Mikey Weinstein, of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, wrote an excellent open letter to the US Air Force Academy, pointing out that they’re reaping the consequences of allowing christian nationalists to pack the Air Force leadership.
[daily kos] it wraps up with:
The USAFA must address its decades old, complicit role in developing fundamentalist Christian religious/political extremists who are now widely serving in our military. It must, as well, hold itself responsible for creating horrors like Mr. Brock in the same way it does USAFA graduate heroes whom we praise on the other end of the patriotic spectrum.
We told you this was happening.
We told you the consequences.
It happened.
Now condemn it on the public record and work with us to fix it.
Needless to say, Weinstein’s charge applies in general to evangelical christians, who have thrown their support behind Donald Trump, one of the least “christian” people in the political arena, today.
Most of us have to ask, “is it the power?” or “is it just the racism?” And I wonder how many christians are honest enough, or self-actualized enough, to be able to say. They make a mockery of their piety.
Aside from the slightly orange-tinged grinning loser in the middle, that’s one heck of a white bunch of people. I wonder if the Air Force carefully screened the attendees at the event, so as not to upset the snowflake-in-chief, or if that’s a good representation of the spectral hue in the Air Force command structure?
Christians need to take ownership of, and explain their love for Trump. And the Air Force needs to explain its love for christianity. After all, they love dropping high explosive on christians, just as much as they do everyone else. I know, I know, “just following orders” and all that.
The military’s love for Draft Dodgin’ Donald also baffles me. although he appears to have singled them out for some back-handed abuse. Have you noticed how Trump seems to eventually deride everyone who worships him? It’s as though he can’t keep from feeling contempt for anyone that’s such a suck-up that they’d love him. That’s some wicked psychology: narcissistic self-hatred.
Marcus, does the lone quote mark at the end mean you wanted to say more?
Why do young people wearing military dress uniforms remind me of a chorus line in a muslcal? I think it’s all the buttons and the white gloves. You expect them to break into a song and dance routine at any moment. Can’t say I like the lead actor though, and whoever was in charge of his awful stage make-up should be fired.
@2: here’s what I immediately thought of when seeing that picture: https://youtube.com/watch?v=K21yj2lEgrA
@Bruce – fixed. I think I was trying to decide if I wanted to continue…
cartomancer@#2:
Why do young people wearing military dress uniforms remind me of a chorus line in a muslcal? I think it’s all the buttons and the white gloves.
It’s really simple! Marching bands were originally military, and a lot of school marching bands would up wearing re-colored army surplus, or uniforms that were made by the same tailors that provided uniforms for the military. FWIW that’s still the case – the tailors that make dress uniforms for the Buckingham palace guards also make mind-blowingly expensive band uniforms.
Hotel doormen also used to wear military surplus, which is why even today you’ll sometimes see greatcoats with brocade and piping.
It’s all about class, really. “Military are revered, therefore let’s look military.”
My son the army captain got photographed in one of those Trump photo-ops. He was not grinning and giving a thumbs-up — he stood there very seriously, doing the job he was required to do, not particularly liking it, and required not to comment afterwards.
The doomsday evangelicals love for the military is entirely logical, given that they want the world to end. Insane fundamentalist Mike Pompeo is currently escalating the conflict with Iran, probably to shape relations of the incoming administration with Iran. That lying asshole is now blaming Iran for 9/11, probably to influence equally insane but even dumber people like Susan Collins, who thought that the capitol hill riots where Iranians attacking. Hopefully someone pulls a William Buckley on that asshole, before he starts WWIII.
kurt1: Given that Biden is a “moderate” that means he (like Hillary and to a lesser extent Obama) is a willing servant to the Party of War that ALWAYS runs the United States. It may be faint praise, but as a real estate and tourism profiteer (as well as being a physical coward), Trump may have always been less enamored with real war than our “moderate” Democrats? Heck, as horrible as he has been, one can speculate we would have been in a war had Hillary been elected.
Speculate? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to characterise the chances of another war within 2 years of a Clinton victory in 2016 as a dead cert. She was practically gagging to get her hands on Obama’s drones.
bmiller is absolutely right – one of the few upsides of the Trump presidency was his aversion to war. (Clearly a believer in the 35th Rule of Acquisition over the 34th…). It was one of the few positive ways (among many negative ways) in which he differed from basically every other President (or candidate, come to that…)
Those are cadets, in dress uniform. As noted by PZ already, they did not have a choice but to be photographed.
