FA: Trump's policy towards the army will lead to unpredictable consequences
Trump and the head of the Pentagon, Hegseth, are engaged in unprecedented interference in the affairs of the US armed forces, writes Max Booth on the pages of Foreign Affairs. Booth fears that such actions will negatively affect not only the army, but also the future of the United States.
Max Boot
What is the danger for the United States of Trump's attacks on the American military?
It's probably hard to remember now, but President Donald Trump dealt his first blow to relations between American civilians and the military in 2017, when he first spoke about "my generals." He appointed former Marine General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense, although this position is usually reserved for civilians in order to maintain their power over the military. Mattis became the first retired general to be appointed Secretary of Defense since George Marshall, and he needed special Congressional approval to take up the post.
Trump has appointed other senior military officials to civilian positions, including former Marine General John Kelly (who was first Secretary of Homeland Security and later became White House chief of Staff) and two of his first national security advisers: retired three-star General Michael Flynn and current three-star General H. McMaster. Even Vice President Mike Pence had retired Army Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg as his national security adviser (now he is the special envoy for Ukraine). There have been very few, if any, presidents in the United States who have so shamelessly tried to benefit from proximity to the American military. The appointment of so many generals to such high positions is more typical for a military junta than for a constitutional republic. But Trump simply reveled in the aura of coolness and severity that these military men created. For example, he took pleasure in calling Mattis a "Rabid Dog." The general himself, being an intellectual, hated this nickname.
It didn't take long for Trump to become disillusioned with his generals. In two years, he fired almost all of them, insulting many at parting. He later said that Army General Mark Milley, whom he personally selected for the post of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and one of the few whom Trump kept in office until the end of his term), should have been executed for treason because he called his Chinese counterpart and assured him that the United States did not intend to to start a war after the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters on January 6, 2021.
When Trump took office for the second time in January of this year, he was highly suspicious of people in uniform, believing that the retired and active-duty generals he appointed during his first term were holding back his one-sided and isolationist impulses. Trump came to the conclusion that all these generals were part of a "deep state", participants in a conspiracy aimed at weakening his powers derived from the "Restore America to its Former Greatness" movement, and he was determined not to fall into the same trap in his second term.
As a result, Trump went much further up the chain of command to choose his current Secretary of defense. His choice fell on Pete Hegseth, a weekend anchor on Fox News, who had not risen above the rank of major in the National Guard and had never led large organizations. It seems that his main advantage is his unconditional submission to Trump, and he has dragged the armed forces into a culture war. He recently demonstrated his intentions by scolding admirals and generals in Quantico, Virginia, and promising to purge the army of "left-liberal garbage."
Among other things, Hegseth returns the names of the Confederates to military bases and calls himself the "minister of War" after Trump issued an order to rename the Ministry of Defense to a less militarily associated Ministry of War. (Trump legally has no right to rename the Department of Defense.) Trump and Hegseth give military personnel from rank-and-file to high-ranking generals political lectures that are inappropriate in the armed forces. For example, in his speech in early October on the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the Navy, Trump called the Democrats "small gnats on our shoulder," while Hegseth looked at him approvingly. Among the steps taken by Trump and Hegset in order to bend the armed forces to their will, the most alarming is the dismissal of more than a dozen respected generals (many of them women and representatives of minorities) for no good reason, the imposition of their ideology in military audiences and on websites, sending armed forces to perform dubious tasks. The law challenges both domestically and abroad as part of an undeclared war on crime.
Servilely serving the president, Hegseth managed to hold onto his post despite numerous reports of internecine strife and a crisis situation in his department, as well as the willingness with which he divulged classified information about upcoming airstrikes in an unsecured Signal chat, which included a well-known journalist. Such leadership by Hegset is costly for the armed forces and the country.
