thebulwark--2020-06-12--How Nick Saban and Drew Brees Can Lead

How Nick Saban and Drew Brees Can Lead

One of the best parts of sports fandom is the playing of counterfactuals , a never-ending game of “ What if ?
” What if that kick had been good ?
What if that penalty wasn ’ t called ?
What if that player had been drafted by a different team ?
It ’ s endless discussion for sports pundits and casual fans .
A great “ what if ” involves a 2006 decision that affected both college and professional football .
At that time , Nick Saban was in his second year as head coach of the Miami Dolphins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Saban was expected to do great things in the NFL .
After a lackluster first season , Miami was hopeful that a new quarterback would help the franchise move forward .
Drew Brees was a free agent coming off a shoulder injury , and Nick Saban ’ s preferred choice to lead his offense .
Brees ’ s physical evaluation did not satisfy the Miami front office , who passed on Brees and traded a second-round pick to sign Dante Culpepper instead .
Culpepper went on to spend most of the 2006 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , ended up in New Orleans , where he helped revive a city and a moribund franchise , including a win in Super Bowl XLIV .
The 2006 Dolphins had an outside chance at a playoff spot , but faltered down the stretch and Saban bolted back to the college ranks .
Since then he ’ s led the University of Alabama Crimson Tide ( my alma mater ) to five national championships , cementing his place as one of the top college football coaches in history .
As an Alabama fan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I feel like it ’ s worked out pretty well .
Nick Saban ’ s official response to the deaths of George Floyd , Ahmaud Arbery , and Breonna Taylor was thoughtful and relatively safe .
Only the most irritable members of Alabama ’ s fanbase—no small number , to be fair—could take issue with it .
It was a helpful first step in signaling to players , fans , and the public at large that the most influential college football coach in America , and his program , took the issue seriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly at any marches or rallies , Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne and men ’ s basketball coach Nate Oats were present at a rally in Tuscaloosa over the weekend of June 6 .
Saban ’ s statement was not enough to assuage some critics , though .
ESPN ’ s Dominique Foxworth and Paul Finebaum debated the matter on the air two weeks ago , with Foxworth saying that Saban ’ s words were insufficient and Finebaum noting Saban ’ s long track record of work on civil rights issues : It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are right .
Finebaum has covered Saban for over two decades , and quite closely since Saban arrived in Tuscaloosa in 2007 .
If there were concerns about bias or bigotry within any of Saban ’ s programs , it would surely be known by now .
Like his mentor and friend Bill Belichick , Saban has a sprawling coaching “ family tree ” that includes African-American head coaches like Mel Tucker ( Michigan State ) and Mike Locksley ( Maryland ) .
Moreover he has a reputation for attempting to rehabilitate troubled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of even a top-tier head coach , as he made plain in a fiery press conference several years ago .
Still , it is hard to understate the potential symbolic significance of Saban ’ s presence at a rally , or perhaps an in-person statement to the media .
The criticism of Saban highlights a complication with this protest moment .
While I don ’ t think it ’ s fair to blame either the peaceful protests or the more destructive riots on the COVID-19 lockdowns , the truth is that at some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to work , and that is where a great deal of progress in equality is likely to be made ( or not made , as the case may be ) .
For Nick Saban , going to work involves leading a massive organization of players , coaches , trainers , academic support staff , and other individuals within the football program .
It is no small thing that Alabama ’ s football program has given hundreds of young men a college education and sent dozens into the NFL where they have earned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their lives and that of their families and even communities .
The secondary effects of the Crimson Tide ’ s success has been a boon to the local economy , as well , especially in the wake of a devastating tornado in 2011 .
Saban ’ s charity work has distributed over $ 8 million in funding over the last several years , including the building of 17 Habitat for Humanity homes in Tuscaloosa .
Though I ’ m partial to Nick Saban , the same could be said for many other coaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ football coaches are handsomely rewarded , and there are valuable ongoing discussions about player compensation and long-term injury mitigation and prevention .
But we should not dismiss as insufficient the ways that athletics and business can contribute to progress toward equality—lest we wind up with something like the sort of inchoate gnosticism that Eric Voegelin warned about half a century ago : dismissing all material progress in exchange for a constantly moving , ill-defined measure of equality that eventually leads well-meaning people to exasperation and resentment .
There is one thing that influential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public often engages in ritual hand-wringing over the high salaries of these coaches , the truth is that the universities pay only a small portion of their salaries .
The bulk of coaches ’ compensation comes from athletic boosters , and this is where coaches could make a difference .
Imagine if Nick Saban , Dabo Swinney , Ed Orgeron , Jim Harbaugh , and every other top-shelf college coach turned to the boosters who fund their salaries , their charities , and their recruiting budgets and encouraged them to look in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hiring practices .
No more “ aw shucks ” racism from employees in the break room or on social media .
No more employee standards that needlessly privilege people of one background at the expense of all others .
And no more treating players one way when they ’ re wearing your team ’ s jersey and then another way when they ’ re not .
If a booster or sponsor is unwilling to take these basic steps , perhaps coaches and athletic directors can make it clear that their money ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Coaches in the upper echelon have little financial incentive to put these demands on their boosters , but the opportunity to coach at a high level brings with it obligations in times of deep social division .
It is not perfect , but this sort of approach may be the best hope for change at an interpersonal level while still fulfilling one ’ s professional and institutional commitments .
The case of Drew Brees is more complicated .
Brees has been an exemplary NFL quarterback—widely regarded as a fine teammate and leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a model citizen in tightly knit New Orleans .
Yet Brees ’ s place in an increasingly politicized NFL began to shift in 2016 when he expressed opposition to Colin Kaepernick ’ s kneeling during the national anthem .
The framing of the issue never managed to separate the protest from the cause it was designed to promote , and Brees , like a lot of Americans , expressed discomfort with what he regarded as disrespect toward the American flag .
When the issue came up again in the wake of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 3 interview—reiterated his position : kneeling is disrespectful and he would “ never ” condone it .
At this point , many fans and commentators around the NFL and the broader sports world lost patience , concluding that Brees , like many others , allowed his opposition to the form of a protest to prevent him from standing up for the substance of the cause .
That ’ s not an unreasonable complaint , and certainly not limited to Brees ; far too many Republican politicians and conservative pundits have spilled more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protests than over the events that precipitated the protests .
This view animated many in the sports world , as evidenced by this impassioned argument from ESPN ’ s Maria Taylor : Brees has since apologized for his remarks .
Then apologized again .
And , for good measure , his wife has apologized , too .
It remains to be seen what long-term effects this incident will have on Brees ’ s legacy .
But beyond the apologies , it reveals the desperate need for all of us to listen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What if one of Brees ’ s teammates looked him in the eye and tried to forge agreement on the substance of the protest instead of demanding he acquiesce to the form of the protest itself ?
What if pundits and athletes alike reminded their critics that kneeling during the anthem took place one day a week , but police brutality was a week-long problem ?
What if Brees realized that his discomfort with kneeling was best handled with discussion instead of overreacting to such an extent that it harms his ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Brees looked past the protest and lifted up the substance of such a powerful complaint ?
What if , what if , what if .
We ’ re demanding a lot of everyone right now .
Apathy will not effect change , and racist law enforcement is both unjust and a danger to our democracy .
No one—no activist or reformer , no politician or president , no athlete or coach—can do everything .
We are best served by encouraging others to make strides towards justice whenever and wherever they can .

