President Donald Trump's decision to send as many as 15,000 troops to the southern border has drawn sharp and unusual criticism from former military leaders, who have called the deployment "wasteful" and raised worries that the president might be using the military as a political tool to influence the midterm elections just days away.
"The military has all of a sudden been placed in a highly politicized environment regarding immigration," retired Lt. Gen. David Barno, who commanded U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said of the surge of troops to the border.
The blunt criticism of the mission to block what Trump contends is a threatening caravan of migrants encouraged by Democrats reflects the strain that his unusual presidency has put on one of America's most important norms: the tradition of an apolitical military.
Other presidents have deployed forces to the border. But the timing of this deployment and the questionable need for it, with the caravan at least a month away from the border with Mexico and diminishing in size, have led many former military officers to deliver their harshest criticisms yet of Trump.
It has also put Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, who has worked to keep the military out of politics, in a tough spot. Asked this week if the deployment was a "political stunt," the former Marine general bristled, "We don't do political stunts."
The president has cast the caravan as containing potential terrorists and other "tough" men who would particularly pose a threat to women - who are among the most sought-after voters in Tuesday's election. In fact, women and children are commonplace among the caravaners, who have said they intend to seek legal asylum in the United States.
In a tweet Thursday, retired Gen. Martin Dempsey, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the border operation a "wasteful deployment of over-stretched Soldiers and Marines."
Dempsey's tweet echoed the opinion of several other senior military officers who weighed in on social media or in interviews.
"I see no threat requiring this kind of deployment," retired Gen. Colin Powell, also a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told The Washington Post.
Retired Lt. Gen. Jim Dubik, who oversaw the effort to build the Iraqi army and police, said that Trump's description of the migrant caravan as an "invasion" was wrong. "A sizable portion of those coming are women and children," he said.
The public criticism from former military officials raised questions about why the president had decided to dispatch such a large force on such short notice days before a critical election.
"The real issue is whether the military is being used for partisan political purposes," said Dubik, a senior fellow with the Institute for the Study of War. "If that's the case, then I think such a use represents not just a wasteful deployment but a dangerous one. It's dangerous because it will politicize the use of force in ways a democracy should avoid."
Retired Col. Paul Yingling, who commanded U.S. troops in Iraq, was blunter.
"This operation is a political stunt," he wrote for the military publication Task & Purpose.
More than any other president in recent decades, Trump has spoken of the military as if it were part of his political base, rather than an apolitical defender of the nation. He placed several retired generals in his cabinet. In speeches before military audiences, at which presidents usually steer clear of politics and focus on foreign policy or praise troops for their sacrifice, Trump has bragged to the troops about the size of his electoral win.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.b6c6f872eb4e
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...102-story.html
The Current Events Room
Reply With Quote
