Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Hande hoche!

Trump will probably be happy with the results out of West Virginia. Patrick Morrisey beat Blankenship.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/west-virginia-primary-gop_us_5ae78058e4b055fd7fced033

josip

I thought that every army in the world actively discourage any questioning of the decision making from above.
So Manic Moran's position, although most of us would not agree with it from a civilian point of view, is not unexpected from a military point of view.

Leroy42

And again, nobody ever seems to stop to ask the question what it is they are actually fighting for.

A country rife with inequalities, lack of healthcare, massive poverty issues. A huge drug problem. Racism. A huge issue with gun violence.

A completely divided nation, growing further apart with every passing year.

Falling educational standards, massive gun deaths, continued blight of suicide, divorce rates, the largest incarceration rates in the western world.

A white house that by its own admission is willing to tell lies once it gets its message out. Political corruption.

But many Americans seem to think that spending money on fighting foreign wars is the answer, despite it continually being proved not to be the case.

I agree with Manic that the US military has seemed to be woefully under-prepared. Whether that is due to the lack of training, the wrong type of training, lack of hardware of simply a lack of military guile brought on by an arrogance that hardware is all you need. So from the 'grunts' POV, better training and hardware will certainly help them in the task they are set.

But getting in people like Mattis will not achieve anything once the guy in charge continues to be of the view that he knows best. It wasn't lack of hardware or training that failed in Iraq or Afghanistan, the US has far more resources that the ISIS fighters. It is a failure to plan, a failure to understand the core aspect of the mission. A failure to understand that in helping the local they are helping themselves.

Even little things like giving citizenship to locals who act as interpreters and spies.

Calina

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're normally, by a decent margin, one of the more thoughtful and intelligent posters on this forum, even if I fundamentally disagree with much of what you say. But wow, have you ever managed to undermine that reputation with this post. "It doesn't matter that the commander-in-chief is mentally unstable; all that matters is that we're suitably equipped to fight the pointless wars he's idiotically dragging us towards."

That's one of the most depressing things I've read on this thread.

Any other way and you have the military deciding policy rather than democratically elected leaders, don't see how that's much better.

The problem is that just carrying out orders is not always a defence.

Leroy42

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I still think that the Russian allegations are spurious, and the dossier a deep state attempt at a coup but they needn’t have worried.

Really? Giving all that has come to light since. Only yesterday we learned that a Russian oligarch paid $500k to Cohen. It can't be for client services as Cohen never mentioned it as part of the 3 clients.

So we have Flynn contacting the Russians during the transition. We have Trump lead a new pro Russia policy on Ukraine at the GOP meeting just after Popadopolous had his secret meetings.

We have Trump Jr admitting that he tried to secure illegally obtained information on HC from the Russian government.

Blowfish

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, life is getting better for us. We have some very capable people in charge of DoD and Dept of the Army, and we are quite happy that some common sense is coming down the pipe. Morale right now is very high.

Do you remember your oath of enlistment?

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.""

Given that your own commander in chief openly shows disdain and ignorance of the Constitution and thus, your own oath, why is morale high?

oscarBravo

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Any other way and you have the military deciding policy rather than democratically elected leaders, don't see how that's much better.

josip wrote: »

I thought that every army in the world actively discourage any questioning of the decision making from above.
So Manic Moran's position, although most of us would not agree with it from a civilian point of view, is not unexpected from a military point of view.

I fully expected the false dichotomy arguments.

I'm not arguing that Manic should refuse to carry out orders, or lead a mutiny, or whatever. I'm just disappointed that he seems more troubled by having to undergo sexual harassment awareness training than by the prospect of a war on the stupidest of pretexts.

Christy42

I think the what individual soldiers fight for is a bit off topic here. The job of the US army is to follow orders. If that is killing in Iran or sitting in on some training course on how to treat people then that is what they are expected to do. Like it or hate it (and I dislike it but then I would never join the us military - the Irish one I could see as I, personally, would have a bit more trust in the orders).

The Iran deal falling through could lead to serious destabilisation across the region. I really hope it can be saved by the rest of the world.