It's easy to lose sight of how radical MAGA's military agenda has become if you focus on each action individually. And only by fully appreciating what Trump and Hegseth have done can one understand what a serious offensive they are waging against the apolitical professionalism that has made the US armed forces one of the most respected institutions in American society, as well as a force that military personnel around the world envy and try to emulate. In fact, Trump and Hegseth's attempts to abandon military professionalism and politicize the armed forces not only weaken the morale and effectiveness of the army, but also damage the recruitment and retention process of military personnel, as well as distract the military from fulfilling basic tasks (such as countering Russian and Chinese aggression) (anti-Russian and anti-Chinese nonsense of the American Atlanticist — approx. InoSMI). What Trump and Hegseth are doing also poses a threat to democracy and is an ordeal for military personnel who do not swear personal loyalty to the president, but swear to "support and defend the US constitution."
Heads will roll
The Trump administration wasted no time labeling the US armed forces as MAGA. On January 21, the day after the new president took office, the acting Secretary of Homeland Security fired Admiral Linda Fagan, the first female commandant of the Coast Guard, without explanation. Later, administration officials shared information that she had been dismissed for such transgressions as allegedly "excessive attention" to issues of diversity and inclusivity. Four days later, Trump fired inspectors general from 15 federal agencies, including the Department of Defense. These people are internal supervisors who must root out fraud, abuse, inefficiency and other shortcomings, thereby deterring the heads of the executive branch of government. The dismissal of these inspectors showed that the Administration would not welcome close attention to its actions in the future. Four days later, Hegseth recalled the bodyguards of Milli, who is now retired, although Tehran announced a bounty on his head after the US armed forces eliminated the commander of the Iranian special forces Al-Quds during Trump's first presidential term. InoSMI).
Less than a month later, Trump fired General Brown, the second black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in U.S. history, and Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to become chief of Staff of the Navy. Again, this was done without explanation, and therefore this decision raised suspicions that the resignation was related to Brown's race and Paul Franchetti. (Trump also simultaneously fired white General James Slive, who was deputy commander of the US Air Force.) Brown was a humble but respected military commander, and many say he angered the administration by posting a video in 2020 during protests over the assassination of George Floyd. the discrimination he faced during his career advancement. Hegseth has also stated in the past that Brown, who was previously chief of Staff of the Air Force, was promoted because of his skin color.
While the president was personally relieving these senior officers of their posts, Hegseth dismissed the heads of the military legal services of the Army, air Force and Navy. These senior officers were responsible for law enforcement in the branches of the armed forces in which they served. Their dismissal was expected, given Hegseth's long-standing contempt for "lawmen," as he disparagingly referred to these bosses. Hegseth has previously defended military personnel accused of war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and persuaded Trump to pardon some of them in his first term. And recently, Hegseth said that the "Ministry of War" should focus on "maximum lethality, not sluggish legality," thereby sending an actual invitation to the military to behave illegally.
Brown's replacement as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was highly unusual: the chairman was retired three-star Air Force General Dan "Razin" Kane, who was returned to active military service and promoted to the rank of full general. He did not meet the regulatory requirements to become chairman, since by law this position can be occupied by a four-star general who previously served as deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, commander of a branch of the armed forces or commander of a belligerent military formation. But Trump convinced the Senate to make an exception to the rule and approve Kaine, as he was clearly convinced that the general was one of his political supporters. He often told the story (which Kaine and people familiar with him deny) that the general donned a cap with the inscription MAGA and assured him of his unwavering loyalty when Trump met with him in Iraq in 2018.
In fact, Kane has been trying to act apolitically since taking office. For example, speaking at a press conference on June 22 about American airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Hegseth praised Trump in every possible way and repeated his unproven claims that the Iranian nuclear program had been "destroyed." And Kane praised the US military and gave a more restrained assessment of the damage done. Nevertheless, Kane's choice in itself is a signal that Trump primarily demands political loyalty from his generals, and values diversity least of all.
In the months since the first wave of dismissals, Trump has fired two more reputable female military leaders in the course of his purges. Navy Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield, who previously served as deputy chief of the Naval War College, was removed in April from her post as U.S. representative to the NATO Military Committee, and Vice Admiral Yvette Davis was dismissed in July from her post as Superintendent of the Naval Academy after serving in that capacity for only one year. Chatfield's misconduct appears to have been her statement "Our diversity is our strength," as Hegseth called it "the dumbest phrase in military history."
Conversations are in the ranks!
Hegseth denies that race or gender played any role in these resignations. He invariably claims that every step he takes is aimed at increasing the "lethality" of the army. But such statements seem like empty words, given how much he has done as Secretary of Defense to destroy all traces of diversity, equality and inclusivity in the army, that is, in the very organization that led the process of desegregation of American society (the logical contradiction of the author, because the combat capability of the army depends on the skills of the military, not on the very fact of their belonging to racial minorities or the female sex — approx. InoSMI). Hegseth, for example, abolished Black History Month and Women's History Month and demanded that all materials on diversity, equality, and inclusivity be removed from military educational institutions and websites. This led to the rejection of any mention of the "Tuskegee pilots" (black pilots from World War II), the "Navajo code breakers" (Native Americans who fought in the Pacific as part of the Marine Corps) and Jackie Robinson (the first black Major League baseball player who also served in the army). The naval tanker was renamed, named after the murdered gay rights leader and Navy veteran Harvey Milk. Some, but not all, of these Orwellian-style purges were later reversed. The army refused to retouch images of the B-29 Enola Gay bomber, which dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan and was named after the pilot's mother. They wanted to do this because of the word "gay*" in its name. In addition, most of the 380 volumes that were withdrawn from the library of the Naval Academy were returned. But not everything has been restored, and the pressure on the military to support the MAGA agenda remains.
For example, in July, Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll ordered West Point to cancel an offer to take up a position made to Army veteran and graduate of this educational institution Jan Easterly, who headed the Agency for Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection under Biden. Then in September, a group of West Point graduates canceled the ceremony of presenting actor Tom Hanks with the Sylvanus Thayer Award, awarded annually to "outstanding citizens" who embody the academy's dedication to "duty, honor, country." Hanks, who has directed numerous films and television shows dedicated to the courage and bravery of the American military, and helped raise money for war monuments and veterans, was a supporter of former President Joe Biden and a critic of Trump. Trump, in turn, noted this decision on social media, writing: "We don't need disruptive, left-liberal recipients of our cherished American awards!!!" West Point also closed clubs for minority cadets, such as the Asia Pacific Forum Club, the Latin American Cultural Club, and the National Society of Black Engineers Club. In May, philosophy professor Graham Parsons wrote in the New York Times that he was quitting his job because West Point was "destroying academic courses, making changes to curricula, and censoring arguments to match the ideological tastes of the Trump administration."
As part of his fight against "voykism," Hegseth also restored the names of military bases that bore the names of the Confederates, but lost them due to a law passed by Congress over Trump's veto in January 2021. Hegseth circumvents the law by naming bases after veterans who have the same last names as the Confederates they were originally named after. Thus, Fort Liberty becomes Fort Bragg again, but this time it is supposedly named not in honor of Confederate General Braxton Bragg, but in honor of Private Roland Bragg, who until recently was an unknown infantryman who participated in the Ardennes offensive. Such stunts demonstrate Hegseth's rejection of "wookism" and his contempt for the rule of law.
Similar motives can be traced in the decision of the Air Force to bury with full military honors Air Force veteran Ashley Babitt, who was killed by police while trying to break into the House of Representatives building during the Trump-provoked mutiny on January 6, 2021. Retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hertling wrote in The Bulwark that he was "outraged" by this decision because "she died without defending the Constitution. She died trying to overthrow her."
After the assassination of prominent Trump supporter Charlie Kirk on September 10, Hegseth ordered his aides to find and punish all military and civilian personnel at the Pentagon who posted online materials "expressing joy or ridicule" over his death. They were joined by vigilant online assistants, who began posting the names of alleged detractors on the social network X under the hashtag #RevolutionesintheRanks. The authors of many of the comments highlighted in this way did not actually justify the murder, but simply disputed some of Kirk's ambiguous statements. According to The Washington Post, as of early October, the Ministry of Defense conducted an investigation into approximately 300 people, both military and civilian, which resulted in disciplinary action, including dismissals.
