Top Military Officers Unload on Trump

[icanhelp1]

Having never served or been near a battlefield, several of the generals said, Trump exhibits a simplistic, badly outdated notion of soldiers as supremely “tough”—hard men asked to perform hard and sometimes ugly jobs. He also buys into a severely outdated concept of leadership.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.

One general's opinion, and because his opinion is negative towards Trump you believe it as gospel. Trump loves our military, that why he wants our troops back home. You should try to be a little more objective with your research.

 

[icanhelp1]

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 .

Wrong on both counts! When you take the oath it's to uphold the constitution, not direct foreign policy. "For his own benefit" is a house democratic ( Schiff, Nadler ) falsehood.

 

[YDB95]

Wrong on both counts! When you take the oath it's to uphold the constitution, not direct foreign policy.

Domroger didn't say anything about directing foreign policy. And yes, the oath is to uphold the Constitution. Not the president. The Constitution.

"For his own benefit" is a house democratic ( Schiff, Nadler ) falsehood.

So trying to blackmail Zelensky into looking for dirt on Hunter Biden (when there was no reason to think any existed) wasn't for Trump's own benefit? I guess that argument could be made in the sense that several of the other Democratic candidates would make a more formidable opponent than Joe "I can't tell the difference between personal friendships and bipartisanship" Biden, but I'm quite certain that's not how Trump saw it.

 

[domroger]

Wrong on both counts! When you take the oath it's to uphold the constitution, not direct foreign policy. "For his own benefit" is a house democratic ( Schiff, Nadler ) falsehood.

You are deluded and unable to follow the testimony of witnesses if you believe Trump did nothing wrong .
Vindman did what any citizen should do if he thought something was wrong in the course of his duties ,and reported the facts up the line .
As an ex serviceman I found it repugnant that he was attacked for doing his duty .

 

[Dumpington]

domroger writes: "As an ex serviceman I found it repugnant that he was attacked for doing his duty."

If ONLY ex-servicemen, veterans, & military personnel voted in American elections, the Democratic Party would have a TOTAL of about two-dozen men & women in the U.S. House of Representatives - and they'd probably have three (or maybe four) U.S. Senators!

The American military votes overwhelmingly conservative! The modern Democratic Party would cease to exist as a serious political unit if membership in the military was a prerogative before being allowed to cast a ballot.

As it now exists, the Democrats have already lost blue collar white America, and the left is currently in the process of losing the Jewish vote and becoming noticeably weaker with black Americans! The Dems are hoping to make up for these losses with the votes of Islamic migrants and illegals from south of the border (which is why that party vehemently OPPOSES passing voter photo-ID laws!)

 

[icanhelp1]

Domroger didn't say anything about directing foreign policy. And yes, the oath is to uphold the Constitution. Not the president. The Constitution.

Vindman leaking to a whistleblower was an attempt to change policy or help direct policy the way he saw fit, not the president's intent. That is way out of his lane. The president is the CinC, his boss. It was a hit job and you know it! This could happen to the dems some day. No way to run a railroad. Vindman should have went to WH counsel first. Vindman had an agenda, we will see.


So trying to blackmail Zelensky into looking for dirt on Hunter Biden (when there was no reason to think any existed) wasn't for Trump's own benefit? I guess that argument could be made in the sense that several of the other Democratic candidates would make a more formidable opponent than Joe "I can't tell the difference between personal friendships and bipartisanship" Biden, but I'm quite certain that's not how Trump saw it.

No blackmail. No Witness intimidation. No obstruction of congress, all talking point that can't be supported by case law in a court setting, pure political drama. Ukraine, Burisma, Hunter Biden and Slochevsky will be investigated and there are initiatives to resume those corruption investigations as we speak. Can you say Chalupa? DNC? We will see what Durham has to say, the LIST ( people not to be investigated ) that Javonovic and Hill testified it doesn't exist along with the black ledger will be exposed and let the chips fall where they may. Hunter ( Burisma ) and Joe were a definite conflict of interest with possible criminal implications, especially if money laundering is discovered.

 

[icanhelp1]

You are deluded and unable to follow the testimony of witnesses if you believe Trump did nothing wrong .
Vindman did what any citizen should do if he thought something was wrong in the course of his duties ,and reported the facts up the line .
As an ex serviceman I found it repugnant that he was attacked for doing his duty .

He did your duty, smear Trump. I don't carry water for Trump, but if Vindman did this exact thing to Obama I would still find Vindman out of line. He wasn't doing his duty he was doing the bidding for a corrupt Ukraine.

I'm an x serviceman and I found what he did by going behind the president's back repugnant and unbecoming an officer. He should have approached the president face to face and aired out his objections and then resign his commission.

 

[SecretSapphic]

There are serious problems with Trump’s action. The most obvious is that it is very much the Navy’s business — and every military’s business — to maintain good order and discipline. In conducting their business, our military services are not and must not be commanded in support of political ends, as Trump was apparently doing.

 

[DawnONight]

D. Mastrangelo, Navy SEAL who shot bin Laden rips Pentagon for 'whiny' response to Trump's Eddie Gallagher move, Washington Examiner, (Nov. 25, 2019).

 

[Spandex_Girl]

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.

I've had a disturbing thought about this.

The reason Trump is pardoning war criminals is very likely that Trump wants the military to know that when he calls upon them to impose martial law in America, they can commit any atrocities they want on American soil as long as they're loyal to Trump.

 

[Jesus_Ateo]

Every single member of Eddie Gallagher's Navy Seal Team testified against him.

Under oath.

So, what does Trump do? He fires the Secretary of the Navy, because the Secretary of the Navy dared to discipline a war criminal.

So, don't ever fucking tell me that Trump supports the military. Trump is SHITTING ALL OVER the U.S. Military.

 

[muycurioso]

just imagine

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.

all the money we could have for any of the pet liberal projects if we stopped babysitting Europe. Seriously, why are we still there? We should being the troops home from just about everywhere.

 

[muycurioso]

deep state CIA FBI ect et

He did your duty, smear Trump. I don't carry water for Trump, but if Vindman did this exact thing to Obama I would still find Vindman out of line. He wasn't doing his duty he was doing the bidding for a corrupt Ukraine.

I'm an x serviceman and I found what he did by going behind the president's back repugnant and unbecoming an officer. He should have approached the president face to face and aired out his objections and then resign his commission.

Now the Democrats seem to worship the CIA, FBI, and the State Dep't. Now that is a FLIP FLOP.

 

[Secretive_Victoria]

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 .

Trump hates the constitution. He's told us so many times through word and deed.

He's called the system of checks and balances mandated in the constitution, "a really bad thing". and insisted that he'd be much happier if he could outlaw peaceful protests, arrest reporters who did stories he didn't like and ignore rulings by federal judges.

In other words, Trump doesn't want to be president, he wants to be dictator.

 

[Articulate_and_Analytical]

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.
'

Just to make sure people don't forget, multiple members of Gallagher's squad testified that they altered the optics on his rifle scope so he would miss targets, because they had seen him snipe civilians.

 

[KeithD]

Now the Democrats seem to worship the CIA, FBI, and the State Dep't. Now that is a FLIP FLOP.

As opposed to worshipping the would-be corrupt/criminal/treasonous king with bamboozled clowns like you? Yep, the contest isn't even close.

 

[Secretive_Victoria]

Trump Would Be Unfit To Hold The Lowest Rank In The Military


With the firing of Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer and the resignation last December of then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, we see career military leaders choosing duty to country and duty to their oath of office over duty to a personality. The reason that any president would be obsessed with pardoning war criminals and dishonoring war heroes (Sen. John McCain, Army Capt. Humayun Khan, Army Sgt. La David Johnson) gets lost in the shuffle. Mental-health professionals such as myself see nothing mysterious. The president telegraphed all of this when, as a candidate, he said that the Geneva Conventions tie the hands of our military.

As a career mental-health officer, I would have been obligated to discharge any soldier who refused to accept our rules of engagement, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Like the commander in chief praising neo-Nazis and white supremacists in Charlottesville (people who would be disqualified from military service for their unconstitutional beliefs), we have, for the first time in U.S. history, someone in charge of the military who would be unfit to hold the lowest rank within the military.

Steve Nolan, Newtown, Pa.

The writer is retired as a major from
the U.S. Air Force.

 

[icanhelp1]

Trump Would Be Unfit To Hold The Lowest Rank In The Military


With the firing of Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer and the resignation last December of then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, we see career military leaders choosing duty to country and duty to their oath of office over duty to a personality. The reason that any president would be obsessed with pardoning war criminals and dishonoring war heroes (Sen. John McCain, Army Capt. Humayun Khan, Army Sgt. La David Johnson) gets lost in the shuffle. Mental-health professionals such as myself see nothing mysterious. The president telegraphed all of this when, as a candidate, he said that the Geneva Conventions tie the hands of our military.

As a career mental-health officer, I would have been obligated to discharge any soldier who refused to accept our rules of engagement, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Like the commander in chief praising neo-Nazis and white supremacists in Charlottesville (people who would be disqualified from military service for their unconstitutional beliefs), we have, for the first time in U.S. history, someone in charge of the military who would be unfit to hold the lowest rank within the military.

Steve Nolan, Newtown, Pa.

The writer is retired as a major from
the U.S. Air Force.

The minute your source brings up "praising neo naziz and White supremacist" he instantly becomes a non-credible source. If he's a Mental Health officer I question his cerebral capacity to objectively evaluate information accurately. I don't recall any Major having the command authority to discharge anyone. He can give his medical opinion at a Courts Martial hearing but he can't discharge. A military doctor can write up a narrative for a discharge order for medical reasons and then its signed off by the appropriate level command structure after all the administrative process is complete and an order is cut with the appropriate designation code.

Not following normal rules of engagement is a UCMJ issue with a possible medical review for purpose. Charges come first. A commander can isolate the individual (arrest, charge and detain ) and prepare him for a Courts Martial and DUE PROCESS.

 

[phrodeau]

The minute your source brings up "praising neo naziz and White supremacist" he instantly becomes a non-credible source. If he's a Mental Health officer I question his cerebral capacity to objectively evaluate information accurately. I don't recall any Major having the command authority to discharge anyone. He can give his medical opinion at a Courts Martial hearing but he can't discharge. A military doctor can write up a narrative for a discharge order for medical reasons and then its signed off by the appropriate level command structure after all the administrative process is complete and an order is cut with the appropriate designation code.

Not following normal rules of engagement is a UCMJ issue with a possible medical review for purpose. Charges come first. A commander can isolate the individual (arrest, charge and detain ) and prepare him for a Courts Martial and DUE PROCESS.

You are correct up to a point, and that point is Trump. Trump chose to override the UCMJ and due process, and his only apparent reason is that he likes war criminals.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

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.

Huh?, you guys did not fund WW2, FDR signed the lend lease act, which Britain repaid in full in 2005/2006. You don't want to buy the rest, i don't care. Yes the Marshal plan would be about that amount, which was all you put forward to the rebuild in Europe.

"The Marshall Plan aid was mostly used for the purchase of goods from the United States. The European nations had all but exhausted their foreign-exchange reserves during the war, and the Marshall Plan aid represented almost their sole means of importing goods from abroad. At the start of the plan, these imports were mainly much-needed staples such as food and fuel, but later the purchases turned towards reconstruction needs as was originally intended. In the latter years, under pressure from the United States Congress and with the outbreak of the Korean War, an increasing amount of the aid was spent on rebuilding the militaries of Western Europe. Of the some $13 billion allotted by mid-1951, $3.4 billion had been spent on imports of raw materials and semi-manufactured products; $3.2 billion on food, feed, and fertilizer; $1.9 billion on machines, vehicles, and equipment; and $1.6 billion on fuel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

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.

Sorry but the above is so disjointed I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

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

Yes he did, but only for the first two years, which managed to pass the "largest ever tax cut"...chuckles. That is not bad, given it takes time to move legislation. Oh and all the time they wasted on the border wall, and immigration and travel bans. Imagine if that time was not wasted what else might have been passed?

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.

Well if you had put it in those terms originally, I would have agreed, but you didn't, so I called you on it. As stated above I agree.

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 did not start this, Obama did. Yes Trump has done the saber rattling on it, but, the payment increase's started in 2015, prior to Trump even getting elected.

Trump's actions speak louder than words.

They sure do, oh wait, I think you have that backwards?

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.

Yep, I agree there, Obama drew a red line and didn't act. For that I do give Trump credit.

He also pushed crippling sanctions against Iran.

He screwed up there big . Time will prove that, and you can offer any rebuttal you like. I won't be trying to convince you otherwise.

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.

I recall Obama getting caught on an open mike referencing it would be easier to get things done after the election, but what or who he was talking to or about I have no clue, and don't really care. I don't compare Trump to Obama, Clinton, Bush, or Bush or Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, or Kennedy. Seems Trumps supports do though.

When Obama drew a line, Putin and Assad laughed at him.

I suspect they laugh at Trump too. Might have with Obama and Bush Jr too, has nothing to do with what I originally posted.

Trump may be smiling in the presence of Putin but he's slapping the shit out of him behind the scenes.

I don't know about Trump doing the slapping, I saw the legislation came from congress, and I recall Trump dragging his feet on signing some of it.

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

Again see above, I don't care about Obama. I was not even talking about Obama way back when this debate started. I wish you would quit throwing in irrelevant information when you are offering up a rebuttal.

 

[icanhelp1]

Huh?, you guys did not fund WW2, FDR signed the lend lease act, which Britain repaid in full in 2005/2006. You don't want to buy the rest, i don't care. Yes the Marshal plan would be about that amount, which was all you put forward to the rebuild in Europe.

"The Marshall Plan aid was mostly used for the purchase of goods from the United States. The European nations had all but exhausted their foreign-exchange reserves during the war, and the Marshall Plan aid represented almost their sole means of importing goods from abroad. At the start of the plan, these imports were mainly much-needed staples such as food and fuel, but later the purchases turned towards reconstruction needs as was originally intended. In the latter years, under pressure from the United States Congress and with the outbreak of the Korean War, an increasing amount of the aid was spent on rebuilding the militaries of Western Europe. Of the some $13 billion allotted by mid-1951, $3.4 billion had been spent on imports of raw materials and semi-manufactured products; $3.2 billion on food, feed, and fertilizer; $1.9 billion on machines, vehicles, and equipment; and $1.6 billion on fuel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan



Sorry but the above is so disjointed I have no idea what point you are trying to make.





Yes he did, but only for the first two years, which managed to pass the "largest ever tax cut"...chuckles. That is not bad, given it takes time to move legislation. Oh and all the time they wasted on the border wall, and immigration and travel bans. Imagine if that time was not wasted what else might have been passed?



Well if you had put it in those terms originally, I would have agreed, but you didn't, so I called you on it. As stated above I agree.



Trump did not start this, Obama did. Yes Trump has done the saber rattling on it, but, the payment increase's started in 2015, prior to Trump even getting elected.



They sure do, oh wait, I think you have that backwards?




Yep, I agree there, Obama drew a red line and didn't act. For that I do give Trump credit.



He screwed up there big . Time will prove that, and you can offer any rebuttal you like. I won't be trying to convince you otherwise.




I recall Obama getting caught on an open mike referencing it would be easier to get things done after the election, but what or who he was talking to or about I have no clue, and don't really care. I don't compare Trump to Obama, Clinton, Bush, or Bush or Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, or Kennedy. Seems Trumps supports do though.





I suspect they laugh at Trump too. Might have with Obama and Bush Jr too, has nothing to do with what I originally posted.



I don't know about Trump doing the slapping, I saw the legislation came from congress, and I recall Trump dragging his feet on signing some of it.



Again see above, I don't care about Obama. I was not even talking about Obama way back when this debate started. I wish you would quit throwing in irrelevant information when you are offering up a rebuttal.

Yes you do care about Obama, you defend him at every turn! You're a card carrying member of the Trump hater cult. When you learn the definition of funding then maybe we can have an intelligent conversation.

Once again you project your opinion based on biased assumptions, innuendo, hyperbole and at times factually incorrect.

If you don't care then why do you bother.

My information is relevant, it's just over your head!

I hope your google button doesn't fail you!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yes you do care about Obama, you defend him at every turn! You're a card carrying member of the Trump hater cult. When you learn the definition of funding then maybe we can have an intelligent conversation.

Once again you project your opinion based on biased assumptions, innuendo, hyperbole and at times factually incorrect.

If you don't care then why do you bother.

My information is relevant, it's just over your head!

I hope your google button doesn't fail you!

LOL I am a Canadian, I don't like or hate Trump, I don't even know him. I don't like or hate Obama either for that matter.

I do respect Obama though, in fact I also respected Bush jr, Bush Sr ( maybe the most), Reagan, Carter, Ford and Kennedy. I do not respect Trump. That I think is what you see, but assuredly it is not "hate". When Trump was first elected I had hoped to see some change in the lack of bi parasitism in the US, which occured, however it was in the wrong direction.

The fact that you need to describe Trump in an emotional manner, leads one to think you might be a bit fanatical? You cannot seem to distance yourself emotionally from him that is for sure.

Why do I bother, I enjoy the debate, though when someone goes off track, its a bit disheartening.

It also helps fill in the time some days.

The facts are not incorrect, you can chose to believe them or not. That is your choice, and you also have the option of ignoring them or me.

 

[Stephen_Coyle]

Trump Would Be Unfit To Hold The Lowest Rank In The Military


With the firing of Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer and the resignation last December of then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, we see career military leaders choosing duty to country and duty to their oath of office over duty to a personality. The reason that any president would be obsessed with pardoning war criminals and dishonoring war heroes (Sen. John McCain, Army Capt. Humayun Khan, Army Sgt. La David Johnson) gets lost in the shuffle. Mental-health professionals such as myself see nothing mysterious. The president telegraphed all of this when, as a candidate, he said that the Geneva Conventions tie the hands of our military.

As a career mental-health officer, I would have been obligated to discharge any soldier who refused to accept our rules of engagement, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Like the commander in chief praising neo-Nazis and white supremacists in Charlottesville (people who would be disqualified from military service for their unconstitutional beliefs), we have, for the first time in U.S. history, someone in charge of the military who would be unfit to hold the lowest rank within the military.

Steve Nolan, Newtown, Pa.

The writer is retired as a major from
the U.S. Air Force.

"Trump has publicly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has become a major threat to Western Europe with his invasion of Ukraine and muscular threats to the Baltic States and NATO regional military forces. "


"Trump sounds like a 12-year-old — a willful and abusive braggart. He is remarkably ignorant and uneducated about the world that we face and the means we may use to defend ourselves."

"I served in the Armed Forces for 32 years. At retirement, I was a four-star joint-theater commander. In my considered judgment, Trump is unqualified to be the president of the United States and fulfill the role of commander in chief of the 2.2 million men and women of the Armed Forces."


- Barry McCaffrey, Seattle, WA

The writer is a retired four-star general from the U.S. Army

 

[Jesus_Ateo]

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/

It's not just officers, all troops from the lowliest private to the highest general seem to disapprove of Trump. His decisions to withdraw from Syria, his theft of military construction and housing funds to pay for his wall on the U.S. Mexico border, his attacks on veterans and Gold Star families and other horrific decisions has turned much of the U.S. military against Trump.

 

[Dumpington]

KeithD writes: "With Trump, every road leads to serving Vladimir Putin."

If that were true, Keith, don't you think Trump would be trying to help Putin's ally IRAN instead of squeezing that nation's balls with his ever-increasing economic sanctions? I mean, Barack Obama did everything he possibly could to assist the Iranian mullahs, yet for some odd reason the Russians held Obama in complete contempt!

Putin's Russia even dared to meddle in America's 2016 elections, right under Obama's nose, and our weak & incompetent 44th president did NOTHING to stop them! I'm pretty sure that Putin wishes that Barack was STILL in the White House so that his nation could continue interfering in American politics!

If ONLY our U.S. military personnel - and veterans of the U.S. military - were allowed to vote in American elections, the Democratic Party might have up to two-dozen members in the U.S. House of Representatives, with perhaps three of four representatives in the U.S. Senate! It's a VERY GOOD thing for Democrats that non-military people are allowed to vote!