Indeed if it can it would be a serious blow to US power as it shows they can be ignored if necessary to get stuff done. That is a far bigger deal than just the effect on the US military.

kilns

Or who in their right mind would enter the US Army with a guy with a fragile ego in charge
What would fighting Iran in a war do to protecting the US, you are serving the interests of Israel and the Saudis and in turn lining the pockets of the rich power players in the US
As he says himself, SAD

Call Me Jimmy

oscarBravo wrote: »

I fully expected the false dichotomy arguments.

I'm not arguing that Manic should refuse to carry out orders, or lead a mutiny, or whatever. I'm just disappointed that he seems more troubled by having to undergo sexual harassment awareness training than by the prospect of a war on the stupidest of pretexts.

Ah I was responding to the second half of the post, missed the sexual harrassment part.

"It doesn't matter that the commander-in-chief is mentally unstable; all that matters is that we're suitably equipped to fight the pointless wars he's idiotically dragging us towards."

That's one of the most depressing things I've read on this thread.

I though you found it depressing that the military does what it's democratically elected leaders tell them to, my bad.

Professor Moriarty

Christy42 wrote: »

I think the what individual soldiers fight for is a bit off topic here. The job of the US army is to follow orders. If that is killing in Iran or sitting in on some training course on how to treat people then that is what they are expected to do. Like it or hate it (and I dislike it but then I would never join the us military - the Irish one I could see as I, personally, would have a bit more trust in the orders).

The Iran deal falling through could lead to serious destabilisation across the region. I really hope it can be saved by the rest of the world.

Indeed if it can it would be a serious blow to US power as it shows they can be ignored if necessary to get stuff done. That is a far bigger deal than just the effect on the US military.

The US won't be invading Iran. For all The Donald's idiotic and narcissistic posturing, the generals wouldn't stomach it. Iran is a large country with a large and well-equipped army. The US might be a bully but it isn't as stupid as its commander in chief.

Professor Moriarty

kilns wrote: »

Or who in their right mind would enter the US Army with a guy with a fragile ego in charge
What would fighting Iran in a war do to protecting the US, you are serving the interests of Israel and the Saudis and in turn lining the pockets of the rich power players in the US
As he says himself, SAD

Exactly.

kilns

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

I think the what individual soldiers fight for is a bit off topic here. The job of the US army is to follow orders. If that is killing in Iran or sitting in on some training course on how to treat people then that is what they are expected to do. Like it or hate it (and I dislike it but then I would never join the us military - the Irish one I could see as I, personally, would have a bit more trust in the orders).

The Iran deal falling through could lead to serious destabilisation across the region. I really hope it can be saved by the rest of the world.

Indeed if it can it would be a serious blow to US power as it shows they can be ignored if necessary to get stuff done. That is a far bigger deal than just the effect on the US military.

The US won't be invading Iran. For all The Donald's idiotic and narcissistic posturing, the generals wouldn't stomach it. Iran is a large country with a large and well-equipped army. The US might be a bully but it isn't as stupid as its commander in chief.

If Bolton gets his way they will, not too long before he took up his new role he gave a speech in front of thousands calling for Americans to march on Tehran and take out the Govt that is currently there

Christy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

I think the what individual soldiers fight for is a bit off topic here. The job of the US army is to follow orders. If that is killing in Iran or sitting in on some training course on how to treat people then that is what they are expected to do. Like it or hate it (and I dislike it but then I would never join the us military - the Irish one I could see as I, personally, would have a bit more trust in the orders).

The Iran deal falling through could lead to serious destabilisation across the region. I really hope it can be saved by the rest of the world.

Indeed if it can it would be a serious blow to US power as it shows they can be ignored if necessary to get stuff done. That is a far bigger deal than just the effect on the US military.

The US won't be invading Iran. For all The Donald's idiotic and narcissistic posturing, the generals wouldn't stomach it. Iran is a large country with a large and well-equipped army. The US might be a bully but it isn't as stupid as its commander in chief.

It was more an example.

However if the Iran deal falls through what will the US do? They don't have a plan to negotiate so Iran will go back to building the bomb and they will eventually succeed. It would be tantamount to giving them nukes if the don't invade or get a new deal quickly.

