Commander In Chief Donald Trump? Military Leaders Disagree On Candidate’s Views As He Becomes Presumptive GOP Nominee
With U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas ending his
presidential campaign Tuesday night, a November showdown between New
York businessman Donald Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton seems all but certain. While exit polls show voters are
mostly worried about the economy, the presumptive Republican nominee’s
controversial campaign statements about torture, the Geneva Conventions
and NATO have put the American diplomatic and military issues at the
center of the presidential election — at a critical moment for
civil-military relations.
From the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria
(aka ISIS) to Russian aggression in Europe to China’s territorial
claims in the South China Sea, the next U.S. president will face a
sweeping range of geopolitical and military threats. Many
Americans' appetite for broad global engagement remains at low levels
after the lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military leaders have
so far been reticent about naming Trump directly, but concerns about his
foreign policy views are increasingly evident ahead of the July 18-21
Republican convention in Cleveland.
“I’ll stay out of any election politics. I
have no idea what strategies will be in the future. But we think we can
execute what’s asked of us today,” U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A.
Milley said Tuesday at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York
City. “The real challenge will be for all of us, if something beyond
what is currently happening in the world and then we’ll get into some
really hard choices.”
The Department of Defense's proposed budget for
2017 calls for $582.7 billion to deal with wide-ranging threats
and ensure combat readiness as the military looks to prepare for future
wars. The election presents an opportunity for military officials to
discuss international goals and resource allocation, said Kathleen
Hicks, director of the international security program at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (a Washington think tank), and a
former senior civilian official in the Department of Defense. Military
officials have offered different opinions on the greatest threat facing
the U.S. (both Russia and ISIS have been named), illuminating the
complexity of the current global environment and uncertainty over the
length of conflicts and commitments, she noted.
“It’s a very taxing period from the view of
the leadership of the armed forces and it doesn’t seem to have any clear
end state,” Hicks said. “It’s not just a period of high stress — which
it is — it’s the prospect that that’s not going to change anytime soon.”
From
left to right General Mark A. Welsh III, General Mark A. Milley,
Admiral John M. Richardson, General Robert B. Neller and Admiral Paul F.
Zukunft discuss the future of the military and strategy at the Council
on Foreign Relations in New York May 3, 2016. Photo: Lydia Tomkiw/International Business Times
The 2016 presidential election has been a driving force in discussions about the role of the military, with Trump calling the NATO military and political alliance “obsolete,” saying soldiers are “afraid to fight” because of the Geneva Conventions that govern conduct in war and arguing for the use of torture to “beat the savages,” in a reference to ISIS.
“They won’t refuse [to torture suspected terrorists],” Trump said of
U.S. service members during a March debate. “They’re not going to
refuse me, believe me. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s
what leadership is all about.”
While a majority
of Americans — 69 percent — said they consider waterboarding to be
torture after the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the
CIA's detention and interrogation program in 2014, 57 percent of people
think that such techniques provide reliable information some of the
time.
Trump’s views on military affairs differ
markedly from the commanders leading American forces, with top military
leaders from the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard
arguing Tuesday evening that the 28-member NATO alliance remains
necessary for security. Trump has argued that NATO member states do not
pay "their fair share," leaving the U.S. to shoulder an unfair financial
burden. Trump said he wouldn't mind if the alliance were to dissolve.
“It’s a political alliance that has kept the
peace in Europe since the end of World War II. If you look at the
overall amount of money it is, it’s really nothing,” said Gen. Robert B.
Neller, commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. “So if not NATO, then
what? I think the only people questioning NATO are Americans.”
Trump’s statements have raised questions over
legality and whether service members will heed orders from a Trump White
House. In a rare and unusual move, members of the armed services and
security community have weighed in on the 2016 presidential election,
pushing back on controversial comments usually without naming the
candidate.
“Military leaders are extremely reticent to
weigh in on anything political especially during an election cycle,”
said Michael Breen, president of the Truman National Security Project
and a former Army officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. “So the
fact that they are doing it and these are not isolated examples. … It’s
very striking.”
U.S.
Army soldiers guard U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor fighters parked in the
military air base in Siauliai, Lithuania, April 27, 2016. Photo: Reuters/Ints Kalnins
When asked by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham,
R-S.C., a former presidential candidate, about waterboarding, Marine
Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, without naming Trump, told the Senate in
March that forcing troops to carry out waterboarding or the targeting of
civilians would hurt morale.
“Those kinds of activities that you described
are inconsistent with the values of our nation. And quite frankly I
think it would have an adverse effect,” Dunford said. “And frankly what you are suggesting are things that actually aren’t legal for them to do anyway.”
Trump, who never served in the armed services or in any elected office, said early on in his presidential bid that he would “bomb the s---” out of ISIS. He has argued he would take a “neutral” stance
toward Israel and the Palestinians, a departure from decades of strong
U.S. support for Israel. And he has espoused a desire to try to work
with Russian President Vladimir Putin while at the same time arguing
Sunday that the U.S. should shoot at Russian aircraft if they continuing buzzing U.S. Navy vessels in European waters.
“Russia is an enduring concern,” Gen. Mark A.
Welsh III, chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, said Tuesday night in
New York. “Whatever they are doing now, they are still a very capable
military and they clearly have the intent to be disruptive at least in
the region. So it’s something we have to be concerned about in the
future.”
U.S.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton smiles as she listens
to her introduction at a campaign event in Athens, Ohio, May 3, 2016. Photo: REUTERS/Jim Young
Democrat Clinton has pounced on Trump’s
statements, describing him as an unqualified candidate who “has no
business being our president.” Clinton argued during an April
presidential debate that she would keep the U.S. in NATO even if member
countries do not up their financial contributions.
“Remember, NATO was with us in Afghanistan,
most of the member countries also lost soldiers and civilians in
Afghanistan,” Clinton said. “They came to our rallying defense after
9/11. That meant a lot.”
Voters have so far largely ignored the
national security debate, which could help explain Trump's high support
among Republicans. Exit polls show the economy is the top concern, while
only 10 percent of Republican and Democratic voters are worried about terrorism.
Trump, who has announced some campaign advisers,
including defense adviser Joe Schmitz and retired Army Lt. Gen. Keith
Kellogg, has yet to reveal a big-name adviser on military affairs.
“If you take the man at his word, he has
committed himself to setting off the largest civil-military crisis
probably since the American Civil War,” Breen said. “Of course there’s a
possibility he doesn’t mean these things and is speaking off the cuff,
but I don’t think that’s defensible in a presidential candidate.”
Post a Comment