The Purge Continues: Cold, Multilateral Edition

 In the aftermath of JD Vance's visit to the US base in Greenland, we learn that it is a multilateral base.  How so?  The commander of that unit, Colonel Susan Myers, sent an email to everyone under her to indicate that things at the base are going well and that the Canadians and Danes within the unit should feel part of the team. 

"I commit that, for as long as I am lucky enough to lead this base, all of our flags will fly proudly -- together,"

And then she got fired.  The hacks and around the Trump Administration will say she is too woke and that she was insubordinate.  The challenge is: what was she supposed to do?  This is a dilemma facing any officer who has a multinational command--how to keep your non-Americans included when the US turns in a unilateral direction?  Dave and I started our NATO in Afghanistan book seeking to understand how commanders balance having responsibilities to two chains of command--the national one and the multilateral one.  While they often point in the same direction, that is not always the case.  We quickly realized the national one almost always matters more since the homeland shapes promotion of the officer, most of the assets they have, and so on.

As it turns out, sometimes the commander acts more on the basis of the multilateral mission.  Myers cared more about her troops and unit cohesion (see below) than she did about her career.  Not all colonels become generals--most do not--but now she will find herself seeking a new job, I guess.  It is bad for her and bad for the force, as it teaches everyone in the military that subservience to the partisan stances of the administration are more important for one's career than doing the assigned mission well.  

Michael Robinson wrote a great book about how politicization of the military can put the officers into damned if you, damned if you don't situations.  This ain't the first one of this administration, and it ain't the last.  Standing still and not doing anything, as Rush reminds us, is still a choice.  Myers could have said nothing and would have appeared complicit with Vance's statement.  Just like if the Army had said nothing when Trump's campaign team violated the rules at Arlington National Cemetery or if the generals and admirals were silent after Charlottesville (condemning racism is only controversial for the racists, but alas, that is now who governs).  With the political system shifting, the military, even if it stands still, appears to be moving, according to Robinson.  It is up to the civilians not to put the military into these situations--but the Trump administration wouldn't recognized responsibility if it walked up to them and said hi.

One of the ironies here is that unit cohesion is usually cited by the intolerant.  It refers to the aim of keeping a unit together so that it can be more effective.  It is often cited by those who don't want Black people integrated in the military or women in the military or LGBTQ+ people in the military--that their presence will disrupt the cohesion of the unit, which will make it harder for that platoon or ship or squadron to cooperate in the face of the enemy.  But, of course, the real threat to unit cohesion was always the intolerant.  

Here, the threat to unit cohesion is the Trump Administration.  That Vance's presence and speech and the entire discourse aimed against the allies threatens to disrupt multilateral efforts around the world.  In Greenland, there are Canadians and Danes in what was Myers's command, and she had to take seriously how to make them feel part of the common mission in the aftermath of Vance's divisive appearance.  The same goes for American commanders in Europe who have NATO countries contributing to their units.  The same goes for the American commander in South Korea who in an emergency would not just command all the Americans in and near South Korea but all South Korean troops.  And on and on.  It may not have been Vance's intent, but, again, the irresponsible rarely recognize when they are doing damage to relationships.

This may not be a problem for a unilateralist administration who has been discussing the possibility of no longer having an American officer serve as the top military official in NATO (SACEUR).  Trump and his team don't play well with others and don't want to play with others.  So, we are going to see more of this at the expense of American influence, power, and security.  Congress often resisted having Americans serve under foreigners because they didn't trust them--so nearly every NATO mission with the exception of KFOR (the Kosovo mission) had an American at the top.  That will end soon, alas.  

Myers had two strikes against her--she's a woman and she believed in her mission.  The longer this goes on (and it will go on), the more officers in the US military leave, are pushed out, or conform to the administration's various dictates.  I am not saying civilian control of the military is at risk, but that the effectiveness of the military is. That is what happens when one politicizes the force, when promotion is not based on merit but on fealty to the autocrat. We know this from the comparative study of autocratic militaries (Talmadge/Roessler/etc).  Another irony---those who complain that DEI gets in the way of merit promote those who are not meritorious but are loyal (Hegseth) and fire those who are doing their jobs well because they are not sufficiently loyal--Myers today, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Brown, former Chief of Naval Operations Lisa Franchetti, Commander of the Coast Guard Linda Fagan, and so on.

Those in the military will look at those who are promoted and wonder what partisan machinations they engaged in to get promoted, rather than think about their military records.  This will breed disrespect and distrust.  And it will be very, very hard to undo if there is ever a chance to do so.  Norms take generations to build, days to destroy.  Respect takes much time to be earned, but distrust can happen in a heartbeat.

We know that Trump and his ilk disrespect service, given his past blatherings about not respecting those captured in war or those wounded in combat.  So, please do not take seriously any concerns by Trump, Vance, or Hegseth that Myers or others like her are "too partisan" to be in the military.  The military does need to subject to civilian control and strong oversight, but what it does not need are loyalty tests to the individuals at the top. Do they need to be loyal to offices at the top?  Sure.  But not to any one man.

 

 

 

Steve As Fake Economist: Maybe not as Dumb As the Wannabe Oligarchs?

 I am not an economist, but so much of what is going on these days is due to faulty understandings of basic economics, so even my level of understanding may be sufficent.

I just wanted to highlight a few things that bluesky conversations forced me to think about.

