Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Brace for the Storm
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/11/trump-cabinet-picks/680657/?https://archive.ph/FbHGH
. . .
The issue now is what to expect from a second Trump presidency, how to judge it, and what to do. Having studied a lot of military history and visited a few war zones, I learned long ago that hysteria is unhelpful; catastrophism gets in the way of diagnosis. In this case, it distracts from understanding how we got here, beginning with the ways in which elites disregarded the woes of those who found themselves whipsawed by inflation. And it risks obscuring the extent to which the culture wars of the past decade or so have bred a furious reaction against identity politics, thought policing, and the suppression of widely held beliefs.
Going forward, we should judge the Trump administration by what it does, and by who fills its senior positions. There was a 48-hour window of mild optimism when Trump named Michael Waltz as his national security adviser, Marco Rubio as secretary of state, and Elise Stefanik as UN ambassador. All three are experienced politicians, all are sane, and—although reliably Trump-deferential and hence flexible of spine—all are internationalists.
And then came the triple whammy of Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense, Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence, and Matthew Gaetz as attorney general. Hegseth is an angry former major of the Army National Guard who has never run a substantial organization but has loud and extreme views, including on the need for the American military to shake loose the law of war and the importance of firing the cerebral and highly competent chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General C. Q. Brown. Gabbard, who has proved sympathetic to Syria’s Assad family and to Vladimir Putin, is a failed Hawaii politician. Gaetz, a man recently under federal investigation for alleged sex crimes, would take over the department that was investigating him. (He denies the claims, and no charges were ever filed.) None is remotely qualified to hold the jobs for which they’ve been nominated, three of the most important national-security positions in the country. Indeed, in a normal administration, they would be considered national-security risks.
This augurs ill, and not only for the individuals and groups against which Trump has sworn vendettas. The nominations risk producing an incoherent and irresponsible foreign policy and, in the case of Hegseth, the politicization of the U.S. military through a series of purges conducted outside normal procedures. We may well see the demoralization and corruption of the officer corps, major compromises of intelligence sources and methods, and a hijacking of the Department of Justice to pursue domestic opponents while shielding foreign enemies. . . .
The issue now is what to expect from a second Trump presidency, how to judge it, and what to do. Having studied a lot of military history and visited a few war zones, I learned long ago that hysteria is unhelpful; catastrophism gets in the way of diagnosis. In this case, it distracts from understanding how we got here, beginning with the ways in which elites disregarded the woes of those who found themselves whipsawed by inflation. And it risks obscuring the extent to which the culture wars of the past decade or so have bred a furious reaction against identity politics, thought policing, and the suppression of widely held beliefs.
Going forward, we should judge the Trump administration by what it does, and by who fills its senior positions. There was a 48-hour window of mild optimism when Trump named Michael Waltz as his national security adviser, Marco Rubio as secretary of state, and Elise Stefanik as UN ambassador. All three are experienced politicians, all are sane, and—although reliably Trump-deferential and hence flexible of spine—all are internationalists.
And then came the triple whammy of Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense, Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence, and Matthew Gaetz as attorney general. Hegseth is an angry former major of the Army National Guard who has never run a substantial organization but has loud and extreme views, including on the need for the American military to shake loose the law of war and the importance of firing the cerebral and highly competent chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General C. Q. Brown. Gabbard, who has proved sympathetic to Syria’s Assad family and to Vladimir Putin, is a failed Hawaii politician. Gaetz, a man recently under federal investigation for alleged sex crimes, would take over the department that was investigating him. (He denies the claims, and no charges were ever filed.) None is remotely qualified to hold the jobs for which they’ve been nominated, three of the most important national-security positions in the country. Indeed, in a normal administration, they would be considered national-security risks.
This augurs ill, and not only for the individuals and groups against which Trump has sworn vendettas. The nominations risk producing an incoherent and irresponsible foreign policy and, in the case of Hegseth, the politicization of the U.S. military through a series of purges conducted outside normal procedures. We may well see the demoralization and corruption of the officer corps, major compromises of intelligence sources and methods, and a hijacking of the Department of Justice to pursue domestic opponents while shielding foreign enemies. . . .
9 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
An Iraq war-monger who also advocated for regime change in Iran under the GWB Administration. A Republican never-Trumper and staunch supporter of Israel. So yes, Stefanik seems a good choice for him.