If your commanding officer, (the person in dress blues at the left) tells you to pose and smile with the president, that is exactly what you will do.
I have multiple young men in my family who are currently in the military and as veterans. All of them have harsh words for the Air Force branch, even the nephew who has gone full on maga.
I am giving both comments that are speculating/fantasizing about the bloodthirsty HRC extreme side-eye.
‘gaggingto get her hands’ on anything?! Your speculations are utter tripe.
I read the line of Trump being averse to war a lot, especially in some lefty circles before and shortly after the 2016 election. I don’t see that at all. Trump may be lazy and disinterested in the american imperial project, but he loves playing the big, strong, manly leader. The people in his administration are fully on board anyways and he is pretty chummy with Netanjahu. Probably the only thing that kept him from attacking Iran, North Korea or a central american state is his fear of looking bad when the military effort fails. Some reports from back when they assassinated Soleimani suggest his lack of trust in the generals to actually win (probably by nuking the opponent) and it would be another endless disaster like Afghanistan or Syria.
I don’t think he was any less likely to start a war than neoliberal, imperial psychos like Hillary, he just has a different motivations and is probably less focused.
kurt1: You do make some points. But I don’t think he has the fervor, the mania, for actual war making. And even relatively moderate violence has never stopped him from toxic masculinity/macho preening, anyway. At relatively low cost.
Hillary, on the other hand, was one of the architects of the utter horror show created in North Africa. Which continues to this day.
Are they all leaning in an effort to create the illusion that he’s standing upright? Or to make sure he doesn’t tip over?
Tethys@#10:
If your commanding officer, (the person in dress blues at the left) tells you to pose and smile with the president, that is exactly what you will do.
Bullshit. Even when I was in basic training (class of Ft Dix, June 1983) we knew that we could ask to go find a nice flat place in the baking sun and do pushups instead. That’s what we atheists did (there were 2 of us) when the rest of the company turned out to go to church on sundays: work detail.
Those cadets are all smiling and leaning in because they’re happy to bask in the presence of Trump and I am not going to buy some variation of the “they were just following orders” defense. Too much “just following orders” is the damn problem.
@kurt1, 11:
“I read the line of Trump being averse to war a lot(…) . I don’t see that at all”
So you will be able to list the wars he started or intensified then? Do tell.
“Probably the only thing that kept him from attacking Iran, North Korea or a central american state is his fear of looking bad when the military effort fails”
Indeed, we’ve all seen Trump’s keen abilities at foreseeing consequences to actions, and his deep and abiding care about how things look. (That’s sarcasm, btw)
“So you will be able to list the wars he started or intensified then? Do tell. ”
Trump ends nuclear treaty with Iran, Trump orders MOAB strike in Afghanistan, threatens North Korea with “Fire and Fury”, reverses Obamas Cuba course, Orders cruise missile strike in Syria, assassinates Soleimani, ramped up drone wars, declares Houthis a terrorist organization and supports Saudi Arabias genocidal war in Yemen, moves embassy to Jerusalem. Just off the top of my head, truly the signature of someone really averse to the idea of war and conflict. He even pardoned the few war criminals that got convicted, because he loves the idea of tough guys killing the “enemy” so much.
In your mind he has absolutely no ability to forsee any consequences, but that somehow makes him less likely to start another conflict?
@Marcus
Again, these appear to be brand new cadets in full dress uniform. That implies this photo is taken at some sort of event. They look like they are part of a USO performance, complete with broad stage smiles and professional photographers staging this photo.
I am not a huge military supporter, but maybe it’s more fair to direct any ire over leadership and moral failure at those in command, rather than crapping on a bunch of deluded teenage cadets for being in this photo?
@kurt1, 16:
I said :“So you will be able to list the wars he started or intensified then? Do tell. ”
You said: “Trump ends nuclear treaty with Iran”
Not a war.
You said: “Trump orders MOAB strike in Afghanistan”
Well, yeah. The same guy who has presided over a drawdown of troops to a current level of about 2,500, from a peak in his administration of about 15,000. By comparison Obama came to power with about 30,000 troops in Afghanistan and almost immediately added another 17,000, and another 30,000 later that year. Trump ordered some bombs dropped – whoopy fuckin doo. Not a war – not a new one, and NOT intensification of an existing one, unless you’re prepared to ignore all context.
