Top Military Officers Unload on Trump

[SecretSapphic]

I. HE DISDAINS EXPERTISE
Trump has little interest in the details of policy. He makes up his mind about a thing, and those who disagree with him—even those with manifestly more knowledge and experience—are stupid, or slow, or crazy.

As a personal quality, this can be trying; in a president, it is dangerous. Trump rejects the careful process of decision making that has long guided commanders in chief. Disdain for process might be the defining trait of his leadership. Of course, no process can guarantee good decisions—history makes that clear—but eschewing the tools available to a president is choosing ignorance. What Trump’s supporters call “the deep state” is, in the world of national security—hardly a bastion of progressive politics—a vast reservoir of knowledge and global experience that presidents ignore at their peril. The generals spoke nostalgically of the process followed by previous presidents, who solicited advice from field commanders, foreign-service and intelligence officers, and in some cases key allies before reaching decisions about military action. As different as George W. Bush and Barack Obama were in temperament and policy preferences, one general told me, they were remarkably alike in the Situation Room: Both presidents asked hard questions, wanted prevailing views challenged, insisted on a variety of options to consider, and weighed potential outcomes against broader goals. Trump doesn’t do any of that. Despite commanding the most sophisticated intelligence-gathering apparatus in the world, this president prefers to be briefed by Fox News, and then arrives at decisions without input from others.


One prominent example came on December 19, 2018, when Trump announced, via Twitter, that he was ordering all American forces in Syria home.

“We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump presidency,” he tweeted. Later that day he said, “Our boys, our young women, our men, they are all coming back, and they are coming back now.”

This satisfied one of Trump’s campaign promises, and it appealed to the isolationist convictions of his core supporters. Forget the experts, forget the chain of command—they were the people who, after all, had kept American forces engaged in that part of the world for 15 bloody years without noticeably improving things. Enough was enough.

At that moment, however, American troops were in the final stages of crushing the Islamic State, which, contrary to Trump’s assertion, was collapsing but had not yet been defeated. Its brutal caliphate, which had briefly stretched from eastern Iraq to western Syria, had been painstakingly dismantled over the previous five years by an American-led global coalition, which was close to finishing the job. Now they were to stop and come home?

Here, several of the generals felt, was a textbook example of ill-informed decision making. The downsides of a withdrawal were obvious: It would create a power vacuum that would effectively cede the fractured Syrian state to Russia and Iran; it would abandon America’s local allies to an uncertain fate; and it would encourage a diminished ISIS to keep fighting. The decision—which prompted the immediate resignations of the secretary of defense, General James Mattis, and the U.S. special envoy to the mission, Brett McGurk—blindsided not only Congress and America’s allies but the person charged with actually waging the war, General Joseph Votel, the commander of U.S. Central Command. He had not been consulted.


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/11/military-officers-trump/598360/

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

God you hate it, don't you.

Well that's what happens when you lose; when you're a loser.

But that's okay, because feeling the pain and the hurt means you're not completely dead.

What you need to keep on doing is mounting this stiff resistance.

You need to make sure that the Russians don't interfere next time, that all the Trumpkins (myself included, I suppose) don't collude with the Russians, and that there is no quid pro quo paid for in Russian rubles. And definitely whatever else you do, impeach the President. And fill up the media with all of these themes from now until the election.

That way, for sure you will get the result that your brilliant genius marketing and strategic planning is certainly guaranteeing with the power of science. God you're brilliant. I'm so impressed.

 

[Schlank]

I. HE DISDAINS EXPERTISE
Trump has little interest in the details of policy. He makes up his mind about a thing, and those who disagree with him—even those with manifestly more knowledge and experience—are stupid, or slow, or crazy.

As a personal quality, this can be trying; in a president, it is dangerous. Trump rejects the careful process of decision making that has long guided commanders in chief. Disdain for process might be the defining trait of his leadership. Of course, no process can guarantee good decisions—history makes that clear—but eschewing the tools available to a president is choosing ignorance. What Trump’s supporters call “the deep state” is, in the world of national security—hardly a bastion of progressive politics—a vast reservoir of knowledge and global experience that presidents ignore at their peril. The generals spoke nostalgically of the process followed by previous presidents, who solicited advice from field commanders, foreign-service and intelligence officers, and in some cases key allies before reaching decisions about military action. As different as George W. Bush and Barack Obama were in temperament and policy preferences, one general told me, they were remarkably alike in the Situation Room: Both presidents asked hard questions, wanted prevailing views challenged, insisted on a variety of options to consider, and weighed potential outcomes against broader goals. Trump doesn’t do any of that. Despite commanding the most sophisticated intelligence-gathering apparatus in the world, this president prefers to be briefed by Fox News, and then arrives at decisions without input from others.


One prominent example came on December 19, 2018, when Trump announced, via Twitter, that he was ordering all American forces in Syria home.

“We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump presidency,” he tweeted. Later that day he said, “Our boys, our young women, our men, they are all coming back, and they are coming back now.”

This satisfied one of Trump’s campaign promises, and it appealed to the isolationist convictions of his core supporters. Forget the experts, forget the chain of command—they were the people who, after all, had kept American forces engaged in that part of the world for 15 bloody years without noticeably improving things. Enough was enough.

At that moment, however, American troops were in the final stages of crushing the Islamic State, which, contrary to Trump’s assertion, was collapsing but had not yet been defeated. Its brutal caliphate, which had briefly stretched from eastern Iraq to western Syria, had been painstakingly dismantled over the previous five years by an American-led global coalition, which was close to finishing the job. Now they were to stop and come home?

Here, several of the generals felt, was a textbook example of ill-informed decision making. The downsides of a withdrawal were obvious: It would create a power vacuum that would effectively cede the fractured Syrian state to Russia and Iran; it would abandon America’s local allies to an uncertain fate; and it would encourage a diminished ISIS to keep fighting. The decision—which prompted the immediate resignations of the secretary of defense, General James Mattis, and the U.S. special envoy to the mission, Brett McGurk—blindsided not only Congress and America’s allies but the person charged with actually waging the war, General Joseph Votel, the commander of U.S. Central Command. He had not been consulted.


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/11/military-officers-trump/598360/

Trump is also out there pardoning war criminals, while deporting soldiers that served honorably in the U.S. military.

I can't imagine U.S. military officers are happy about that either.

 

[Leather_Lesbian]

Trump is also out there pardoning war criminals, while deporting soldiers that served honorably in the U.S. military.

I can't imagine U.S. military officers are happy about that either.

They're not.

Former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus expressed horror at President Trump’s decision to pardon and clear three service members accused or convicted of war crimes.

He said that the pardoning war criminals like that completely dishonors the tens of thousands of American service members who are serving their country honorably.

He also called the reassignment of American forces in Northern Syria a 'shameful withdrawal.'

 

[Leather_Lesbian]

Here's something else I guarantee is pissing off America's military officers.

Trump cancelled military operations in the Black Sea, because he was afraid that such operations would offend Vladimir Putin and make it awkward for Russian ships that try to attack Ukrainian ships in the Black Sea.

The US Navy canceled a routine Black Sea patrol after Trump complained that it was hostile to Russia

President Donald Trump called his then-national security adviser John Bolton to complain about a routine US Navy transit in the Black Sea after seeing a CNN report that framed the operation as a counter to Russia.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-canceled-patrol-trump-said-it-was-hostile-russia-2019-11

 

[Ziggins]

The state of permanent war is tremendously profitable for the military-industrial complex, but it is a factor in the growing debt of the nation. Kicking him out of office is the military's fight for the gravy train. An overwhelming victory in next year's election would give him the political capital to cut off more of the military's gravy train.

 

[Ireadforpleasure]

Here's something else I guarantee is pissing off America's military officers.

Trump cancelled military operations in the Black Sea, because he was afraid that such operations would offend Vladimir Putin and make it awkward for Russian ships that try to attack Ukrainian ships in the Black Sea.

The US Navy canceled a routine Black Sea patrol after Trump complained that it was hostile to Russia

President Donald Trump called his then-national security adviser John Bolton to complain about a routine US Navy transit in the Black Sea after seeing a CNN report that framed the operation as a counter to Russia.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-canceled-patrol-trump-said-it-was-hostile-russia-2019-11

Trump is the only American president of my lifetime to have a belligerent attitude towards NATO. Since coming into office, the president has repeatedly maligned the alliance and its members, accusing members of not spending enough on joint defense and suggesting that he’ll pull America out of the multi-nation alliance.

Trump even publicly questioned Article 5, the cornerstone of the alliance which requires NATO nations to come to the defense of a member if that member is attacked.

Trump has repeatedly astounded advisors by suggesting he wishes to withdraw from NATO, which is underpinned by American money and military might.

This would be a huge gift to the Russians, who have long opposed the twenty-nine-nation group.

 

[icanhelp1]

Trump is the only American president of my lifetime to have a belligerent attitude towards NATO. Since coming into office, the president has repeatedly maligned the alliance and its members, accusing members of not spending enough on joint defense and suggesting that he’ll pull America out of the multi-nation alliance.

Trump even publicly questioned Article 5, the cornerstone of the alliance which requires NATO nations to come to the defense of a member if that member is attacked.

Trump has repeatedly astounded advisors by suggesting he wishes to withdraw from NATO, which is underpinned by American money and military might.

This would be a huge gift to the Russians, who have long opposed the twenty-nine-nation group.

Don't you think NATO should pay their fair share. Germany doesn't and it's the wealthiest country in the EU. Do you think Germany making a LNG contract with Russia goes against the spirit of the treaty. Turkey buying Russian missiles goes against NATO and conflicts with the sale of JSF 35s. Trump even questioned article 5. Don't you think questioning things is healthy. Do you want to get into a full on nuclear exchange, for let say, coming to the aid of New Zealand? Do you want the US to always foot the majority of the bill when we're 22 trillion in debt. Do we need the likes of France chastising the US for attempting to get out of the ME? I'm tired of wasting our blood and treasure with countries that don't tow the mark.

 

[icanhelp1]

The state of permanent war is tremendously profitable for the military-industrial complex, but it is a factor in the growing debt of the nation. Kicking him out of office is the military's fight for the gravy train. An overwhelming victory in next year's election would give him the political capital to cut off more of the military's gravy train.

The Military industrial complex is bloated no doubt. The one constitutional responsibility of the President is the protection and wellbeing of its citizens and not free healthcare for illegals or providing free college tuition for everybody.

 

[KeithD]

With Trump, every road leads to serving Vladimir Putin.

The board Trumpettes support him in that effort.

 

[Spandex_Girl]

They're not.

Former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus expressed horror at President Trump’s decision to pardon and clear three service members accused or convicted of war crimes.

He said that the pardoning war criminals like that completely dishonors the tens of thousands of American service members who are serving their country honorably.

He also called the reassignment of American forces in Northern Syria a 'shameful withdrawal.'

It's come to this:

Trump continues to undermine the U.S. Military. Now top military officials have threatened to resign or be fired if their plans to remove Chief Gallagher are blocked by Trump.

 

[allison22]

It looks really bad when the president of the United States pardons war criminals and demeans a highly decorated lieutenant colonel.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...e-updates-n1085171/ncrd1085931#liveBlogHeader

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Trump is hostile to the US military, Intelligence agencies, US citizens and allies but polite as a boy scout to Vlad

 

[spankednaked]

Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is a decorated army officer who has served in America’s armed forces honorably, however the Republicans have attempted to smear his reputation and call his loyalty to the United States into question…...without any evidence to support their accusations of course.

Such smear tactics are revolting and un-American. Vindman has served our country with honor and distinction, both on and off the battlefield. He was awarded a Purple Heart after being wounded in Iraq and has earned many more medals during his more than 20 years of service in the Army.

And he is a patriot — as you would expect from someone with his outstanding résumé.

One can criticize Vindman’s actions or views without smearing him because of his ethnicity or guessing about his politics. People who devote their lives to defending our country — whether on the battlefield in Iraq or the National Security Council at the White House — take their oaths to the United States of America, not to Republicans, Democrats or individual presidents. When we are attacked again, and we will be attacked again, our enemies will not discriminate between pro-Trumpers and Never Trumpers.

