 |
| A mural in Vilnius, Lithuania. Photo credit: The New Yorker |
I've been watching the words and deeds of vets and active military personnel pretty closely over the last 16 months... and every day my view of them as a collective whole grows warier. I don't want to distrust the people who are supposed to be fighting for our freedom, but the loudest ones are making it difficult not to.
After news broke yesterday of the CIA's confirmation that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the intention of getting Trump elected, a thinking person would believe such a massive revelation would give the military pause. It hasn't. If anything, they have dug their cyber heels in deeper, going so far as to voice pro-Russia sentiments. This leaves me no choice but to ask, just who the fuck's side is the US military on anymore? If it's the American people's, I sure can't tell.
The level of misguided hostility toward Hillary Clinton coupled with a nonsensical devotion toward Trump is brain-ache worthy. Just what kind of "training" goes on in bootcamps these days? I don't know that we'll ever have that mystery solved. What I do know is there are two arenas which, once explored, fuel more questions than they provide answers: the three retired generals Trump may or may not appoint to his cabinet and the massive cognitive dissonance between what many vets/military say is important versus how they voted. First, lets look at the basic ticking points on those three retired generals.
The level of misguided hostility toward Hillary Clinton coupled with a nonsensical devotion toward Trump is brain-ache worthy. Just what kind of "training" goes on in bootcamps these days? I don't know that we'll ever have that mystery solved. What I do know is there are two arenas which, once explored, fuel more questions than they provide answers: the three retired generals Trump may or may not appoint to his cabinet and the massive cognitive dissonance between what many vets/military say is important versus how they voted. First, lets look at the basic ticking points on those three retired generals.
- Closely allied to Russia
- Not unlike his master, has a WTF relationship with facts
- Frequently disseminates pro-Putin and anti-Clinton propaganda
- Believes Islam is a political ideology rather than a religion and thereby poses a direct threat to peace between the US and the Middle East
- Has a personal vendetta against President Obama, which he chose to unleash against Hillary Clinton
- Convicted of divulging classified information to his mistress and biographer
- FBI Director Comey wanted him charged with a felony; he was convicted on a misdemeanor
- Still/currently on probation
- Former Head of CIA, "resigned" in 2012
General James "Mad Dog" Mattis
- His nickname = enough said
- Known for such "gems" as, “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet,” and "If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all"
- Requires a congressional waiver to become Secretary of Defense; has only been retired 3 of the required 7 years per The National Security Act of 1947
- Will face opposition from retired military who serve in congress
If the military is sooooo outraged by Hillary Clinton's email server because potential classified documents could have "compromised soldiers" (they didn't) then why the hell are they okay with General Happy Pants being in a position of massive power? The truth is this: not a single one of them can articulate a reasonable argument that explains the cognitive dissonance on display here. They throw shade, sputter, and shout "commie" at you for asking, but that's as persuasive as their (cough) arguments get.
Again, I ask, whose side are soldiers on?
Always show the utmost respect to Gold Star families.
Before the Trump Virus infected US politics, that golden rule was one only the dumbest of soldiers would dare break. Since we never heard stories about the Gold Star Family rule being tossed aside pre-Trump, we can probably safely assume any scant incidents of it were quickly stamped out by fellow soldiers or their superiors. Fast forward to the post-Trump world we now live in and it's as if that ethos never existed at all. I cannot count how many insults against Mr. and Mrs. Khan—especially against the former—I have personally seen with my own two eyes since the grieving father delivered his now historic speech at the Democratic National Convention:
Rather than defend the Khans when Trump attacked them, I watched members of the military defame and mock grieving parents. I saw posts from self-proclaimed soldiers in which they shamefully disseminated falsehoods about the Khans' faith, claiming they were supporters of Sharia Law when the opposite is true. Again I ask, whose side is the military on?
POWs Are Off-Limits
This election has brought about many firsts, none of which have been good. We have gone from being a people with normal relational issues amongst ourselves—for the most part—to a people firmly and perhaps irrevocably divided. Trump did that... and many vocal members of the military both past and present helped him bring us to this place.
Active military personnel are supposed to be publicly apolitical, but I saw little evidence of that during this election. Perhaps the worst, most vile spewers of online hatred have been the nasty ass, racist, venomous wives of these men. It's difficult to argue a soldier is apolitical when his own spouse is filling up Twitter with repugnant hatred, pro-Trump propaganda, and little else. More than a handful of these women also sport the frog logo on their Twitter bios; frogs might have been associated with Navy Seals in the past, but on Twitter today they represent the alt-right, Neo-Nazi, white nationalist movement.
And so I ask all members of the military for the last time, whose side are you on? You might want to figure that out before the black/Muslim/Hispanic wife of a soldier of color you depend on to have your back gets word that it's reasonable to assume you don't have his.