You said: “threatens North Korea with “Fire and Fury”,
Not a war. In fact, the very Churchillian definition of not a war – jaw jaw.
You said: “reverses Obamas Cuba course”
HOLY SHIT THE US IS AT WAR WITH CUBA?!?!?!?! How many troops on the ground? How many bombs dropped? Civilians killed? Hospitals destroyed? Oh, none? Not a war.
You said: “Orders cruise missile strike in Syria”
Citation needed to demonstrate that this was in any way an intensification of action the US was involved in before Trump came to power, or whether it was in fact in the larger context actually LESS action compared to under Obama.
You said: “assassinates Soleimani”
I will grudgingly give you a half point for that one, if you’ll look me in the eye and tell me Clinton wouldn’t have done that.
You said: “ramped up drone wars”
Citation needed.
You said: “declares Houthis a terrorist organization”
Not a war.
You said: “supports Saudi Arabias genocidal war in Yemen”
Not a war, as such, and absolutely not anything every administration in my lifetime hasn’t done.
You said: “moves embassy to Jerusalem”
You consider moving and embassy to be an act of war? No wonder you think he’s a warmonger. Is there anything he’s done that isn’t suitable for this list? I mean, he called some people some mean names – is that war? He played some golf – really a LOT of golf – is that war? Your criteria baffle me, is what I’m saying.
“He even pardoned the few war criminals that got convicted, because he loves the idea of tough guys killing the “enemy” so much.”
Again – given that the US refuses to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and has explicitly, in writing, unlaterally empowered itself to invade any sovereign country holding a US citizen for trial in that court and recover them by force of arms, and that those powers were instigated BEFORE Trump was even a candidate, he’s merely enacting American exceptionalism exactly like all his predecessors of both parties.
“In your mind he has absolutely no ability to forsee any consequences, but that somehow makes him less likely to start another conflict?”
I said before he came to power that he would be less likely to start new wars than the hawkish Clinton. This was not a controversial position at the time – many reputable commentators in the broadsheets were saying the same thing. It’s obviously not possible to compare their administrations side-by-side, but I think you make my point for me with your desperately thin list of not-war stuff you’ve tried to dredge up to support your position that he’s more war-inclined than she would have been.
I’m not saying his inability to foresee consequences is what makes him less war-inclined. You posited the idea that he avoided war with NK, Iran or Belize(?) only because he feared how failure would look. I’m just saying that idea doesn’t gel with what we all know about him – that he doesn’t think things through, that he doesn’t really know anything about anything very much, and that he doesn’t give two shits how failure looks.
He demonstrably IS less war-inclined than the average US president – the data is IN, the conversation is OVER. We can speculate why, and I disagree with your assessment. My own is this: I think he shyed away from war because it’s boring and it’s hard work. I can picture this:
TRUMP: “Hey, let’s invade Iran!”
Joint Chiefs, tentatively: “OK Mr. President. We have here our best intelligence on the current disposition of their forces. Air defences here, here and here would need to be hit with stealth attacks to clear the way for a ground invasion. We’ll need the support of the UK, Turkey and Pakistan. Current Navy strength in the Persian gulf is… Mr. President?”
TRUMP: “Hold on, I’m about to go live on Fox & Friends.”
There’s no way he’d be able to sit still and pay attention long enough for anyone at the top of the forces to even explain to him what decisions he’d have to make to formulate a “Go” order that meant something. Starting a war isn’t something you can do by pressing a button. If it was, I think Trump would probably have started a war about twice a week, and probably by accident about half the time.
“So you will be able to list the wars he started or intensified then? Do tell. ”
You don’t even read your own posts, wtf?!
Not gonna read all that shit, but while skimming your post you seem to think I said that Trump is somehow worse or more evil than his predecessors regarding foreign policy, which I didn’t say at all. On the one hand we have a toddler with matches and gasoline who really likes the idea of fire and thinks starting one makes him look tough and on the other professional arsonists who burn down houses for money. If you think it is somehow useful to argue about who is more or less likely to start a fire in that scenario, knock yourself out.
“Not gonna read all that shit, but while skimming your post…”
Yeah, we’re done here.