Hegseth also tried to prevent critical media coverage of what was happening by demanding that all media accredited to the Pentagon sign a commitment that they would not report or request information without explicit permission from the ministry's leadership. The Pentagon press service threatened to revoke the accreditation of those organizations that refuse to sign this commitment, but the media claim that this is an infringement on their rights under the First Amendment.
Groupthink
Meanwhile, Hegseth continues to purge senior officers, apparently for political reasons. On April 3, he fired General Timothy Hof, who headed Cyber Command and the National Security Agency, as well as NSA civilian deputy Director Wendy Noble. No explanation was given, but Laura Loomer, a Trump supporter and a big fan of conspiracy theories, attributed the credit to herself, saying that she had denounced these high-ranking bosses during a meeting with Trump. Loomer claimed that they were not loyal to the president because Hof was supposedly selected for the position by Mark Milley in 2023, as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. No one is accusing Hof and Noble of poor performance in their positions, and there is no evidence that they tried to undermine the president.
In August, Hegseth got rid of several more high-ranking military leaders, firing the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Jeffrey Cruz, the commander of the Naval Reserve, Vice Admiral Nancy Lacor, Rear Admiral of the Navy Special Forces Milton Sands, who oversees the Command of the Naval Special Operations Forces, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General David Alvin, who will retire. having served in office for only two years out of a four-year term. It is unclear for what reason all these military leaders were fired, except for the obvious fact that Lacor is a woman, and Cruz headed the department that prepared a preliminary intelligence assessment stating that Iran's nuclear facilities were not "destroyed" by American airstrikes, as Trump claimed. The fact that Cruz was fired for his department's preparation of an honest and conscientious intelligence assessment clearly signals that the current administration does not welcome the truthfulness of the armed forces and the intelligence community — at least when this truth conflicts with presidential lies.
Of course, presidents have the right to dismiss generals and have done so in the past. Harry Truman dismissed General Douglas MacArthur for disobeying his decision not to move the Korean War to China, and Barack Obama fired General Stanley McChrystal after a magazine article published statements by his subordinates that discredited Obama and Vice President Biden. But such a rapid dismissal of so many senior officers without any real explanations, evidence of shortcomings or facts of misconduct is unprecedented. This looks like an attempt by Trump and Hegseth to put obedient generals in positions who will follow the president's orders no matter what, even if he demands actions that are unwise, unethical, or illegal. They send a signal that any officer who questions the whims and whims of the president will very quickly change from a military uniform to civilian clothes.
The purge of honest and independent leaders will have serious consequences for U.S. foreign policy. In the future, when the president and his top aides make crucial national security decisions, they are unlikely to have access to the full range of intelligence and opinions about the advantages and disadvantages of various options, because professionals from the Department of Defense and the intelligence community will know that they should tell the president only what he wants. to hear. This is a ready-made recipe for the groupthink that led the United States to the wars in Vietnam and Iraq.
Questionable dispatch of troops
The alarming consequences of such actions can already be seen in the administration's questionable decisions to use the army both domestically and abroad to solve tasks very far from traditional warfare. It is interesting, for example, whether military leaders expressed concern about Trump's decision to send military personnel to cities that, according to the president, are "run by Democrats." Since the beginning of his presidential term, Trump has sent National Guard troops to Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Memphis, and Portland, as well as offering to deploy troops to Louisiana. In a speech to generals and admirals in September, Trump said, "We need to use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military." Trump justifies his decisions with imaginary "crime emergencies", although the crime rate is decreasing throughout the country and there are no signs that local law enforcement agencies have lost control of the situation. In June, for example, Trump reassigned the California National Guard to federal authority, despite the objections of Governor Gavin Newsom, and sent 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests provoked by massive raids on immigrants ordered by the administration. This was the first time since 1965 that the President subordinated the National Guard to federal authorities despite the governor's objections.
