As the U.S.’s deranged president
threatens to go to war in Syria and
possibly beyond, it is worth re-examining how Trump views the troops whose lives he is putting on the line. For all his macho posturing and exhortations about his beloved generals, Trump–a
draft dodger who
referred to avoiding STDs as “my personal Vietnam”–has long treated veterans and their loved ones with contempt. This contempt is not rooted in an aversion to the military as an institution–Trump
bloatedthe military budget and has been
striking the Middle East while threatening North Korea and other states–but an aversion to the concept of service to one’s nation itself.
Serving one’s country is a sacrifice, and sacrifice terrifies Trump. The idea that one would risk oneself–out of love, loyalty, or duty–is alien to him. Sacrifice, to Trump, is a sucker’s bet, a gamble beyond his comprehension–but one he is all too willing to let other Americans make.
...
As Mueller and the FBI penetrate Trump’s criminal and Kremlin-tied inner circle, Trump will again take solace in predictable disaster–and there is no surer route to predictable disaster than
John Bolton, the newly appointed national security adviser for whom war has long been the answer to every question. Like Trump, Bolton has
advocatedpreemptive strikes, including the use of nuclear weapons; is willing to
fabricate information to justify policies; and has a reputation as an
Islamophobe. Similar to the ruthless lawyers with whom Trump surrounded himself in the past, Bolton provides the bureaucratic knowledge Trump lacks, but matches him in sadism. Bolton’s appointment led to a number of foreign policy analysts
wondering if the
end was nigh.
...
The U.S. has had presidents who used the military to distract from domestic disasters, fabricated pretexts for war, or showed apathy toward civilian casualties. But we have never had a president whose greatest loyalty appears to be to foreign backers, nor have we had a pan-warmonger as national security adviser in an administration with a barely functioning State Department. It is difficult to say whether the U.S. winning a war–in a conventional sense–is the goal of Trump and Bolton at all.
That may sound strange–Trump’s obsession with “winning” is infamous. But the winning is always more about Trump more than it is about the United States–and at times the concepts are mutually exclusive. Trump’s definition of an attack on the U.S. is when his lawyer’s home is raided by the FBI, not when Russia attacks our elections and infrastructure. As president, his main goals have been building a kleptocracy and dodging criminal prosecution, and any war– particularly when it involves Russia–will be enacted with those twin aims in mind. If Trump distracts the public from his own misdeeds, and financially benefits and consolidates power through war, it will not matter to him how many lives are lost–including the lives of U.S. servicemen and servicewomen. His callousness toward U.S. troops places him in stark contrast to any predecessor.
Bolton is similarly unconventional. Unlike the vast majority of state officials, he
does not regret the Iraq War, and has seemingly learned nothing from its failures. His main regret seems to be that his desire for a similarly reckless invasion of other nations was not carried out. But Trump, with his visceral revulsion at the concept of service, is still the greatest danger. It is Trump whose past has finally caught up with him; it is Trump who stands the most to lose; it is Trump who unilaterally can launch nuclear weapons. Trump has shown that human beings have little inherent value to him. If Trump senses he may have to make a personal sacrifice, he will sacrifice the world instead.