I do believe the rest of the world will save the deal however and as such the scenario would be unlikely to unfold.

Professor Moriarty

Christy42 wrote: »

It was more an example.

However if the Iran deal falls through what will the US do? They don't have a plan to negotiate so Iran will go back to building the bomb and they will eventually succeed. It would be tantamount to giving them nukes if the don't invade or get a new deal quickly.

I do believe the rest of the world will save the deal however and as such the scenario would be unlikely to unfold.

The Donald is playing to his audience in Israel and Saudi. There is a danger in that his stupidity might embolden Israel to poke Iran further but I think the eventual outcome is that the US will be side lined yet again in terms of global influence. Remember, he is also threatening any countries who continue to do business with Iran.

How much he is pissing off European and other allies (Iran, NAFTA, Paris Accord etc.) shouldn't be underestimated. All it does is to push the EU and China (and Russia/India in the long term) closer together as they find common ground on a variety of global issues.

Professor Moriarty

kilns wrote: »

If Bolton gets his way they will, not too long before he took up his new role he gave a speech in front of thousands calling for Americans to march on Tehran and take out the Govt that is currently there

Bolton is a lunatic but I can't see the US taking on Iran. Streams of body bags arriving on US runways won't be tolerated by the US public.

looksee

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Bolton is a lunatic but I can't see the US taking on Iran. Streams of body bags arriving on US runways won't be tolerated by the US public.

Its very easy to see the 'fake news' speeches and the 'America is Winning' tweets though. And the sentimental guff about 'our wonderful troops' and how everyone should be so grateful for their sacrifice.

Edit - on the subject of tweets, I wonder who wrote his last three? They are literate and almost convincing.

Professor Moriarty

looksee wrote: »

Its very easy to see the 'fake news' speeches and the 'America is Winning' tweets though. And the sentimental guff about 'our wonderful troops' and how everyone should be so grateful for their sacrifice.

I'm sure they'd try that. But the grieving widows, children and mothers paint a powerful picture.

jobbridge4life

Manic Moran wrote: »

We don't think very much about it. Whether it's a war that the US gets itself into by bumbling about, or one which comes to us without anything we did, our job is to fight and win. The reason behind it becomes rather irrelevant once the shooting has started. The problem is that we have generally lost this focus. When we lost the Strong Europe Tank Challenge to Austria last year, comments were along the lines of "The contest was rigged: Austrian tankers don't have to do quarterly Sexual Harassment Training and it wasn't evaluated in the competition!"

Compare the CVs of the current SecDef and SecArmy with those of the previous administration. We currently have the hugely popular St Mattis of Quantico, well respected by all and who unashamedly is of the opinion that if it doesn't help us fight better, we shouldn't be doing it, and Dr Esper is a West-Pointer with 21 years in Army Green. Their predecessors were a theoretical physicist and a career politician.

The upshot of it is that we now believe we have people running the show who actually understands what the military is supposed to be doing. We started doing (metaphorical) cartwheels of joy when we started hearing our leaders say things like this

This isn't a big geopolitical strategy issue like you're presumably concerned about. This is 'keeping the military functioning and effective'. In 2015, Ft Leavenworth concluded that we were mandated to conduct 20 months' worth of training every year. The result, a whole lot of BS training which nobody is interested in, and a mandated integrity problem when it became acceptable for leaders to lie about training having been conducted. It is murderous for morale. We did not join the Army to sit in front of a computer to repeatedly be told not to share a password.

These changes have already started coming down the pipe. I am currently the Operations Officer of my unit, it's my job to come up with the training schedule. This last weekend alone, we shaved three hours, which we gleefully spent at the range instead. It also helped that for the first time in years, we had more ammunition than we needed, which allowed for additional trigger time, though that may just have been a lucky break at the ammo point.

So, yes. We are well aware of the characteristics of the President, and the proclivities of his new National Security Advisor. What is more important to us, though, is that we actually get the focus back to training to fight, supplied with time, dollars and equipment. Mattis has said we have need to regain the art of warfighting, and he is not wrong. Our next war may come in this administration, or it may come in the next one. Either way, if the leadership we have under the Trump administration continues on the course they have both claimed and demonstrated to date, we are going to be better prepared for it.

