Coup 2019
There will be revolt against Trump by America’s generals and admirals
Civil-military relations in the United States work smoothly most of the time. Whether senior military leaders personally agree with a president’s decisions and policies or not, they normally support them, at least publicly. In exchange, civilian leaders respect the authority of military leaders within their own professional domain.
There have been times, though, when U.S. civil-military relations have been more troubled. In some cases, senior military leaders publicly disagreed with a president's positions or policies and were fired for it.
US Civil-military relations rely on unwritten norms and principles—the very things that President Donald Trump has often abandoned. Trump’s willingness to trammel tradition, and his threats of radical action using U.S. military force, could upset the longstanding comity between the president and senior military leaders. While a revolt by generals and admirals are increasingly likely. What potentially could spark a revolt would be actions that senior military leaders considered unethical, illegal or an egregious affront to their profession by Donald Trump and or his family. Trump has shown a persistent willingness to violate longstanding civil-military norms, while suggesting he might violate even bigger ones.
Imagine, for instance, if Trump decided to pardon members of the military convicted of war crimes, as he’s suggested he might do. So far, retired military officers have taken issue with the idea, but serving senior leaders have not staked out a public position. If Trump continues down this path, generals and admirals concerned about the effect that pardons of this sort might have on broader public respect for the military and its ability to work with local partners in places like Iraq and Afghanistan might take a public stand, possibly resigning in protest.
Another idea floated by the Trump administration that could potentially spark mass protest from the military would be an illegal act of armed aggression, perhaps a preventative attack against ballistic missiles or nuclear facilities in Iran. While the possession of nuclear-armed missiles by Iran poses a serious threat to the United States, there is no justification in international law for a preventative attack simply because of the capabilities that a hostile nation has. Yet Trump and some members of his administration continue to talk about it and might even consider doing it if their reelection prospects look worse in 2020. An order to undertake a “preemptive strike” against Iran could lead to principled resignations among officers concerned about its illegality and broader strategic costs.
Senior US military leaders can check illegal and unwise actions of the president. And US military officers’ revolt could have more immediate real effect if it motivated Congress to step in.
Trump’s actions have made an officers’ revolt more conceivable. Trump has shown a persistent willingness to violate longstanding civil-military norms, while suggesting he might violate even bigger ones. He has also politicized the military to an unprecedented degree, capped this week by revelations that the White House ordered the USS John McCain to be moved out of Trump’s sight during his visit to Japan. Those tensions add to the dangers posed today to America’s constitutional order.
Anonymous
shared this idea