Showing posts with label US military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US military. Show all posts
Nov 14, 2025
Is It legal?
Trump's fondness for pushing up to, and through, legal limits has the military wrestling with questions of whether or not they're being ordered to do things outside of the authority of their commanders.
Sep 30, 2025
About That Meeting In Quantico
Translated:
The president defended his polarizing use of the armed forces to police American cities, decrying what he said was “the enemy within” while insisting he should be allowed to use military force domestically. He extolled his decision to rebrand the Defense Department as the Department of War, lamented his inability to end the conflict in Ukraine, and tacitly acknowledged the highly sensitive movements of U.S. submarines off the coast of Russia.
“I call it the ‘n-word,’” the president said of the submarines, appearing to allude to the vessels’ nuclear power. “There are two n-words, and you can’t use either of them.”
The assembled military brass sat through the presentations mostly silent, in keeping with the military’s nonpartisan tradition. Peter Feaver, a political scientist at Duke University, said that they “managed well a very difficult walk along a high wire” by listening respectfully to both speeches without responding. Trump and Hegseth, he added, also deserve credit for appearing to show that they understand why the military leaders were remaining quiet.
“The speeches raised a lot of questions that the military will have to grapple with in the months ahead,” Feaver said. “But they won’t have to do so on live TV, and so a very tricky moment in American civil-military relations did not produce the disaster that some feared.”
Trump was introduced by Hegseth, whose fiery warmup act for the president at times relied on profanity and crass, inflammatory language. The Pentagon chief had planned the event without expecting that the president would be involved, issuing a mysterious order last week summoning all senior military commanders and their enlisted aides to Virginia but providing them no information about the itinerary. The order, first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday, alarmed some after the firing of so many generals and admirals this year.
During his remarks Tuesday, Hegseth, a former Fox News personality who served as an officer in the National Guard, lectured the men and women — each with decades more military experience — seated silently before him. He vowed to make the military “stronger, tougher, faster, fiercer and more powerful than it has ever been before,” repeating numerous talking points he has used throughout his tenure atop the Pentagon — including that the military brass needs to crack down on standards ranging from physical fitness to grooming and discipline.
He blamed “foolish and reckless politicians” for allowing the military to stray from its primary focus, to fight and win wars, and pledged to fix what he called “decades of decay” in the force. He also declared that “politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement,” the guidelines that shape how U.S. troops use lethal force in combat, are gone.
He also specifically forecast additional firings, saying “more leadership changes will be made, of that I am certain.”
Hegseth cited the Gulf War — in which U.S. troops and allies beat back an Iraqi invasion and annexation of neighboring Kuwait within months, from 1990 to 1991 — as an example of a conflict that he sees as a model for the United States. He characterized it as a “limited mission with overwhelming force and a clear end state.”
He also cited President Ronald Reagan’s buildup of the U.S. military in the 1980s as playing a significant role, and noted that many military leaders then drew on combat experience in Vietnam.
“The same holds true today,” Hegseth said. “Our civilian and military leadership is chock full of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who say ‘never again’ to nation-building and nebulous end states. This clear-eyed view all the way in the White House, combined with President Trump’s military buildup, postures us for future victories.”
Hegseth said he will overhaul the channels troops and civilian employees have available to them to anonymously file whistleblower complaints, report toxic leadership, or point out unequal treatment based on race, gender, sexuality or religion.
“No more frivolous complaints. No more anonymous complaints, no more repeat complaints, no more smearing reputations, no more endless waiting, no more legal limbo, no more sidetracking careers. No more walking on eggshells,” Hegseth pronounced. “Of course, being a racist has been illegal in our formations since 1948. The same goes for sexual harassment. Both are wrong and illegal.”
Upholding high standards, Hegseth declared, “is not toxic,” decrying what he said has been a “bastardization” of phrases like “toxic leader.” The Pentagon, he said, will undertake a review of such phrases, empowering military officials to “enforce standards without fear of retribution or second guessing.”
That last-minute assembly has raised questions among critics about its cost — particularly for an address that could have been delivered by secure videoconferencing equipment. Flying, lodging and transporting all the military leaders from as far away as Japan, the Middle East and Europe is likely to cost millions of dollars, according to two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue and estimated based on past government travel experience.
The event also raised security concerns about having all the top leadership in one place, particularly given that Tuesday is the end of the fiscal year, with a government shutdown looming. Guidance issued by the Defense Department states that if a shutdown occurs, all travel should be “terminated,” but with exceptions granted by senior leaders.
"No more thinking. No more individual initiative. No more Adapt, Improvise, Overcome. Just wait for your orders and do what you're told. Oh - and morale be damned. That is all"
Trump, Hegseth lecture military leaders in rare, politically charged summit
The unusual, hastily organized event became a forum for the president and his defense secretary to tout their partisan agenda.
Hundreds of the U.S. military’s top leaders listened in silence to highly partisan addresses from President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday, with each harshly criticizing their predecessors and hyping their political objectives during a summit that was extraordinary in nature but ultimately broke little new ground.
The event, organized by Hegseth’s team at the Pentagon, summoned generals and admirals from their command posts throughout the world to Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Virginia, about 30 miles south of Washington, Gen. Dan Caine, Trump’s hand-selected chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told attendees in his opening comments that the event was an “unprecedented opportunity and honor” for the assembled senior officers and their top enlisted advisers to hear directly from the military’s civilian leadership.
Trump, with an eager Cabinet official now in charge at the Pentagon, has repeatedly and unapologetically trampled on long-standing norms intended to keep the American military beyond the grasp of partisan politics. But Tuesday’s presentation stood apart as perhaps the most flagrant demonstration to date of this administration’s wholesale disregard for such principles.