That is a very disturbing post.

Sexual violence within the US military is a major, real problem. 32% of female members have experienced assault, a multiple of that sexual harrasment. A DoD study indicated that over half of those who report sexual violence face retaliation. The idea that sexual violence doesn't impact on unit cohesion and military readiness and effectiveness is rather hard to give credence to.

As to the idea that the motivation or origins of the war don't have an impact on soldiers... I think a few Vietnam veterans might disagree.

blackwave

Further to the whole Russian oligarch paying a Cohen company money. It appears that AT&T also paid Cohen's company $200k for insights into the Trump administration ahead of their proposed merger with Time Warner. The drug manufacturer Novartis also paid Cohen's company cash as well and following these payments Trump met with their incoming CEO earlier this year.

The way the things are going given the amount of dodgy payments linked to Cohen I would be extremely surprised if he doesn't flip as he is in so deep now.

Source below but plenty of other websites are running with this too.

https://www.ft.com/content/00fb6f36-5317-11e8-b3ee-41e0209208ec

Leroy42

blackwave wrote: »

Further to the whole Russian oligarch paying a Cohen company money. It appears that AT&T also paid Cohen's company $200k for insights into the Trump administration ahead of their proposed merger with Time Warner. The drug manufacturer Novartis also paid Cohen's company cash as well and following these payments Trump met with their incoming CEO earlier this year.

I guess it takes money to drain a swamp!

markodaly

Akrasia wrote: »

You can train with purpose. If your purpose is to protect lives your training is worthwhile. If your purpose is to execute your orders effectively and kill who you're told to kill you're on the same level as the SS.

Oh FFS, always with the hysteria.

Professor Moriarty

blackwave wrote: »

Further to the whole Russian oligarch paying a Cohen company money. It appears that AT&T also paid Cohen's company $200k for insights into the Trump administration ahead of their proposed merger with Time Warner. The drug manufacturer Novartis also paid Cohen's company cash as well and following these payments Trump met with their incoming CEO earlier this year.

The way the things are going given the amount of dodgy payments linked to Cohen I would be extremely surprised if he doesn't flip as he is in so deep now.

Source below but plenty of other websites are running with this too.

https://www.ft.com/content/00fb6f36-5317-11e8-b3ee-41e0209208ec

An associate of The Donald received undeclared payments from corporations anxious to gain favour with The Donald? That's a scurrilous lie. More fake news. Impossible. The Donald isn't like that.

Oafley Jones

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Bolton is a lunatic but I can't see the US taking on Iran. Streams of body bags arriving on US runways won't be tolerated by the US public.

Remember the Bush administration banned coverage of returning coffins from Iraq. I've seen a few poster mention the size of Iran's army, honestly that's nothing compared to the fact that Iranians are by and large a unified population with extremely strong sense of national identity. Iran would make Iraq look like cakewalk.

I'm also fascinated by Manic's indifference to the mental stability/competence of his CIC. Would he be so blasé and willing to follow if his CO in the field demonstrated the same traits?

markodaly

As an aside, I do not think there will be any war with Iran. Trumps base is more about isolationism than foreign military adventures. People are forgetting that. After it, it is his base that will have to go out a fight. So unless Iran does some kind of Perl Harbour attack, there will be no war there.

People are seeing the pull out of the deal as a first step to war, its not, its just another step towards isolationism.

And even if it did come to war, the US military would destroy Iran's military capability in as little as 4 weeks, with minimal casualties if it wanted to.

Professor Moriarty

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Remember the Bush administration banned coverage of returning coffins from Iraq. I've seen a few poster mention the size of Iran's army, honestly that's nothing compared to the fact that Iranians are by and large a unified population with extremely strong sense of national identity. Iran would make Iraq look like cakewalk.

I'm also fascinated by Manic's indifference to the mental stability/competence of his CIC. Would he be so blasé and willing to follow if his CO in the field demonstrated the same traits?

Agreed. The Iranian allegiance to religion, culture and country borders on the fanatical.