One of the best parts of sports fandom is the playing of counterfactuals, a never-ending game of “What if?” What if that kick had been good? What if that penalty wasn’t called? What if that player had been drafted by a different team? It’s endless discussion for sports pundits and casual fans.
A great “what if” involves a 2006 decision that affected both college and professional football.
At that time, Nick Saban was in his second year as head coach of the Miami Dolphins. Already a championship coach at LSU, Saban was expected to do great things in the NFL. After a lackluster first season, Miami was hopeful that a new quarterback would help the franchise move forward. Drew Brees was a free agent coming off a shoulder injury, and Nick Saban’s preferred choice to lead his offense. Brees’s physical evaluation did not satisfy the Miami front office, who passed on Brees and traded a second-round pick to sign Dante Culpepper instead. Culpepper went on to spend most of the 2006 season with an injury. Brees, though, ended up in New Orleans, where he helped revive a city and a moribund franchise, including a win in Super Bowl XLIV. The 2006 Dolphins had an outside chance at a playoff spot, but faltered down the stretch and Saban bolted back to the college ranks. Since then he’s led the University of Alabama Crimson Tide (my alma mater) to five national championships, cementing his place as one of the top college football coaches in history. As an Alabama fan and a New Orleans-born Saints fan, I feel like it’s worked out pretty well.
Nick Saban’s official response to the deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor was thoughtful and relatively safe. Only the most irritable members of Alabama’s fanbase—no small number, to be fair—could take issue with it. It was a helpful first step in signaling to players, fans, and the public at large that the most influential college football coach in America, and his program, took the issue seriously. While Saban has yet to appear publicly at any marches or rallies, Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne and men’s basketball coach Nate Oats were present at a rally in Tuscaloosa over the weekend of June 6.
Saban’s statement was not enough to assuage some critics, though. ESPN’s Dominique Foxworth and Paul Finebaum debated the matter on the air two weeks ago, with Foxworth saying that Saban’s words were insufficient and Finebaum noting Saban’s long track record of work on civil rights issues:
How should college football coaches address protests following George Floyd's death? | Get Up
Watch this video on YouTube
It seems likely that both Finebaum and Foxworth are right. Finebaum has covered Saban for over two decades, and quite closely since Saban arrived in Tuscaloosa in 2007. If there were concerns about bias or bigotry within any of Saban’s programs, it would surely be known by now. Like his mentor and friend Bill Belichick, Saban has a sprawling coaching “family tree” that includes African-American head coaches like Mel Tucker (Michigan State) and Mike Locksley (Maryland). Moreover he has a reputation for attempting to rehabilitate troubled players far beyond what might be expected of even a top-tier head coach, as he made plain in a fiery press conference several years ago. Still, it is hard to understate the potential symbolic significance of Saban’s presence at a rally, or perhaps an in-person statement to the media.
(It’s also worth remembering that Saban is not indifferent to the meaning of public protests. He was a football player and student at Kent State in 1970. He has spoken about the Kent State shootings at length, including in an emotional 2016 press conference. While a cautious man in many respects, it seems unlikely that he would oppose public displays of protest.)
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The criticism of Saban highlights a complication with this protest moment. While I don’t think it’s fair to blame either the peaceful protests or the more destructive riots on the COVID-19 lockdowns, the truth is that at some point, we all have to go back to work, and that is where a great deal of progress in equality is likely to be made (or not made, as the case may be). For Nick Saban, going to work involves leading a massive organization of players, coaches, trainers, academic support staff, and other individuals within the football program. It is no small thing that Alabama’s football program has given hundreds of young men a college education and sent dozens into the NFL where they have earned the sort of money that has changed their lives and that of their families and even communities. The secondary effects of the Crimson Tide’s success has been a boon to the local economy, as well, especially in the wake of a devastating tornado in 2011. Saban’s charity work has distributed over $8 million in funding over the last several years, including the building of 17 Habitat for Humanity homes in Tuscaloosa. Though I’m partial to Nick Saban, the same could be said for many other coaches in college football.
Yes, college football coaches are handsomely rewarded, and there are valuable ongoing discussions about player compensation and long-term injury mitigation and prevention. But we should not dismiss as insufficient the ways that athletics and business can contribute to progress toward equality—lest we wind up with something like the sort of inchoate gnosticism that Eric Voegelin warned about half a century ago: dismissing all material progress in exchange for a constantly moving, ill-defined measure of equality that eventually leads well-meaning people to exasperation and resentment.
There is one thing that influential college coaches could do. Though the public often engages in ritual hand-wringing over the high salaries of these coaches, the truth is that the universities pay only a small portion of their salaries. The bulk of coaches’ compensation comes from athletic boosters, and this is where coaches could make a difference. Imagine if Nick Saban, Dabo Swinney, Ed Orgeron, Jim Harbaugh, and every other top-shelf college coach turned to the boosters who fund their salaries, their charities, and their recruiting budgets and encouraged them to look in the mirror. No more good-ol’-boy hiring practices. No more “aw shucks” racism from employees in the break room or on social media. No more employee standards that needlessly privilege people of one background at the expense of all others. And no more treating players one way when they’re wearing your team’s jersey and then another way when they’re not. If a booster or sponsor is unwilling to take these basic steps, perhaps coaches and athletic directors can make it clear that their money’s no longer good around the athletic complex. Coaches in the upper echelon have little financial incentive to put these demands on their boosters, but the opportunity to coach at a high level brings with it obligations in times of deep social division. It is not perfect, but this sort of approach may be the best hope for change at an interpersonal level while still fulfilling one’s professional and institutional commitments.
The case of Drew Brees is more complicated. Brees has been an exemplary NFL quarterback—widely regarded as a fine teammate and leader, a skilled craftsman at his position, and a model citizen in tightly knit New Orleans. Yet Brees’s place in an increasingly politicized NFL began to shift in 2016 when he expressed opposition to Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling during the national anthem. The framing of the issue never managed to separate the protest from the cause it was designed to promote, and Brees, like a lot of Americans, expressed discomfort with what he regarded as disrespect toward the American flag.
When the issue came up again in the wake of the George Floyd protests, Brees—in a June 3 interview—reiterated his position: kneeling is disrespectful and he would “never” condone it. At this point, many fans and commentators around the NFL and the broader sports world lost patience, concluding that Brees, like many others, allowed his opposition to the form of a protest to prevent him from standing up for the substance of the cause. That’s not an unreasonable complaint, and certainly not limited to Brees; far too many Republican politicians and conservative pundits have spilled more ink over the riots that emerged from the protests than over the events that precipitated the protests. This view animated many in the sports world, as evidenced by this impassioned argument from ESPN’s Maria Taylor:
Maria Taylor shares a passionate message on Drew Brees' comments and apologies | First Take
Watch this video on YouTube
Brees has since apologized for his remarks. Then apologized again. And, for good measure, his wife has apologized, too.
It remains to be seen what long-term effects this incident will have on Brees’s legacy. But beyond the apologies, it reveals the desperate need for all of us to listen to one another while compromising where we can.
What if one of Brees’s teammates looked him in the eye and tried to forge agreement on the substance of the protest instead of demanding he acquiesce to the form of the protest itself?
What if pundits and athletes alike reminded their critics that kneeling during the anthem took place one day a week, but police brutality was a week-long problem?
What if Brees realized that his discomfort with kneeling was best handled with discussion instead of overreacting to such an extent that it harms his ability to lead his own team?
What if Brees looked past the protest and lifted up the substance of such a powerful complaint?
What if, what if, what if.
We’re demanding a lot of everyone right now. Apathy will not effect change, and racist law enforcement is both unjust and a danger to our democracy. No one—no activist or reformer, no politician or president, no athlete or coach—can do everything. We are best served by encouraging others to make strides towards justice whenever and wherever they can.


thebulwark--2020-06-12--Trump’s Foolish Plan to Cut Back on Our Troops in Germany

