One of the marks of dangerous dictators - not an infallible marker, but pretty frequent - is the suborning of the military so that the officers and soldiers believe that their loyalty is to the ruler, not the country. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, sure - but also Julius Caesar, Emperor Hirohito, Pol Pot, the Kims, Franco, Ceausescu, Genghis Khan. Exceptions might be Ferdinand Marcos, Chiang Kai-Shek. Sorta.
So you tell me. Do you think you could find a single person in the US military who believes his or her loyalty is to Donald Trump rather than the USA?
7 comments:
The problem is that "the U.S.A." doesn't give orders. In this country, duly elected officials do. I mean for civilians. I've often struggled with this conflict in its civilian form, where I routinely flout authority in more or less passive or covert ways. In order for me to function well in a military organization, someone would have to do a fantastic job in basic training or somewhere to break down my usual attitudes and inculcate obedience to rank. I'm not sure if anything would be left of me if they succeeded. I think I am (like George Smiley) "unled, perhaps unleadable," even in cases where it would be better to submit to being led. If you're going to be unled, you'd better be awfully reliable in your own right. I hope people can trust my ethics, but no one can really trust my obedience. (That's not to say that I can't easily be intimidated by a naked display of power. I'm no hero.)
A military officer high enough to be taking orders directly from the President can resign if he sees an irresolvable conflict between loyalty to the President and to the U.S.A. Or does he rebel secretly, like Jiggs in Seven Days in May? That character declared his loyalty to the Constitution, and followed the cue of the President, in rebellion against his immediate superior officer. a traitor who also believe he was serving a higher duty.
No. N. O. NO. Dems would like to find one, I suspect. Trump appears to me to be a "Big Picture" guy, and delegates the work out to others. Not like Hitler at all. Better haircut, too. No mustache, as well.
If Trump really were like Hitler, we would have known it by now. Hitler had his detractors imprisoned and executed. So far the worst treatment I've seen Trump give his critics is calling them fake news.
Actually, the worst treatment I've seen Trump give his critics is to broadly hint that beating them up is just fine, e.g. “Any guy that can do a body slam, he’s my kind of guy", in reference to Greg Gianforte's assault on reporter Ben Jacobs.
So, no, he isn't in Hitler's league, but the game that is a league in is not a good game. And as for the military obeying him without question, we have Secretary of Defense James Mattis to stand in the way of any such attempt, and, I hope a good many more.
I read the article, and it seemed to me more like Trump was making light of it than encouraging it. I suppose that is encouraging it. Even though it's the New Yorker, which feels it has to insert the torture and killing of Kashoggi into the story for no reason I can see except to hint broadly that Trump is capable of that himself, the story notes that Trump followed up with more moderate comments. It also seems an overread to say he was broadening this to all journalists because he pointed at the cameras.
As to Mattis, my entire point was that he doesn't have to stand between any "attempt." Trump has made nothing like that attempt, not a 1% of it, and there isn't anyone in the American military who would respond to it if he did. It's not a question of being in Hitler's league, junior version, but that on one major characteristic common to most dictators, Trump doesn't even register.
If there's anything about the current climate that makes me uneasy, it's the strong sense that social norms and government responsibility are failing so dramatically that many of us want a strong man who will stand up for principles, even at the possible cost of being an extreme jerk about it. That's a dangerous current in an electorate. It's a lynch-mob mentality. In the Old West, I'd have wanted the posse to go out and hang the bad guys on the nearest tree, too, if I'd known there was no justice system operating that was worth the name. Even now I relish hearing that bad guys were shot dead in the act. Even if you can be sure no one's fudging the facts in the heat of the moment, societies break down under that kind of stress. Every time I hear that a federal judge has ruled that Trump can't undo with one political-judgment executive order what Obama did with another, I'm closer to a willingness to fight fire with fire. This Keystone Pipeline business, or the rampant election fraud, are things I can only just bear because I believe it's possible to overturn bad decisions in a higher court instead of with outright violence. It's dangerous to give people the notion that even winning an election leaves some issues quite untouched. For me, that is the real lesson of Hitler: if a political order can't solve basic problems, people will find something that will. They won't simply resign themselves to catastrophe, or not permanently, anyway.
AVI: "...it seemed to me more like Trump was making light of it than encouraging it. I suppose that is encouraging it."
I am afraid so.
Your question was, "Do you think you could find a single person in the US military who believes his or her loyalty is to Donald Trump rather than the USA?" so I answered in terms of what I thought about the military. I acknowledge that Trump hasn't tried any such thing.
Taxan99: "If there's anything about the current climate that makes me uneasy, it's the strong sense that social norms and government responsibility are failing so dramatically that many of us want a strong man who will stand up for principles, even at the possible cost of being an extreme jerk about it. That's a dangerous current in an electorate. It's a lynch-mob mentality."
I agree, and I was uneasy about Obama's executive orders, too. Since politics runs by pendulum swings over long periods of time, I am hoping that the long-term result of these presidencies will be action by Congress to rein in the presidency, any president, either party. But it is only a hope, and not a short-term one.
Post a Comment