Certainly, if I were in the US army, I'd be very concerned about The Donald's erratic behaviour. However, TBF, Manic did emphasise that he was speaking from a military perspective only.

Professor Moriarty

markodaly wrote: »

As an aside, I do not think there will be any war with Iran. Trumps base is more about isolationism than foreign military adventures. People are forgetting that. After it, it is his base that will have to go out a fight. So unless Iran does some kind of Perl Harbour attack, there will be no war there.

People are seeing the pull out of the deal as a first step to war, its not, its just another step towards isolationism.

And even if it did come to war, the US military would destroy Iran's military capability in as little as 4 weeks, with minimal casualties if it wanted to.

I agree with the first part of your post - it's a good point. However, Iran's size and military capability, allied to their faith and nationalism, means that unless the US were to nuke them (ironically), the US would be bogged down in a war much worse than Vietnam.

Call Me Jimmy

Does anyone here who is well-informed think it was a good deal in the first place?

Is Trump emboldened by the change in North Korea?

Hurrache

Here's a link to the State departments briefing and discussion with journalists. It's satire I think
https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/05/281959.htm

QUESTION: So wait, just – so the United States has basically no economic relationships right now with the Iranians, right? So there is no power of U.S. sanctions to prevent – in preventing U.S. economic activity. The only power that U.S. sanctions have is in preventing European and other economic activity, right?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Secondary sanctions.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: The secondary sanctions, correct.

QUESTION: Why get out of the deal until you know for sure that Europe is going to go along with that secondary sanction activity or whether you’re – they’ll fight you? Because if they fight you, you’re going to be in a worse situation vis-a-vis Iran than you are now and than you are previously, right? So you don’t actually know – you’re saying that the President’s going to start this global coalition, but you don’t actually know whether even your closest allies are going to be part of that coalition, right?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: The President made clear on January 12th that he was giving a certain number of months to try to – for – try to get a supplemental agreement with the E3. We didn’t get there. We got close. We made a – we had movement, a ton of good progress, which will not be wasted, but we didn’t get there. So he was clear January 12th that if we don’t get this supplemental, he’s withdrawing the United States from the JCPOA, and that’s what he did. That being said, you could even see that President Macron tweeted only a few minutes after the President finished his statement that France is eager to be part of an effort – I forget the exact words, but part of an effort on a broader deal that addresses the nuclear file but also --
..........
....

QUESTION: But, I mean, they tell us that they want to stay in the deal as is. And so again, it’s all – this is all sort of fairly surprising that you guys are doing something so dramatic that affects your closest allies in a dramatic way. They see this deal as essential to their national security and you have no Plan B, you have no idea whether they will stay in the deal, whether they will defend the deal, whether they will fight you on the deal, whether they are going to go off with Iran against you.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I mean, I think we have some idea because the President and President Macron, when he was here for the state visit, talked in their press availability about – President Macron called it a four-pillar new deal. What he tweeted today seemed to me – I think there were four pillars in what he tweeted today – seemed to me, again, to echo his desire for a broad new four-pillar deal.

QUESTION: But one of the pillars was keeping the JCPOA, which he made certain to emphasize repeatedly.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Right, but he tweeted today something that seemed to indicate to me a French willingness to work with us.

QUESTION: So you guys have a positive tweet out of it. That’s amazing.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Well, as a heuristic of the French Government’s attitude, yeah, I think that’s fair.

QUESTION: A senior European diplomat who has been dealing with these talks described dealing with State today as the deafening sound of U.S. diplomats running for cover, unable to explain to allies and partners why this is happening, still less what happens next. So it doesn’t seem like you guys are nearly on the same page.

amandstu

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I agree with the first part of your post - it's a good point. However, Iran's size and military capability, allied to their faith and nationalism, means that unless the US were to nuke them (ironically), the US would be bogged down in a war much worse than Vietnam.

I also was wondering if American isolationism is the/an underlying motive for these "policies" ,but that is pie in the sky and the logic of these clumsy interventions built around the ego of a single nasty individual (what would we call that I wonder?) leads to a messier involvement with that damned outside world.

Fortress America ,twinned with Jerusalem and Saudi now?