When it comes to electoral politics, I’m generally of the “worse is better” school. For instance, I’m inclined to root for Mrs. Clinton in 2016, for the simple reason that she is a reviled figure across the entire spectrum of the Right and the genuine (anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist) Left. A Hillary Clinton presidency would likely do much to create widespread alienation. However, this article indicates a reason to root for Donald Trump. Alienation between the political class and the military class, and between the enlisted personnel and the officer corps, is almost certainly beneficial to our cause, as is, for example, the alienation between the political class and law enforcement exhibited by the conflict between the NYPD and Mayor DiBlasio. Our victory ultimately depends on the Power Elite losing their legitimacy, and the police and military refusing to come to their rescue.
By Nancy A. Youssef
The plans of the next president are personal to the officers of the Pentagon, who are threatening to retire if The Donald becomes commander-in-chief.
Republican presidential candidate and business mogul Donald Trump has repeatedly vowed to build up the U.S. military if elected president.
But it is not clear he will have the experienced commanders within the ranks to do it.
In the halls of the Pentagon, there is a different plan afoot for the Trump presidency. Here, officers are privately contemplating what they would do should Trump become their commander-in-chief. And more often than not, they proclaim they will leave.
“By 2016 I will have my 20 years in and can get out of here,” one military official said, referring to the amount of time a service member needs to collect retirement pay.
Spend enough time with a service member, and the topic of Trump comes up, always unsolicited. It is far less political than it sounds. Trump’s attack plans for the so-called Islamic State widely known as ISIS—his call to ban Muslims from the United States, his suggestions that cutting off the flow of information through the Internet can protect the homeland—many said, are an affront to the values they vowed to die to defend.
Each one of them took an oath to defend the Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and gives Congress, not just one person, the power to send the nation to war. They also swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”
In other words: The plans of the next president are personal to them.
Some said repeatedly hearing Trump and the other GOP candidates spelling out a plan that is only a more brazen—and perhaps reckless—version of the current strategy was not reassuring. They noted that for all the talk of supporting the troops, Congress has yet to pass an updated Authorization of the Use of the Military Force, which would in effect mark a congressional buy-in to the war effort. That some of the candidates have said they support a new AUMF, but have yet to pass one, was only moderately reassuring, they said.