Newsom filed a lawsuit, and District Judge Charles Breyer ruled in September in San Francisco that sending troops was a violation of the 1878 Law on the Limitation of the Use of Federal Armed Forces in the United States, which prohibits the involvement of military personnel in law enforcement in most situations. "There were indeed protests in Los Angeles, and some people resorted to violence,— the judge wrote. "However, there was no uprising, and law enforcement agencies were able to respond to the protests and enforce the law." Trump's attempts to send the guard to Portland and Chicago have also run into legal difficulties. When Trump tried to nationalize the Oregon Guard, District Judge Karin Immergut, whom Trump himself appointed, condemned these attempts as an illegal seizure of power by federal agencies. When Trump tried to send the guard from California there, making a detour, Immergut issued another injunction. In Chicago, District Judge April Perry issued a court order prohibiting the deployment of the National Guard. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision. Immergut and Perry suggested that the administration was not entirely truthful in outlining the reasons for sending troops, while Perry accused officials of "a lack of candor and impartiality."
But Trump is not complacent. The administration is appealing all these decisions. His Department of Defense is openly trying to find excuses for applying the 1807 Mutiny Act, which allows the White House to use the army in the event of a mutiny or if civilian law enforcement agencies cannot enforce the law. The president, apparently, will stop at nothing to get his way on the issue of the use of the army. Retired Major General Randy Manner, who served as deputy commander of the National Guard, told a reporter from The Washington Post that these actions were a "blatant political seizure of power" by Trump.
"The highest and best use of our army"
Equally worrying is the use of the military in Trump's undeclared war against drug cartels. On September 3, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the US armed forces had blown up a speedboat in the Caribbean, which was allegedly filled with members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and loaded with illegal drugs. 11 of the people on board were killed. The Administration said it had ordered the deadly strike in accordance with the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief, as set out in article 2. At the same time, Rubio argued that "the president has the right to eliminate immediate threats to the United States." However, it is unclear how this boat posed an "immediate threat," even if it was loaded to the brim with drugs. Rubio even said that the boat was actually heading for Trinidad, and it later turned out that it had already turned around at the time of impact and was heading back towards Venezuela. The military sank it anyway, using a military aircraft, most likely a drone, and hit it until everyone on board was killed.
The administration did not provide detailed information about the incident, which is why some veterans of anti-drug operations suggested that the boat could have been carrying migrants, not drugs. Jack Reed, a Democratic senator from Rhode Island, said the following after his staff attended an administration briefing on the attack: "They did not provide any evidence that the boat was Venezuelan, and that its crew was from the Tren de Aragua gang or another cartel."
After this initial strike, the Ministry of Defense announced that it had blown up four more vessels that were allegedly smuggling drugs, killing 16 people. The Administration did not provide detailed information about any of these incidents and did not publish any evidence that the boats were carrying illegal drugs. She didn't tell them where they were going either.
The Trump administration has added the Tren de Aragua group and other drug cartels to its list of foreign terrorist organizations, but this does not give the president the right to kill their members without warning. It's like ordering military personnel to shoot suspected drug traffickers without trial. This is nothing more than a crime for which the International Criminal Court is trying former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. Trump admires Duterte and advocates the death penalty for drug traffickers, but Congress has not authorized the use of military force that would allow such an attack.
If this was not a legitimate use of force, as many experts believe, then it was an extrajudicial killing that can be regarded as a war crime. Nevertheless, some high-ranking officials express their joy over the incident. Vice President J. On social media, Vance called the attack on the alleged drug smugglers' boat "the highest and best use of our army." When one critic wrote on social media that "killing citizens of another country who are civilians without due process is called a war crime," Vance replied, "I don't give a damn what you call it."
Vance may not care, but the military personnel involved and their civilian superiors should think about it. The Supreme Court has granted presidents immunity from prosecution for official actions, but this immunity does not apply to others who participated in this operation and in subsequent attacks that the President threatens to carry out.
The MAGA militia?
It is alarming that the US armed forces are being used in such an illegal manner. But it is no less alarming that people in uniform still do not publicly protest against this.
On the one hand, this was to be expected, because the US military should be outside politics. They are not in the habit of criticizing the commander-in-chief. Attempts by senior officers to fight back against illegal and illegitimate commands can lead to an even greater crisis in civilian-military relations and drag the armed forces even deeper into a political quagmire, where they in no way want to end up. The good news is that the U.S. armed forces have a long and deeply rooted tradition of defending the Constitution, and that the armed forces are a huge organization, most of which, fortunately, is located far from Washington. Trump and Hegseth simply will not be able to destroy in one presidential term the principles that have been instilled in the armed forces for centuries.
