Ideological Pentagon vs. A Pragmatic Commander in Chief

This is a little lengthy of a discussion, but it touches upon something very relevant to this election cycle.  Author Diana West discusses a network and pattern of ideology within the modern pentagon leadership, and how a worldview is threatened by President Trump. The interview and discussion is below.

The conversation necessarily gets in the weeds and is filled with unique insight into a very complex alignment. However, in the big picture it’s not difficult to figure out why the Pentagon would be opposed to Trump.  During the campaign and early administration President Trump’s expressed foreign policy was viewed by NATO alliance members as a threat.  The same type of perspective applies internally to the U.S. military.

President Trump’s preferred use of economic warfare makes the Pentagon’s role diminished. Instead of punching North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, President Trump hits the checkbook of Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping.  The primary has become the contingency. The value of James Mattis replaced by the effectiveness of Robert Lighthizer.  JC Milley isn’t in the planning room; Milley’s been replaced by Wilbur Ross (until he’s needed).

In the Trump era the President is telling the Pentagon where and when to position; and asks them for ‘contingency’ preparation.  Decades of Pentagon-centric foreign policy is lessened by an entirely new geopolitical approach based on economic strategy.

Take away power, or worse yet, stop using military power, and the leaders within the system start to sense their institution becoming functionally obsolescent.  Overlay this military view upon pre-existing ideological differences and the situation gets worse.

CTH touched on this last year when we noted how the Pentagon, specifically the joint chiefs, never took any action when Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman positioned himself as an opponent to President Trump’s policy perspective.  The pentagon left Vindman on assignment to the NSC even after Vindman attempted to take-down President Trump.

Another example was Joint Chief Chairman Milley, and the visit Pompeo and Milley took to Mar-a-Lago in December, where they were informing President Trump of military strikes in Syria and Iraq *after* they took place. [Background Here] [Background Here].

another related example was Navy Secretary Richard Spencer threatening President Trump and attempting to extort him into inaction over the disciplinary plans against the SEAL commando, Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher.

All of these examples paint a picture of a Pentagon operating outside the chain-of-command and civilian oversight.

Unfortunately, like all other issues in the era of hyper-polarization, normally democrats would be alarmed about military leadership going rogue with their own agenda; however, as long as their agenda is anti-Trump, the political-left is now okay with it.

Recently democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden was openly asking the U.S. military to initiate a coup against President Trump.  The media didn’t bat an eyelash…  The traditional checks-and-balances, things that keep us stable, are seriously getting sketchy.

Ms. West takes a deeper look at the internal ideology within the Pentagon and then notes the tentacles that extend beyond the military into the Brookings Institute and Lawfare agencies.   The larger assembly of the resistance movement becomes visible. WATCH: