The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: mystery-ak on June 05, 2020, 02:59:01 pm
-
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.â€
more
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/501185-why-military-leaders-reacted-so-strongly-to-trumps-use-of-troops
-
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.
-
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.
:thumbsup:
-
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...
-
Well Generals, I accept your resignations.
Good luck to you.
-
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. :reaper:
-
"Seven Days in May":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_in_May
-
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!!!
-
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)
-
Yes it was so much better when Bushie had us fighting those pointless wars.
-
Yes it was so much better when Bushie had us fighting those pointless wars.
--------------------------------
Repeatedly stated that all the Bushes were clowns and morons.
-
Well Generals, I accept your resignations.
Good luck to you.
:yowsa: THIS ^^^^^
-
Because they were all PC Obomber appointees.
Do I win anything?
-
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!"
-
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?
-
Military Leaders were happier when Bush sent them to wars.
-
Military Leaders were happier when Bush sent them to wars.
Because the military industrial complex was stuffing their offshore accounts...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
:thumbsup:
QFT.
I feel like we're actually in an existential crisis at this point.
-
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.
-
Because the military industrial complex was stuffing their offshore accounts...
@EdinVA
Not to mention board seats on defense industry boards.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
There's no reason logical or otherwise for Esper doing in public what should have been done in private.
There is no excuse for sending in Guardsman to the fray unarmed. Even if the rounds were not loaded but in magazines in ammo pouches that's better than sending them totally unarmed.
Les Aspin us high and dry in Somalia and resigned. Esper should be more like Les Aspin.
-
There's no reason logical or otherwise for Esper doing in public what should have been done in private.
There is no excuse for sending in Guardsman to the fray unarmed. Even if the rounds were not loaded but in magazines in ammo pouches that's better than sending them totally unarmed.
Les Aspin us high and dry in Somalia and resigned. Esper should be more like Les Aspin.
Agree 100%. I agreed when Mattis resigned for that very reason. He didn't agree with Trump, so he resigned rather than carry out orders he felt were wrong.
-
@EdinVA
Not to mention board seats on defense industry boards.
Or top management positions of defense contractors. A HS/college friend of mine retired as a 3 star general before joining a big defense combat arms maker.
My friend was among the generals and admirals, that openly supported Trump in 2016.
Not hidiing behind some BS internet anonymity.
-
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.
----------------------------
The essence of my point but unfortunately you're dealing w/concrete.
Anyway good luck.
-
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.
Sorry, I must have missed this one. I saw where MPs were used to prevent White House barricades from being breached. But I ddin't see any examples of federal military troops being used to disperse protests rocking the country. More fake news?
-
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.
How does it go? All enemies both foreign and domestic....
I don't believe Trump ever truley intended to send in troops but he wanted everyone to think he would, that was the damage Esper did, took away the big stick.
-
----------------------------
The essence of my point but unfortunately you're dealing w/concrete.
Anyway good luck.
It might have something to do with how you said it, rather than what you said. Grown-up people object to being spoken to like children. js.
-
How does it go? All enemies both foreign and domestic....
I don't believe Trump ever truley intended to send in troops but he wanted everyone to think he would, that was the damage Esper did, took away the big stick.
IF Trump didn't intend to send in troops ... then he shouldn't have said so. That's an awfully big threat. #1 he should have checked with military leaders before ever saying anything. #2 For him not to go through with this threat will he not only be seen as weak, but his "enemy" will always call his bluff. Not good.
-
How does it go? All enemies both foreign and domestic....
I don't believe Trump ever truley intended to send in troops but he wanted everyone to think he would, that was the damage Esper did, took away the big stick.
Where I had issue and where the legalities came into play was when he was threatening to send in the NG troops on his own. Ann Coulter was cheering leading for the same thing on twitter on the night in question asl well.
Trump was saying in his Tweets he'd send in the NG if the Governor didn't and that's just not legally possible.
It was another one of those times when an adult in the room should have pried Trump's cell phone out of his hands.
-
Where I had issue and where the legalities came into play was when he was threatening to send in the NG troops on his own. Ann Coulter was cheering leading for the same thing on twitter on the night in question asl well.
Trump was saying in his Tweets he'd send in the NG if the Governor didn't and that's just not legally possible.
It was another one of those times when an adult in the room should have pried Trump's cell phone out of his hands.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't their federal national guards and then national guards for each state? The governors have the authority to call out the national guards in their states and Trump has the authority to call out the federal national guard. ???
-
Where I had issue and where the legalities came into play was when he was threatening to send in the NG troops on his own. Ann Coulter was cheering leading for the same thing on twitter on the night in question asl well.
Trump was saying in his Tweets he'd send in the NG if the Governor didn't and that's just not legally possible.
It was another one of those times when an adult in the room should have pried Trump's cell phone out of his hands.
If Trump had federalized the guard, as has been done in the past, he could have.
But how do you or anyone in a position of authority and responsibility, sit idly by and do nothing when cities are burning to the ground and the local authorities are doing nothing?
Rather than tacking pot shots at Trump and telling him how many ways he was wrong, should the conversation be WTF are the locals doing, what is the countries role is defending one another?
