Generals
resist actual defense and prefer military foreign aid. See article below.
This is a little lengthy of a
discussion, but it touches upon something very relevant to this election
cycle. Author Diana West discusses a network and pattern of ideology
within the modern pentagon leadership, and how a worldview is threatened by
President Trump. The interview and discussion is below.
The conversation necessarily gets in the
weeds and is filled with unique insight into a very complex alignment. However,
in the big picture it’s not difficult to figure out why the Pentagon would be
opposed to Trump. During the campaign and early administration President
Trump’s expressed foreign policy was viewed by NATO alliance members as a
threat. The same type of perspective applies internally to the U.S. military.
President Trump’s preferred use of
economic warfare makes the Pentagon’s role diminished. Instead of punching
North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, President Trump hits the checkbook of Chinese
Chairman Xi Jinping. The primary has become the contingency. The value of
James Mattis replaced by the effectiveness of Robert Lighthizer. JC
Milley isn’t in the planning room; Milley’s been replaced by Wilbur Ross (until
he’s needed).
In the Trump era the President is
telling the Pentagon where and when to position; and asks them for
‘contingency’ preparation. Decades of Pentagon-centric foreign policy is
lessened by an entirely new geopolitical approach based on economic strategy.
Take away power, or worse yet, stop using military power, and the
leaders within the system start to sense their institution becoming
functionally obsolescent. Overlay this military view upon pre-existing
ideological differences and the situation gets worse.
CTH touched on this last year when we noted how the Pentagon,
specifically the joint chiefs, never took any action when Lt. Col. Alexander
Vindman positioned himself as an opponent to President Trump’s policy
perspective. The pentagon left Vindman on assignment to the NSC even
after Vindman attempted to take-down President Trump.
Another example was Joint Chief Chairman Milley, and the visit
Pompeo and Milley took to Mar-a-Lago in December, where they were informing President
Trump of military strikes in Syria and Iraq *after* they took place. [Background Here] [Background Here].
Yet another related example was Navy Secretary Richard
Spencer threatening President Trump and
attempting to extort him into inaction over the disciplinary plans against the
SEAL commando, Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher.
All of these examples paint a picture of a Pentagon operating
outside the chain-of-command and civilian oversight.
Unfortunately, like all other issues in the era of
hyper-polarization, normally democrats would be alarmed about military
leadership going rogue with their own agenda; however, as long as their agenda
is anti-Trump, the political-left is now okay with it.
Recently democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden was openly
asking the U.S. military to initiate a coup against President Trump. The
media didn’t bat an eyelash… The traditional checks-and-balances, things
that keep us stable, are seriously getting sketchy.
Ms. West takes a deeper look at the internal ideology within the
Pentagon and then notes the tentacles that extend beyond the military into the
Brookings Institute and Lawfare agencies. The larger assembly of
the resistance movement becomes visible.
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment