Do you care about our military and national security?

[Dill]

(06-11-2020, 10:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: i wouldn't be so sure that hey all held him back. Trump is not the one to be held back, also many republican advisors don't strike me as people that would do so by all means. I honestly don't see Trump as a drudgingly caged war hawk.

Also, on those list are quite some Dabblejuh appointees, and I'd be unsure if they were as restrained if they had the same power as Trump.
Also, only expressing commen opinions is boring.

 Guess I'll follow up Benton's post #5 and Fred's #13.

Who does one "trust" more--competent generals and admirals, or someone who knows little of war, diplomacy and history--but threatens to rain fire down on NK? "But he didn't" is hardly a good response, given the power even of a president's tweets to unsettle existing diplomatic relations and set conflict in motion.

Aside from their own testimony, one reason why I am VERY SURE those who served under Trump held him back is because from the very beginning it was clear that Trump was ignorant, incompetent and erratic. He could not well gauge the consequences of his actions, especially military. Yet he was not at all risk averse.  And so he tossed out the Iran Deal, ramped up US presence in the Persian Gulf, and backed himself into a corner, twice bringing us to the brink of war, a point where a singe errant ship, plane or drone could have triggered a bloody regional conflict.

Speaking directly to the president of Taiwan, insulting the president of Mexico, canceling military exercises as a favor to NK, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem--all exciting to his base, breaking rules, not "weak" like Obama, but also all impulsive actions that would channel officers out of whichever corps very quickly, qualities NOT looked for in a C-in-C, not valued by people who DO see the short and long-term consequences of military action. Not in the interest of US national security.

Fred mentioned Trump's needless breaking of the Iran Deal. Benton cited the high risk assassination of Suleiman. I might add the withdrawal from the Turkish border which cost the lives of hundreds of US allies--none of this made the ME safer. So far as I am aware, no one on Fred's list approved of any of these actions, or would have initiated such like if president.

Last point for the moment--recall Trump's public disrespect of his own intel services in favor of Putin--on an international stage no less. Recall also his cavalier handing of classified intel and security clearances, not to mention his dissing of NATO allies, the US' greatest force enhancer. Disconcertment emanates from the Trump oval office, spreading lack of confidence and confusion about the mission through all branches of the military and intelligence.  How can that be good for national/international security? Who on Fred's list could/would do that to the extent Trump has?

If we are talking about national security, the issue is not simply whether Trump bought more new guns. That security also depends upon diplomacy and the credibility we have with allies, and it depends on morale in the military and our intel services. Trump has damaged these resources like no other president in history.