Some are freaking out, but I welcome President Trump’s winning-centric Thanksgiving message.
In a number of calls with military personnel, Thursday, Trump claimed he has unleashed the military to take the fight to the Islamic State and the Taliban. He positively contrasted this approach with the Obama administration.
But as I say, not everyone was happy.
Multiple media outlets focused on Trump’s self-praise.
Retired Army Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling told CNN, “You’re talking to soldiers and military personnel around the world who have been in this fight for 17 years, and to suddenly be told they’re winning now when they weren’t winning before is somewhat insulting.”
But while I agree Trump focused on himself excessively, I think he did a good job.
First off, his references to the economy are not as silly as some assume. For members of the armed forces on short-term contracts, the health of the civilian economy is a very significant concern. After all, many of these young men and women intend to find jobs in that economy in the relatively near future.
That said, I’m far more sympathetic to Trump’s “I’m letting you fight” message.
As the president put it, “We know how to win but we have to let you win. … They say we’ve made more progress against ISIS than they did in years with the previous administration and that’s because I’m letting you perform your job.”
He’s right.
Here’s the thing. The military want to be unleashed, they want to be aggressive, they want to take the fight to the enemy. At the lower enlisted ranks, Trump is extremely popular. Young soldiers, airmen, Marines and sailors like Trump’s rambunctious aggression and his penchant for annoying people. If nothing else, Trump’s chaotic in-your-face style is more relatable to warfighters than Obama’s academic loftiness.
From the perspective of most officers, Trump’s appeal is his devolution of tactical authority. Most officers want the civilian leadership to offer a clear mission objective and a strategic commitment to effect that objective. Trump has: defeat ISIS and consolidate the Afghan government. In contrast, this is something the Obama administration utterly failed to deliver on.
In 2009, President Obama set fire to Clausewitzian theory (and all military theory) when he spoke at West Point military academy and pledged to surge U.S. forces in Afghanistan and then withdraw them by 2016. Telling the enemy what you’re going to do is never a particularly clever idea.
At the tactical level, the Obama administration also loved to micromanage troop deployments and embrace restrictive rules of engagement. This deeply frustrated combat orientated military units who wanted to close with and destroy the enemy.
Unfortunately, President Obama employed the same approach in the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Had Obama been more willing to deploy more troops earlier in the conflict, the U.S. and its allies could have imposed ISIS’ present territorial predicament before he left office.
In contrast, Trump is shaping the post-ISIS era in Syria, giving his commanders flexibility to consolidate the Afghan government in Kabul and more broadly pushing tactical authority down to the lower ranks.
Yes, Trump could and should have made his speech less about himself. All in all, however, I think most military personnel will welcome the message and the spirit of victory.
