President Trump’s decision to send as many as 15,000 troops to the southern border has drawn sharp and unusual criticism from former military leaders, who have called the deployment “wasteful” and raised worries that the president might be using the military as a political tool to influence the midterm elections just days away.
“The military has all of a sudden been placed in a highly politicized environment regarding immigration,” retired Lt. Gen. David Barno, who commanded U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said of the surge of troops to the border.
The blunt criticism of the mission to block what Trump contends is a threatening caravan of migrants encouraged by Democrats reflects the strain that his unusual presidency has put on one of America’s most important norms: the tradition of an apolitical military.
Other presidents have deployed forces to the border. But the timing of this deployment and the questionable need for it, with the caravan at least a month away from the border with Mexico and diminishing in size, have led many former military officers to deliver their harshest criticisms yet of Trump.
It has also put Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, who has worked to keep the military out of politics, in a tough spot. Asked this week if the deployment was a “political stunt,” the former Marine general bristled, “We don’t do political stunts.”
The president has cast the caravan as containing potential terrorists and other “tough” men who would particularly pose a threat to women — who are among the most sought-after voters in Tuesday’s election. In fact, women and children are commonplace among the caravaners, who have said they intend to seek legal asylum in the United States.
President Trump told reporters in the White House on Thursday that the caravan of migrants in southern Mexico represented an “invasion.” (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)
In a tweet Thursday, retired Gen. Martin Dempsey, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the border operation a “wasteful deployment of over-stretched Soldiers and Marines.”
Dempsey’s tweet echoed the opinion of several other senior military officers who weighed in on social media or in interviews.
“I see no threat requiring this kind of deployment,” retired Gen. Colin Powell, also a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told The Washington Post.
Retired Lt. Gen. Jim Dubik, who oversaw the effort to build the Iraqi army and police, said that Trump’s description of the migrant caravan as an “invasion” was wrong. “A sizable portion of those coming are women and children,” he said.
The public criticism from former military officials raised questions about why the president had decided to dispatch such a large force on such short notice days before a critical election.
“The real issue is whether the military is being used for partisan political purposes,” said Dubik, a senior fellow with the Institute for the Study of War. “If that’s the case, then I think such a use represents not just a wasteful deployment but a dangerous one. It’s dangerous because it will politicize the use of force in ways a democracy should avoid.”
Retired Col. Paul Yingling, who commanded U.S. troops in Iraq, was more blunt.
“This operation is a political stunt,” he wrote for the military publication Task & Purpose.
More than any other president in recent decades, Trump has spoken of the military as if it were part of his political base, rather than an apolitical defender of the nation. He placed several retired generals in his cabinet. In speeches before military audiences, at which presidents usually steer clear of politics and focus on foreign policy or praise troops for their sacrifice, Trump has bragged to the troops about the size of his electoral win.
Trump made Mattis’s job more difficult Thursday when, after a White House speech on immigration, he said that U.S. troops should be authorized to open fire on unarmed migrants if they appear to pose a threat. “When they throw rocks like they did at the Mexico military and police, I say consider it a rifle,” Trump said. His remarks drew a torrent of criticism from former military officials.
Dempsey said the troops would ignore the order. In a tweet, retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who commanded the 1st Armored Division in Iraq, called it “unlawful.”
- excerpt from article by Greg Jaffe and Dan Lamothe
My take: Might be using the military as a political tool? Don't make me laugh, IS using the military and it's so obviously and embarrassingly crystal clear of course. In that picture you see at the top of this post are troops being politically used wasting our tax dollars for a political stunt to drum up support for Republicans and himself, not protection for all Americans but support for one political party. This boorish moron in the White House will spare no expense and no principle to defend HIMSELF politically. It's all about him winning at everything where ethics and principle have zero value, ZERO value. The big ME must win. The big something.
No comments :
Post a Comment