Trump, in meandering remarks stretching roughly 70 minutes, joked that if those in attendance did not like what he had to say, they could leave the room — but “there goes your rank, there goes your future,” he added, drawing uncomfortable laughter from some. Since Trump returned to power, he and Hegseth have fired numerous generals and admirals, often without cause, while focusing on a disproportionate number of women and others whom the president and the defense secretary alike have accused broadly of espousing a harmful “woke” ideology centered on enhancing the military’s diversity and inclusivity.
There was enough brass in that room
to make John Philip Sousa blush
Trump, Hegseth lecture military leaders in rare, politically charged summit
The unusual, hastily organized event became a forum for the president and his defense secretary to tout their partisan agenda.
Hundreds of the U.S. military’s top leaders listened in silence to highly partisan addresses from President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday, with each harshly criticizing their predecessors and hyping their political objectives during a summit that was extraordinary in nature but ultimately broke little new ground.
The event, organized by Hegseth’s team at the Pentagon, summoned generals and admirals from their command posts throughout the world to Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Virginia, about 30 miles south of Washington, Gen. Dan Caine, Trump’s hand-selected chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told attendees in his opening comments that the event was an “unprecedented opportunity and honor” for the assembled senior officers and their top enlisted advisers to hear directly from the military’s civilian leadership.
Trump, with an eager Cabinet official now in charge at the Pentagon, has repeatedly and unapologetically trampled on long-standing norms intended to keep the American military beyond the grasp of partisan politics. But Tuesday’s presentation stood apart as perhaps the most flagrant demonstration to date of this administration’s wholesale disregard for such principles.
Trump, in meandering remarks stretching roughly 70 minutes, joked that if those in attendance did not like what he had to say, they could leave the room — but “there goes your rank, there goes your future,” he added, drawing uncomfortable laughter from some. Since Trump returned to power, he and Hegseth have fired numerous generals and admirals, often without cause, while focusing on a disproportionate number of women and others whom the president and the defense secretary alike have accused broadly of espousing a harmful “woke” ideology centered on enhancing the military’s diversity and inclusivity.
It was an ugly, threatening speech, steeped in ideas that are naive and simplistic, and have had nothing to do with what the US Military has been all about for 50 years now.
If you feel like getting a taste of the utter bullshit that is this regime, here's the full 2 hours:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump
addressed senior military leaders in Virginia on Sept. 30
The president defended his polarizing use of the armed forces to police American cities, decrying what he said was “the enemy within” while insisting he should be allowed to use military force domestically. He extolled his decision to rebrand the Defense Department as the Department of War, lamented his inability to end the conflict in Ukraine, and tacitly acknowledged the highly sensitive movements of U.S. submarines off the coast of Russia.
“I call it the ‘n-word,’” the president said of the submarines, appearing to allude to the vessels’ nuclear power. “There are two n-words, and you can’t use either of them.”
The assembled military brass sat through the presentations mostly silent, in keeping with the military’s nonpartisan tradition. Peter Feaver, a political scientist at Duke University, said that they “managed well a very difficult walk along a high wire” by listening respectfully to both speeches without responding. Trump and Hegseth, he added, also deserve credit for appearing to show that they understand why the military leaders were remaining quiet.
“The speeches raised a lot of questions that the military will have to grapple with in the months ahead,” Feaver said. “But they won’t have to do so on live TV, and so a very tricky moment in American civil-military relations did not produce the disaster that some feared.”
Trump was introduced by Hegseth, whose fiery warmup act for the president at times relied on profanity and crass, inflammatory language. The Pentagon chief had planned the event without expecting that the president would be involved, issuing a mysterious order last week summoning all senior military commanders and their enlisted aides to Virginia but providing them no information about the itinerary. The order, first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday, alarmed some after the firing of so many generals and admirals this year.
During his remarks Tuesday, Hegseth, a former Fox News personality who served as an officer in the National Guard, lectured the men and women — each with decades more military experience — seated silently before him. He vowed to make the military “stronger, tougher, faster, fiercer and more powerful than it has ever been before,” repeating numerous talking points he has used throughout his tenure atop the Pentagon — including that the military brass needs to crack down on standards ranging from physical fitness to grooming and discipline.
He blamed “foolish and reckless politicians” for allowing the military to stray from its primary focus, to fight and win wars, and pledged to fix what he called “decades of decay” in the force. He also declared that “politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement,” the guidelines that shape how U.S. troops use lethal force in combat, are gone.
He also specifically forecast additional firings, saying “more leadership changes will be made, of that I am certain.”
Hegseth cited the Gulf War — in which U.S. troops and allies beat back an Iraqi invasion and annexation of neighboring Kuwait within months, from 1990 to 1991 — as an example of a conflict that he sees as a model for the United States. He characterized it as a “limited mission with overwhelming force and a clear end state.”
He also cited President Ronald Reagan’s buildup of the U.S. military in the 1980s as playing a significant role, and noted that many military leaders then drew on combat experience in Vietnam.
“The same holds true today,” Hegseth said. “Our civilian and military leadership is chock full of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who say ‘never again’ to nation-building and nebulous end states. This clear-eyed view all the way in the White House, combined with President Trump’s military buildup, postures us for future victories.”
Hegseth said he will overhaul the channels troops and civilian employees have available to them to anonymously file whistleblower complaints, report toxic leadership, or point out unequal treatment based on race, gender, sexuality or religion.
“No more frivolous complaints. No more anonymous complaints, no more repeat complaints, no more smearing reputations, no more endless waiting, no more legal limbo, no more sidetracking careers. No more walking on eggshells,” Hegseth pronounced. “Of course, being a racist has been illegal in our formations since 1948. The same goes for sexual harassment. Both are wrong and illegal.”
Upholding high standards, Hegseth declared, “is not toxic,” decrying what he said has been a “bastardization” of phrases like “toxic leader.” The Pentagon, he said, will undertake a review of such phrases, empowering military officials to “enforce standards without fear of retribution or second guessing.”
