Concerns about politicians looking to dramatically erode civil liberties and concerns about military interference in politics are running up against each other today, as Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook publicly lashed Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump for his call to ban Muslims from the country.
In comments yesterday, Trump demanded a full ban on all Muslims entering the United States for an indefinite amount of time, a call that has fueled condemnation the world over, and from all across the political spectrum. Trump has since rolled back the suggestion that Muslim citizens who go abroad for vacation wouldn’t be allowed back in, but is standing firm on the ban beyond that.
Cook warned that Trump’s comments are bolstering the ISIS narrative that the US war is not against them but against Islam as a whole, warning that the comments are “contrary to our values and contrary to our national security.”
It is virtually unheard of for the Pentagon to issue a statement criticizing a politician during election season, particularly a front-runner for president, and even though the statement mostly just echoes what everyone else is saying, it raises concerns about whether the Pentagon is going to be more proactive in defining the acceptable limits of civilian political discourse during the 2016 campaign.
Trump blew it. With his statements, he is showing who's side he is really on. Trump just alienated a large part of his would be voter base.
Free speech contrary to national security then, huh?
Much of today I'd heard Neocon radio distinguishing-themselves-from-Trump. If Trump were serving a function for some friends, that could be it. E.g., if you wanted to make the bigotry you're spreading into a collection of 'fine points,' nuances that the-other-wing-doesn't-appreciate, it'd be nice to have Bad Cop over there advocating getting rid of all the whales, cute little puppies, foreigners, … , or advocating euthanasia for cripples, sterilization for hippies, …. . Get a guy like that some traction and murdering 'fun sized' terrorists could seem rather mild… .
(…though I'm not following Trump so well that I understand if that's so routine…).
Trump's presidential run is very interesting in terms of his motives. While it is pretty clear that he is reaching out to disaffected whites and conservatives of other racial groups who have had it with the constant social engineering, the demagogic nature of his appeals is jarring in the American political context. His lack of specifics in how he would implement any of his ideas is also revealing. Last but not least, there is the matter of how he would handle the Deep State if elected and actually seated (there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that the Establishment will try to overturn a Trump electoral victory). The Pentagon spokesman blatantly violated the custom of the bureaucracy staying out of politics, and that could logically be interpreted as a warning to Trump that he is sowing the wrath of the Deep State.
Trump should now have a gathering with all Oath Keepers and tell the Pentagon don't even try it.
Free Speech must include the opinions of Trump, Carson, and others of their ilk.
With this being the case, only an educated society will be able to understand
the rethoric spouted by these individuals is based on fear, lies, and racism.
I have some advice for Dr. Carson when he visits Kenya. Don't wear any of the
traditional attire for African males. Billary Clinton might grab a couple of
photographs and call you an (terrorist) LIKE she did President Obama when he
visited his father's hometown in Kenya before the 2008 election.
Utter non-sense Pentagon spokesman Cook. Trumps words mean nothing to ISIS. Actually, it is our establishment's foreign policy that is the threat to our national security.