video interview ith Dave Rubin and Richard Grennell.

[sneakypete]

Because the military industrial complex was stuffing their offshore accounts...

@EdinVA

Not to mention board seats on defense industry boards.

[Cyber Liberty]

But at the same time Trump needs to wake up and realize that if his top General and his SecDef (former Army Officer) are saying pump the brakes he might wanna let off the gas.  There were several things Trump blasted out on Twitter in regards to use of military that were legally wrong and just blatantly false.  This isn't a debate about whether to send troops into a war zone...this is sending them in on American people.  And that's a very VERY fine line that trump needs to stay as far to onside as possible.

Those that can't see that need to take off the blinders.

Then he's not any better than Obama.

Do you think Esper should keep his job, after having a press conference to describe his displeasure with Trump in detail?  Or when he sent National Guardsmen into DeeCee with no guns or even helmets?

[sneakypete]

You're 100% correct. If you had said this in 2004 btw you'd be a sworn enemy of talk radio conservatism.

 

@Weird Tolkienish Figure

I dunno about that,but sure would get you bounced for life from Free Republic.

[libertybele]

But at the same time Trump needs to wake up and realize that if his top General and his SecDef (former Army Officer) are saying pump the brakes he might wanna let off the gas.  There were several things Trump blasted out on Twitter in regards to use of military that were legally wrong and just blatantly false.  This isn't a debate about whether to send troops into a war zone...this is sending them in on American people.  And that's a very VERY fine line that trump needs to stay as far to onside as possible.

That has been my question from the beginning; will the U.S. military be willing to go against the American people?  As much as I have advocated that I think the U.S. military should be used .... this is like you say, a very fine line and one that I don't think most would willingly cross.