The country is still mired in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it’s not surprising that Trump would seek military guidance. But Trump’s reliance on military personnel has raised fundamental questions about the role of civilian leadership in the American system.
It also raises serious questions about whether the Pentagon could take steps that start new wars or deepen US involvement in new ones. Mattis effectively has free rein to set troop levels in Afghanistan, the top US commander in Afghanistan dropped the biggest non-atomic bomb ever used in combat without anyone in the White House knowing or signing off, and the US has sharply stepped up its military activities in both Yemen and Somalia. [...]
So it’s fairly common for military people to cross over and work on the civilian side at the highest levels of government. This may be slightly pronounced in the Trump administration, but it’s not that out of step with previous administrations. [...]
If military people are deciding policy, that would be a real concern. But I’m not sure that’s the case. Leave aside the public statements. How many more additional resources have been sent into Iraq or Afghanistan. Have we sent in ten thousand more troops? Have we sent in extra bomber squadrons? Until you start seeing resources moving around, I would say this is mostly a standard approach. Sure, Trump seems adamant about letting his commanders decide what to do on the battlefield, but that too is fairly standard. [...]
What you don't want to see, and I don't think we will see, is people in uniform at political rallies. You don't want to see people in uniform endorsing candidates at all. Nor do we want military officials openly posturing for political positions. It's just not the way we do it. Because, again, this year's candidate can become next year's president or senator or governor or whatever the case may be. You have to be prepared to serve loyally and faithfully, regardless of who is elected.
No comments:
Post a Comment