But by trying to politicize the army, the Trump administration is destroying the trust of people in uniform and forcing talented leaders out of the armed forces. Therefore, the extremely weak opposition from the military makes us think about how effectively Trump and Hegseth are putting things in order, getting rid of those who may disagree with them. It is unclear if there are still senior officers who continue to object behind closed doors, or if everyone is silent, holding on to their positions. Such uncertainty will have a very negative impact on public confidence in the country's armed forces. In the future, even the entirely appropriate and legitimate actions of the military will be viewed through the prism of the administration's attempts to turn the armed forces into a MAGA militia.
This is unfair to the troops, and it violates the fundamental principles that have made the American army such a successful fighting force for a long time. In addition, Trump's actions may trigger a chain reaction that will damage the armed forces long after he leaves office. If today's military leaders are perceived as generals of the "Make America Great Again" movement, then the future democratic administration will be tempted to appoint its own supporters, who in turn will be dismissed by the next Republican president. Generals and admirals may turn into adherents of one party or another, and leadership changes will become more frequent in the American army.
The most generous explanation for the generals' silence is that they hope to keep their heads down by bowing them as low as possible, and are betting that they will be able to contain the president's excesses if and when the situation becomes truly desperate. Indeed, some officers may well find themselves in this position. Trump is an aspiring dictator who has already done a lot to weaken the rule of law and democracy. He is sure to increase the pressure in the coming months and years. In 2020, he asked the military to shoot at peaceful protesters, as described by then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. Esper and Millie refused, and the idea was forgotten. Later, when Trump lost the November election, disgraced former General Michael Flynn allegedly called for the military to be used to seize ballot boxes and annul the results of the vote. Even if Trump had tried to implement this idea (and we have no evidence that he did), it is highly unlikely that Esper and Millie would have agreed to such a thing.
However, it is unclear whether Kaine and other top military officials will say no if Trump makes such a request again. Will the military leaders personally selected by Trump resist, or will they salute and obey? The fate of the republic will depend on it.
Protect your honor
When thinking about whether they are obligated to carry out commands that undermine democracy in the United States, senior officers should recall an open letter published in 2022 by a group of eight former defense ministers and five former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including Mattis and Esper. Although Trump's name was not mentioned there, his first term was clearly reflected in every sentence.
The first paragraph of the letter notes: "Professional military personnel find themselves in an extremely hostile environment, which is characterized by disagreements of emotional polarization. It culminated in the first elections in more than a hundred years, when the peaceful transfer of political power was disrupted and questioned." The letter goes on to outline "basic principles and best practices" that should govern "healthy relations between American civilians and the military." The first of these, of course, is "civilian control over the military." But the former military leaders emphasize that this control should be carried out "within the constitutional framework and in accordance with the law," and that the legislative and judicial branches should play an important role in this. Although the letter notes that "military leaders are required to carry out lawful orders, the expediency of which they doubt," it also states that "civilian officials should provide the military with ample opportunities to express their doubts at appropriate venues."
In other words, if military leaders are ordered to do something they shouldn't do, they need to notify the people and their elected representatives. "Relevant platforms" are not only internal discussions of the executive branch, but also congressional testimony and even media interviews. Although this option was not mentioned in the open letter, in the worst case scenario, the senior officer may threaten to resign in protest.
Admittedly, there is no tradition in U.S. history of military leaders resigning in protest. But equally, there are few precedents for such orders as Trump and Hegseth are currently giving. Ideally, Congress, the courts, the press, and the public can eventually rally to protect the professionalism of the armed forces, but so far the Republican-controlled Congress has not responded in any way to the administration's misconduct. Therefore, in the short term, the troops will have to rely only on themselves, doing their best. They should remember what Mattis told his soldiers: "Do your job and protect your honor."
* A representative of the extremist LGBT community, banned in Russia