For christs sake, we spend billions saving thugs around the world but we cannot help our own? That is just absurd.
Now we have a tropical storm making landfall in the gulf and all of the never trumpers are going to stick out their grubby little hands begging for freebees after they just ran the man thru the ringer for trying to help save lives and businesses.
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't their federal national guards and then national guards for each state? The governors have the authority to call out the national guards in their states and Trump has the authority to call out the federal national guard. ???
There is National Guard on what's called "state active duty"...they also have what's called "Active Guard" positions. But in both instances they are still under the direction of the state and the Governor.
They are not federalized.
For trump to call out the guard is a process that has to be coordinated between the state and the Governor. And the state has to authorize their troops to be brought onto active duty federalized service. Trump can't bypass the Governor of a state and federalize troops unilaterally.
-
If Trump had federalized the guard, as has been done in the past, he could have.
See my post above. There's a process and it has to be followed. Trump can't...excuse the phrase...trump the process.
But how do you or anyone in a position of authority and responsibility, sit idly by and do nothing when cities are burning to the ground and the local authorities are doing nothing?
We have no choice unless the state and local officials request the help.
Rather than tacking pot shots at Trump and telling him how many ways he was wrong, should the conversation be WTF are the locals doing, what is the countries role is defending one another?
If should be. And it was. Still is to some extent. But this people voted for the people allowing this to happen. Elections have consequences.
For christs sake, we spend billions saving thugs around the world but we cannot help our own? That is just absurd.
We do help our own in numbers money wise greater than what we help other countries.
But at some point if people don't want to help themselves...all the money in the world and all the military might in the U.S. won't stop them from their self destructive path.
Now we have a tropical storm making landfall in the gulf and all of the never trumpers are going to stick out their grubby little hands begging for freebees after they just ran the man thru the ringer for trying to help save lives and businesses.
They didn't start just because of the weather. Palz in Minnesota and that Trudeau wannabe mayor in Minneapolis are already asking for federal funds to rebuild.
The answer needs to be a resounding no. And then Trump needs to tell the people in great detail why a particular state isn't getting Federal $$$$
-
There is National Guard on what's called "state active duty"...they also have what's called "Active Guard" positions. But in both instances they are still under the direction of the state and the Governor.
They are not federalized.
For trump to call out the guard is a process that has to be coordinated between the state and the Governor. And the state has to authorize their troops to be brought onto active duty federalized service. Trump can't bypass the Governor of a state and federalize troops unilaterally.
Did the Governor of Arkansas agree to having the military insist on school integration? Seems to me he was rather against it. Orval Faubus?
-
See my post above. There's a process and it has to be followed. Trump can't...excuse the phrase...trump the process.
We have no choice unless the state and local officials request the help.
If should be. And it was. Still is to some extent. But this people voted for the people allowing this to happen. Elections have consequences.
We do help our own in numbers money wise greater than what we help other countries.
But at some point if people don't want to help themselves...all the money in the world and all the military might in the U.S. won't stop them from their self destructive path.
They didn't start just because of the weather. Palz in Minnesota and that Trudeau wannabe mayor in Minneapolis are already asking for federal funds to rebuild.
The answer needs to be a resounding no. And then Trump needs to tell the people in great detail why a particular state isn't getting Federal $$$$
@txradioguy
Did not mean to "yell" at you... you just happened to be handy... :beer:
-
Did the Governor of Arkansas agree to having the military insist on school integration? Seems to me he was rather against it. Orval Faubus?
No. Ike used the insurrection act to bring the 101st to Little Rock as a back up force to the Arkansas National Guard.
Faubus, a BillyJeff hero was dead set against the integration of the schools. And IMHO Ike brought in active duty troops incase the Governor told the National Guard to stand down.
-
@txradioguy
Did not mean to "yell" at you... you just happened to be handy... :beer:
@EdinVA it's all good brother.
-
@txradioguy
Did not mean to "yell" at you... you just happened to be handy... :beer:
We're all a little strung out lately.
Fortunately, one of the worst offenders at stirring up shit got a forever ban this morning after trying to tell us "All Lives Matter" is not a proper retort for "Black Lives Matter." Once the person was unmasked as a racist, he was gone. Bye.
-
We're all a little strung out lately.
Fortunately, one of the worst offenders at stirring up shit got a forever ban this morning after trying to tell us "All Lives Matter" is not a proper retort for "Black Lives Matter." Once the person was unmasked as a racist, he was gone. Bye.
the â€he†is a dead giveaway.
-
Then he's not any better than Obama.
Not sure how you concluded this. I happen to like the concept of a military beholden to duly constituted civilian leadership.
-
:thumbsup:
QFT.
I feel like we're actually in an existential crisis at this point.
You and me both.
Liberals have always been an annoyance. With republicans and conservatives findng ways to mitigate the damage caused by their stupid, unworkable, over-bureaucratic policy ideas.
Today, Leftists have hijacked liberalism, kicked moderates out of the democrat party, and have gone full pedal to the metal Marxism.
