Mr. Trump and the Military

The old blog copied below came to mind on reading Mr. Buchanan’s April 19, 2019 piece .

From September 2016 “Could this be what they’re hiding?”

Finally reporting of substance, free of caricature and mockery about Mr. Trump’s Republican candidacy: Mr. Trump with the support of the U.S. military will attempt to increase military expenditures not for regime change they say, but to caution North Korea and Iran.

I reblogged the above from September 7, 2016 probably because Mr. Trump’s been getting some media attention for his appointing military men to his administration, even choosing a general as secretary of defense when it’s customary to put a non military citizen in that post like Obama’s choice Leon Panetta who had no military qualifications. Panetta reveals his reaction to being chosen secretary of defense in his book Worthy Fights. And it looks like Trump is really planning on spending more government money on military equipment and more soldiers. I wonder if he’s planning on maintaining the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower spoke of.

Weapons of War

On my CP24, 24 hour weather and sports channel I’m informed that Germany’s chancellor wants China to join arms control talks but wishes that the US would keep fighting in Syria. Arms control would have meaning if the manufacturing  of arms could be controlled. Even though Mr. Trump wants out of Syria he wants to purchase more arms than any country on earth to make America’s military untouchable and America great again for which he is borrowing more money than I can count.

Arms or weapons, are manufactured  and marketed fighting implements, not transformed from plough shares. Their purpose is to intimidate and destroy anyone who might challenge  control of peoples and territories. As long as there are territories to control and weapons manufacturers to profit, weapons agreements may postpone conflicts with but cannot limit the amassing of weaponry.

Trump, Mattis & Gender Dysphoria

Trump also chafed at the Pentagon’s slow response to his order to ban transgender people from serving in the military. That effort has stalled due to multiple legal challenges.

What is quoted above from an AP article dated “yesterday” leaves out General Mattis’        notion of “gender dysphoria” and had to be quoted word for word from that AP article because it could not be copied and pasted.

Secretary Mattis was reported on March 23, 2018 in to have written a memo disqualifying those with transgender dysphoria from serving with the U.S military.

The White House memo, released late Friday night, highlights recommendations from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis that individuals with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria be barred from serving, saying these people “may require substantial medical treatment, including medications and surgery.”

General Kelly

Whatever happened to General Kelley? Last week for the umpteenth time they were sure he’d be gone, like when he signed up for a second term even though they said he was just “hangin’ in there” to finish his first year. So who did they think was commander-in-chief: Mr Trump, General Mattis, General Kelly or someone else in the Pentagon?

Whose transgender plan is before Supreme Court?

Trump announced in March that he would endorse a plan by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to restrict the military service of transgender people who experience a condition called gender dysphoria. The policy replaced an outright ban on transgender service members that Trump announced last year on Twitter, citing concern over military focus and medical costs.

This morning November 24,2018 CP24 television reported the US supreme court to be reviewing Donald Trump’s intent to ban transgender people from serving in the military. Some time ago I read online that Secretary of Defense, Mattis had sought to ban those with gender dysphoria from serving in the military.

“With friends like that”

For weeks if not months, articles by various journalists nearly every day predicted that General Kelly, President Trump’s chief of staff, would not finish his first term because Mr. Trump disagreed with him. Today after signing on for a second term without pundit apology or reasons for their erroneous prediction, another suggestion that Kelley would leave shortly, like Mr. Sessions, appears in today’s Drudge Report in an article by a Fox media man. That suggestion is a link to the Fox article:

President Says Chief of Staff ‘Will Move On’…

Trump definitively told Wallace that Chief of Staff John Kelly will “move on” at some point, even as he claimed there was still some chance Kelly will stay with the administration through 2020.

The link is misleading because only the phrase “move on” is quoted from the interview as words spoken by The President near the end of the lengthy article about tactics resulting from the Acosta decision, then why Pakistan hasn’t deserved United States funding and concluding with President Trump’s saying “there was still some chance Kelly will stay with the administration through 2020.”