Another way to phrase the New York Times headline is that the military is determined to undermine the Commander in Chief by finding clever ways to circumvent his orders.
"Pentagon Mulls Options For Syria," the headline reads.
"The Pentagon is considering using small teams of Special Operations forces to strike the Islamic State group in Syria, one option for continuing a US military mission there despite president Donald Trump's order to withdraw troops from that country."
It goes on to explain that the troops would be stationed in Iraq, but would "surge" into Syria for specific raids, "according to two military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity."
I'll bet they did demand anonymity, considering that they were revealing that the military is maneuvering to obviate two centuries of civilian control, and describing methods specifically designed to violate direct orders from the President of the United States. Rest in peace, US constitution.
Yes the Pentagon should say "Yes, Sir" and implement those orders, whether or not they agree with or like them. Of course those orders might be ill advised, stupid, rash, foolhardy.. or .. well thought out, defined, profound, wise, etc. With this president I would bet on the former.
ReplyDeleteNow, this does not touch on whether we should have been there in the first place. That was not on this CiC. But as we all know, each one can counter the directions of a predecessor.