Many democrats and liberals look at what’s happening in their party today and say WTF!: Perinatal abortion, no-bail states, get out of jail policies, radical environmentalism, anti business laws and over taxation, political correctness, race based politics, pushing transgender dysphoria on children, open hostility towards religion and the family and on and on.
-
the â€he†is a dead giveaway.
LOL! Yup.
:mauslaff:
-
Not sure how you concluded this. I happen to like the concept of a military beholden to duly constituted civilian leadership.
The unilateralism. The fact that Trump and Obama both seem to think that "a pen and phone" are good enough to get by the Constitution and the way things are supposed to be done in this country.
-
The unilateralism. The fact that Trump and Obama both seem to think that "a pen and phone" are good enough to get by the Constitution and the way things are supposed to be done in this country.
I think the President's mouth has been writing a lot of checks he can't cash. Let's review the past week: He says he's designating Antifa a "terrorist organization." Has he? No. He said he'll invoke the Insurrection Act. Did he? No. He said he's sending in the military to quell the riots. Did he? Nope.
Faking threats is a bad idea. He should know that, but seems to think a threat is as good as an action. It isn't, it just breeds contempt.
ETA: This is why I appreciate your insight into issues like this. You know the score.
-
I think the President's mouth has been writing a lot of checks he can't cash. Let's review the past week: He says he's designating Antifa a "terrorist organization." Has he? No. He said he'll invoke the Insurrection Act. Did he? No. He said he's sending in the military to quell the riots. Did he? Nope.
Faking threats is a bad idea. He should know that, but seems to think a threat is as good as an action. It isn't, it just breeds contempt.
:amen: That is one thing that I haven't liked about him from the beginning; he back pedals on a lot of things. This is one case where he absolutely must do what he says otherwise the opposition will call his bluff and he will lose on all fronts. God help us if he allows that to happen.
-
I think the President's mouth has been writing a lot of checks he can't cash. Let's review the past week: He says he's designating Antifa a "terrorist organization." Has he? No. He said he'll invoke the Insurrection Act. Did he? No. He said he's sending in the military to quell the riots. Did he? Nope.
Faking threats is a bad idea. He should know that, but seems to think a threat is as good as an action. It isn't, it just breeds contempt.
ETA: This is why I appreciate your insight into issues like this. You know the score.
So, I guess the bully pulpit is not a thing anymore.
-
So, I guess the bully pulpit is not a thing anymore.
It's not if the bully pulpit only issues empty threats. We've seen too much of that lately.
-
It's not if the bully pulpit only issues empty threats. We've seen too much of that lately.
His backing down will cost us this Republic. Anyone really doubt that?
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't their federal national guards and then national guards for each state? The governors have the authority to call out the national guards in their states and Trump has the authority to call out the federal national guard. ???
@libertybele
The truth is the governors have the right to refuse to release their troops to the feral goobermint. It had to be set up that way to insure no governor found his state and people defenseless in an emergency.
The truth is a little shadier than that,though. The reality is any Governor who refuse to give up his NG troops would soon find most of the federal money going to his state cut off.
So,yes,a Governor CAN refuse to release his troops to the feds,but he is going to pay a high price if he does.
BTW,I have never been sent on one of these cluster-bleeps,but MY understanding in the active duty guys mostly hang in the background for backup in case things go seriously wrong.
When you look up and see the 82nd or the 101st Abn manning the barricades,it just got serious,though. Throw stuff at or attack them and you WILL pay a price in pain. Shoot at them and you will die.
-
Did the Governor of Arkansas agree to having the military insist on school integration? Seems to me he was rather against it. Orval Faubus?
@Cyber Liberty
The Governor of Arkansas had no control whatsoever over the 101st Airborne Division,and that is who was sent into Little Rock to maintain the peace.
-
IF Trump didn't intend to send in troops ... then he shouldn't have said so. That's an awfully big threat. #1 he should have checked with military leaders before ever saying anything. #2 For him not to go through with this threat will he not only be seen as weak, but his "enemy" will always call his bluff. Not good.
-------------------------
Isightful and wise advice!
-
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!!!
Not like the Bonus Marchers?
-
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/retired-generals-admirals-endorse-trump-227755 (https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/retired-generals-admirals-endorse-trump-227755)
I seriously doubt these people changed. from 2016
Trump earns endorsement of 88 retired generals, admirals ...
www.politico.com (http://www.politico.com) › story › 2016/09 › retired-generals-...
as the Republican nominee looks to solidify support in the military community against Hillary Clinton in November.
-
Not like the Bonus Marchers?
Also the Civil War draft riots, whiskey rebellion, etc. etc.
-
I think the President's mouth has been writing a lot of checks he can't cash. Let's review the past week: He says he's designating Antifa a "terrorist organization." Has he? No. He said he'll invoke the Insurrection Act. Did he? No. He said he's sending in the military to quell the riots. Did he? Nope.
Faking threats is a bad idea. He should know that, but seems to think a threat is as good as an action. It isn't, it just breeds contempt.
ETA: This is why I appreciate your insight into issues like this. You know the score.
You can only bluff for so long before people stop listening and/or someone calls you on it.