The US Army issued a stark rebuke of former President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign over the incident on Monday at Arlington National Cemetery, saying in a statement on Thursday that participants in the ceremony “were made aware of federal laws” regarding political activity at the cemetery, and “abruptly pushed aside” an employee of the cemetery.
That’s not the point. The Military is no longer a tool he could use. Staying neutral unless things get really bad is a good thing. He’s already tried to use the military against protestors. (And the military told him to pound sand)
Am I crazy? I distinctly remember a military helicopter hovering quite low over protesters in a city and that very much didn’t feel like them telling trump to ‘pound sand’
I appreciate the army’s attempts at trying to stay neutral but from my perspective they were already complicit in the trump regime and I have no faith that they would be any different if he gets another shot.
You’re not crazy. The thing is there’s a difference between the national guard and the regular army. The national guard is used to control protests all the time by state governors. In D.C. Trump gets to act as that governor. What Trump wanted was a regular army Infantry division with lethal weapons. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs actually got into a shouting match with Trump over the issue.
When he couldn’t have that toy he tried to tell the National Guard to use live ammo without actually ordering it. He told them to use “all available means” to protect federal property. The National Guard however has trained extensively against using live ammo in protests since May 4, 1970. So they used every non-lethal method they knew, including the down wash of their medevac helicopters. Which the Pentagon later said not to do again as they consider that to be against the regulations for medevac helicopters.
Not American, I thought national guard and army are different because the national guard do stuff like security at disaster sites and riots which the army aren’t allowed to?
Just means they can be deployed against traitors, not that they have the authority, or consider themselves to have the authority, to make the judgement on who is and is not traitorous.
Civilian control of the military is a good thing. But it also means that any thought of the military as a safeguard against any tyranny that worms its way in through civilian institutions is… misguided.
May seem sad, but in fact good if really works this way.
Since I’m in Russia and here shit went wrong (EDIT: after the last time shit went right) since Yeltsin using military to “resolve” a constitutional crisis in 1993 (not really a crisis, just when the Supreme Court says both Yeltsin and his opponents in the parliament should resign and have new parliament and presidential elections, that apparently is a crisis, because he’s the president, thus the boss and should be able to make all decisions ; that unironically was the main argument in support of Yeltsin, ex-Soviet people have a very weird idea of law and order, where the boss deciding something is “dura lex sed lex”, while referring to codified laws is “legal illiteracy”).
But Trump can’t go a day without showing his ass for attention. Without rose colored glasses dismissing the things he does he will remind them consistently how much he doesn’t care about soldiers.
I’m so glad he pissed off the army before trying to stage his second coup.
Good luck asshat.
He pissed off the 60% of the army who already knew what a disgusting failure of a human he is.
The US military is aggressively non-political. Don’t count on them to do anything as long as the civilian institutions do nothing.
Which kinda sucks, but it’s actually a good thing.
That’s not the point. The Military is no longer a tool he could use. Staying neutral unless things get really bad is a good thing. He’s already tried to use the military against protestors. (And the military told him to pound sand)
Am I crazy? I distinctly remember a military helicopter hovering quite low over protesters in a city and that very much didn’t feel like them telling trump to ‘pound sand’
Yeah, not crazy: https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/28/politics/pentagon-national-guard-helicopter-dc-protests/index.html
I appreciate the army’s attempts at trying to stay neutral but from my perspective they were already complicit in the trump regime and I have no faith that they would be any different if he gets another shot.
You’re not crazy. The thing is there’s a difference between the national guard and the regular army. The national guard is used to control protests all the time by state governors. In D.C. Trump gets to act as that governor. What Trump wanted was a regular army Infantry division with lethal weapons. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs actually got into a shouting match with Trump over the issue.
When he couldn’t have that toy he tried to tell the National Guard to use live ammo without actually ordering it. He told them to use “all available means” to protect federal property. The National Guard however has trained extensively against using live ammo in protests since May 4, 1970. So they used every non-lethal method they knew, including the down wash of their medevac helicopters. Which the Pentagon later said not to do again as they consider that to be against the regulations for medevac helicopters.
Not American, I thought national guard and army are different because the national guard do stuff like security at disaster sites and riots which the army aren’t allowed to?
What about “foreign and domestic”?
Just means they can be deployed against traitors, not that they have the authority, or consider themselves to have the authority, to make the judgement on who is and is not traitorous.
Civilian control of the military is a good thing. But it also means that any thought of the military as a safeguard against any tyranny that worms its way in through civilian institutions is… misguided.
May seem sad, but in fact good if really works this way.
Since I’m in Russia and here shit went wrong (EDIT: after the last time shit went right) since Yeltsin using military to “resolve” a constitutional crisis in 1993 (not really a crisis, just when the Supreme Court says both Yeltsin and his opponents in the parliament should resign and have new parliament and presidential elections, that apparently is a crisis, because he’s the president, thus the boss and should be able to make all decisions ; that unironically was the main argument in support of Yeltsin, ex-Soviet people have a very weird idea of law and order, where the boss deciding something is “dura lex sed lex”, while referring to codified laws is “legal illiteracy”).
He’s gonna try having the police arrest the military
I’ll get the popcorn, you get the butter sauce?
“butter sauce” makes me uncomfortable.
Why? It’s very slippery, and lubricating.
I don’t really have much hope for this. People have short memories
But Trump can’t go a day without showing his ass for attention. Without rose colored glasses dismissing the things he does he will remind them consistently how much he doesn’t care about soldiers.