The Department of Defense is reportedly planning the withdrawal of 9,500 servicemembers from Germany , almost a third of the current U.S. military presence there .
The news , which first leaked last week in the Wall Street Journal , apparently “ blindsided German officials and many American military leaders in Europe.
” Richard Grenell , until recently the U.S. ambassador to Germany , has been advocating for this move since the beginning of his mission in 2018 .
Grenell was an extremely political ambassador , with a provocative Twitter account , a wish to empower with far-right populists in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and center-right Europeans .
He remained ambassador even as he came back to the United States to serve for several months as President Trump ’ s director of national intelligence .
But Grenell has now left both jobs—and , in one last interview with the German media , confirmed the troop drawdown .
According to an explanation offered by an unnamed Trump administration official in the original report , the troop reduction reflects the administration ’ s “ long frustration with German policy , especially the nation ’ s level of military spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nord Stream 2 pipeline that will channel Russian gas directly to Germany under the Baltic Sea.
” One supposed justification for the U.S. troop reduction is that it will finally make Germans pay more for their own defense .
As a candidate and as president , Trump has said he wants Europe to pay more for its security .
Mind you , Germany has already pledged to start spending 2 percent of its GDP on its military by 2021—a 65 percent increase from the current level .
In this context , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pug Ismay—Churchill ’ s top military aide , who became the first secretary general of NATO—famously said about the purpose of NATO : To keep the Russians out , the Americans in , and the Germans down .
Maybe the Trump administration believes that the Russians can be trusted to stay out of Europe .
And the president has made clear he doesn ’ t much care about the Americans staying in .
But what about that third criterion ?
An important rationale for the creation of NATO was that European nations did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States , the neutral hegemon , helped to end centuries of continental wars in Europe .
If the Trump administration succeeds in its objective of getting Europe to handle its own defense , the end result could be profoundly destabilizing .
The Trump administration is also forgetting the purposes of military alliances beyond increasing aggregate military power .
Military alliances and forward deployment also give legitimacy to the United States ’ s hegemonic status , provide geographic access and knowledge about the terrain , and create a buffer zone between the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. bases in Germany , if Russia ever decides to launch an airstrike against the United States , the United States will have a better chance of shooting it down before it reaches U.S. airspace .
The NATO-Russia ground-forces balance , according to 2017 figures , is 400,000 to 350,000 .
The Russians , however , benefit from a unified command .
This is another reason that we created NATO ; the experience of World War II made Western strategists wary of the challenges of coalition warfare .
NATO is perhaps known best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense—that an attack on one is an attack on all .
( It has been triggered only once : in defense of the United States after 9/11 .
Two decades later , the Germans and other NATO troops are still in Afghanistan in our defense . )
NATO is also a collective-security organization with integrated units , so the members will be more familiar with each other ’ s militaries and more comfortable with coalition warfare , an advantage that a decrease in the number of troops will diminish .
But it gets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invaded and annexed Crimea , the United States had no tanks in Europe .
Zero .
The situation has improved , but not by much .
The Russians still have superior numbers : Their 13,000 tanks outdo European NATO members ’ 8,236 , plus several hundreds of U.S. tanks deployed in Europe .
But 2,600 of NATO ’ s tanks belong to Turkey , which is a NATO member but can not be trusted to come to the defense of European countries , given Turkey ’ s anti-Western posture and relations with Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian tanks are superior to NATO models ; the T-50 model , for instance , has explosive reactive armor to protect it from guided munitions , which NATO tanks lack .
• Russia is far ahead of the United States and the rest of NATO in the development of cluster munitions .
• Russia ’ s development of anti-access/area-denial capabilities that cover Poland and the Baltics will make the redeployment of U.S. troops to Europe extremely difficult in the event of a conflict .
• Russia has developed electronic long-range warfare capabilities that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NATO ’ s signals without much defensive and counteroffensive NATO capabilities .
• Last , and perhaps most importantly , the U.S. has nuclear inferiority against Russia , and Russia has what is called “ escalation dominance ” for nuclear war against NATO—the capability to escalate the severity of conflict to the next level with absolute power dominance in that level .
The entire picture is not pretty .
Of the U.S.-Russian balance in Europe , Gen. Mark Milley—then the Army chief of staff and now the chairman of the Joint Chiefs—said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like it , we don ’ t want it , but yes , technically [ we are ] outranged , outgunned on the ground.
” Add to that outnumbered .
So : Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 .
It invaded Ukraine in 2014 and annexed Crimea .
Today , the Russian military is present in both Georgia and Ukraine .
Yet this is the time when the Trump administration wants to cut back our military presence in Europe .
Some Republican members of the House of Representatives this week signed a letter criticizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is hard to believe that enough of the sausage-spined congressional Republicans will care to act .
It seems unlikely that this bad decision can be prevented—until a new commander-in-chief comes along .
In the meantime , however , House Democrats should have senior officials at the Department of Defense—from the secretary down—come testify and give their opinions on whether they endorse this decision .

The Department of Defense is reportedly planning the withdrawal of 9,500 servicemembers from Germany, almost a third of the current U.S. military presence there. The news, which first leaked last week in the Wall Street Journal, apparently “blindsided German officials and many American military leaders in Europe.”
Richard Grenell, until recently the U.S. ambassador to Germany, has been advocating for this move since the beginning of his mission in 2018. Grenell was an extremely political ambassador, with a provocative Twitter account, a wish to empower with far-right populists in Europe, and unpopular standing among center-left and center-right Europeans. He remained ambassador even as he came back to the United States to serve for several months as President Trump’s director of national intelligence. But Grenell has now left both jobs—and, in one last interview with the German media, confirmed the troop drawdown.
According to an explanation offered by an unnamed Trump administration official in the original report, the troop reduction reflects the administration’s “long frustration with German policy, especially the nation’s level of military spending and its insistence on completing the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline that will channel Russian gas directly to Germany under the Baltic Sea.”
One supposed justification for the U.S. troop reduction is that it will finally make Germans pay more for their own defense. As a candidate and as president, Trump has said he wants Europe to pay more for its security. Mind you, Germany has already pledged to start spending 2 percent of its GDP on its military by 2021—a 65 percent increase from the current level.
In this context, it’s useful to remember what British general Pug Ismay—Churchill’s top military aide, who became the first secretary general of NATO—famously said about the purpose of NATO: To keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. Maybe the Trump administration believes that the Russians can be trusted to stay out of Europe. And the president has made clear he doesn’t much care about the Americans staying in. But what about that third criterion? An important rationale for the creation of NATO was that European nations did not trust one another. The United States, the neutral hegemon, helped to end centuries of continental wars in Europe. If the Trump administration succeeds in its objective of getting Europe to handle its own defense, the end result could be profoundly destabilizing.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The Trump administration is also forgetting the purposes of military alliances beyond increasing aggregate military power. Military alliances and forward deployment also give legitimacy to the United States’s hegemonic status, provide geographic access and knowledge about the terrain, and create a buffer zone between the United States and its enemies. Thanks to the U.S. bases in Germany, if Russia ever decides to launch an airstrike against the United States, the United States will have a better chance of shooting it down before it reaches U.S. airspace.
The NATO-Russia ground-forces balance, according to 2017 figures, is 400,000 to 350,000. The Russians, however, benefit from a unified command. This is another reason that we created NATO; the experience of World War II made Western strategists wary of the challenges of coalition warfare. NATO is perhaps known best for its Article 5 promise of mutual defense—that an attack on one is an attack on all. (It has been triggered only once: in defense of the United States after 9/11. Two decades later, the Germans and other NATO troops are still in Afghanistan in our defense.) NATO is also a collective-security organization with integrated units, so the members will be more familiar with each other’s militaries and more comfortable with coalition warfare, an advantage that a decrease in the number of troops will diminish.
But it gets worse. In 2014, when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, the United States had no tanks in Europe. Zero. The situation has improved, but not by much. The Russians still have superior numbers: Their 13,000 tanks outdo European NATO members’ 8,236, plus several hundreds of U.S. tanks deployed in Europe. But 2,600 of NATO’s tanks belong to Turkey, which is a NATO member but cannot be trusted to come to the defense of European countries, given Turkey’s anti-Western posture and relations with Russia. And in terms of quality, Russian tanks are superior to NATO models; the T-90 model, for instance, has explosive reactive armor to protect it from guided munitions, which NATO tanks lack.
Other aspects of Russia/NATO lopsidedness:
Russia is far ahead of the United States and the rest of NATO in the development of cluster munitions.
Russia’s development of anti-access/area-denial capabilities that cover Poland and the Baltics will make the redeployment of U.S. troops to Europe extremely difficult in the event of a conflict.
Russia has developed electronic long-range warfare capabilities that could jam, deceit, and intercept NATO’s signals without much defensive and counteroffensive NATO capabilities.
Last, and perhaps most importantly, the U.S. has nuclear inferiority against Russia, and Russia has what is called “escalation dominance” for nuclear war against NATO—the capability to escalate the severity of conflict to the next level with absolute power dominance in that level.
The entire picture is not pretty. Of the U.S.-Russian balance in Europe, Gen. Mark Milley—then the Army chief of staff and now the chairman of the Joint Chiefs—said in 2016: “We don’t like it, we don’t want it, but yes, technically [we are] outranged, outgunned on the ground.” Add to that outnumbered.
So: Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. It invaded Ukraine in 2014 and annexed Crimea. Today, the Russian military is present in both Georgia and Ukraine. Yet this is the time when the Trump administration wants to cut back our military presence in Europe.
Some Republican members of the House of Representatives this week signed a letter criticizing the Trump administration’s plans—but it is hard to believe that enough of the sausage-spined congressional Republicans will care to act. It seems unlikely that this bad decision can be prevented—until a new commander-in-chief comes along. In the meantime, however, House Democrats should have senior officials at the Department of Defense—from the secretary down—come testify and give their opinions on whether they endorse this decision.


