Republican congressman from Wisconsin Sean Duffy sat down for an interview with the Washington Examiner on Thursday. Our discussion was wide-ranging, and it’s worth checking out what Emily Jashinsky, Phil Wegmann, and Jeremy Beaman have to report.
For my part, two questions were on my mind: whether transgender Americans should be able to serve in the military, and Duffy’s take on the Russia investigation. First up, here’s what the Congressman had to say about the transgender issue.
I began by arguing that Trump’s Wednesday tweets announcing a ban on transgender service was “a gold mine” for Democrats. By failing to clarify the ban’s impact on active service personnel, I suggested, Trump opened Republicans to fair criticism of disregard on LGBT rights.
Duffy concurred, “gold mine, that’s right.” The congressman then expanded on this sentiment.
“I think if you make the argument, which [Trump] should of … I’m not going to make political decisions [on this issue] out of the White House — I want the generals to direct me in what’s the best policy for the men and women who fight in our military — that’s a winner. But the tweet doesn’t explain that and make that argument, and it opens us up to a bazooka [from the left].”
I think Duffy is broadly correct here. As I explained yesterday, the U.S. military’s first priority must always be the defense of the nation. Efforts to use the military as a social platform for activism are both irrational and functionally immoral. They prioritize domestic politics over the military’s exigent ability to fight and win wars. And I believe most Americans would share that sentiment.
That said, I think Duffy is overconfident in the military’s ability to make war-fighting-focused decisions. At least without political scrutiny, that is.
After all, when Duffy says Trump should “want the generals to direct” him on a political issue, he implies that military leaders have no political interests. And they most certainly do.
Senior military officers, especially 3-star and 4-star flag officers, are keen political strategists. Apart from the very best, these officers tend to oppose changes to the military’s bureaucracy. This applies to the Obama administration’s change to transgender service access. It’s easier, put simply, for generals and admirals to keep things simple. And transgender service is not simple.
Don’t get me wrong, just as there are justifiable reasons why women shouldn’t serve in the combat infantry, there might also be justifiable reasons why transgender personnel should not serve.
The key, however, is that even if there are no justifiable reasons to prevent transgender service, I believe most military leaders would still oppose opening the applicant pools. That’s a problem, because if the military would suffer no harm from accepting transgender applicants, it would also lose something by refusing their applications.
So ultimately, I have sympathy for Duffy’s basic rationale: that Trump needs to explain his argument better and ensure that military warfighting effectiveness is also the pinnacle concern. I’m just not sure that military leaders would necessarily prioritize that critical concern above bureaucratic interests.