Thinking she was attacking the messenger, Fox News television host Laura Ingraham accurately noted that Vindman was acting “apparently against the president’s interest.” This is true. Why? Because Vindman pledged to advance U.S. national interests, not the personal interests of the president. Usually, those interests coincide. Tragically, in this attempted quid pro quo with Ukraine, they did not. Vindman recognized the difference — and he chose to defend the interests of the United States. For this he should not be disparaged or smeared. He should be celebrated as an American hero.

 

[needit700]

just some more

F A K E N E W S!!!

 

[SecretSapphic]

Trump is hostile to the US military, Intelligence agencies, US citizens and allies but polite as a boy scout to Vlad

You got that right.

Here's a classic example of evidence that points us in that direction. Two days ago, Trump pushed Russian propaganda endorsing a conspiracy theory less than twenty-four hours after his former top aide testified under oath that this conspiracy theory was part of a fictional narrative that was CREATED and spread by Russian Security Services!

These false narratives threaten U.S. National Security interests, however, they HELP RUSSIAN INTERESTS!

Kind of makes it clear which side Trump is on.

 

[phrodeau]

Navy Secretary Richard Spenser declared that a tweet wasn’t sufficient to halt the investigation into CPO Gallagher’s conduct. Defense Secretary Mark Esper has asked him to resign.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Don't you think NATO should pay their fair share.

Define fair share?

Currently that is 2% of GDP as defined in a 2014 agreement, which allowed 10 years for countries to creep up to that level. Most are moving towards that.

Germany doesn't and it's the wealthiest country in the EU. Do you think Germany making a LNG contract with Russia goes against the spirit of the treaty.

Germany doesn't yet provide 2% of it's GDP on NATO defence. No I do not think the LHG contract with Russia goes against the NATO agreement, anymore than the US buying flight to space to the ISS from Russia.

Turkey buying Russian missiles goes against NATO and conflicts with the sale of JSF 35s.

Agreed, very problematic, yet the only NATO member with enough clout to solely have gotten Turkey to back down, is too busy capitulating to them.

Trump even questioned article 5. Don't you think questioning things is healthy.

Coming from the ONLY nation to ever receive Article 5 aid!!!

Do you want to get into a full on nuclear exchange, for let say, coming to the aid of New Zealand?

Your fucking right NATO should, otherwise the alliance is useless, and the enemy used to know that, at least till Trump showed up!! Which is why no country would be stupid enough to launch a strike ( prior to Trump), they knew they in turn would be on the receiving end!!!!!

Do you want the US to always foot the majority of the bill when we're 22 trillion in debt.

Read this, it might help explain NATO financing. Don't blame your countries 22 Trillion dollar debt solely on NATO.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_06/20190625_PR2019-069-EN.pdf

 

[icanhelp1]

Define fair share?

2% of GDP which was what was agreed upon.

Currently that is 2% of GDP as defined in a 2014 agreement, which allowed 10 years for countries to creep up to that level. Most are moving towards that.

The U.S. accounts for 51% of NATO's combined GDP and 72%of its combined defense expenditure. The US contributed more funds to NATO than Germany, France, Italy, Spain, UK and Canada combined, just saying.

Germany doesn't yet provide 2% of it's GDP on NATO defence. No I do not think the LHG contract with Russia goes against the NATO agreement, anymore than the US buying flight to space to the ISS from Russia.

Forming a dependency on Russian LNG is a national security issue. Hitching a ride into space is not


Agreed, very problematic, yet the only NATO member with enough clout to solely have gotten Turkey to back down, is too busy capitulating to them.

Wrong again! We were engaged long enough and are trying to disengage from that cluster fuck. We canceled their J35 procurement of a 100 jets and setting up alternative parts suppliers, I don't call that capitulating. Many countries exhibit your attitude and is partly the reason why many american people are suspect as to NATO's commitment to fairness.


Coming from the ONLY nation to ever receive Article 5 aid!!!

