Get Task & Purpose in your inbox
Life In The Pentagon: Waiting To See What President Trump Will Tweet Or Say Next
Your friend and humble narrator is no longer assigned to the Pentagon beat. From now on, this reporter is a “Keeping up with President Trump” correspondent because the president makes rapid-fire policy decisions every time he speaks or tweets.
In recent days, Trump has announced he is nominating Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – nearly a year before Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford is expect to leave that position. The president also told reporters that his chief of staff retired Marine Gen. John Kelly is leaving the White House and he tweeted that the U.S. military may build a wall along the southwest border if Congress refuses to fund it.
In short, the president is a news-making machine who moves at the speed of cable news and social media. But his strategy of executing policy on social media and in front of cameras has not always worked. During his Dec. 11 televised meeting on border wall funding, Trump spent nearly 20 minutes shouting at senior Democratic leaders without winning any concessions from them.
Initially, the Defense Department had the luxury of waiting for further guidance on the president’s statements about banning transgender service members from staying in the U.S. military, his plans for a massive military parade, and his desire to create Space Force. But this year the Pentagon has been at the mercy of Trump’s impulses, such as when the president abruptly decided in June to cancel war games in South Korea.
Defense Secretary James Mattis has taken great pains to avoid contradicting his boss, but that has become increasingly difficult. In August, Mattis told reporters there were no plans to cancel any further military exercises with U.S. and South Korean troops. The next day, Trump tweeted. “There is no reason at this time to be spending large amounts of money on joint U.S.-South Korea war games.” (The Defense Department subsequently announced that this year’s Vigilant Ace exercise had been called off.)
On border issues, Mattis has tied himself into a human pretzel to avoid appearing in conflict with the president over whether U.S. troops are authorized to use lethal force to protect U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel. (As Heath Ledger’s Joker in “The Dark Knight” said: “This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object.”)
To your dim-witted correspondent, the president’s penchant for breaking military news seems to be needlessly chaotic; but retired Marine Lt. Col. Dakota Wood, who served as a defense advisor on Trump’s transition team, sees the president’s approach as an effective tactic to own news cycles and to keep his opponents constantly reacting to his moves.
While announcing his policy objectives before any work has been done to implement them runs the risk of encountering problems that have not been worked out yet, Trump’s supporters argue that by being first in the public sphere, the president is able to bypass bureaucratic delays and prevent his adversaries from stopping or watering down his proposals, said Wood, a senior research fellow for defense programs at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, D.C.
“Using Twitter to say the military might be used to build the border wall is likely a negotiating tactic in his back-and-forth with Congress on funding for such,” Wood told Task & Purpose. “All presidents use some sort of leverage. This president prefers using social media. I’d offer that his recent use of live news coverage of the opening debate with Democrat leaders on funding for ‘the wall’ is representative of his preference for such tactics.”
However, it is important to remember that not everything the president announces actually becomes policy, said Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington, D.C.
While Trump’s tweets and public comments allow him to think out loud, they are not official until the president makes a formal decision, Cordesman told Task & Purpose.
“It’s gotten to the point where it happens so often in so many ways to so many aspects of government – it’s not clear until the president actually takes a decision that this has that much impact anymore,” Cordesman said. “I think that in the case of a good part of Washington, now people wait to see if the president is serious.”
Jeff Schogol covers the Pentagon for Task & Purpose. He has covered the military for 13 years and embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq and Haiti. Prior to joining T&P;, he covered the Marine Corps and Air Force at Military Times. Comments or thoughts to share? Send them to Jeff Schogol via email at email@example.com or direct message @JeffSchogol on Twitter.
SEE ALSO: Trump Says He’ll Review Case Of Maj. Matthew Golsteyn, Green Beret Charged With Murdering Suspected Taliban Bomb-Maker
Editor's Note: The following is an op-ed. The opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Task & Purpose.
Editor's Note: A version of this article originally appeared on the blog of Angry Staff Officer
This morning, the Virginia state capitol in Richmond saw dozens of armed men gathering to demonstrate their support for the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution – the right to bear arms. These men were not merely bearing arms, however; they were fully accoutered in the trappings of what one would call a paramilitary group: helmets, vests, ammunition pouches, camouflage clothing, and other "tactical" necessities, the majority of which are neither tactical nor necessary. Their weapons, too, are bedecked with all sorts of accessories, and are also in the paramilitary lane. Rather than carry rifles or shotguns that one would use for hunting, they instead carry semi-automatic "military grade" weapons, to merely prove that they can.
This is not an uncommon sight in America. Nor has it ever been. Armed groups of angry men have a long and uncomfortable history in the United States. On very rare occasions, these irregulars have done some good against corrupt, power-hungry, and abusive county governments. For the most part, however, they bode no good.
A memo circulating over the weekend warning of a "possible imminent attack" against U.S. soldiers in Germany was investigated by Army officials, who found there to not be a serious threat after all.
Comedian Jon Stewart has joined forces with veterans groups to make sure service members who have been sickened by toxins from burn pits get the medical care they need, according to the Military Officers Association of America.
"Quite frankly, this is not just about burn pits — it's about the way we go to war as a country," Stewart said during his Jan. 17 visit to Washington, D.C. "We always have money to make war. We need to always have money to take care of what happens to people who are selfless enough, patriotic enough, to wage those wars on our behalf."
The Navy plans on naming its fourth Ford-class aircraft carrier after World War II hero Doris 'Dorie' Miller, an African-American sailor recognized for his heroism during the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor — and not everybody is happy about it.
Editor's note: A version of this article first appeared in 2018
Three. That's how many times Sgt. 1st Class Alwyn C. Cashe entered the burning carcass of his Bradley Fighting Vehicle after it struck an improvised explosive device in the Iraqi province of Salahuddin on Oct. 17, 2005. Cashe, a 35-year-old Gulf War vet on his second combat deployment to Iraq since the 2003 invasion, had been in the gun turret when the IED went off below the vehicle, immediately killing the squad's translator and rupturing the fuel cell. By the time the Bradley rolled to a stop, it was fully engulfed in flames. The crackle of incoming gunfire followed. It was a complex ambush.