That last-minute assembly has raised questions among critics about its cost — particularly for an address that could have been delivered by secure videoconferencing equipment. Flying, lodging and transporting all the military leaders from as far away as Japan, the Middle East and Europe is likely to cost millions of dollars, according to two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue and estimated based on past government travel experience.
The event also raised security concerns about having all the top leadership in one place, particularly given that Tuesday is the end of the fiscal year, with a government shutdown looming. Guidance issued by the Defense Department states that if a shutdown occurs, all travel should be “terminated,” but with exceptions granted by senior leaders.
Military leaders voice concern over Hegseth’s new Pentagon strategy
The critiques from multiple top officers, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine, come as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reorders U.S. military priorities.
Military leaders have raised serious concerns about the Trump administration’s forthcoming defense strategy, exposing a divide between the Pentagon’s political and uniformed leadership as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth summons top brass to a highly unusual summit in Virginia on Tuesday, according to eight current and former officials.
The critiques from multiple top officers, including Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, come as Hegseth reorders U.S. military priorities — centering the Pentagon on perceived threats to the homeland, narrowing U.S. competition with China, and downplaying America’s role in Europe and Africa.
President Donald Trump will attend the abrupt gathering of generals and admirals at Marine Corps Base Quantico, where Hegseth is expected to deliver remarks on military standards and the “warrior ethos,” even as uniformed leaders fear mass firings or a drastic reorganization of the combatant command structure and the military hierarchy.
The debate over the National Defense Strategy — the Pentagon’s primary guide for how it prioritizes resources and positions U.S. forces around the world — is the latest challenge for top military officials navigating the Trump administration’s unorthodox approach to the armed forces.
People familiar with the editing process, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive deliberations, described a growing sense of frustration with a plan they consider myopic and potentially irrelevant, given the president’s highly personal and sometimes contradictory approach to foreign policy.
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell declined to comment on the substance of the classified document or whether concerns had been raised in the editing process.
“Secretary Hegseth has tasked the development of a National Defense Strategy that is laser focused on advancing President Trump’s commonsense America First, Peace Through Strength agenda,” Parnell said in a statement. “This process is still ongoing.”
Trump political appointees within the Pentagon’s policy office — including some officials who have previously criticized long-standing American commitments to Europe and the Middle East — drafted the strategy, now in its final edits.
The draft plan has been shared widely with military leaders from the global combatant commands to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, some of whom questioned what its priorities would mean for a force designed to respond to crises around the globe, according to three people familiar with the matter.
Dissent during the drafting process is normal, but the number of officials concerned about the document — and the depth of their criticism — is unusual, several people said.
Caine shared his concerns with top Pentagon leadership in recent weeks, according to two people familiar with the matter.
“He gave Hegseth very frank feedback,” one of the two people said, noting that Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby was also included in the discussion. “I don’t know if Hegseth even understands the magnitude of the NDS, which is why I think Caine tried so hard.”
The second person said Caine has tried to get the NDS to remain focused on preparing the military to deter and, if necessary, defeat China in a conflict.
Hegseth and his policy officials have signaled that the Pentagon will withdraw some forces from Europe and consolidate commands in a way that unnerves some U.S. allies, particularly amid Russia’s war with Ukraine and its recent, repeated incursions into NATO airspace. For years, Pentagon strategy has been anchored in the idea that the nation’s best defense was in building and maintaining strong military alliances abroad.
Critics of that approach within the administration have argued that it has mired the U.S. in expensive wars on foreign soil, instead of securing domestic U.S. interests. Trump’s approach so far has largely been to prod allies to spend more on their own defense, at times alienating Republican defense hawks in Congress who are also urging higher defense spending at home.
While Trump has undertaken bombing campaigns in Yemen and Iran, his main focus has been surging the military toward missions close to American soil.
Under his command this year, the Pentagon has struck alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean Sea, deployed U.S. troops and weapons to the southern border, and sent the National Guard and Marines to U.S. cities, where they have aided deportation efforts and sought to curtail what the president has called “out of control” urban crime. Some of those domestic deployments are being challenged in court.
Over the weekend, Trump on social media ordered troops to Portland, Oregon, saying he was allowing them to use “full force” to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents whose operations have drawn sporadic protests in the city. Hegseth said Sunday in a memo to the Oregon National Guard that the mission would include the federalizing of about 200 Guard members.
Much of the internal criticism of the new strategy regards the document’s emphasis on threats to the U.S. homeland even as China continues a rapid military buildup that uniformed leaders have warned is narrowing the U.S.’s edge in the Pacific, according to several people familiar with the matter.
There are still substantial sections of the document that do focus on China, but these are largely concentrated on the threat of an attack on Taiwan, rather than global competition with the U.S.’s largest adversary, five people said. Colby has long warned that the U.S. military is unprepared for the risk of a Chinese invasion and called for Washington to shift attention and resources toward the problem.
“There’s a concern that it’s just not very well thought out,” one former official said of the strategy.
The document’s tone is also far more partisan than past strategies, saying the Biden administration caused an erosion of America’s military in rhetoric similar to Hegseth’s speeches, two people familiar with the plan said.
Hegseth, meanwhile, is leading an overhaul of the armed forces, promising to cut the roughly 800 generals and admirals overseeing the U.S. military by 20 percent and redraw the lines of the U.S.’s combatant commands. The secretary has already fired senior officers, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti. A disproportionate number of women have been relieved during the sackings.
The Pentagon’s interim defense strategy, which The Washington Post first reported in detail in March, included a similar focus on Taiwan and homeland defense, going as far as to urge Pentagon leaders to “assume risk” in other parts of the globe to meet both priorities.
That interim document also hinted at the emerging strategy to use military personnel in a more assertive role at home and abroad. The Pentagon was directed by Hegseth to “prioritize efforts to seal our borders, repel forms of invasion including unlawful mass migration, narcotics trafficking, human smuggling and trafficking, and other criminal activities, and deport illegal aliens in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security,” according to the document.
Sep 28, 2025
Today's Aaron
For some reason, I can't stop thinking about Lee Marvin and Jim Brown blowing shit up at a chateau in 1944.
Aug 23, 2025
Today's Belle
Very strong points.
- Troops aren't props
- We've been losing the peace after we've won the war
- Knowing is half the battle - the other half is violence
- You don't win hearts and minds when people resent you being there
Jun 10, 2025
Call Back From 2020
Relevant then. Relevant now. The only thing that's changed is a number on the calendar.
4-Star General Jim Mattis, USMC, Retired
In Union There is Strength
"I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.
When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.
We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “battlespace” that our uniformed military is called upon to “dominate.” At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.
James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that “America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.
Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that “The Nazi slogan for destroying us…was ‘Divide and Conquer.’ Our American answer is ‘In Union there is Strength.’” We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.
Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.
We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s “better angels,” and listen to them, as we work to unite.
Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad."
Apr 7, 2025
Again With This Shit?
If we're going to be hunting down wasteful spending, maybe the dumbass in the White House could think about setting a fucking example.
SHOW OF FARCE
The president was previously forced to abandon plans for a procession in Washington, D.C., due to its colossal price tag.
President Donald Trump is making plans for a military parade in Washington, D.C., on his 79th birthday, according to a report.
A source in the capital told the Washington City Paper that Trump has earmarked June 14 - which is the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army - for the event.
The display of military might will march around four miles from the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, to the White House, the D.C. source told the publication.
The report said that local officials are only now hearing of plans for the parade and that no formal request has been made for their assistance.
Arlington County Board Chair Takis Karantonis told the City Paper that the White House had given the county a “heads up” about the parade on Friday, with only 10 weeks until the event.
He said “the parade’s scope ” was ” unclear” and that no firm details were disclosed.
Other unnamed officials told the paper that a big military parade will require a huge amount of coordination between the six branches of the armed forces, along with several federal agencies and regional officials.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office and the White House did not immediately respond to the Daily Beast’s requests for comment.
President Trump previously pushed for a grand military parade in 2018 during his first term in the White House but was stymied by estimates the event would cost $92 million, according to the Associated Press.
The event had been slated to include tanks, fighter jets, and historic military planes.
The plans emerged after Trump’s 2017 visit to France where he witnessed the Paris Bastille Day celebrations which included displays of heavy military machinery. Trump said the U.S. is “going to have to try and top” the French display, according to the AP.
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump watch a U.S. military aircraft flyover at the "2020 Salute to America."
Arlington County Board Chair Takis Karantonis told the City Paper that the White House had given the county a “heads up” about the parade on Friday, with only 10 weeks until the event.
He said “the parade’s scope ” was ” unclear” and that no firm details were disclosed.
Other unnamed officials told the paper that a big military parade will require a huge amount of coordination between the six branches of the armed forces, along with several federal agencies and regional officials.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office and the White House did not immediately respond to the Daily Beast’s requests for comment.
President Trump previously pushed for a grand military parade in 2018 during his first term in the White House but was stymied by estimates the event would cost $92 million, according to the Associated Press.
The event had been slated to include tanks, fighter jets, and historic military planes.
The plans emerged after Trump’s 2017 visit to France where he witnessed the Paris Bastille Day celebrations which included displays of heavy military machinery. Trump said the U.S. is “going to have to try and top” the French display, according to the AP.
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump watch a U.S. military aircraft flyover at the "2020 Salute to America."
When that parade failed to materialize, Trump pushed for tanks to be displayed in D.C. during Independence Day celebrations in 2019. The inclusion of military vehicles in the “Salute to America” pageant contributed to the event costing taxpayers over $13 million—double the cost of previous celebrations, according to Politico.
No tanks were included in the same event the following year.
No tanks were included in the same event the following year.
Apr 4, 2025
Biden Showed Up
Joshua Roberts/Reuters
Trump didn't.
Trump Picks Golf Dinner Over Dignified Transfer of U.S. Troops’ Bodies
It was unclear who would be attending the transfer at Delaware’s Dover Air Force base, as the White House did not respond to a request for comment from the Daily Beast.
The Daily Beast has been unable to verify the timing of the dignified transfer, and the White House and the Defense Department also did not respond to requests for comment from NBC.
The soldiers ...
- Sgt. Jose Duenez Jr., 25, of Joliet, Illinois
- Sgt. Edvin F. Franco, 25, of Glendale, California
- Pfc. Dante D. Taitano, 21, of Dededo, Guam
- Staff Sgt. Troy S. Knutson-Collins, 28, of Battle Creek, Michigan
... died when their 70-ton armored vehicle sank in a bog.
The four were honored earlier Thursday during a dignified departure ceremony in Lithuania, with the country’s president, Gitanas Nausėda, in attendance.
“I paid tribute to the four United States soldiers who lost their lives during training exercises in Lithuania,” Nausėda said afterward in a social media post.
“Americans are our loyal allies and friends. Our nation today expresses its condolences, respect, and gratitude to the entire American people.”
Presidents do not always attend dignified transfers of U.S. soldiers, however they have appeared in the past. Then-President Joe Biden and first lady Jill supported grieving families at Dover Air Force Base in February 2024 at a dignified transfer for three U.S. service members killed in a drone attack in Jordan. The Bidens had also met with the families prior to the ritual.
In August 2021, Trump attacked Biden for checking his watch while attending the dignified transfer of 13 U.S. service members killed in Kabul, Afghanistan.
Trump said he has been to Dover “many times.”
According to a 2020 article in The Huffington Post, Trump was so damaged after a Feb. 1, 2017, incident involving Bill Owens, the father of slain Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens, that he has avoided many of them since.
Owens refused to meet or shake Trump’s hand during the dignified transfer of Bill’s son, telling the Miami Herald at the time, “I told them I don’t want to meet the President.”
At the time of the HuffPost article, a review of Air Force records showed of 96 dignified transfers since the beginning of Trump’s first presidency. At that stage, he had been to just four.
Mar 19, 2025
Be All That You Can Be
An army of one.
A few good men.
Join the navy and see the world.
Aim high - fly, fight, win.
Join the US military. See faraway exotic lands. Meet fascinating people - and kill them.
We're the best fighting force the world has ever seen. We're the best trained, best fed, best equipped, and best armed - we're just the best!
But we get completely flummoxed when somebody throws a pronoun at us. We just go all pieces.
Jan 30, 2025
Duty To Disobey
An unlawful order in the military is an order that violates the Constitution, laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders.
Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) governs orders given in the military.
It covers failure to obey orders or regulations, and dereliction of duty.
Soldiers who violate a lawful order can be held for criminal violations.
What are some examples of unlawful orders?
- Orders that are vague, overly broad, or intended to harass or humiliate a service member
- Orders that violate established laws, regulations, or the UCMJ
- Orders that an officer gave that they did not have the authority to give
What are some defenses to disobeying an unlawful order?
- Lack of knowledge
- The order was not lawful
- Inability to comply
- Mistake of fact
- Duress
What should you do if you receive an unlawful order?
- Consult with an experienced military defense attorney
- Understand your rights
- Present your case
If you're active duty military, Nat'l Guard, or reserves, and you're being ordered to violate the Constitutional rights of a US citizen - or anyone else - then you need to know your own rights and obligations.
GI Rights Hotline
877-447-4487
Aug 27, 2024
Nov 4, 2023
Jun 14, 2023
Ukraine
"It (defending Ukraine) matters, not because we love the people, but because of where it sits on the map. If we think strategically about the Black Sea Region, we'll be a lot more clever with our interactions with our Turkish ally..." and we can better understand the importance of other countries like Georgia and Romania, etc.
For myself, I do have an emotional connection with Ukraine because I have a familial connection there. And while I don't know any indigenous Ukrainians, I definitely feel a pretty strong bond, which goes along with, and strengthens my support for the strategic aspects of this big fuckin' mess that Putin's ego has blundered us all into.
Слава Україні
🌎🌏🌍 ❤️ 🇺🇦
Mar 11, 2023
Oct 8, 2022
Un-Fun Fact
At $800B ($800,000,000,000.00) per year,
the amount we spend on the US military
is greater than the GDP
of all but about 15 countries in the world.
What makes it really hard to push down on the spending is the fact that right now, the Ukrainians are using our weapons (and without a whole lot of training) to make the Russian army look a lot worse than they really are.
There are of course, other factors - all the NATO allies have pitched in quite a bit - but the tide really started to turn when the M777s showed up, and then the HIMARS, and soon (possibly) some F-16s too.
There has to be a way to find a better balance.
I don't now what that is, but we could expand nationwide programs and really dig into solving problems of mental health, hunger, crime, and homelessness with less than 10% of what we spend on ways to blow shit up.
Dec 11, 2021
Today In History
U.S. Army Executes 13 Black Soldiers in Houston, Texas
On December 11, 1917, the U.S. Army executed 13 Black soldiers who had been previously court-martialed and denied any right to appeal. In July 1917, the all-Black 3rd Battalion of the 24th United States Infantry Regiment was stationed at Camp Logan, near Houston, Texas, to guard white soldiers preparing for deployment to Europe. From the beginning of their assignment at Camp Logan, the Black soldiers were harassed and abused by the Houston police force.
Early on August 23, 1917, several soldiers, including a well-respected corporal, were brutally beaten and jailed by police. Police officers regularly beat African American troops and arrested them on baseless charges; the August 23 assault was the latest in a string of police abuses that had pushed the Black soldiers to their breaking point.
Seemingly under attack by local white authorities, over 150 Black soldiers armed themselves and left for Houston to confront the police about the persistent violence. They planned to stage a peaceful march to the police station as a demonstration against their mistreatment by police. However, just outside the city, the soldiers encountered a mob of armed white men. In the ensuing violence, four soldiers, four policemen, and 12 civilians were killed.
In the aftermath, the military investigated and court-martialed 157 Black soldiers, trying them in three separate proceedings. In the first military trial, held in November 1917, 63 soldiers were tried and 54 were convicted on all charges. At sentencing, 13 were sentenced to death and 43 received life imprisonment. The 13 condemned soldiers were denied any right to appeal and were hanged on December 11, 1917.
The second and third trials resulted in death sentences for an additional 16 soldiers; however, those men were given the opportunity to appeal, largely due to negative public reactions to the first 13 unlawful executions. President Woodrow Wilson ultimately commuted the death sentences for 10 of the remaining soldiers facing death, but the remaining six were hanged. In total, the Houston unrest resulted in the executions of 19 Black soldiers. NAACP advocacy and legal assistance later helped secure the early release of most of the 50 soldiers serving life sentences. No white civilians were ever brought to trial for involvement in the violence.
Oct 1, 2021
On Leaving Afghanistan
Generally, as kind of a default, I'm in favor of going out of our way to help when a fledgling new government is trying to stand up a working democracy.
We Now Know Why Biden Was in a Hurry to Exit Afghanistan
He made several missteps, but on the big picture, he was right.
There was a moment in Tuesday’s Senate hearing on the withdrawal from Afghanistan when it became clear why President Joe Biden decided to get the troops out of there as quickly as possible.
It came when Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained why he and the other chiefs—the top officers of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines—all agreed that we needed to pull out by Aug. 31. The Doha agreement, which President Donald Trump had signed with the Taliban in early 2020 (with no participation by the Afghan government), required a total withdrawal of foreign forces. If U.S. troops had stayed beyond August, Milley said, the Taliban would have resumed the fighting, and, in order to stave off the attacks, “we would have needed 30,000 troops” and would have suffered “many casualties.”