The only thing the U.S. did was rebuild Western Europe, provide them a protective umbrella during the cold war and pay most of the bill to keep the UN and nato credible. Save me your article 5 bullshit!

Your fucking right NATO should, otherwise the alliance is useless, and the enemy used to know that, at least till Trump showed up!! Which is why no country would be stupid enough to launch a strike ( prior to Trump), they knew they in turn would be on the receiving end!!!!!

Look up the definition of SARCASM. You need to understand the the principles of a treaty. Trump can't do shit to NATO, about NATO or change any of our obligations to member nations. But he's free to voice his views on fairness and lack of member nations not paying their fair share. By the way, Obama, Bush (W ) also complained about NATO not paying up. Treaties are ratified by congressand can only be changed by congress.

Read this, it might help explain NATO financing. Don't blame your countries 22 Trillion dollar debt solely on NATO.

Why do you make shit up? "SOLELY ON NATO" I never blamed NATO for our 22 trillion in debt, but defense spending does contribute to it. If Sanders gets elected he will do everything in his power to cut defense in half and NATO is going to have to step up to the plate.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_06/20190625_PR2019-069-EN.pdf

I provided you with numbers. NATO is the ultimate alliance for Western civilization but some countries don't take it seriously.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy1975 View Post
Define fair share?

2% of GDP which was what was agreed upon.

Currently that is 2% of GDP as defined in a 2014 agreement, which allowed 10 years for countries to creep up to that level. Most are moving towards that.
________________________________________________________________
The U.S. accounts for 51% of NATO's combined GDP and 72%of its combined defense expenditure. The US contributed more funds to NATO than Germany, France, Italy, Spain, UK and Canada combined, just saying.

See my remarks in agreement below
_________________________________________________________________
Germany doesn't yet provide 2% of it's GDP on NATO defence. No I do not think the LHG contract with Russia goes against the NATO agreement, anymore than the US buying flight to space to the ISS from Russia.

Forming a dependency on Russian LNG is a national security issue. Hitching a ride into space is not

That is your opinion, which differs from mine. It doesn't move from the fact Germany is increasing it's spending on NATO.
_________________________________________________________________
Agreed, very problematic, yet the only NATO member with enough clout to solely have gotten Turkey to back down, is too busy capitulating to them.

Wrong again! We were engaged long enough and are trying to disengage from that cluster fuck. We canceled their J35 procurement of a 100 jets and setting up alternative parts suppliers, I don't call that capitulating. Many countries exhibit your attitude and is partly the reason why many american people are suspect as to NATO's commitment to fairness.

So what are you saying? Stopping a sale is pressure? No, pressure is a political beast, if Turkey can't buy the J 35, I am sure they can figure out a way to get some Migs, at the very least. Again Trump, has no clue, he caved, sold out the US, don't like it, fine, again it is my opinion. ( Just to clarify, this is aimed 100% at Trump, the person with no political experience/diplomatic experience, yet he self claims he knows whats best.)
_________________________________________________________________
Coming from the ONLY nation to ever receive Article 5 aid!!!

The only thing the U.S. did was rebuild Western Europe, provide them a protective umbrella during the cold war and pay most of the bill to keep the UN and nato credible. Save me your article 5 bullshit!

Really? that is your answer? I assume you mean the Marshall Plan, which was 15 Billion, at the time.( Also as a note Britain finished repaying it's war loans from the US for WW2 in 2006 so don't try and throw that in your rebuttal ) Yes the US was instrumental in helping to rebuild Europe, but don't forget the US also benefited from that rebuild through supplying much of the goods and services in the rebuilding of Europe.
_________________________________________________________________
Your fucking right NATO should, otherwise the alliance is useless, and the enemy used to know that, at least till Trump showed up!! Which is why no country would be stupid enough to launch a strike ( prior to Trump), they knew they in turn would be on the receiving end!!!!!


Look up the definition of SARCASM. You need to understand the the principles of a treaty. Trump can't do shit to NATO, about NATO or change any of our obligations to member nations. But he's free to voice his views on fairness and lack of member nations not paying their fair share. By the way, Obama, Bush (W ) also complained about NATO not paying up. Treaties are ratified by congressand can only be changed by congress.

Right now, it seems Trump can do "anything he wants" apparently the body of government that is supposed to keep him in check, can't. So supposed Trump is reelected, and the Republicans gain control over the House and Senate? Trump say's he wants the US out of NATO, congress pass's the law, and voila, your out. So where is the sarcasm in that? That is a very real possibility!!
_________________________________________________________________
Read this, it might help explain NATO financing. Don't blame your countries 22 Trillion dollar debt solely on NATO.



Why do you make shit up? "SOLELY ON NATO" I never blamed NATO for our 22 trillion in debt, but defense spending does contribute to it. If Sanders gets elected he will do everything in his power to cut defense in half and NATO is going to have to step up to the plate.

Where did I make shit up? I posted the NATO spending graph, which shows exactly what you said above, and also shows each countries spending increase's, which is in validation of what the 2014 agreement

Oh I see, you don't like the "solely on Nato". Well I assumed that you were saying your national debt was from NATO. Or was that sarcasm? Next time leave out you're debt, and maybe people won't associate it with your argument.



https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2...019-069-EN.pdf

________________________________________________________________

I provided you with numbers. NATO is the ultimate alliance for Western civilization but some countries don't take it seriously.

Any country who borders/vicinity of Russia takes NATO it seriously. All they need to do is look at Ukraine.

 

[icanhelp1]

Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is a decorated army officer who has served in America’s armed forces honorably, however the Republicans have attempted to smear his reputation and call his loyalty to the United States into question…...without any evidence to support their accusations of course.

Such smear tactics are revolting and un-American. Vindman has served our country with honor and distinction, both on and off the battlefield. He was awarded a Purple Heart after being wounded in Iraq and has earned many more medals during his more than 20 years of service in the Army.

And he is a patriot — as you would expect from someone with his outstanding résumé.

One can criticize Vindman’s actions or views without smearing him because of his ethnicity or guessing about his politics. People who devote their lives to defending our country — whether on the battlefield in Iraq or the National Security Council at the White House — take their oaths to the United States of America, not to Republicans, Democrats or individual presidents. When we are attacked again, and we will be attacked again, our enemies will not discriminate between pro-Trumpers and Never Trumpers.

Thinking she was attacking the messenger, Fox News television host Laura Ingraham accurately noted that Vindman was acting “apparently against the president’s interest.” This is true. Why? Because Vindman pledged to advance U.S. national interests, not the personal interests of the president. Usually, those interests coincide. Tragically, in this attempted quid pro quo with Ukraine, they did not. Vindman recognized the difference — and he chose to defend the interests of the United States. For this he should not be disparaged or smeared. He should be celebrated as an American hero.

First off an Army officer as well as any member of the military is under oath to uphold the constitution of the United States.It is not in his fucking job description to advance national interest. His job while working in the oval office was to advance the wishes of the president. He is not part of the decision making process and not to follow protocol is in direct violation of his oath. The only recourse any soldier has is he/she is not obligated to follow an unlawful order. An officer may be asked his opinion and after that it's 3 bags full SIR!!!The military is not a democracy. If he's found to have violated security protocol he could be brought up on criminal charges by both the DOJ and UCMJ for numerous U.S.C. 18 violations.

 

[domroger]

First off an Army officer as well as any member of the military is under oath to uphold the constitution of the United States.It is not in his fucking job description to advance national interest. His job while working in the oval office was to advance the wishes of the president.

If the president is going against the constitution to benefit himself he's supposed to do nothing ?
When you take the oath it is not to president but to the country .

 

[Articulate_and_Analytical]

Having never served or been near a battlefield, several of the generals said, Trump exhibits a simplistic, badly outdated notion of soldiers as supremely “tough”—hard men asked to perform hard and sometimes ugly jobs. He also buys into a severely outdated concept of leadership. The generals, all of whom have led troops in combat, know better than most that war is hard and ugly, but their understanding of “toughness” goes well beyond the gruff stoicism of a John Wayne movie. Good judgment counts more than toughness.

Retired Brigadier General Don Bolduc said he came up in a military where it was accepted practice for senior leaders to blame their subordinates, lose their temper, pound on desks, and threaten to throw things, and the response to that behavior was “He’s a hard-ass. Right? He’s tough. That is not leadership. You don’t get optimal performance being that way. You get optimal performance by being completely opposite of that.”

Bolduc worries that, under Trump’s command, a return to these antiquated notions of “toughness” will worsen the epidemic of PTSD plaguing soldiers who have served repeated combat tours. Senior military officers have learned much from decades of war—lessons Bolduc said are being discarded by a president whose closest brush with combat has been a movie screen.

 

[SecretSapphic]

Former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus expressed horror at President Trump’s decision to pardon and clear three service members accused or convicted of war crimes.

He said that the pardoning war criminals like that completely dishonors the tens of thousands of American service members who are serving their country honorably.

He also called the reassignment of American forces in Northern Syria a 'shameful withdrawal.'

The problems posed by Trump’s skewed understanding of the military extend beyond bad decision making to the very culture of our armed forces: He apparently doesn’t think American soldiers accused of war crimes should be prosecuted and punished.

In early May, he pardoned former Army Lieutenant Michael Behenna, who had been convicted of murdering an Iraqi prisoner. Two weeks later, he asked the Justice Department to prepare pardon materials for a number of American servicemen and contractors who were charged with murder and desecration of corpses, including Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who stood accused by his own team members of fatally stabbing a teenage ISIS prisoner and shooting unarmed civilians.

Trump subsequently chastised the military attorneys who had prosecuted Gallagher, and directed that medals awarded to them be rescinded. All of the generals agreed that interfering with the military’s efforts to police itself badly undermines command and control. When thousands of young Americans are deployed overseas with heavy weaponry, crimes and atrocities will sometimes occur. Failing to prosecute those who commit them invites behavior that shames everyone in uniform and the nation they serve.

 

[icanhelp1]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy1975 View Post
Define fair share?

2% of GDP which was what was agreed upon.

Currently that is 2% of GDP as defined in a 2014 agreement, which allowed 10 years for countries to creep up to that level. Most are moving towards that.
________________________________________________________________
The U.S. accounts for 51% of NATO's combined GDP and 72%of its combined defense expenditure. The US contributed more funds to NATO than Germany, France, Italy, Spain, UK and Canada combined, just saying.

See my remarks in agreement below
_________________________________________________________________
Germany doesn't yet provide 2% of it's GDP on NATO defence. No I do not think the LHG contract with Russia goes against the NATO agreement, anymore than the US buying flight to space to the ISS from Russia.

Forming a dependency on Russian LNG is a national security issue. Hitching a ride into space is not

That is your opinion, which differs from mine. It doesn't move from the fact Germany is increasing it's spending on NATO.
_________________________________________________________________
Agreed, very problematic, yet the only NATO member with enough clout to solely have gotten Turkey to back down, is too busy capitulating to them.

Wrong again! We were engaged long enough and are trying to disengage from that cluster fuck. We canceled their J35 procurement of a 100 jets and setting up alternative parts suppliers, I don't call that capitulating. Many countries exhibit your attitude and is partly the reason why many american people are suspect as to NATO's commitment to fairness.

So what are you saying? Stopping a sale is pressure? No, pressure is a political beast, if Turkey can't buy the J 35, I am sure they can figure out a way to get some Migs, at the very least. Again Trump, has no clue, he caved, sold out the US, don't like it, fine, again it is my opinion. ( Just to clarify, this is aimed 100% at Trump, the person with no political experience/diplomatic experience, yet he self claims he knows whats best.)
_________________________________________________________________
Coming from the ONLY nation to ever receive Article 5 aid!!!

The only thing the U.S. did was rebuild Western Europe, provide them a protective umbrella during the cold war and pay most of the bill to keep the UN and nato credible. Save me your article 5 bullshit!

