President Trump has been selling himself as the military’s best friend. For example, from APnews:
“You also got very nice pay raises for the last couple of years. Congratulations. Oh, you care about that. They care about that. I didn’t think you noticed. Yeah, you were entitled. You know, it was close to 10 years before you had an increase. Ten years. And we said, ‘It’s time.’ And you got a couple of good ones, big ones, nice ones.” — remarks Sunday to service members at Osan Air Base, South Korea.
Which, according to APnews, is false. Or the defense budget:
The White House unveiled its proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2020 and, to the apparent surprise of some military planners, the White House is calling for a top line national defense budget of $750 billion. Pentagon officials had reportedly anticipated a budget of $733 billion, which would have been a 2.4 percent increase over last year’s. They got a 4.7 percent increase instead. According to the supporting documentation, the request is intended to provide the Department of Defense with the resources to “remain the preeminent military power in the world, ensure balances of power in key regions remain in America’s favor, and advance an international order that is the most conducive to U.S. security and prosperity.” [Christopher Preble, Cato At Liberty]
But notice how this is all about the money. Money, money, money. That, reportedly, is what makes Trump tick. But is that appropriate in a government position? And is that metric really appropriate?
In this vein, I found this WaPo opinion piece by Guy Snodgrass, US Navy (ret.), and chief speechwriter for former Trump Administration Defense Secretary Mattis, quite dismaying:
The Pentagon is in far greater trouble because of one simple reason: a lack of leadership.
The Pentagon recently surpassed a previously-unthought-of milestone — 6 1 / 2 months without a Senate-confirmed secretary at the helm. Mark Esper, the president’s new nominee for the position, was the second person to serve as acting defense secretary. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 ensured that a third acting secretary — Richard V. Spencer, the secretary of the Navy — temporarily took the helm Monday, as Esper cannot serve as acting secretary while under consideration for the permanent appointment. …
… this long-standing leadership vacuum is compounded by a Pentagon with an acting deputy defense secretary, acting secretary of the Army, acting secretary of the Air Force, acting inspector general, acting assistant defense secretary for international security affairs . . . the list goes on. CNN revealed earlier this month that 19 of the most senior Pentagon positions are either vacant or filled by a temporary acting official. Lower-tier leadership posts are similarly gapped. Friends serving in the Pentagon describe a disordered situation, where no one can speak with confidence regarding the military’s long-term priorities. …
Under any normal circumstances, even a week without a defense secretary could present a dangerous leadership vacuum in the Pentagon. That the position was vacant for more than six months — and that this lack of leadership has become systemic — is shocking. This chaotic security situation emboldens U.S. adversaries, alarms allies and erodes the Defense Department’s ability to retain the talented careerists needed for the military’s long-term health.
It’s a fascinating article which should be read by everyone who has any interest in the politics, and it should not require the reader to be opposed to Trump to be profoundly troubled by the failure of leadership by Trump in this regard.
It’s also important to state the obvious: Money doesn’t solve all problems! That Trump has advocated for a higher budget, and brags about increases in military pay that are actually quite mundane, turns out to be quite irrelevant. This ties directly into the question of identifying the proper metric when measuring his performance. His bringing more money to the military doesn’t necessary mean he’s successful, or even its greatest friends.
He must bring a high level of management skill to the job in order to be rated as competent, and that he has not done.
And the saddest part of this? If the United States should suffer a disaster that is at least partially due to Trump’s leadership vacuum at Defense, it won’t get hung around his neck. Trump is a professional when it comes to avoiding responsibility. So it’s necessary to bring this issue into focus, as has Snodgrass, and to advocate for properly selecting a metric to measure Trump’s performance.
Trump’s obsession with money may be his undoing, and possibly that of the United States as well.
