Our Military Needs More Than Money - It Needs Reform

 This is part of an editorial from The New York Times editorial board: 

On paper, the war in Iran should not be much of a contest. The United States spends around $1 trillion a year on its military, more than 100 times as much as Iran. That money buys a vastly larger Air Force and Navy, as well as advanced weapons technologies that Iranian generals can only dream about.

In the war’s early days, the mismatch played out as one might expect. American forces destroyed much of the Iranian military. Now, however, the contest looks less one-sided. Iran has taken control of the Strait of Hormuz, and its missiles and drones still threaten America’s allies in the region. While President Trump seems eager for a negotiated truce, Iran’s leaders do not. Somehow, the weaker nation is in the stronger negotiating position.

That reality exposes the vulnerabilities in the American way of war. Tactical success has not yielded victory. Mr. Trump’s recklessness in conducting the war is one reason. But the problem is bigger than any single commander in chief. The United States has left itself unprepared for modern war.

America has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on ships and planes that are good at defeating competitors’ ships and planes but ineffective against cheaper, mass-produced weapons. The American economy does not have the industrial capacity to produce enough of the weapons and equipment it does need. And the country has struggled to fix these problems because of a sclerotic government and a consolidated defense industry that resists change.

Three months before Mr. Trump attacked Iran, we warned that the United States was at risk of being overmatched in the wars of the future. The last two months have shown that alarm was justified. The war in Iran, unwise as it is, should serve as a warning about the rising threats to American security and an incentive to fix them.

“Never in recorded history has a nation’s military been so quickly and effectively neutralized,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth claimed on March 26. The next day, Iran launched a drone and missile attack on an American base in Saudi Arabia that wounded more than a dozen service members, destroyed a radar surveillance plane and damaged at least two refueling tankers.

The immediate debunking of Mr. Hegseth’s bombast points to the reform agenda that America’s military needs. There are four main priorities.

First, the United States needs to invest in counter-drone technologies, like those that Ukraine has developed in its war against Russia. The lack of such defenses is one reason that the vaunted U.S. Navy has been unable to prevent the closure of a vital waterway, the Strait of Hormuz.

Second, the United States needs more of its own cheap, disposable weapons like one-way attack drones and unmanned ships. Although much of the war in Ukraine has been fought by mass-produced drones, the Pentagon is pouring money into much more complex equipment, including pilotless “wingmen” that can fly alongside a piloted plane.

Third, the country needs larger and more flexible industrial capacity. Until recently, a single factory made all of America’s Tomahawk cruise missiles, and there is a constant shortage of Patriot missile interceptors. Congress should pass laws that help the private sector build up its manufacturing capacity. The Pentagon, for its part, needs to stop buying so many of its weapons from just five big weapons makers and start betting on dynamic tech companies that can quickly adapt.

Lastly, the United States needs to collaborate with other industrialized democracies. Mr. Trump’s pleas for help in reopening the Strait of Hormuz from the very allies he spurned at the start of the war is just the latest proof that America can’t go it alone. In the years ahead, keeping pace with China’s economic and military expansion will require collaborating with like-minded democracies.

All of these steps are not merely about winning the next war. They also can help prevent it — by making our enemies believe they would lose any war they start. . . .

The good news is that Congress, the administration and the Pentagon can all now see our military shortcomings. The bad news is that our adversaries can see them too. Washington can no longer just talk about reforming the military. It has to do it, or risk making the disappointments in the Iran war become a preview of far worse.

Hegseth Should Be Impeached And Arrested For Murder

On September 2nd, Pete Hegseth ordered the U.S. military to kill all the people in a small boat in the Caribbean. The stated reason for the attack was that the boat was carrying narcotics destined for the United States. No proof has ever been offered by Hegseth (or Donald Trump) that the boat was carrying narcotics, but the attack was carried out.

After the smoke cleared, it was observed that two of the boats inhabitants were still alive and clinging to the sides of the damaged boat. Admiral Frank M. Bradley then ordered a second strike on the boat to kill the remaining helpless men.

That second strike against the survivors was against international law. It was also against the U.S. military law. If we had been at war (as Trump claims), it would have been a war crime. Since we are not at war, it was just an inexcusable murder of two helpless people.

It's now looking like Trump and Hegseth are throwing the Admiral under the bus. The Admiral deserves to be punished. He had to know that issuing that order for a second strike was illegal (whether he did it on his own or at Hegseth's command). But he is not the only guilty party.

Hegseth openly admits that he was in contact with the military forces carrying out the attack, and watched the attack taking place. That means he had to have heard the command given for a second strike - and did nothing to stop it. That makes him as guilty as Admiral Bradley. Hegseth should be impeached and arrested for murder.

Was Donald Trump also watching the strike take place? It is likely that he was since he loves watching the military blow things up (and he was in Washington that day). If so, then he is also guilty for hearing the order for a second strike and not taking action to stop it.

The Trump administration seems to think it can do anything it wants and get away with it - including murder. But this attack (especially the second strike) was far beyond the pale. They must be held accountable for this illegal and immoral action.

Public Is Overwhelmingly Against U.S. Military Action In Israel-Iran War

The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between June 13th and 16th of a nationwide sample of 1,512 adults (including 1,351 registered voters). The margin of error is 3.3 points for adults and 3.1 points for registered voters. 

Trump And Hegseth's Racist, Misogynistic, And Homophobic View For Our Military

Pete Hegseth has said he wants to improve our military by making it a merit-only organization. But his actions show otherwise. 

He has taking action to drive transgendered people out of the military - regardless of whether they are doing a good job or not (merit be damned).

But he's not stopping there. He's also making it clear that no members of the LGBTQ community are welcome. He has ordered the Navy to rename a ship - the USNS Harvey Milk (a fleet replenishment oiler).

This makes no real sense. Harvey Milk was a great American who made a mark on our culture as the first openly gay person to hold elected office. It does, however, send a message to LGBTQ soldiers - you are not welcome in the U.S. military (regardless of merit or job performance). 

He's not stopping there. On his list of ships to be renamed are ships named after Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Harriet Tubman, Dolores Huerta, Lucy Stone, Cesar Chavez, and Medgar Evers - all American heroes in their own right. Why? Because none of them are white males.

He's making it clear that no one is welcome in the military unless they are white, male, heterosexual, and a MAGA-lover. 

And this is OK with Trump, who is also trying to rewrite and whitewash American history.

When Trump took office, and before Hegseth was named Secretary of defense, the United States had the most effective and most powerful military in the world. One reason was the diversity it embraced. Trump and Hegseth's racist, misogynistic, and homophobic views are destroying that.

We can only hope that too much damage will not be done to to our military before both can be replaced. Our national defense is at stake.

Over 700 Security And Military Officials Endorse Harris

Here is the open letter to voters from those security and military officials: 

To the American People,

We are former public servants who swore an oath to the Constitution. Many of us risked our lives for it. We are retired generals, admirals, senior noncommissioned officers, ambassadors, and senior civilian national security leaders. We are Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. We are loyal to the ideals of our nation—like freedom, democracy, and the rule of law—not to any one individual or party.

We do not agree on everything, but we all adhere to two fundamental principles. First, we believe America’s national security requires a serious and capable Commander-in-Chief. Second, we believe American democracy is invaluable. Each generation has a responsibility to defend it. That is why we, the undersigned, proudly endorse Kamala Harris to be the next President of the United States.

This election is a choice between serious leadership and vengeful impulsiveness. It is a choice between democracy and authoritarianism. Vice President Harris defends America’s democratic ideals, while former President Donald Trump endangers them.

We do not make such an assessment lightly. We are trained to make sober, rational decisions. That is how we know Vice President Harris would make an excellent Commander-in-Chief, while Mr. Trump has proven he is not up to the job. As leaders, we know effective leadership requires in-depth knowledge, careful deliberation, understanding of your adversaries, and empathy for those you lead. It requires listening to those with expertise and not firing them when they disagree with you.

Vice President Harris has proven she is an effective leader able to advance American national security interests. Her relentless diplomacy with allies around the globe preserved a united front in support of Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. She grasps the reality of American military deterrence, promising to preserve the American military’s status as the most “lethal” force in the world.

The contrast with Mr. Trump is clear: where Vice President Harris is prepared and strategic, he is impulsive and ill-informed. He has heaped praise on adversarial dictators like China’s Xi Jinping, North Korea’s Kim Jung Un, and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, as well as the terrorist leaders of Hezbollah. Conversely, he has publicly and privately excoriated the leaders of our most steadfast allies, including the United Kingdom, Israel, Australia, Canada, and Germany. He abandoned our Kurdish allies while ceding influence in the Middle East to Russia, Iran, and China.

Further, Mr. Trump denigrates our great country and does not believe in the American ideal that our leaders should reflect the will of the people. While Vice President Harris follows the democratic norms we expect of any political leader—including promising to abide by the outcome of the pending election and respecting the rule of law—Mr. Trump is the first president in American history to actively undermine the peaceful transfer of power, the bedrock of American democracy.

Mr. Trump threatens our democratic system; he has said so himself. He has called for the “termination” of parts of the Constitution. He said he wants to be a “dictator,” and his clarification that he would only be a dictator for a day is not reassuring. He has undermined faith in our elections by repeating lies, without evidence, of “millions” of fraudulent votes.

He has shown no remorse for trying to overturn the 2020 election on January 6th, promises to pardon the convicted perpetrators, and has made clear he will not respect the results of the 2024 election should he lose again.

That alone proves Mr. Trump is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.

We believe, as President Ronald Reagan said, that “America is a shining city on a hill.” Yet in this election, one of President Reagan’s more ominous warnings is equally relevant. “Freedom,” he said, “is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

Our endorsement of Vice President Harris is an endorsement of freedom and an act of patriotism. It is an endorsement of democratic ideals, of competence, and of relentless optimism in America’s future. We hope you will join us in voting for her.

Trump Still Shows No Respect For Military Service

The following post is by Robert Reich:

What might otherwise be considered a minor error of judgment can blow up into a big issue in a political campaign when the error evokes a candidate’s deeper flaws. 

Yesterday, the U.S. Army issued a stern rebuke to the Trump campaign over his visit on Monday to the Arlington National Cemetery, where Trump sought to score political points by marking the third anniversary of a deadly attack on U.S. troops in Afghanistan as American forces withdrew from the country. Thirteen American service members were killed in the attack at Kabul airport’s Abbey Gate.

A video of the visit posted by the Trump campaign on TikTok shows Trump visiting grave sites, with audio of him blasting Biden’s “disaster” of the Afghanistan withdrawal.

The Army said in its statement that participants in the ceremony “were made aware of federal laws” which “clearly prohibit political activities on cemetery grounds.” The statement also noted that an Arlington National Cemetery official “who attempted to ensure adherence” to these rules “was abruptly pushed aside.”

 

Reportedly, when the cemetery official — a woman — tried to prevent Trump and his staff from entering the prohibited area, Trump’s staff verbally abused her and pushed her out of the way so Trump could enter. 

The Army statement went on to say: “It is unfortunate that the ANC employee and her professionalism has been unfairly attacked. ANC is a national shrine to the honored dead of the Armed Forces, and its dedicated staff will continue to ensure public ceremonies are conducted with the dignity and respect the nation’s fallen deserve.”

The incident has blown up into a big issue, but not because the Trump campaign erroneously held a political event at the Arlington National Cemetery. 

It’s blown up because it’s a microcosm of Donald Trump’s moral squalor.

 

Trump has repeatedly shown contempt for military heroism. He claimed that the late John McCain, who had been a prisoner of war, was “not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” 

When General Mark Milley invited a wounded, wheelchair-bound soldier to sing “God Bless America” at Milley’s welcoming ceremony as Trump’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Trump admonished him, “Why do you bring people like that here? No one wants to see that, the wounded.”

On a trip to France in 2018, Trump refused to visit the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery, where more than 2,200 U.S. service members are buried. “Why should I go to that cemetery?” he asked staff members. “It’s filled with losers.”

 

According to Trump’s then-chief of staff John Kelly, Trump called the Marines who died at Belleau Wood “suckers” for getting killed.

Trump recently said that the Congressional Medal of Freedom he’d awarded to Republican donor Miriam Adelson was “much better” than the Medal of Honorbecause Medal of Honor recipients are “either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets or they are dead.”

It’s not only Trump’s disdain for military heroism that’s brought to mind by what happened at Arlington National Cemetery. It’s also Trump’s disdain for the law, suggesting other occasions when Trump and his henchmen have disregarded legal rules, including their attempt to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election. 

Verbally abusing and pushing the cemetery employee who was trying to enforce the law, after she notified Trump and his staff that it was illegal to stage political events at the ceremony, recalls other instances when Trump and gang have pushed people aside, using violence to try to get their way. Think January 6, 2021. 

That the employee in question is a woman brings to mind the multitude of ways Trump has employed violence against women, from grabbing their genitals to raping them to stirring up his followers to threaten them. She declined to press charges because, according to military officials, she feared retaliation by Trump supporters. 

The entire incident is also a microcosm of Trump’s utter disdain for morality, honor, and patriotism — the public virtues, the common good. The cemetery is a sacred, hallowed ground. It is considered to be a national shrine. Trump sullied it to achieve his personal goal of the moment: to get a news clip in which he could bash Biden and, indirectly, Kamala Harris. 

The incident rings the warning bells, rekindles the dark memories, revives the fears. 

What happened at Arlington National Cemetery earlier this week was much more than an erroneous photo op. It was Trump on full display.

9 Military Bases Had Confederate Names - Not Anymore!

 From CBS News:

The Army has finished renaming nine installations that previously honored confederate generals with the redesignation Friday of Fort Gordon in Georgia to Fort Eisenhower. 

The Defense Department has until the end of the year to complete the recommendations of the congressionally mandated Naming Commission. The Naming Commission was tasked with identifying items in the U.S. military named after figures from the confederacy. 

The commission's final recommendations included renaming nine installations across the country named after Confederate generals. 

Fort Gordon, in Augusta, Georgia, is the last installation to receive its new name. The redesignation to Fort Eisenhower took place in an official ceremony Friday morning.

Fort Gordon was named for Major Gen. John Gordon, who served in the Confederate Army during the Civil War and was considered one of Robert E. Lee's most trusted generals. After the Civil War, he served as a U.S. senator and governor of Georgia. 

The new name honors President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who also led the D-Day invasion of Normandy in World War II as an Army five-star general.

In its recommendation for the new name, the Naming Commission said, "Eisenhower's extensive military experience as a combined and allied commander, and as a U.S. President symbolizes the professionalism, excellence, and joint nature of the base's mission." 

The installation is the home of the U.S. Army's Signal Corps, Cyber Command, and Cyber Center of Excellence. 

These are the other eight installations that have received new names: 

• Fort Benning, Georgia – renamed Fort Moore after Lt. Gen. Hal and Julia Moore.
• Fort Bragg, North Carolina – renamed Fort Liberty after the value of liberty.
• Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia. – renamed Fort Walker after Dr. Mary Walker.
• Fort Hood, Texas – renamed Fort Cavazos after Gen. Richard Cavazos.
• Fort Lee, Virginia – renamed Fort Gregg-Adams after Lt. Gen. Arthur Gregg and Lt. Col. Charity Adams.
• Fort Pickett, Virginia – renamed Fort Barfoot after Tech. Sgt. Van T. Barfoot.
• Fort Polk, Louisiana. – renamed Fort Johnson after Sgt. William Henry Johnson.
• Fort Rucker, Alabama – renamed Fort Novosel after Chief Warrant Officer 4 Michael J. Novosel, Sr.

Americans Oppose U.S. Troops In Ukraine - For Now

The charts above are from a CBS News / YouGov Poll -- done between April 5th and 8th of a nationwide sample of 2,062 adults, with a 2.8 point margin of error.

It shows that most Americans are reluctant to send U.S. troops to fight in Ukraine -- with only 25% wanting to do that. But that could change if Russia does the following -- attacks a NATO ally (69%), uses nuclear weapons (68%), or uses chemical weapons (61%).

Public Says NO To U.S. Troops Fighting Russians In Ukraine

The chart above reflects the results of a recent Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between February 5th and 8th of a nationwide sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,255 registered voters). The margin of error for adults was 2.9 points, and 3.0 points for registered voters.
 

An Open Letter From All Ten Former Defense Secretaries

Donald Trump has lied to the people about the outcome of the 2020 election. He has gone to court several dozen times. And he has tried to pressure legislatures and election officials into overturning the legitimate vote count.

About the only thing he has not done is to use the military to stay in power (although Michael Flynn urged him to do that). Will he take that final step?

I don't think our military would violate the Constitution by helping Trump stay in power, but it's still a scary thought.

Evidently it's also worrying to the ten living former Secretaries of Defense. The former Secretaries (Ashton Carter, Dick Cheney, William Cohen, Mark Esper, Robert Gates, Chuck Hagel, James Mattis, Leon Panetta, William Perry, and Donald Rumsfeld) have penned an open letter urging the military to stay out of the election.

Here is what those ten wrote in The Washington Post:

As former secretaries of defense, we hold a common view of the solemn obligations of the U.S. armed forces and the Defense Department. Each of us swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We did not swear it to an individual or a party.

American elections and the peaceful transfers of power that result are hallmarks of our democracy. With one singular and tragic exception that cost the lives of more Americans than all of our other wars combined, the United States has had an unbroken record of such transitions since 1789, including in times of partisan strife, war, epidemics and economic depression. This year should be no exception.

Our elections have occurred. Recounts and audits have been conducted. Appropriate challenges have been addressed by the courts. Governors have certified the results. And the electoral college has voted. The time for questioning the results has passed; the time for the formal counting of the electoral college votes, as prescribed in the Constitution and statute, has arrived.

As senior Defense Department leaders have noted, “there’s no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of a U.S. election.” Efforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory. Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.

Transitions, which all of us have experienced, are a crucial part of the successful transfer of power. They often occur at times of international uncertainty about U.S. national security policy and posture. They can be a moment when the nation is vulnerable to actions by adversaries seeking to take advantage of the situation.

Given these factors, particularly at a time when U.S. forces are engaged in active operations around the world, it is all the more imperative that the transition at the Defense Department be carried out fully, cooperatively and transparently. Acting defense secretary Christopher C. Miller and his subordinates — political appointees, officers and civil servants — are each bound by oath, law and precedent to facilitate the entry into office of the incoming administration, and to do so wholeheartedly. They must also refrain from any political actions that undermine the results of the election or hinder the success of the new team.

We call upon them, in the strongest terms, to do as so many generations of Americans have done before them. This final action is in keeping with the highest traditions and professionalism of the U.S. armed forces, and the history of democratic transition in our great country.

The U.S. Military Deserves A New Commander-In-Chief

 

You've probably heard about Donald Trump denigrating our troops by calling them "suckers" and "losers". It's unbelievable that the civilian person in charge of our military could harbor that kind of opinion, and by itself, would be enough to demand a new Commander-in-Chief.

But that is only the latest thing Trump has done to alienate the military. Even though he claims to be a great friend of the military, he has taken numerous actions that show he is lying. 

Here is an excellent op-ed by Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post that explores why our military needs (and wants) a new and better Commander-in-Chief.

In recent years, Republicans have enjoyed a big advantage with military personnel and veterans. By painting Democrats as weak on defense and wrapping themselves in the flag, they have outmaneuvered Democrats in states with a significant number of military or former military voters, including reserve forces and National Guard members (e.g., Texas, Florida, Virginia).

It came as a shock, then, when the Military Times reported on Monday: “In the latest results — based on 1,018 active-duty troops surveyed in late July and early August — nearly half of respondents (49.9 percent) had an unfavorable view of the president, compared to about 38 percent who had a favorable view. Questions in the poll had a margin of error of up to 2 percent.” Forty-two percent had a very unfavorable view of President Trump. The bottom line: “Among active-duty service members surveyed in the poll, 41 percent said they would vote for Biden, the Democratic nominee, if the election was held today. Only 37 percent said they plan to vote to re-elect Trump.”

There are plenty of reasons that military and ex-military might dislike Trump, who infamously got five deferments to get out of serving in Vietnam. Trump failed to confront Russian President Vladimir Putin on bounties put on the heads of U.S. troops. He has smeared the intelligence community, betrayed national security by extorting Ukraine, used the military as props for border security, attacked our NATO alliance, groveled before Putin, abandoned the Kurds when bugging out of Syria, pulled troops out of Germany and attacked voting by mail — a principal way in which troops overseas vote. He commuted the sentences of convicted war criminals, an insult to every military man or woman who upholds his or her oath. He smeared and removed Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from his White House post after he testified truthfully about Trump’s call with Ukraine’s president. He skipped a commemoration ceremony for those killed in World War I because it was raining. He used the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, to try to legitimize his gassing of peaceful protesters. He insulted the late John McCain and all POWs because he said he doesn’t like people who get captured.

The Military Times poll confirms some of their concerns. For example, “Only about 17 percent of those surveyed felt the White House has properly handled reports that Russian officials offered bounties for Afghan fighters to target and kill American troops, an issue Trump has dismissed as unreliable intelligence. Nearly 47 percent disagreed with his statements.” When it comes to deploying troops domestically to quell protests, as Trump has suggested repeatedly, 74 percent of respondents were opposed. Interestingly, “Troops agreed with Trump’s assessment of China as a national security threat (nearly 87 percent called it a significant concern) but ranked Russia (81 percent) well above Iran (58 percent). Only about 21 percent of troops saw immigration as a significant national security issue, but 48 percent identified white nationalists as a concern.”

In short, military voters understand that Trump poses a national security threat. He cannot identify or does not want to confront real threats (e.g., Russia, White nationalists), and invents threats that undermine national unity and waste resources (e.g., the “deep state”). It is quite a rebuke to a president who has tried so desperately to associate himself with military pomp and pageantry, from his militarized Fourth of July event in 2019 to his desire, according to an upcoming book by a friend of the first lady, to have an inauguration that looks “like North Korea.”

Trump treats the military like toy soldiers and their equipment like props. He tries to glorify himself by associating with them while his administration causes havoc in its ranks (e.g., expelling transgender personnel, threatening to deport “dreamers” currently serving, ordering surprise withdrawals). Trump refuses to grasp basic concepts such as honor, military discipline and the chain of command, making America weaker and endangering the lives of those who put their lives on the line to protect America. No wonder so many military men and women want a new commander in chief.