And yet, as Milley also testified on Tuesday, he, the chiefs, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and other military officers advised Biden to keep 2,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond the Aug. 31 deadline. The difference is that those troops wouldn’t be attached to any “military mission.” Instead, they would “transition” to a “diplomatic mission.”
However, it is extremely unlikely that the Taliban would have observed the semantic distinction. In their eyes, 2,500 U.S. troops would be seen as 2,500 U.S. troops, regardless of whether their mission was officially said to be “military” or “diplomatic.” Therefore, the Taliban would resume fighting, as Milley said they would, and Biden would then have been faced with a horrendous choice—to pull out while under attack or send in another 30,000 troops.
Some historical-psychological perspective is worth noting. In the first nine months of Barack Obama’s presidency, the generals were pushing for a major escalation of the war in Afghanistan—an increase of 40,000 troops—and a shift to a counterinsurgency (aka “nation-building”) strategy. Biden, who was then vice president, was alone in suggesting an increase of just 10,000 troops, to be used solely for training the Afghan army and for fighting terrorists along the Afghan-Pakistani border. As Obama recalls in his memoir, Biden urged the new and relatively inexperienced president not to be “boxed in” by the generals. Give them 40,000 troops now, and in 18 months, they’ll say they need another 40,000 to win the war. As Obama later acknowledged, Biden was right.
And so, as Milley was advising Biden to keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, even while acknowledging that another 30,000 might be needed if the Taliban resumed fighting, it’s easy to imagine Biden thinking, “They’re trying to box me in, just like they did before, just like they’ve always done since the Vietnam War,” which was raging when Biden first entered the Senate in 1973 and has shaped his views on war and peace ever since.
Milley and Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the head of Central Command, both acknowledged at the hearing that the U.S. military was flying blind through much of its 20-year war in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history. The officers of the day tried to mold the Afghan army in their own image, making them too dependent on U.S. technology and support, so that once we withdrew, collapse was inevitable. Milley also noted that he and the other officers paid too little attention to Afghan culture and to the corrosive effects of the Afghan government’s corruption and lack of popular legitimacy. So, Biden might well have been thinking, why should he pay attention to anything these guys had to say on the war in Afghanistan, which they’ve been wrong about from the very beginning?
Biden made several missteps, some of them disastrous, in the pace and sequence of the withdrawal. Most of all, he should have pulled out all the spies, contractors, U.S. citizens, and Afghan helpers before pulling out all the troops. But on the big picture, he was right, and the generals, as they now grudgingly admit, were wrong.
But no matter who you are, there's always a couple of problems with that, and especially so when you're the dominant power on the planet:
1) We can't be everybody's guardian - everybody's mentoring uncle. We have to choose our projects a lot more wisely, and then do it a lot better.
2) Our good intentions are usually worth exactly diddly-shit when there are assholes like Dick Cheney and Tom Cotton in on the deal - guys who wear The Helper mask so it's hard to recognize them as The Conquerors they truly want to be - so we'll always draw some harsh criticism for throwing our shit around.
Anyway, here's a piece from Slate lining it out pretty well.
We Now Know Why Biden Was in a Hurry to Exit Afghanistan
He made several missteps, but on the big picture, he was right.
There was a moment in Tuesday’s Senate hearing on the withdrawal from Afghanistan when it became clear why President Joe Biden decided to get the troops out of there as quickly as possible.
It came when Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained why he and the other chiefs—the top officers of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines—all agreed that we needed to pull out by Aug. 31. The Doha agreement, which President Donald Trump had signed with the Taliban in early 2020 (with no participation by the Afghan government), required a total withdrawal of foreign forces. If U.S. troops had stayed beyond August, Milley said, the Taliban would have resumed the fighting, and, in order to stave off the attacks, “we would have needed 30,000 troops” and would have suffered “many casualties.”
And yet, as Milley also testified on Tuesday, he, the chiefs, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and other military officers advised Biden to keep 2,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond the Aug. 31 deadline. The difference is that those troops wouldn’t be attached to any “military mission.” Instead, they would “transition” to a “diplomatic mission.”
However, it is extremely unlikely that the Taliban would have observed the semantic distinction. In their eyes, 2,500 U.S. troops would be seen as 2,500 U.S. troops, regardless of whether their mission was officially said to be “military” or “diplomatic.” Therefore, the Taliban would resume fighting, as Milley said they would, and Biden would then have been faced with a horrendous choice—to pull out while under attack or send in another 30,000 troops.
Some historical-psychological perspective is worth noting. In the first nine months of Barack Obama’s presidency, the generals were pushing for a major escalation of the war in Afghanistan—an increase of 40,000 troops—and a shift to a counterinsurgency (aka “nation-building”) strategy. Biden, who was then vice president, was alone in suggesting an increase of just 10,000 troops, to be used solely for training the Afghan army and for fighting terrorists along the Afghan-Pakistani border. As Obama recalls in his memoir, Biden urged the new and relatively inexperienced president not to be “boxed in” by the generals. Give them 40,000 troops now, and in 18 months, they’ll say they need another 40,000 to win the war. As Obama later acknowledged, Biden was right.
And so, as Milley was advising Biden to keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, even while acknowledging that another 30,000 might be needed if the Taliban resumed fighting, it’s easy to imagine Biden thinking, “They’re trying to box me in, just like they did before, just like they’ve always done since the Vietnam War,” which was raging when Biden first entered the Senate in 1973 and has shaped his views on war and peace ever since.
Milley and Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the head of Central Command, both acknowledged at the hearing that the U.S. military was flying blind through much of its 20-year war in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history. The officers of the day tried to mold the Afghan army in their own image, making them too dependent on U.S. technology and support, so that once we withdrew, collapse was inevitable. Milley also noted that he and the other officers paid too little attention to Afghan culture and to the corrosive effects of the Afghan government’s corruption and lack of popular legitimacy. So, Biden might well have been thinking, why should he pay attention to anything these guys had to say on the war in Afghanistan, which they’ve been wrong about from the very beginning?
Biden made several missteps, some of them disastrous, in the pace and sequence of the withdrawal. Most of all, he should have pulled out all the spies, contractors, U.S. citizens, and Afghan helpers before pulling out all the troops. But on the big picture, he was right, and the generals, as they now grudgingly admit, were wrong.
And that last bit is the operative principle - generals make the plans, but the civilian command authority makes the decisions.
Jun 28, 2021
Closer Than We Think
The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound for any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the authorization order, he wrote that U.S. Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port.
The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. Maritime Court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.
(my apologies to Gilbert-n-Sullivan, and to anyone who still has the tiniest bit of sensibility left in this ridiculously non-sensical period of political madness)
And I think the reason for Milley's supposed turnaround, is that he's not a guy who's going to roll over and beg for a belly rub from any random puke - even a POTUS - when he knows the guy is playing him for a fool.
Trump's Situation Room shouting match
Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, repeatedly blew up at President Trump over how to handle last summer's racial-justice protests, The Wall Street Journal's Michael Bender writes in his forthcoming book, "Frankly, We Did Win This Election."
The backdrop:
Trump wanted to invoke the Insurrection Act and put Milley in charge of a scorched-earth military campaign to suppress protests that had spiraled into riots in several cities.
Milley — now a GOP villain for his testimony last week on critical race theory — pushed back, Bender writes in a passage Axios is reporting for the first time:
Seated in the Situation Room with [Attorney General Bill] Barr, Milley, and [Secretary of Defense Mark] Esper, Trump exaggerated claims about the violence and alarmed officials ... by announcing he’d just put Milley "in charge."
Privately, Milley confronted Trump about his role. He was an adviser, and not in command. But Trump had had enough.
"I said you're in f---ing charge!" Trump shouted at him."Well, I'm not in charge!" Milley yelled back."You can't f---ing talk to me like that!" Trump said. ..."Goddamnit," Milley said to others. "There's a room full of lawyers here. Will someone inform him of my legal responsibilities?""He's right, Mr. President," Barr said. "The general is right."
Asked for a response, Trump told Jonathan Swan through an aide: "This is totally fake news, it never ever happened. I'm not a fan of Gen. Milley, but I never had an argument with him and the whole thing is false. He never talked back to me. Michael Bender never asked me about it and it's totally fake news."
Trump later added: "If Gen. Milley had yelled at me, I would have fired him."
Bender then told Swan:
- "This exchange was confirmed by multiple senior administration officials during the course of hundreds of hours of interviews with dozens of top Trump World aides for this book."
- "Contrary to Mr. Trump’s assertion, I asked the former president for his side of this particular argument in a written question — as he requested — along with other queries included in my thorough fact-checking process. He did not reply.”
P.S. At Trump's Ohio rally on Saturday night, he attacked Milley without naming him: "You see these generals lately on television? They are woke."
The brink of disaster is always something we should keep in mind.
Lately, we've been dancing at the edge of the abyss.
Apr 26, 2021
Today's Dumbass
And for a guy who depended on the largesse of the JAG corps for most of his "military cred" (along with his being a total suckup to John McCain), this dope is way outa step with the people he thinks are on his side.
Commentary - Esteban Castellanos
Enough about ‘not picking sides.’
The only right position is against white supremacy and extremism
In late March, the U.S. Air Force Academy held its Department of Defense-mandated extremism stand-down training to examine and to eradicate extremism and white supremacy within the ranks.
Superintendent Lt. Gen. Richard Clarke spoke of extreme ideologies on “both sides,” rather than confronting the unique flavor of the extremism threat on display Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol. Cadets learn how to lead by the example set from their leaders. Whether they lead with honor and integrity in all aspects of their lives, and especially in moments of duress, depends on the standard of leadership that is set by people like Lt. Gen. Clarke.
Many USAFA graduates feel the mild response to the insurrection from the academy and its Association of Graduates failed to reflect these values and stands counter to everything they publicly expect of graduates. We are disappointed and feel that leadership has failed our graduates, the members they lead, and ultimately the citizens of this country.
Simply put, many of our leaders are underreacting to the attack. We need them to state, unequivocally, that the insurrection was wrong, intolerable and against our values and oath of service to the Constitution. They must state publicly and emphatically that those within our ranks who participate in, or are sympathetic to, the organizations that took part in the riot at the Capitol are not welcome in our ranks because they are supporting domestic insurrectionists and terrorists.
Approximately one in five of the insurrectionists were veterans, according to criminal charging reports. They included at least one U.S. Air Force Academy graduate. Many more veterans are sympathetic to the insurrection, espouse the lies upon which it was based, or are participants in related causes.
Air Force Academy class Facebook pages and other social media sources show clear evidence that our officer corps members either do not take the threat seriously or support the underlying insurrectionist groups, many of which hold white supremacist ideologies.
Where does the academy and its AOG leadership stand on white supremacy within our ranks? Are they afraid of alienating large donors that may sympathize with the terrorists’ cause instead of doing the right thing?
It took 26 days after the insurrection for retired Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, the AOG’s CEO, to repudiate the insurrection after failing to do so on a video call with members the previous week. He said they “made it a point that we would stay totally apolitical … and that we weren’t going to pick sides in any of this.” This unsatisfactory initial response only served to give more life to our concern.
Our character was molded by the academy, and that is why this “picking sides” debate hits us so hard, because the Air Force Academy and its Association of Graduates know better.
The average American likely doesn’t understand that the U.S. Air Force Academy, its related AOG and the US Air Force are distinct institutions. It’s all just “the Air Force.” Therefore, what USAFA or the AOG say, or don’t say, speaks on behalf of all U.S. Air Force members.
The academy’s lack of a strong rejection of the insurrection is, in effect, a political stance, one which undermines trust as well as good order and discipline within the ranks and the graduate community. Additionally, many of us, as service members of color and our allies, feel the insurrection was not only an assault on American democracy but on the value of all as equal citizens in this country. We saw our government nearly overthrown after an election victory brought about, in large part, by people of color.
Our AOG and USAFA leadership should have come together, with united strength, to support Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s call for a stand-down in a meaningful way. We need a forceful plan to continue this effort within the academy and its graduate community. We cannot wait for the next constitutional crisis or extremist attack.
This is personal and painful for those who have served because we’ve fought for our Constitution and for the rights of our fellow citizens. Any more hesitation or equivocation in doing so risks losing the trust of the very Americans we have sworn to defend.
Graduate co-signers
In late March, the U.S. Air Force Academy held its Department of Defense-mandated extremism stand-down training to examine and to eradicate extremism and white supremacy within the ranks.
Superintendent Lt. Gen. Richard Clarke spoke of extreme ideologies on “both sides,” rather than confronting the unique flavor of the extremism threat on display Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol. Cadets learn how to lead by the example set from their leaders. Whether they lead with honor and integrity in all aspects of their lives, and especially in moments of duress, depends on the standard of leadership that is set by people like Lt. Gen. Clarke.
Many USAFA graduates feel the mild response to the insurrection from the academy and its Association of Graduates failed to reflect these values and stands counter to everything they publicly expect of graduates. We are disappointed and feel that leadership has failed our graduates, the members they lead, and ultimately the citizens of this country.
Simply put, many of our leaders are underreacting to the attack. We need them to state, unequivocally, that the insurrection was wrong, intolerable and against our values and oath of service to the Constitution. They must state publicly and emphatically that those within our ranks who participate in, or are sympathetic to, the organizations that took part in the riot at the Capitol are not welcome in our ranks because they are supporting domestic insurrectionists and terrorists.
Approximately one in five of the insurrectionists were veterans, according to criminal charging reports. They included at least one U.S. Air Force Academy graduate. Many more veterans are sympathetic to the insurrection, espouse the lies upon which it was based, or are participants in related causes.
Air Force Academy class Facebook pages and other social media sources show clear evidence that our officer corps members either do not take the threat seriously or support the underlying insurrectionist groups, many of which hold white supremacist ideologies.
Where does the academy and its AOG leadership stand on white supremacy within our ranks? Are they afraid of alienating large donors that may sympathize with the terrorists’ cause instead of doing the right thing?
It took 26 days after the insurrection for retired Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, the AOG’s CEO, to repudiate the insurrection after failing to do so on a video call with members the previous week. He said they “made it a point that we would stay totally apolitical … and that we weren’t going to pick sides in any of this.” This unsatisfactory initial response only served to give more life to our concern.
Our character was molded by the academy, and that is why this “picking sides” debate hits us so hard, because the Air Force Academy and its Association of Graduates know better.
The average American likely doesn’t understand that the U.S. Air Force Academy, its related AOG and the US Air Force are distinct institutions. It’s all just “the Air Force.” Therefore, what USAFA or the AOG say, or don’t say, speaks on behalf of all U.S. Air Force members.
The academy’s lack of a strong rejection of the insurrection is, in effect, a political stance, one which undermines trust as well as good order and discipline within the ranks and the graduate community. Additionally, many of us, as service members of color and our allies, feel the insurrection was not only an assault on American democracy but on the value of all as equal citizens in this country. We saw our government nearly overthrown after an election victory brought about, in large part, by people of color.
Our AOG and USAFA leadership should have come together, with united strength, to support Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s call for a stand-down in a meaningful way. We need a forceful plan to continue this effort within the academy and its graduate community. We cannot wait for the next constitutional crisis or extremist attack.
This is personal and painful for those who have served because we’ve fought for our Constitution and for the rights of our fellow citizens. Any more hesitation or equivocation in doing so risks losing the trust of the very Americans we have sworn to defend.
Graduate co-signers
Lawrence Romo ’78Martin France ’81Kathryn Smith ’82Ed Tomme ’85David Englin ’96Aaron Pultz ’97John Kleven ’98Tino Dinh ’99Diane Zorri ’01Nikki Foster ’03Leo Kim ’09
BTW - these are some really smart people coming out of our service academies. They're not in the habit of condemning shit that ain't there.
Sep 3, 2020
There's No Bottom
...to the emptiness of a man who has no soul and no honor.
The Atlantic (pay wall):
When President Donald Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018, he blamed rain for the last-minute decision, saying that “the helicopter couldn’t fly” and that the Secret Service wouldn’t drive him there. Neither claim was true.
Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day. In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.
Belleau Wood is a consequential battle in American history, and the ground on which it was fought is venerated by the Marine Corps. America and its allies stopped the German advance toward Paris there in the spring of 1918. But Trump, on that same trip, asked aides, “Who were the good guys in this war?” He also said that he didn’t understand why the United States would intervene on the side of the Allies.
Trump’s understanding of concepts such as patriotism, service, and sacrifice have interested me since he expressed contempt for the war record of the late Senator John McCain, who spent more than five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. “He’s not a war hero,” Trump said in 2015 while running for the Republican nomination for president. “I like people who weren’t captured.”
The Atlantic (pay wall):
When President Donald Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018, he blamed rain for the last-minute decision, saying that “the helicopter couldn’t fly” and that the Secret Service wouldn’t drive him there. Neither claim was true.
Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day. In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.
Belleau Wood is a consequential battle in American history, and the ground on which it was fought is venerated by the Marine Corps. America and its allies stopped the German advance toward Paris there in the spring of 1918. But Trump, on that same trip, asked aides, “Who were the good guys in this war?” He also said that he didn’t understand why the United States would intervene on the side of the Allies.
Trump’s understanding of concepts such as patriotism, service, and sacrifice have interested me since he expressed contempt for the war record of the late Senator John McCain, who spent more than five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. “He’s not a war hero,” Trump said in 2015 while running for the Republican nomination for president. “I like people who weren’t captured.”
There's more, but I can't take it any further than right here. It's making me sick.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)