What's the only thing standing between the United States and a Military coup?The election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States has been a flashpoint for identitarians the world over. But with the campaign over, the real battle for the administration has just begun. Of course, Donald Trump is no identitarian (in fact, he's disavowed the Alt Right), but for those who see hope in his civic nationalist project to reduce immigration, Donald Trump's cabinet choices are of paramount importance. Personnel is policy, as the old Washington saying goes.
The Military...
In this maelstrom of job seekers, no doubt President-elect Trump is being pulled in many different directions by advisors as varied as Reince Preibus, Steve Bannon, and his own children. This has resulted in a mix of appointments, from the establishment's old guard, to businessmen, and many retired military officers.
It's the latter that concerns me.
For starters, it is the wet dream of every cuckservative rag in the beltway to see as its savior some military-industrial complex man in an empty green suit. When one finds oneself on the same side as Bill Kristol, it's best to check one's priors.
This fascination goes deeper, down to the very roots of why many of us wanted to see Donald Trump elected. We saw an American Caesar, someone who stood outside of the swamp in Washington and would cross the Rubicon of 'respectability' that has strangled existential political discourse in our country for so long. The general, as a figure, is like a post-modern cowboy in the American psyche. Since most Americans no longer serve in its military, these men become mythic gods of war calculating from their Olympus at the Pentagon.
In reality, most generals are nothing more than career bureaucrats who have gotten where they are because they play by the latest in PC rules and hold out for a cushy retirement as a government contractor.
Let's take our current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey who said "Diversity is our greatest strength because it reflects America". Even the much beloved Gen. "Mad Dog" Mattis has fairly conventional views on Russia which put him in line with the old conservative establishment, so much so they even tried spending billions of dollars to convince him to run, oh then there's his ties to defense contracting. Not to beat a dead horse, but I'd also be skeptical of someone whose reading list consists of Bernard Lewis, Reza Aslan, Thomas Friedman, and Max Boot to make sense of the world around us.
Then there's Gen. Kelly over at the Department of Homeland Security. Overall, we don't know much about him. We know that he was commander of US forces throughout South and Central America. In that role he made combating drug trafficking a major effort. This shows, he knows the threats that cartels and illegal activities pose to a nation's border saying in a Military Times profile "I think you have to have — we have a right to protect our borders, whether they're seaward, coastlines, or land borders" however he followed that up with "We have a right to do that. Every country has a right to do that. Obviously, some form of control whether it's a wall or a fence. But if the countries where these migrants come from have reasonable levels of violence and reasonable levels of economic opportunity, then the people won't leave to come here."
This shows a certain level of existential thinking, however it's one more in-line with a sort of neoconservative technocratic thinking. The emphasis placed on economic development of other countries belies this. In fact, Kelly was a leading proponent of the "Alliance for Prosperity" which has resulted in billions of US dollars going to places like Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador for such hazy goals as "development" and education. It's also worrying that Kelly made what some have called "extraordinary relationships" with Human Rights groups while administering Guantanamo Bay. I for one, reach for my gun anytime that vapid phrase is used.
Then we come to Gen. Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor. Gen. Flynn is undoubtedly the best of "Trump's Generals" so far. He is for a radical re-thinking of America's relations with Russia and other foreign policy shibboleths, and has even winked at the Alt Right on occasion. Most importantly, he is derided by the same types who usually adore general picks. That said, he has not exactly been innocent of the revolving lobbying door that afflicts generals just as much as congressman.
Many, especially those on the right, tend to view the military through rose colored lenses. But it's been just as infected by cultural Marxism as any other major American institution. This is especially true of its top brass, who must learn to play the game better than most. As a hierarchal institution, change in the military come from the top down. After all, when the ban on transgender soldiers was just lifted then Secretary of Defense Ash Carter quoted Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley as saying "The United States Army is open to all Americans who meet the standard, regardless of who they are. Embedded within our Constitution is that very principle, that all Americans are free and equal."
This is the crux, most generals are either apparatchiks of the system, or self-interested rent seekers looking to cash in once they retire. I wish it weren't so, but those of us on the Right, shouldn't look at our current top brass with anything but a jaundiced eye.
You have to 'reach' for your gun?
JUST kidding.
R.C.