Really? that is your answer? I assume you mean the Marshall Plan, which was 15 Billion, at the time.( Also as a note Britain finished repaying it's war loans from the US for WW2 in 2006 so don't try and throw that in your rebuttal ) Yes the US was instrumental in helping to rebuild Europe, but don't forget the US also benefited from that rebuild through supplying much of the goods and services in the rebuilding of Europe.
_________________________________________________________________
Your fucking right NATO should, otherwise the alliance is useless, and the enemy used to know that, at least till Trump showed up!! Which is why no country would be stupid enough to launch a strike ( prior to Trump), they knew they in turn would be on the receiving end!!!!!


Look up the definition of SARCASM. You need to understand the the principles of a treaty. Trump can't do shit to NATO, about NATO or change any of our obligations to member nations. But he's free to voice his views on fairness and lack of member nations not paying their fair share. By the way, Obama, Bush (W ) also complained about NATO not paying up. Treaties are ratified by congressand can only be changed by congress.

Right now, it seems Trump can do "anything he wants" apparently the body of government that is supposed to keep him in check, can't. So supposed Trump is reelected, and the Republicans gain control over the House and Senate? Trump say's he wants the US out of NATO, congress pass's the law, and voila, your out. So where is the sarcasm in that? That is a very real possibility!!
_________________________________________________________________
Read this, it might help explain NATO financing. Don't blame your countries 22 Trillion dollar debt solely on NATO.



Why do you make shit up? "SOLELY ON NATO" I never blamed NATO for our 22 trillion in debt, but defense spending does contribute to it. If Sanders gets elected he will do everything in his power to cut defense in half and NATO is going to have to step up to the plate.

Where did I make shit up? I posted the NATO spending graph, which shows exactly what you said above, and also shows each countries spending increase's, which is in validation of what the 2014 agreement

Oh I see, you don't like the "solely on Nato". Well I assumed that you were saying your national debt was from NATO. Or was that sarcasm? Next time leave out you're debt, and maybe people won't associate it with your argument.



https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2...019-069-EN.pdf

________________________________________________________________



Any country who borders/vicinity of Russia takes NATO it seriously. All they need to do is look at Ukraine.

Well, you really need to brush up on your reading for comprehension. Your argument is assumption based hyperbole, hypothetical and mostly incorrect.

We basically funded WWII and then funded the rebuild, my point is we paid our fair share then and we pay more than our fair share now.

The ERP ( Marshall plan ) was an American initiative and in today's dollars = 110 billion.

It seems Trump can do anything = a baseless hypothetical assumption

What part of { we contribute 71% } of total contribution.

Let them buy migs and SU's, Let them become a Russian satellite, there half way there now and what's Nato done about it. It's always the US's fault. Those parts contracts will hurt. You do understand that we are engaging ISIS again so ORANGE MAN BAD!

Not all Nato countries border Russia. Where's Nato and the EU when it comes to providing lethal military aid to Ukraine which is what they need. Lethal aid = Trump initiative.

Europe has a knack for starting wars and we have to finish them.

Trump had the house and senate, how'd that go. You pretend to understand american politics.

One more time: NEVER SAID NATO WAS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR DEBT! But it is part of the debt problem, any excessive spending becomes a debt problem.

If Trump didn't push countries to own up they'd still be sitting on their ass riding our coatales. Pay-up or get the fuck out.

Trump's actions speak louder than words. When he draws a line in the sand he backs it up. On two occasions he had the courage to engage militarily with Syria for the use of chemical weapons on his own people. He also gave the military the order to defend themselves in Syria and they wiped out 400 + [ RUSSIAN ] mercenaries massing against them. He evicted 60 Russian diplomats ( spies ) from the US. Let me think, OH yah, he's the only one that had the balls to send lethal aid to the Ukraine and to send troops and equipment to Poland as an Umbrella for defense. He gave our military the green light to take off the gloves against ISIS, an Obama creation. He also pushed crippling sanctions against Iran. Wasn't it Obama who had an open mic mishap where he told the president Medvedev of Russia to wait until his re-election where he planned to severely weaken our missile defense systems in europe. When Obama drew a line, Putin and Assad laughed at him. Trump may be smiling in the presence of Putin but he's slapping the shit out of him behind the scenes. Most don't know the facts or are not interested. Can someone please tell me what Obama did? One week the left calls Trump a warmonger the next he's weak.up