That's become evident lately. 45 has interfered in several cases regarding war crimes, in which prisoners were abused and/or murdered. The Edward Gallagher case (he's the Navy SEAL) is but one.
An article in The Atlantic magazine recently explained why 45 ignores or sidesteps atrocities committed by some of our own soldiers. Mark Bowden is experienced in military writing; he is the author of two important works: Black Hawk Down and Hue: 1968. (I've read part of the latter. It has superb research.)
Bowden's goal was to talk to military people up and down the line, getting them to say how they felt about 45's attitudes toward them. It offers a revealing glimpse inside how they view his mind--and how they have, and might, work around it despite his unfortunate position as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces: The one thing you don't want a guy like this to have.
Bowden summarizes the military's thinking about 45's thinking into five major categories, the explanation of which will accompany their individual statement:
- He disdains expertise. Considering his dealings with others inside the Beltway, this should come as no surprise. The "deep state," which he professes to despise, is in fact a vast reservoir of expertise that an inexperienced person ignores at tremendous risk. He asks only for input from Fox News. Example 1: He nearly got us into a shooting war with Iran, calling off a bombing at literally the last hour. It would have started over the shooting down of one of our drones--no casualties, mind you. Example 2: Withdrawing troops from Syria when we had the ISIS on the run and greatly reduced, though a hard core of about 10,000 were still fighting, presumably to the death. Our forces were coordinating with many others. The commander of our forces, Gen. Joseph Votel, took an enormous risk and went public with his objection. 45 backed away, though of course he admitted that he'd done nothing wrong. Some of our troops have been withdrawn, with the British and French picking up the slack. So, yes, in the end, he listened to someone, but not before scaring the bejabbers out of everybody when that wasn't necessary.
- He trusts only his own instincts. That's something like an inside-out summary of the above. When someone thinks of himself as a genius (he really does), and the sycophants around him just keep feeding him that baloney, what other advice does a guy need? Again, as an example, the near-war with Iran, with all kinds of tremulous implications even if the USA might have won a protracted conflict. Bowden suggests that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, might have been the one who stood up to 45 and told him to back away (instead of 45 saying that he considered the casualties first).
(Is a trend appearing here? As in: You have to stand up to this guy to get him to back away. Nothing subtle or back door, like the approach of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, who was fired by Defense Secretary Mark Esper: You have to gain access, insist on being heard, and get in the room with him. Risky? With this high-minded, empty-headed lout, of course. But there are still people inside who are willing to do that. For now.)
- He resists coherent strategy. When you think you know enough regardless of the situation, everything can be by the seat of the pants. "Keeping an enemy off-balance can be a good thing, the generals agreed," as Bowden wrote, "so long as you are not off-balance yourself. And it's a tactic, not a strategy." Example: North Korea and 45's strange relationship with Kim Jong Un, love letters on the one hand, fire and fury on the other. One of the generals told Bowden, "That stuff is just crazy enough to work....if it can avert something it will have been worth it." But unpredictability eschews planning and arrangement for outcomes, especially if 45 insists on holding his cards so close to his chest that not even his best people know what's up. "If the president says 'fire and brimstone' and then two weeks later says 'this is my best friend,' that's not necessarily bad--but it's bad if the rest of the relevant people in the government responsible for executing the strategy aren't aware that that's the strategy," a general told Bowden. And--let Yours Truly suggest--it might create a scenario in which a military at the site of conflict acts without permission because of a loss of trust in the commander-in-chief.
- He is reflexively contrary. 45 has gone out of his way to diminish the size of, and influence of, the State Department. He has left ambassadorships unfilled in a number of important strategic locales, including Brazil, Canada, Japan, Russia and, until recently and with very deep underminings, Ukraine. H. R. McMaster, 45's national security advisor, tried to put together a statement of strategy that pulled together America First with immigration, nuclear proliferation and terrorist attacks. 45 marveled when he saw it, but it hasn't been brought out since. "Trying to shape this president's approach to the world into a cogent philosophy is a fool's errand," writes Bowden. "For those commanding America's armed forces, it's best to keep binoculars trained on his Twitter feed."
- He has a simplistic and antiquated notion of soldiering. "All of the generals agreed that interfering with the military's efforts to police itself badly undermines command and control," Bowden writes of incidents such as that of Gallagher, who had his SEAL pin taken away by the Navy, only to have it put back on by 45. "When thousands of young Americans are deployed overseas with heavy weaponry, crimes and atrocities will sometimes occur. Failing to prosecute those to who commit them invites behavior that shames everyone in uniform and the nation they serve." In a phrase, said one general, 45 doesn't understand the 'warrior ethos.' His attitude is taken from TV and movies and is badly antiquated. "It makes wars less inhumane an allows our profession to maintain our elf-respect and to be respected by others....If you treat civilians disrespectfully, you're working for the enemy [emphasis his]! [45] doesn't understand." He's never been near a battlefield, so the John Wayne stuff resonates with him. But that doesn't go very far in actual warfare, said a general. Not only that, but PTSD cases will likely increase, because being "tough" and throwing tantrums upon failure isn't the point by itself. "That is not leadership," said the general. "You don't get optimal performance being that way. You get [it] by being completely opposite of that."
I wonder what 45's reaction was, and now is, to the 1969 My Lai massacre, when over 500 Vietnamese civilians were murdered in that ugly, unsuccessful war. I wonder what he thinks of the humiliation and torture of Abu Ghraib. I wonder if he'll notice the same things happening to our troops when captured. Then I wonder if he'll care. Remember, though: Nixon gradually reduced the sentence of William Calley, tried and convicted for war crimes at My Lai. He did it in several stages so as to mute the political effects.
Again, a precedent was set and an example could be found. But again, nobody has put together the enormous bad aspects of behavior like 45. Nobody has been anywhere near as bad, incompetent or disgusting at so many things as he has.
It's all sufficient reason that we can't get into a war with him in the White House. He'll try to Hitlerize the effort--that is, take over the whole thing himself. German generals chafed at the prospect of having to deal with a mere World War I corporal in the deepest planning of World War II's multi-continental warfare; they knew he had no idea about tactics and pretty much shot from the hip, wielded with his gigantic temper. (It's a major reason they tried to kill him, too.) Unquestionably, 45 would act in a similar sense, without even the slightest notion about what serving in the military is like. Functionally, we would be guided into nowhere with someone knowing nothing.
That would get a lot of us killed. It would get us genuinely defeated. That is why we cannot possibly let this next electoral opportunity be a failure. The future of the country is genuinely at stake. Now isn't the time to let that go beyond other conversations. It's of the essence, impeachment or not.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Again, a precedent was set and an example could be found. But again, nobody has put together the enormous bad aspects of behavior like 45. Nobody has been anywhere near as bad, incompetent or disgusting at so many things as he has.
It's all sufficient reason that we can't get into a war with him in the White House. He'll try to Hitlerize the effort--that is, take over the whole thing himself. German generals chafed at the prospect of having to deal with a mere World War I corporal in the deepest planning of World War II's multi-continental warfare; they knew he had no idea about tactics and pretty much shot from the hip, wielded with his gigantic temper. (It's a major reason they tried to kill him, too.) Unquestionably, 45 would act in a similar sense, without even the slightest notion about what serving in the military is like. Functionally, we would be guided into nowhere with someone knowing nothing.
That would get a lot of us killed. It would get us genuinely defeated. That is why we cannot possibly let this next electoral opportunity be a failure. The future of the country is genuinely at stake. Now isn't the time to let that go beyond other conversations. It's of the essence, impeachment or not.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment