The Pentagon is not Trump's home, and nuclear power proves it
The tycoon squeezed between his populist promise and the inescapability of the commitments to which he is called upon by the military leaders, in a single stroke he manages to antagonize the Pentagon and the powerful lobby of arms manufacturers
From the pan to the grill. Who fell for it is Donald Trump. The embers are that of the American Armed Forces.
The beginning of the incident dates back to Thursday last week, when the prestigious 'The Atlantic' had published a report entitled 'Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are' Losers 'and' Suckers '', in which, citing anonymous sources, it is alleged that the President has disparaged members of the US Armed Forces injured and killed in various wars, calling them 'losers', 'fools' and called for disabled veterans to be excluded from military parades.
The article starts from the reconstruction of the motivation behind the cancellation of a visit to the American cemetery of 'Aisne-Marne American Cemetery, near Paris, in 2018 because it is not interested in honoring the people killed in the war, branding the marines as' losers' killed in Belleau Wood, where Americans and allied troops managed to stop the German advance towards Paris in 1918. On other occasions, Trump would have even discredited George HW's military service Bush.
The White House immediately intervened to deny the publication, and Trump discredited the magazine accusing it of inventing scoop for dying. All this while the testimonies of chroniclers multiplying confirming what the magazine claims. And among these testimonies that of some correspondents of 'Fox News', the broadcaster considered very close to the President, who confirmed 'the key details' of the magazine's revelation on the President's derogatory comments about the American soldiers who died in battle . Jennifer Griffin said: "I spoke to two senior US officials who were traveling to France who confirmed the key details in the Atlantic article and in the quotations attributed to the President."
The affair has occupied the White House in repeated and very harsh, though unconvincing, denials throughout the weekend. Yesterday, Donald Trump thwarted all efforts of the enturage of him with an unprecedented attack on the Pentagon. Arguing that he is not loved by the military because he is trying to end conflicts abroad, while they try to satisfy military contractors, he said: "I am not saying that the military loves me, indeed, soldiers do, but probably the top management not because they just want to wage wars for the wonderful companies that produce bombs and planes.
Thus, in a single stroke, Trump managed to antagonize the Pentagon and the powerful lobby of arms producers, the large manufacturing companies, or the most wealthy component of his donors, capable of directing many votes, and with whom, moreover, in recent years he had always maintained a practically idyllic relationship.
According to American observers, this exit - very dangerous just a few weeks after the vote, when the polls already give it 10 points below challenger Joe Bid - is the expression of how the relations between Trump and the Pentagon leadership have become more and more over time. thesis.
The precedents that have led to this appearing as a publicly declared clash by the commander in chief of the armed forces are many. They range from the derogatory words he reserved in the past for the late Senator John McCain - very respected by the Armed Forces and by the top of the same, defined by the tycoon as a 'loser' because he was captured and ended up prisoner during the Vietnam War - to those for the his former Secretary of Defense, retired General Jim Mattis, up to the decisions in terms of contingents abroad not at all acceptable to the military leaders.
Finally, according to sources reported by 'CNN', the relationship between Trump and his Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, has also deteriorated with Trump who would like to replace him, and "the top commanders of the Pentagon are increasingly exhausted and worried about their relationship with the President ». Among the elements of concern and tension between Esper and the Pentagon leaders on one side and Trump on the other, there would be the Insurrection Act. Trump has threatened to send US military troops into the streets to put an end to the demonstrations that have been igniting for weeks American cities. Esper opposed this eventuality, supported by the Pentagon.
The military leaders are also very tense for the post-vote. "If there were to be some kind of constitutional crisis if the electoral result were not clear, the military could very well be put in a delicate position", and 'CNN' goes further: "there are concerns that Trump may launch military action against an opponent before the day of the inauguration, regardless of who wins the White House ”.
A tension that is cut with a knife, so much so that General Mark Milley, president of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has assured members of Congress that the military will not have a role in the elections and will not help resolve any disputes if the results are contested -contest that the competent courts will have to resolve-, noting that the US Army is absolutely apolitical.
A recent 'Military Times' poll shows a continuing decline in Trump's popularity among the active-duty military - 42% disapprove of Trump - and a growing preference for former Vice President Joe Biden in the upcoming election.
Trump's "broadside" yesterday, observers argue, denotes that the clash has risen in level.
Trump has repeatedly boasted of having 'rebuilt' the Armed Forces, left, according to him, in disastrous conditions by their predecessors, and has repeatedly extolled - even during the recent Republican convention - the increase in the defense budget, propagating it as one of the main findings of his Administration, and citing it as proof of his support for the Army. It should not be overlooked that the Army suppliers benefited from this expenditure, arms companies with which Trump has always had a mutually beneficial relationship.
In Trump's statement there is probably an indication of the problems that are wearing down the relationship between the Pentagon and the Oval office. The President considers himself disliked by the top because 'he is trying to end the conflicts abroad'. Trump promised his electorate the withdrawal of troops abroad and disengagement on the global stage, the end of the 'US sheriffs of the world' , America first. American disengagement on the international stage - with its consequences - is exactly what an important piece of military leaders and the military intelligentsia reproaches.
In short, Trump is now squeezed between his populist promise and the inescapability of the commitments to which he is called to be the President of a country that has led the world for 70 years. Erasing 70 years of history in 5 years of mandate with all the… is not feasible even for the tycoon.
One of these 'commitments', which well expresses the crushing in which the President finds himself, is nuclear power.
Early next year, the US-Russia NewSTART will expire. Russia has offered a renewal for another 5 years. Trump is not willing to negotiate a new treaty, much less the extension of the one in progress, if China does not sit at the table too. Beijing has no intention of doing this. The Pentagon is clearly worried, it highlights the nuclear risks coming from China, but Trump's diktat is a problem, especially after the unilateral withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear deal and the withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty.
The United States has been remarkably successful in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, now there is reason to ask whether this will continue into the future, says the influential think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
"By working with partners, the United States has consistently built a framework of disincentives and barriers to prevent proliferation." These include: international treaties and agreements that have erected legal, political and regulatory barriers; US security commitments to allies that dampen their own need for nuclear weapons; a series of severe penalties for those caught attempting to build nuclear weapons. "In other words, the barriers to entry into the nuclear club are high and those countries that want the ultimate weapon must be willing to accept significant risks. This helps explain why, although many countries have explored or pursued nuclear weapons, only nine states have them today. " This, in fact, until today. The problem is the future.
Several 'trends are eroding the foundations on which this formidable set of barriers rests. These trends are ingrained and have been shaped by changes in the nature and structure of the international system: namely, the decline of U.S. influence and its gradual withdrawal from the international order that has helped create and lead for more than 70 years, and the simultaneous increase of a more competitive security environment, particularly among the great powers ».
While nuclear threats are on the rise, US allies "are losing confidence and security in the United States, including Washington's willingness to deliver on its security commitments." The crisis of confidence increases the risk that allies will also participate in the "nuclear race" and therefore in proliferation. Then there is the rise of authoritarianism as a global phenomenon: "the rise of authoritarian leaders" which "is increasing the possibility of nuclear proliferation".
Washington has long exploited the US's ability to exporters of nuclear reactors, fuels and technology as a means of promoting non-proliferation and as a 'stick' to persuade countries to end nuclear weapons programs. But the United States is no longer the main player in the civilian nuclear energy sector. The growing ability of China, Russia and others to provide nuclear assistance on more competitive terms and with fewer non-proliferation barriers is eroding the United States' ability to write the rules of the game. "If the United States has fewer civil nuclear customers, it is less able to monitor and model the nuclear trajectory of key countries, including, if necessary, the threat of disrupting the energy partnership to curb proliferation."
Sanctions, particularly used by Trump, also risk becoming a blunt weapon. “The effectiveness of sanctions as a non-proliferation tool will likely decline as countries develop ways to reduce their impact and US financial dominance erodes in the long run. The US abuse of economic sanctions is pushing backlash. Countries and actors are developing alternative solutions and looking for ways to protect themselves "from" - and respond to "- economic sanctions imposed by Washington." This will make it more difficult to dissuade countries from engaging in sensitive activities related to nuclear weapons "and it will be even more difficult to convince allies to follow US policy." What is happening towards Iran clearly demonstrates how this is a big problem.
Another worrying trend highlighted by the CSIS are the more competitive relations between the United States and Russia, and the United States and China, which "probably hinder cooperation on non-proliferation".
These trends, CSIS continues, “will have three broad implications for US proliferation and politics. First, they are about to increase pressure on countries to seek nuclear weapons or related capabilities "," they will almost certainly challenge the ability of the United States to effectively handle the traditional 'carrots and sticks' of non-proliferation and counterproliferation policy and dilute the effectiveness of those tools. Finally, they could increasingly contrast the non-proliferation objectives of the United States with other political objectives, forcing more difficult compromises ”.
The warning is stark: "US policy must adapt unless the US wants to face a richer nuclear landscape in the future." The recommendations that follow from this x-ray of the situation go exactly the opposite of Trump's policy up to now. Among the recommendations: "Repair the trust deficit with allies, adapt alliances to be more resilient to the stressors of the geopolitical environment and update guarantee concepts to new threats". And as "top priority to signal the commitment of the United States to allies and their security and to put an end to unnecessary sources of friction".
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the non-renewal end of START could cost the Department of Defense up to $ 439 billion in modernization, as well as $ 28 billion in annual maintenance costs. America cannot afford, in the midst of the current Covid-19 crisis, a costly and dangerous nuclear arms race, the Democrats and many Pentagon leaders point out.
Nuclear power is just one of the 'compressions' weighing on Trump. The Pentagon, it seems to have understood, is not his 'home'.
