Tag: Trump Military

Trump’s Appalling Ultimatum to Our Troops

By Ryan Lau | @agorisms

On arid plains across Iraq, Afghanistan, and many nations, troops lay still on burnt sands. Strong sunlight shoots down onto non-moving forms, just yards away, additional infantry attack opposing combatants. Many will not walk away from such an ugly fight, but still, participants roll in as thousands turn to millions. Though a minority may find it a worthy clash, many do not hold such an opinion. Still, skirmish upon skirmish continuously occurs.

Trump’s Appalling Ultimatum

Naturally, an obvious justification is in troops’ minds, though not moral or just. Simply put, Donald Trump and his military bark commands, and poor troops comply. Sadly, so many, as a conclusion to living, slip away from this world. This appalling ultimatum is not distinct to Trump, nor to any prior man of high authority. Nay, it is just a quality of authority of this kind; and thus, such authority may hold no just claim to subsist.

At this day, all of our military groups fight unjust wars across many parts of this world. Most notably, conflict in Syria and Libya sustain through hours and far past. In fact, this full part of our world, spanning Afghanistan to Somalia to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, has had an addition of U.S. troops far past any just and moral amount. Such an amount, to stay at all just or moral, must always fall to nil.

But, U.S. individuals of high authority, both military and not, do not follow this basic logic. As wars only go up in both human and fiscal cost, individuals who must stop inhumanity fall short. Now, diplomacy has a vast following in public opinion; at minimum, such opinions occur towards war in Afghanistan. But, a growing gap holds public inclination and policy conclusion apart.

Military Support for Anti-War Politicians

Fittingly, it is typically troops, both past and today, that support individual politicians who do not favor war. Most notably, Gary Johnson actually was in first in many military polls against Trump and Clinton by a solid margin. In fact, this was an additional 27% in contrast to his support among public polls. Why is this? Simply, Johnson, in contrast to Trump and Clinton, did not favor war. U.S. troops, without a doubt, favor not dying in unjust conflicts. Thus, military individuals show support for anti-war politicians.

Additionally, Ron Paul got donations from troops far surpassing that of any opposing politician in 2012. His $113,739 from troops is colossal against opposing politicians, who got donations totaling around 10% of that. Again, Paul was not in favor of war, and was a harsh critic of continuing unjust war, in particular. As such, military individuals support Paul, Johnson, and additional politicians who will not march troops off to war.

Can Troops Simply Not Comply?

Agonizingly, it is no straightforward task to not comply in a military situation. As soon as an individual signs up for it, a crippling bind falls down. This, naturally, is a command to follow instructions from individuals in positions of authority. Don’t want to kill an opposing human? Sorry, but if a commanding authority instructs such an action, it is mandatory to comply. Think that a particular action is not moral or just? Sorry, but an individual moral compass is no qualm to a commanding authority.

Don’t want to comply anyways, at risk of going back on your oath to follow instructions? Your moral compass is outwardly strong, which is intrinsically fulfilling. Still, atrocious but common disciplinary actions will follow. At minimum, such a moral individual will pay a grand sum, and much of it will go towards continual wars. Probably, that individual may wind up in prison for a backwards, unjust wrong of non-killing. At maximum, such a paragon may find his own, lawful assassination.

Military action is a vicious rotation. Starting with Trump and individuals of high authority, commands flow to troops. Basically, Trump’s commands say: “Hurt if I say, or I will hurt right back”. Killing honor and impartiality, such a command is a colossal thorn in tranquility’s back. Without an ability to not comply, any aspiration for a moral and just military slips away into a dark land of blind authority.

Without a doubt, Trump’s choking grip of authority is difficult to crush, but it is not without its limits. Just as I can affirm such truths without an Anglo-Saxon Idiom’s fifth symbol (following “d” but prior to “f”, I solicit you to hunt for but a singular utilization of that symbol in my composition), his military can find morality through an option not to comply.

Top Photo Origin


Trump Foreign Policy: An Anti-Globalist Crusade? An Aggressive Militaristic Regime? Or Both?

By Andrew Lepore | USA

January 20th marks one year since president Trump’s inauguration. When our 45th president was elected, Many (including me) had an optimistic in the realm of foreign policy. With the president’s past disapproval of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his warning of Obama to stay out of Syria, and his jabs at globalist institutions like NATO and UN, he left more reason to be hopeful than concerned. Especially with the alternative option being the War-Hawk Hillary Clinton (who Trump himself called “trigger happy”). Yet after 12-months of Trump Foreign policy, we have seen positives in some areas, and we have moved in a negative direction in many areas. Although Trump has achieved significant wins with a cut in UN spending and pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord; We have seen a serious ramp-up of militarism and aggression as well as escalating intervention and presence in various countries. In this article, I will cover some of my biggest problems with the Trump administration military policy from this year, as well as the consequences already emerging from it.

During the election, Trump and his rhetoric in the area of foreign policy pandered to those who were sick of globalism and nation-building overseas and wanted to see foreign intervention reduced. Many of these people were in no way philosophically libertarian-minded, they just wanted to stop seeing Precious lives and taxpayer dollars being wasted away in avoidable conflict after avoidable conflict. Trump took head-on opposition against Globalism, constantly railing against The UN, EU, NATO, the Iran deal, The TPP, NAFTA etc. etc. After winning the North Eastern primaries, Trump delivered a major foreign policy address, often quoted by populist conservative social media pages and viewers of InfoWars. Trump said, “We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism,” he promised. “I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down”. Even previous to the election Trump seemed to hold this view. In March 2013 Trump tweeted about the war on Afghanistan “I agree with Pres. Obama on Afghanistan. We should have a speedy withdrawal. Why should we keep wasting our money — rebuild the U.S.!” Also in June 2013 Trump tweeted in opposition to possible Syrian intervention “We should stay the hell out of Syria, the “rebels” are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS? ZERO”. With this kind of rhetoric, it’s easy to see why many supported him in this aspect, but his rhetoric and his policy in practice are not exactly in line.

After a year of Trump foreign policy, we have seen him keep various promises, as well as seen him diverge from earlier rhetoric or make flat-out contradictions. We have seen a downscale of taxpayer dollars going to other countries, and a reduction in the involvement with globalist institutions. Successes such as Pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, achieving a reduction in UN spending, and the halting of CIA funding of Syrian Rebels give credit to Trump’s Rhetoric as well as Non-interventionists hope. But we have also seen an expansion of Military involvement in various countries and a ramping up of aggressive and militaristic tactics, along with the already observable consequences of these tactics. One of these tactics being the self-described “Annihilation tactic”, meaning to drop so many bombs on a designated area that most or all enemies within the area have been displaced or annihilated. See past failures in the application of this tactic in the trenches of WW1 and the Jungles of Vietnam. An expected problem with the implementation of this tactic is a high number of civilians casualties, which allows for groups like ISIS to recruit in far higher numbers. He has expanded this “annihilation tactic” not only in the number of bombs dropped on average but with the list of countries and consistency with which we bomb them. In 2017 the Trump Administration exceeded the number of bombs dropped by the United States on the middle east in a single year by over 10%. Not only that, but we have expanded bombing and drone strike programs to several North and Central African nations. Another tactic the Trump Admin is taking advantage of is the rolling back of an Obama era constraint on drone warfare requiring “Near certainty” that no civilian bystanders would be killed in an attack. The consequences of rolling back this rule are already showing after just one year of Trump at the helm of the war on terror. The statistics show in the first 7 months of Trump’s war on ISIS have resulted in more civilian casualties from drone strikes than Obama’s full 3 years in this theatre. Airwars, a journalist led transparency project tweeted, “During @BarackObama’s 29 months at helm of ISIS war we tracked 855 alleged civilian casualty events which likely killed 2298-3398 civilians, “In @realDonaldTrump’s first 7 months as President, we tracked 1,196 alleged incidents in which we assess at least 2,819-4,529 civilians died,” it added. Trump has also been under fire for his flip-flops in regards to both Syria and Afghanistan. Trump emphasized on many occasions before his presidency (For example his quotes in the paragraph above) that he would not get involved in Syria, and declared a speedy withdrawal from Afghanistan “necessary”. Consider this trump tweet from March 2012, “Can you believe that the Afghan war is our “longest war” ever—bring our troops home, rebuild the U.S., make America great again.” Compared to his most recent Afghan policy initiative which called for more troops and more money to be sent overseas. Not to mention Trump’s airstrikes on an Assad regime airfield back in April 2017.

With 2017 having rapidly come to a close, and 2018 signifying new beginnings, Libertarian non-interventionists and anti-globalists alike have much to be optimistic about, as well as a lot to be pessimistic about. Overall, we have seen many steps in the right direction, away from globalism; But we have also seen many steps in the wrong direction, which is ramping up of government intervention overseas. What Libertarians can most realistically hope for in 2018 is more of the anti-globalist rhetoric which trump and his base love, and less of the Neo-Conservative warmongering hawkish behavior that trump and his base also love.