thebulwark--2020-06-13--Trump Is Too Weak to Be a Strongman

Trump Is Too Weak to Be a Strongman

“ Every age has its own fascism , ” Primo Levi once warned .
Levi ’ s all-consuming subject was the vulnerability of contemporary liberal society to radical evil , which makes quite a bit of sense since he was a firsthand witness to and victim of the Nazi concentration camps .
Levi had already seen liberal society succumb to the deranged fantasies and false promises of demagogues and dictators once , and it was more than enough for a lifetime .
For the rest of his days , Levi remained on guard against any recrudescence of totalitarian ideology .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ phenomenon to this kind of fierce anti-fascism , something you might think of as “ phantom fascism.
” Consider the viral image of Hitler ’ s blank visage , with only the elaborate winged coif to indicate it is that of the Nazi leader .
This artwork is courtesy of a Belgian cartoonist , Luc Descheemaeker and it immediately put me in mind of a phrase by the great Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt , who warned against terribles simplificateurs—terrible simplifiers .
When you only know one episode from history , what choice do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with it ?
Nearly four years after the inauguration of President Trump , many who oppose him still confuse his authoritarian populism with fascist totalitarianism .
This is a mistake , because it is a distinction with a difference .
A more insightful analysis is provided by David Frum in his new book Trumpocalypse .
In a shrewd chapter titled “ White Terror , ” Frum explicates the new socio-political movement that Trump belongs to but does not quite command .
This movement may like to call itself “ nationalist , ” but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a misnomer .
“ The most fundamental concept in the politics of the new movement is the divide between friend and enemy , but for the new movement , the divide cuts through nations , not between them.
” The idea of a civic nationalism that forms the heart of America ’ s political philosophy is alien to this ideology .
Applying the “ fascist ” label to this new movement doesn ’ t really help explain it .
It is true that the same fascination with and sanctification of violence embodied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movements around the world is an essential element of fascism .
But while all fascist movements are violent , not all violent movements are “ fascist.
” The partisans of Trump look backward to a largely mythical past , not forward to a utopia of national redemption through war .
Whatever superficial resemblances this new movement may possess with the fascism of old , it is considerably weaker than the original because , at base , it is not the vanguard of a revolutionary movement , but a rearguard action being fought by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When scientists examine a species that resembles another , but only incompletely or imperfectly , they add the suffix ‘ oid ’ , ” Frum observes .
“ A chemical compound that ’ s not quite an alkaline is an ‘ alkaloid.
’ In the same way Trump and his ilk are ‘ fascoid ’ —near it , but not quite the same , a failure even as fascists.
” This gulf between fascism and Trumpism has been laid bare in recent weeks .
As Ross Douthat observes , “ across his presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Nixon , less ‘ law and order ’ than ‘ the law for thee but not for me.
’ ” This insight corresponds to a government that has always been less concerned , as Frum has argued , with persecuting the innocent than protecting the guilty .
As we prepare to enter this election season , there ’ s a wise motto for Trump ’ s opposition—nota bene : not “ the resistance ” —to consider : “ Pessimism of the intellect , optimism of the will.
” As I was taught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not say “ optimism of the heart.
” The will is something else .
It is active and vigilant , concerned not only with intentions but consequences .
Excessive pessimism of the intellect can actually mitigate the will .
Against an actual fascist regime , extra-constitutional means must be entertained by the opposition .
By contrast , within a democratic system grappling with the authoritarian populism we face now requires a firmly constitutional response : It requires a complete and total victory at the ballot box , not a change in the @ @ @ @

“Every age has its own fascism,” Primo Levi once warned. Levi’s all-consuming subject was the vulnerability of contemporary liberal society to radical evil, which makes quite a bit of sense since he was a firsthand witness to and victim of the Nazi concentration camps. Levi had already seen liberal society succumb to the deranged fantasies and false promises of demagogues and dictators once, and it was more than enough for a lifetime. For the rest of his days, Levi remained on guard against any recrudescence of totalitarian ideology.
What’s our excuse?
We moderns are guilty of an opposite phenomenon to this kind of fierce anti-fascism, something you might think of as “phantom fascism.”
Consider the viral image of Hitler’s blank visage, with only the elaborate winged coif to indicate it is that of the Nazi leader.
This artwork is courtesy of a Belgian cartoonist, Luc Descheemaeker and it immediately put me in mind of a phrase by the great Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt, who warned against terribles simplificateurs—terrible simplifiers. When you only know one episode from history, what choice do you have but to confuse everything else with it?
Nearly four years after the inauguration of President Trump, many who oppose him still confuse his authoritarian populism with fascist totalitarianism. This is a mistake, because it is a distinction with a difference.
A more insightful analysis is provided by David Frum in his new book Trumpocalypse.
In a shrewd chapter titled “White Terror,” Frum explicates the new socio-political movement that Trump belongs to but does not quite command. This movement may like to call itself “nationalist,” but to Frum’s mind, this is a misnomer. “The most fundamental concept in the politics of the new movement is the divide between friend and enemy, but for the new movement, the divide cuts through nations, not between them.” The idea of a civic nationalism that forms the heart of America’s political philosophy is alien to this ideology.
Applying the “fascist” label to this new movement doesn’t really help explain it.
It is true that the same fascination with and sanctification of violence embodied in Trump’s GOP and kindred movements around the world is an essential element of fascism. But while all fascist movements are violent, not all violent movements are “fascist.”
The partisans of Trump look backward to a largely mythical past, not forward to a utopia of national redemption through war. Whatever superficial resemblances this new movement may possess with the fascism of old, it is considerably weaker than the original because, at base, it is not the vanguard of a revolutionary movement, but a rearguard action being fought by a demographic in its twilight.
“When scientists examine a species that resembles another, but only incompletely or imperfectly, they add the suffix ‘oid’,” Frum observes. “A chemical compound that’s not quite an alkaline is an ‘alkaloid.’ In the same way Trump and his ilk are ‘fascoid’—near it, but not quite the same, a failure even as fascists.”
This gulf between fascism and Trumpism has been laid bare in recent weeks. As Ross Douthat observes, “across his presidency Trump has been more a Wallace than a Nixon, less ‘law and order’ than ‘the law for thee but not for me.’” This insight corresponds to a government that has always been less concerned, as Frum has argued, with persecuting the innocent than protecting the guilty.
As we prepare to enter this election season, there’s a wise motto for Trump’s opposition—nota bene: not “the resistance”—to consider:
“Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.”
As I was taught long ago, notice that the author did not say “optimism of the heart.”
The will is something else.
It is active and vigilant, concerned not only with intentions but consequences. Excessive pessimism of the intellect can actually mitigate the will. Against an actual fascist regime, extra-constitutional means must be entertained by the opposition. By contrast, within a democratic system grappling with the authoritarian populism we face now requires a firmly constitutional response: It requires a complete and total victory at the ballot box, not a change in the form of government.


thebulwark--2020-06-15--How Far Can Trump Push America’s Military?

Donald Trump ’ s strong-arm tactics near Lafayette Square on June 1 have triggered an unnerving standoff which may augur a grave constitutional crisis : an open breach between America ’ s president and its military leaders .
In a damning essay , Bill Moyers described the precipitating event—Trump ’ s misappropriation of his authority as commander-in-chief : In the days after the Lafayette Square incident , a harrowing back story emerged .
To clear American streets of their largely peaceful protesters , Trump wanted to deploy active-duty troops under the 1807 Insurrection Act .
The objections of General Mark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , reportedly provoked a heated argument with Trump in the Oval Office on June 1 .
A short time later , the area just north of the square was violently cleared of its peaceful protesters by law enforcement officers from a mix of federal , state , and local agencies : the D.C. National Guard , the Secret Service , the Park Police , and D.C. and Arlington police , with support from the FBI , U.S. marshals , and even prison guards .
These officers attacked the peaceful protesters with smoke bombs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns , and pepper spray ( sometimes considered tear gas ) .
Minutes later , Milley , dressed in his fatigues , walked through the now-cleared area with Trump—becoming as much of a prop as the Bible the president awkwardly held aloft in his photo-op .
The fallout was corrosive .
Reports the New York Times : “ D.C .
Guard members , typically deployed to help after hurricanes , floods and other natural disasters , say they feel demoralized and exhausted .
More than 60 percent are people of color , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ troops were so ashamed in taking part against the protests that they have kept it from family members.
” Appalled by Trump ’ s abuse of authority , General James Mattis adjured in a statement published by The Atlantic : “ When I joined the military , some 50 years ago , I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution .
Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with military leadership standing alongside.
” Swiftly thereafter came what Max Boot called “ an extraordinary uprising among retired generals and admirals who under normal circumstances would never criticize a sitting president.
” Among this distinguished roster of objectors to Trump ’ s ominous power play , General John Allen , former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan , was especially blunt : “ The slide of the United States into illiberalism may well have begun on June 1 , 2020.
” But most extraordinary about these public warnings was their obvious purpose—encouraging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rogue commander-in-chief who holds nothing sacred save himself .
Wrote retired four-star admiral James Stavridis , former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO : Eleven days after the shame of Lafayette Square , General Milley responded with a forthright public apology .
“ I should not have been there , ” he said in a video commencement address to the National Defense University .
“ My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.
” Nor did Milley leave it there .
Denouncing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George Floyd , ” he repeated his opposition to deploying federal troops to quash protests which , he added , “ not only speak to [ Floyd ’ s ] killing , but also to the centuries of injustice toward African-Americans.
” But our narcissist-in-chief continues to view the military as a political prop—recalling West Point graduates during a pandemic to hear his graduation address in person .
In response , over 500 West Point graduates issued their own admonition to Trump ’ s captive audience : Beneath this burgeoning drama lurks a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the military defy a direct order from its civilian commander-in-chief ?
That such a question has ripened is a tribute to Trump ’ s pathology—and the deep fear of what he might do to retain power .
Our constitutional democracy rests on civilian control of the military .
Hence the oath taken by all enlisted military personnel : Taken literally , this duty of obedience seems absolute .
Not so .
The Uniform Code of Military Justice states that military personnel must obey “ the lawful orders ” of a superior .
Indeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to criminal prosecution .
Nonetheless , there is a strong presumption of obedience .
What , then , makes an order so clearly unlawful that a soldier must resist it ?
According to the Court of Military Appeals in United States v. Keenan , the command must be “ of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal.
” The Keenan case provides a stark example : an order to kill an elderly Vietnamese civilian .
But the obligation to resist arises whenever an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statute , or the U.S. Constitution .
Moreover , the order in question must not “ have for its sole object the attainment of some private end.
” When the commander-in-chief is Donald Trump , such principles are not abstruse .
Moreover , Trump need not follow the chain of command : As president , he can issue an order to anyone he chooses and , if one commander refuses , turn to another .
This broad authority sharpens the military ’ s underlying quandary : What if a president ’ s order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegal ?
Here Trump has considerable leverage .
As the Military Times observes , there is no American custom of senior military officers resigning in protest over morally objectionable , yet ostensibly lawful , presidential orders .
Further , the Manual for Courts-Martial states that “ the dictates of a person ’ s conscience , religion , or personal philosophy can not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.
” As Christopher Fonzone observes in Just Security : “ Commentators should not expect military disobedience to save the nation from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By nature and circumstance , Trump presents the prospect of more such orders .
He is trailing in the polls ; as November draws near , he may be increasingly desperate to prevent defeat by misusing his power as commander-in-chief .
Possibilities abound .
Suppose , for example , Trump invokes the Insurrection Act to deploy active duty troops on the pretext of preventing disorder in a restive city .
Or , perhaps , dispatches soldiers to polling places in heavily African-American precincts—claiming that he is acting to protect voters from prospective violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them from voting .
Such orders are not , on their face , obviously illegal .
As Scott R. Anderson and Michel Paradis spell out in Lawfare , the Insurrection Act authorizes a president to deploy troops where disorder makes it otherwise “ impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States ” ; threatens to deprive citizens of a “ privilege , immunity , or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law ” ; or “ obstructs the execution of the laws United States.
” That is the authority under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ troops to suppress disorder in Los Angeles following the beating of Rodney King .
Moreover , our primary arbiters of legality—the courts—are unlikely to act , if at all , before the president ’ s directive is carried out .
As Anderson and Paradis observe , “ those looking to stop Trump from deploying more federal troops to U.S. cities will likely need to look beyond the federal courts for a remedy .
The primary check on use of the Insurrection Act has been political , given the unpopularity of its use—a factor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is a vulnerable candidate in an election year.
” But Trump , and his party , may see the politics differently .
While Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has objected to using the Insurrection Act , Trump could simply fire him .
Should Trump peremptorily invoke the act , what can the Army ’ s senior leadership do to stop him ?
On paper , not much .
The recognized alternatives are for a military leader to dissent but , if overruled , comply ; to quietly resign ; or , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Moreover , in his displeasure , Trump can revoke the commission of a recalcitrant officer for any reason , placing pressure on other senior officers to comply on pain of ending their careers .
Only a resignation in protest has any chance of provoking an adverse public reaction .
What is more likely to do so is something without precedent in American history : a concerted refusal by senior commanders to obey a presidential order .
It seems reasonable to posit that the current outcry of former military leaders is intended to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and therefore to dissuade Trump from using American troops on American soil .
But what if , instead , Trump decided to rally support by bombing Iran on the pretext of protecting American lives or , at least , our national interest—much as he did in ordering the assassination of General Soleimani ?
The last 70 years are awash in military actions undertaken without congressional authority .
And given the abdication by Congress of oversight over presidential warmaking , any military leader who defies such an order will be standing on quicksand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ deploying nuclear weapons in a non-retaliatory attack on a foreign adversary—say , yet again , Iran .
Let us stipulate that even Trump is unlikely to view launching a nuclear holocaust as a splendid career move .
Still , any analysis of his nuclear leeway is revelatory—and deeply sobering .
Professor Graham Allison of Harvard , an expert in nuclear strategy , tells me that “ unfortunately , the commander-in-chief has full authority to order a nuclear attack.
” Consider this passage from a paper promulgated by the Nuclear Threat Initiative : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s alone .
Once a president makes this decision .
.
.
a structured and automatic process begins , with limited flexibility for the actors in that process to raise legal concerns.
” As a result , warned Alex Wellerstein and Avner Cohen in the Washington Post in 2017 , “ recent statements by current and former four-star commanders of the Strategic Command—the branch of the military that would launch nuclear weapons were such a thing to happen—that the military would only carry out ‘ legal ’ presidential orders to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” A presidential order for the non-retaliatory use of nuclear weapons is , of course , the most likely context for concerted resistance by the military .
As Professor Allison points out , during Richard Nixon ’ s last days in office Defense Secretary James Schlesinger “ in an act of what some would call patriotism and some insubordination ” instructed military leaders to contact him should they receive “ any direct orders from the president to use force , including nuclear force.
” Happily , Nixon resigned .
But that ad hoc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line of defense against an unstable president dramatizes how dangerous it was for the electorate to invest Donald Trump with the awesome powers of the presidency .
This raises a final concern which , before Trump , would have evoked a dystopian political thriller : a president who refuses to leave office .
Consider , here , the very real possibility of a disputed election resembling that which we experienced in 2000 .
Imagine , further , the disturbingly plausible scenario posed by Professor Lawrence Douglas in his aptly titled book Will He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it gradually emerges that the electoral votes of Pennsylvania will dictate the winner .
At midnight , Trump leads .
But over the next several days the sluggish tabulation of mail-in ballots shows Joe Biden inching ahead .
Claiming voter fraud , Trump declares himself entitled to a second term .
Flash forward to January 6 , when Congress is required to certify the results of the Electoral College .
Douglas imagines a Republican Senate declaring Trump the winter , and a Democratic House asserting that Biden will become president .
What then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a constitutional quandary .
In 2016 , Trump refused to commit to abiding by the electoral results ; in 2020 , he is already claiming that mail-in voting will facilitate massive voter fraud .
Moreover , it seems inevitable that voting by mail will lead to delayed counts—as it did only days ago on primary night in Pennsylvania .
It is not hard to imagine Trump ordering the military to help keep him in office .
Biden already has publicly discussed the possibility of Trump trying “ to steal the election , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s my greatest concern.
” Perhaps the Supreme Court would intervene .
But suppose they do not—or that Trump decides to ignore the Court ’ s adverse ruling .
At noon on January 20 , the Constitution ends Trump ’ s original term in office ; no doubt Biden would argue that Trump ’ s authority to give orders as commander-in-chief expires at 12:01 .
But what must the military do then ?
Biden purports to know .
Citing the number of high-ranking retired military officers who criticized Trump for using the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Noah : “ I am absolutely convinced they [ the military ] will escort him from the White House with great dispatch.
” Perhaps .
But what a dreadful outcome for the military—and for American democracy .
And what if , despite an apparent Biden win , the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court declares Trump entitled to a second term ?
The military can not save us from another Bush v. Gore , or a second term even worse than the first .
One can but imagine Trump ’ s grandiose expressions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for America ’ s armed forces .
There is only one way to spare the military—and , for that matter , to place this presidential election beyond the ministrations of our politicized Supreme Court , and the machinations of a president too sick to honor his oath to protect and defend our constitution .
An Electoral College victory for Joseph R. Biden so decisive that it brooks no doubt .

Donald Trump’s strong-arm tactics near Lafayette Square on June 1 have triggered an unnerving standoff which may augur a grave constitutional crisis: an open breach between America’s president and its military leaders.
In a damning essay, Bill Moyers described the precipitating event—Trump’s misappropriation of his authority as commander-in-chief:
He . . . includ[ed] in his entourage the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs (dressed in combat fatigues), as his orderlies unleashed chemical fumes on peaceful protesters—all so that the president could use them as stage props in a photo op, holding up a Bible in front of a historic church, just to make a dandy ad for his re-election campaign.
In the days after the Lafayette Square incident, a harrowing back story emerged. To clear American streets of their largely peaceful protesters, Trump wanted to deploy active-duty troops under the 1807 Insurrection Act. The objections of General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, reportedly provoked a heated argument with Trump in the Oval Office on June 1. A short time later, the area just north of the square was violently cleared of its peaceful protesters by law enforcement officers from a mix of federal, state, and local agencies: the D.C. National Guard, the Secret Service, the Park Police, and D.C. and Arlington police, with support from the FBI, U.S. marshals, and even prison guards. These officers attacked the peaceful protesters with smoke bombs, flash grenades, “pepper-ball” guns, and pepper spray (sometimes considered tear gas).
Minutes later, Milley, dressed in his fatigues, walked through the now-cleared area with Trump—becoming as much of a prop as the Bible the president awkwardly held aloft in his photo-op.
The fallout was corrosive. Reports the New York Times: “D.C. Guard members, typically deployed to help after hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters, say they feel demoralized and exhausted. More than 60 percent are people of color, and one soldier said he and some fellow troops were so ashamed in taking part against the protests that they have kept it from family members.”
Appalled by Trump’s abuse of authority, General James Mattis adjured in a statement published by The Atlantic: “When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”
Swiftly thereafter came what Max Boot called “an extraordinary uprising among retired generals and admirals who under normal circumstances would never criticize a sitting president.” Among this distinguished roster of objectors to Trump’s ominous power play, General John Allen, former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was especially blunt: “The slide of the United States into illiberalism may well have begun on June 1, 2020.”
But most extraordinary about these public warnings was their obvious purpose—encouraging their successors in high command to resist a rogue commander-in-chief who holds nothing sacred save himself. Wrote James Stavridis, a retired four-star admiral and the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO:
Our active duty military must remain above the fray of domestic politics, and the best way to do that is to keep that force focused on its rightful mission outside the United States. Our senior active duty military leaders must make that case forcefully and directly to national leadership, speaking truth to power in uncomfortable ways. They must do this at the risk of their career. I hope they will do so, and not allow the military to be dragged into the maelstrom that is ahead of us, and which will likely only accelerate between now and November. If they do not stand and deliver on this vital core value, I fear for the soul of our military and all of the attendant consequences. We cannot afford to have a future Lafayette Square end up looking like Tiananmen Square.
Eleven days after the shame of Lafayette Square, General Milley responded with a forthright public apology. “I should not have been there,” he said in a video commencement address to the National Defense University. “My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.”
Nor did Milley leave it there. Denouncing “the senseless and brutal killing of George Floyd,” he repeated his opposition to deploying federal troops to quash protests which, he added, “not only speak to [Floyd’s] killing, but also to the centuries of injustice toward African-Americans.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But our narcissist-in-chief continues to view the military as a political prop—recalling West Point graduates during a pandemic to hear his graduation address in person. In response, over 500 West Point graduates issued their own admonition to Trump’s captive audience:
The abhorrent murder of George Floyd has inspired millions to protest police brutality and the persistence of racism. Sadly, the government has threatened to use the Army in which you serve as a weapon against fellow Americans engaging in these legitimate protests. Worse, military leaders, who took the same oath you take today, have participated in politically charged events. The principle of civilian control is central to the military profession. But that principle does not imply blind obedience. Politicization of the Armed Forces puts at risk the bond of trust between the American military and American society. Should this trust be ruptured, the damage to the nation would be incalculable. America needs your leadership.
Beneath this burgeoning drama lurks a soldier’s dilemma: When should the military defy a direct order from its civilian commander-in-chief? That such a question has ripened is a tribute to Trump’s pathology—and the deep fear of what he might do to retain power.
Our constitutional democracy rests on civilian control of the military. Hence the oath taken by all enlisted military personnel  :
I . . . do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God.)
Taken literally, this duty of obedience seems absolute. Not so. The Uniform Code of Military Justice states that military personnel must obey “the lawful orders” of a superior. Indeed, executing an unlawful order can lead to criminal prosecution.
Nonetheless, there is a strong presumption of obedience. What, then, makes an order so clearly unlawful that a soldier must resist it? According to the Court of Military Appeals in United States v. Keenan, the command must be “of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal.”
The Keenan case provides a stark example: an order to kill an elderly Vietnamese civilian. But the obligation to resist arises whenever an order violates military law, a federal statute, or the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the order in question must not “have for its sole object the attainment of some private end.”
When the commander-in-chief is Donald Trump, such principles are not abstruse. Moreover, Trump need not follow the chain of command: As president, he can issue an order to anyone he chooses and, if one commander refuses, turn to another.
This broad authority sharpens the military’s underlying quandary: What if a president’s order is unwise or outright repugnant—but not obviously illegal?
Here Trump has considerable leverage. As the Military Times observes, there is no American custom of senior military officers resigning in protest over morally objectionable, yet ostensibly lawful, presidential orders. Further, the Manual for Courts-Martial states that “the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.” As Christopher Fonzone observes in Just Security: “Commentators should not expect military disobedience to save the nation from simply unwise or legally contested orders.”
By nature and circumstance, Trump presents the prospect of more such orders. He is trailing in the polls; as November draws near, he may be increasingly desperate to prevent defeat by misusing his power as commander-in-chief.
Possibilities abound. Suppose, for example, Trump invokes the Insurrection Act to deploy active duty troops on the pretext of preventing disorder in a restive city. Or, perhaps, dispatches soldiers to polling places in heavily African-American precincts—claiming that he is acting to protect voters from prospective violence but, in truth, to discourage them from voting.
Such orders are not, on their face, obviously illegal. As Scott R. Anderson and Michel Paradis spell out in Lawfare, the Insurrection Act authorizes a president to deploy troops where disorder makes it otherwise “impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States”; threatens to deprive citizens of a “privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law”; or “obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States.”
That is the authority under which George H.W. Bush deployed federal troops to suppress disorder in Los Angeles following the beating of Rodney King. Moreover, our primary arbiters of legality—the courts—are unlikely to act, if at all, before the president’s directive is carried out.
As Anderson and Paradis observe, “those looking to stop Trump from deploying more federal troops to U.S. cities will likely need to look beyond the federal courts for a remedy. The primary check on use of the Insurrection Act has been political, given the unpopularity of its use—a factor that may prove particularly persuasive given that Trump is a vulnerable candidate in an election year.”
But Trump, and his party, may see the politics differently. While Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has objected to using the Insurrection Act, Trump could simply fire him. Should Trump peremptorily invoke the act, what can the Army’s senior leadership do to stop him?
On paper, not much.
The recognized alternatives are for a military leader to dissent but, if overruled, comply; to quietly resign; or, most dramatic, to resign in public protest. Moreover, in his displeasure, Trump can revoke the commission of a recalcitrant officer for any reason, placing pressure on other senior officers to comply on pain of ending their careers.
Only a resignation in protest has any chance of provoking an adverse public reaction. What is more likely to do so is something without precedent in American history: a concerted refusal by senior commanders to obey a presidential order. It seems reasonable to posit that the current outcry of former military leaders is intended to create the specter of collective resistance, and therefore to dissuade Trump from using American troops on American soil.
But what if, instead, Trump decided to rally support by bombing Iran on the pretext of protecting American lives or, at least, our national interest—much as he did in ordering the assassination of General Soleimani? The last 70 years are awash in military actions undertaken without congressional authority. And given the abdication by Congress of oversight over presidential warmaking, any military leader who defies such an order will be standing on quicksand.
The ultimate nightmare is to imagine Trump deploying nuclear weapons in a non-retaliatory attack on a foreign adversary—say, yet again, Iran. Let us stipulate that even Trump is unlikely to view launching a nuclear holocaust as a splendid career move. Still, any analysis of his nuclear leeway is revelatory—and deeply sobering.
Professor Graham Allison of Harvard, an expert in nuclear strategy, tells me that “unfortunately, the commander-in-chief has full authority to order a nuclear attack.” Consider this passage from a paper promulgated by the Nuclear Threat Initiative: “The final decision to launch is the president’s alone. Once a president makes this decision . . . a structured and automatic process begins, with limited flexibility for the actors in that process to raise legal concerns.”
As a result, warned Alex Wellerstein and Avner Cohen in the Washington Post in 2017, “recent statements by current and former four-star commanders of the Strategic Command—the branch of the military that would launch nuclear weapons were such a thing to happen—that the military would only carry out ‘legal’ presidential orders to use nukes shouldn’t be particularly reassuring.”
They continue:
There are no “checks and balances” on nuclear launch decisions in any formal sense. There is no need for congressional authorization; there is no “two-man rule” for the decision to use the bomb; and although the process for initiating a nuclear attack spells out the need for “consultation” with officials such as the Secretary of Defense, they have no power to veto the order, and ultimately, their consent is not required. If President Trump wants to use one of the thousands of nuclear weapons in the U.S. military’s arsenal, the chance of anyone stopping him appears to be very low.
A presidential order for the non-retaliatory use of nuclear weapons is, of course, the most likely context for concerted resistance by the military. As Professor Allison points out, during Richard Nixon’s last days in office Defense Secretary James Schlesinger “in an act of what some would call patriotism and some insubordination” instructed military leaders to contact him should they receive “any direct orders from the president to use force, including nuclear force.”
Happily, Nixon resigned. But that ad hoc resistance by the military is our last line of defense against an unstable president dramatizes how dangerous it was for the electorate to invest Donald Trump with the awesome powers of the presidency.
This raises a final concern which, before Trump, would have evoked a dystopian political thriller: a president who refuses to leave office.
Consider, here, the very real possibility of a disputed election resembling that which we experienced in 2000. Imagine, further, the disturbingly plausible scenario posed by Professor Lawrence Douglas in his aptly titled book Will He Go?:
On election night, it gradually emerges that the electoral votes of Pennsylvania will dictate the winner. At midnight, Trump leads. But over the next several days the sluggish tabulation of mail-in ballots shows Joe Biden inching ahead.
Claiming voter fraud, Trump declares himself entitled to a second term. Flash forward to January 6, when Congress is required to certify the results of the Electoral College. Douglas imagines a Republican Senate declaring Trump the winner, and a Democratic House asserting that Biden will become president. What then?
One cannot rule out such a constitutional quandary. In 2016, Trump refused to commit to abiding by the electoral results; in 2020, he is already claiming that mail-in voting will facilitate massive voter fraud. Moreover, it seems inevitable that voting by mail will lead to delayed counts—as it did only days ago on primary night in Pennsylvania.
It is not hard to imagine Trump ordering the military to help keep him in office. Biden already has publicly discussed the possibility of Trump trying “to steal the election,” telling Trevor Noah that “it’s my greatest concern.”
Perhaps the Supreme Court would intervene. But suppose they do not—or that Trump decides to ignore the Court’s adverse ruling. At noon on January 20, the Constitution ends Trump’s original term in office; no doubt Biden would argue that Trump’s authority to give orders as commander-in-chief expires at 12:01. But what must the military do then?
Biden purports to know. Citing the number of high-ranking retired military officers who criticized Trump for using the military to clear Lafayette Square, Biden told Noah: “I am absolutely convinced they [the military] will escort him from the White House with great dispatch.”
Perhaps. But what a dreadful outcome for the military—and for American democracy. And what if, despite an apparent Biden win, the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court declares Trump entitled to a second term? The military cannot save us from another Bush v. Gore, or a second term even worse than the first. One can but imagine Trump’s grandiose expressions of unchecked entitlement, and the consequences for America’s armed forces.
There is only one way to spare the military—and, for that matter, to place this presidential election beyond the ministrations of our politicized Supreme Court, and the machinations of a president too sick to honor his oath to protect and defend our constitution.
An Electoral College victory for Joseph R. Biden so decisive that it brooks no doubt.


thebulwark--2020-06-15--Virginia Race Another Lesson in Trump-Era GOP Cruelty

The gay wedding bell tolled for Rep. Denver Riggleman ( R-Virginia ) on Saturday as he was defeated by homophobic gadfly and former Liberty University official Bob Good in a jury-rigged “ drive-thru ” convention that was animated by a single issue : Riggleman ’ s openness to gay marriage—or , more to the point , his decency and willingness to treat gays as human beings .
This bizarre primary defeat of an incumbent congressman is synecdoche for the Republican party in the age of Trump : a campaign motivated by cruelty ; a doubling-down on the basest parts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among college-educated voters and suburbanites ; and a bit of voter suppression mixed with a touch of gerrymandering .
While all of those issues played a factor in his defeat , none would have been Riggleman ’ s death knell had he not committed the original sin that opened the door to the primary : Officiating the same-sex wedding of Anthony “ Rek ” LeCounte and Alex Pisciarino last July .
Riggleman ’ s seat in Virginia ’ s 5th district used to be part of a swingy central corridor that sprawled from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the ’ 90s it was represented by the now-extinct kind of Blue Dog Democrat who could merge the interests of the rural south with the progressive college town .
In the early aughts , I was a young field staffer in the district when the then-Democratic representative Virgil Goode switched parties to become an independent and then a Republican as the mores of the district began to align with the shifting national politics .
In 2008 , Democrat Tom Perriello won the seat on Obama ’ s coattails by a 727-vote margin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the district in a non-Democratic wave year and was swept out in 2010 by Republican Robert Hurt ( the brother of Fox News contributor Charlie Hurt ) .
After 2010 the Virginia GOP put the clamps down on VA-5 as the district was gerrymandered by a Republican legislature to further offset the Charlottesville vote , in an effort “ designed to favor Republicans , ” according to Virginia politics guru Larry Sabato .
That change extended the district north , adding conservative exurban counties between Charlottesville and Washington .
Sabato said the district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense ” and while it ’ s true that the notion of a district that rambles from just outside Dulles Airport to the Martinsville racetrack is absurd on its face , what the Virginia GOP did on top of that was ensure that the nominee for such a district was chosen in the most farcical and undemocratic way imaginable .
Virginia activists have been in a years-long battle to choose nominees at activist-run “ conventions ” rather than in standard primaries .
The state party finally decided to go along with this method @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” has led the party to nominate a white nationalist Confederate cosplayer from Minnesota for the U.S. Senate ( and very nearly for governor as well ) in a state that is 20 percent black and where the preponderance of the voters are swingy suburban whites .
And while the results have been great in terms of elevating fringe Republicans , they have been bad in terms of winning general elections : Democrats currently hold both Senate seats , 7 of the 11 congressional seats , the governor ’ s mansion , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegates in a state that had a strong Republican tilt in the early part of this decade .
But none of that seems to matter to the state GOP , which is more interested in winning intramural fights against moderate Republicans than elections against Democrats .
Is this story starting to sound familiar ?
Anyway , you might think that in a year where holding a convention indoors is a public health risk , the Virginia GOP would have moved to a primary .
Or provided a vote-by-mail option .
But no .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of whom supported Good—chose to hold a “ drive-thru ” convention at Tree of Life Ministries in Campbell County .
Which is a three-hour drive from the Manassas side of the district ( where Riggleman was born ) and , by total dumb luck , just happens to be Bob Good ’ s church .
The result was that only about 2,300 people showed up to vote in the 5th-district primary , which is fewer people than voted in the Democratic presidential primary in Campbell County alone—forget the entire district .
So while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnout from former Republicans and independents in the state ’ s growing suburbs , the Republicans held a poorly attended church-parking-lot election designed to oust a sitting representative who would have almost certainly held the seat .
Which is about what you ’ d expect from a downsizing party that is “ on the wrong side of every emerging demographic.
” But Good ’ s entire primary was even more debased than standard issue Trumpism .
It was premised on one thing .
Not a vote that Riggleman took .
Not a comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely on this picture of Riggleman officiating LeCounte and Pisciarino ’ s wedding : By every other measure , Riggleman was following the model playbook for winning as a Republican in 2020 .
In fact it was Good who had the anti-Trump oppo that has been so damaging in most GOP primaries over the past three years , having said that Trump was “ about my 17th choice out of 17 ” back in 2016 .
Heck , Good ran a campaign so incompetent he might not even qualify for the general election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extension for his lack of signatures .
Riggleman was , by every possible measure , a Republican in good standing .
He was endorsed by Donald Trump and Jerry Falwell Jr .
He voted with Trump and the GOP leadership 95 percent of the time .
And when gay issues came up for a vote , Riggleman sided with social conservatives .
He voted against a resolution condemning Trump ’ s ban on allowing transgender people to serve in the military and Democratic efforts to include sexual orientation and gender as protected classes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that mattered , because of the wedding photo .
In an interview last week , Good tried to conjure other reasons for the primary , pointing a reporter to Riggleman ’ s rating from ivoterguide as proof that he was not conservative on issues other than gay marriage .
The weird part was that this extremely janky random website gives Riggleman a 95 percent conservative rating and the only three issues it lists as his apostasies are : ( 1 ) officiating the gay wedding ; ( 2 ) supporting a compromise bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) ; and ( 3 ) opposing the abandonment of the Kurds in Syria .
So .
The wall compromise was Trump-approved .
And supporting the Kurds was the actual conservative position .
Which really just leaves one thing , which isn ’ t even an “ issue.
” Good and his supporters weren ’ t even shy about pushing on the gay-wedding until they began to draw national attention late in the campaign .
Good ’ s campaign website posted an article about how homosexuality was a psychological condition .
In videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised the wedding issue in his stump speech .
One Good surrogate said Riggleman should “ not be out on the very front lines performing the service.
” Another made a video in which she discussed how “ queers ” want the same rights as Christians : “ They ’ re strange people , and they want your rights and you can not appease them.
” In the same video she said , “ You had a black man in the president for eight years and you ’ re crying foul , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an inch , and he ’ ll be your ruler .
These minorities will not be satisfied.
” At one point LeCounte and Pisciarino attended one of Good ’ s campaign events to see for themselves .
Good raised their wedding as an issue even knowing they were in the audience .
So there you have it .
There is no way to view this except as a form of deep , soul-sucking hatred .
These are the same people who once insisted that Donald Trump ’ s moral trainwreck didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not pastor .
These are the same people who once insisted that Republicans had to vote for Roy Moore , no matter how distasteful it might be , because the cause of justice required every possible seat to be held by the party .
Yet when it came to a sitting Republican who treated two gay volunteers to his campaign with the same affection and dignity he treated straight ones , Virginia ’ s Republicans did everything possible to put the 5th district seat at risk .
Part of me wonders if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had Riggleman voted in favor of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act or cast some other quiet vote for gay rights .
I suspect not .
A vote is abstract .
It might impact some people over there .
But that has a different valence than having to approve of something you see right in front of you .
I suspect that Riggleman ’ s real sin was signaling that he liked them .
That he didn ’ t share the same grievances as the ( shrinking number of ) Virginia Republican regulars .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of equal respect and equal dignity .
It didn ’ t matter if the grooms were actually Republicans , too .
That picture was something from the other tribe , forced upon them .
And in that sense—despite having the Donald Trump Twitter seal of approval—Riggleman ran afoul of the core feature of the Trump era .
He wasn ’ t willing to be cruel to the Americans that Republican voters hate , be they “ Demoncrats ” or the media or immigrants or Black Lives Matter protesters or in certain places , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The gay wedding bell tolled for Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-Virginia) on Saturday as he was defeated by homophobic gadfly and former Liberty University official Bob Good in a jury-rigged “drive-thru” convention that was animated by a single issue: Riggleman’s openness to gay marriage—or, more to the point, his decency and willingness to treat gays as human beings.
This bizarre primary defeat of an incumbent congressman is synecdoche for the Republican party in the age of Trump: a campaign motivated by cruelty; a doubling-down on the basest parts of the party base; plummeting party identification among college-educated voters and suburbanites; and a bit of voter suppression mixed with a touch of gerrymandering.
While all of those issues played a factor in his defeat, none would have been Riggleman’s death knell had he not committed the original sin that opened the door to the primary: Officiating the same-sex wedding of Anthony “Rek” LeCounte and Alex Pisciarino last July.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Riggleman’s seat in Virginia’s 5th district used to be part of a swingy central corridor that sprawled from Charlottesville to the North Carolina border. In the ’90s it was represented by the now-extinct kind of Blue Dog Democrat who could merge the interests of the rural south with the progressive college town. In the early aughts, I was a young field staffer in the district when the then-Democratic representative Virgil Goode switched parties to become an independent and then a Republican as the mores of the district began to align with the shifting national politics. In 2008, Democrat Tom Perriello won the seat on Obama’s coattails by a 727-vote margin. But he was too liberal for the district in a non-Democratic wave year and was swept out in 2010 by Republican Robert Hurt (the brother of Fox News contributor Charlie Hurt).
After 2010 the Virginia GOP put the clamps down on VA-5 as the district was gerrymandered by a Republican legislature to further offset the Charlottesville vote, in an effort “designed to favor Republicans,” according to Virginia politics guru Larry Sabato. That change extended the district north, adding conservative exurban counties between Charlottesville and Washington.
Sabato said the district “just doesn’t make any sense” and while it’s true that the notion of a district that rambles from just outside Dulles Airport to the Martinsville racetrack is absurd on its face, what the Virginia GOP did on top of that was ensure that the nominee for such a district was chosen in the most farcical and undemocratic way imaginable.
Virginia activists have been in a years-long battle to choose nominees at activist-run “conventions” rather than in standard primaries. The state party finally decided to go along with this method. So far, this “reform” has led the party to nominate a white nationalist Confederate cosplayer from Minnesota for the U.S. Senate (and very nearly for governor as well) in a state that is 20 percent black and where the preponderance of the voters are swingy suburban whites.
And while the results have been great in terms of elevating fringe Republicans, they have been bad in terms of winning general elections: Democrats currently hold both Senate seats, 7 of the 11 congressional seats, the governor’s mansion, and a 10-seat majority in the House of delegates in a state that had a strong Republican tilt in the early part of this decade.
But none of that seems to matter to the state GOP, which is more interested in winning intramural fights against moderate Republicans than elections against Democrats.
Is this story starting to sound familiar?
Anyway, you might think that in a year where holding a convention indoors is a public health risk, the Virginia GOP would have moved to a primary. Or provided a vote-by-mail option. But no. Instead the party’s district representatives—many of whom supported Good—chose to hold a “drive-thru” convention at Tree of Life Ministries in Campbell County. Which is a three-hour drive from the Manassas side of the district (where Riggleman was born) and, by total dumb luck, just happens to be Bob Good’s church.
The result was that only about 2,300 people showed up to vote in the 5th-district primary, which is fewer people than voted in the Democratic presidential primary in Campbell County alone—forget the entire district. So while the Democrats are seeing huge increases in turnout from former Republicans and independents in the state’s growing suburbs, the Republicans held a poorly attended church-parking-lot election designed to oust a sitting representative who would have almost certainly held the seat.
Which is about what you’d expect from a downsizing party that is “on the wrong side of every emerging demographic.”
But Good’s entire primary was even more debased than standard issue Trumpism. It was premised on one thing. Not a vote that Riggleman took. Not a comment that he made. It was premised entirely on this picture of Riggleman officiating LeCounte and Pisciarino’s wedding:
By every other measure, Riggleman was following the model playbook for winning as a Republican in 2020. In fact it was Good who had the anti-Trump oppo that has been so damaging in most GOP primaries over the past three years, having said that Trump was “about my 17th choice out of 17” back in 2016. Heck, Good ran a campaign so incompetent he might not even qualify for the general election unless an election board gives him an extension for his lack of signatures.
Riggleman was, by every possible measure, a Republican in good standing. He was endorsed by Donald Trump and Jerry Falwell Jr. He voted with Trump and the GOP leadership 95 percent of the time. And when gay issues came up for a vote, Riggleman sided with social conservatives. He voted against a resolution condemning Trump’s ban on allowing transgender people to serve in the military and Democratic efforts to include sexual orientation and gender as protected classes in anti-discrimination law.
Yet none of that mattered, because of the wedding photo.
In an interview last week, Good tried to conjure other reasons for the primary, pointing a reporter to Riggleman’s rating from ivoterguide as proof that he was not conservative on issues other than gay marriage. The weird part was that this extremely janky random website gives Riggleman a 95 percent conservative rating and the only three issues it lists as his apostasies are: (1) officiating the gay wedding; (2) supporting a compromise bill on wall funding (that Trump signed); and (3) opposing the abandonment of the Kurds in Syria.
So. The wall compromise was Trump-approved. And supporting the Kurds was the actual conservative position. Which really just leaves one thing, which isn’t even an “issue.”
Good and his supporters weren’t even shy about pushing on the gay-wedding until they began to draw national attention late in the campaign.
Good’s campaign website posted an article about how homosexuality was a psychological condition. In videos of his early campaign events he consistently raised the wedding issue in his stump speech. One Good surrogate said Riggleman should “not be out on the very front lines performing the service.” Another made a video in which she discussed how “queers” want the same rights as Christians: “They’re strange people, and they want your rights and you cannot appease them.” In the same video she said, “You had a black man in the president for eight years and you’re crying foul, or white supremacy? You give the devil an inch, and he’ll be your ruler. These minorities will not be satisfied.” At one point LeCounte and Pisciarino attended one of Good’s campaign events to see for themselves. Good raised their wedding as an issue even knowing they were in the audience.
So there you have it.
There is no way to view this except as a form of deep, soul-sucking hatred.
These are the same people who once insisted that Donald Trump’s moral trainwreck didn’t matter because he was running for president, not pastor.
These are the same people who once insisted that Republicans had to vote for Roy Moore, no matter how distasteful it might be, because the cause of justice required every possible seat to be held by the party.
Yet when it came to a sitting Republican who treated two gay volunteers to his campaign with the same affection and dignity he treated straight ones, Virginia’s Republicans did everything possible to put the 5th district seat at risk.
Part of me wonders if the reaction would have been this vicious had Riggleman voted in favor of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act or cast some other quiet vote for gay rights. I suspect not.
A vote is abstract. It might impact some people over there. But that has a different valence than having to approve of something you see right in front of you.
I suspect that Riggleman’s real sin was signaling that he liked them. That he didn’t share the same grievances as the (shrinking number of) Virginia Republican regulars.
His sin was treating gays as humans worthy of equal respect and equal dignity. It didn’t matter if the grooms were actually Republicans, too. That picture was something from the other tribe, forced upon them.
And in that sense—despite having the Donald Trump Twitter seal of approval—Riggleman ran afoul of the core feature of the Trump era.
He wasn’t willing to be cruel to the Americans that Republican voters hate, be they “Demoncrats” or the media or immigrants or Black Lives Matter protesters or in certain places, gays.
So he was cast out.