First, there is the discussion of the chances of a recession happening in 2025.  In my humble opinion, the probability is not 25% or 50% but 100%.  That is, it is a certainty because IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING.  A recession is when the economy shrinks as opposed to growing.  The formal definition is when it happens for two quarters.  

Will there be less economic activity this year?  There already is less and it will continue.  That cutting hundreds of thousands of government jobs AND cutting heaps of money from flowing to various actors (cities, states, universities, etc) will reduce the economic activity.  Plus, yes, multiplier effects--those restaurants and other services that benefit from having fully operating universities, states, cities, think tanks, etc will be doing less, buying less, spending less.  

This is before we get to the tariffs, which have already started to hit the economy--that firms are pausing production because they really don't know what their inputs will cost nor will they know what kinds of prices they can charge if they hope to export into markets that are, yes, raising their prices due to retaliatory tariffs.  

The only way to avoid a recession--the technical definition--is if somehow all of this temporary for one quarter and no more than that.  Guess what?  Trump is not going to reverse all of the Musking and DOGE-ing of the government, and no matter what happens with the tariffs, it will have stirred up too much uncertainty to magically erase within one quarter.  This recession is likely to last a long time precisely because this administration does not believe in standard macroeconomics.  But standard macroeconomics believes in it--spend less money, people will buy less, economic activity will slow.  Tax cuts on the very rich may prop up some investments, but they don't actually generate as much economic activity as argued--it does not trickle down.  

Oh, and I haven't even mentioned what Trump is doing to agriculture by keeping out migrant workers or what he is doing to tourism, a very big industry, due to the fear of being disappeared.  

So, that's the first thing I wanted to get off my chest.

The second is this: before the election, business folks had to consider who would be better for them: the guy who promised tax cuts and deregulation or the woman who wasn't going to raise tariffs or create a tremendous amount of uncertainty.  It seems like most of them chose the former and not the latter.

This was, in a word, dumb.  Why?  American businesses already pay very little tax, and rich people pay historically low taxes still.  And they can evade much of it.  Yes, regulation is annoying, but if they want to export to the EU, then they will face regulations there anyway. Plus they can price in penalties and figure out ways to dodge or cheat on the regs.

What they can't finesse are trade wars or uncertainty.  Uncertainty is an absolute killer except for those who can wager on it.  For most businesses, having predictable political and economic situations is basic for making investment decisions and for good operations.  Maybe the Silicon Valley types who have fallen in love with disruption think they don't need either inputs from abroad (or to sell stuff abroad) or stable environments, but pretty much every other actor in the economy relies on foreign inputs, foreign markets, and stable situations.  

So, now, they are fucked.  Unfortunately, so are we.   

Yes, we have short-term-itis among business people--that the focus is on today's market price and not tomorrow's profits. I get that.  But damn, tomorrow turned out to be today, not five years from now.  

Again, what angers me so much is that it didn't have to be this way--just like the Brits stupidly chose Brexit, which was predictably dumb, much of American business chose Trump focusing on tax cuts and deregulation and wishful thinking away the tariffs, the trade wars, the uncertainty, the cheap labor provided by immigrants.  

Will this lead to Trump's undoing?  Maybe eventually, but as long as the GOP fears Musk's money going to primary candidates and Trump siccing his mob on those who disagree with him, I doubt that the GOP will find their backbone.  Maybe the media will stop providing cover for this as people become increasingly outraged.  So, the pain has come quickly, but I don't think it will go away anytime too soon. 

Sorry to be a doomblogger, but at this point, things just suck mightily.  The protests have already made a difference as Democrats are starting to block stuff, and most elections have gone Dem since November.  But the only way out is through--impeachment won't get rid of Trump, and if it did, we'd have Vance.  

The Purge Continues: Cyber Edition

 Trump fired the head of the National Security Agency General Timothy Haugh, who is also double hatted as head of Cyber Command.  I went on a long rant on bluesky, which I will mostly replicate here.  As military folks like to BLUF--bottom line up front--just like every other institution in the US, the military is being broken.  Making fealty to the mad king will undermine effectiveness in a number of ways.  

First, some basics: to be clear, the military is always a political actor and subject to the political dynamics of a country.  It goes back to Clausewitz--that war is politics by other means--and the basic definition of politics which focuses on any kind of decision-making that affects the public, especially the allocation of money and other stuff.  Being partisan is something else entirely.  We used to have American generals refuse to vote because that they wanted to be neutral.  In the past 30 years, some of that has broken down as retired admirals and generals began to endorse candidates, playing upon the perception that they were speaking for the active forces.  But it was not inevitable that we would get here.

During Trump 1.0, many norms (standards of appropriate behavior), were violated repeatedly.

• Trump announced the Muslim ban from the part of the Pentagon paying tribute to various heroes
• Trump kept referring to the senior officers as "my generals"
• Trump blamed the generals and admirals if things went awry rather than owning things--the buck never stopped with him
• Trump used the military to deal with protestors and wanted to do it more violently--"Can't they shoot the protestors in the leg?"
• Trump pardoned war criminals

 It got to the point where scholars of civil-military relations, who usually try to avoid advocating for any military disobedience, were tempted to root for some.  In the aftermath of Charlottesville, the senior leadership spoke out in favor of a diverse force and for tolerance.  This was seen as being partisan--because it could be viewed as an implicit critique of Trump's take on the event.  But not speaking up would have been seen as complicit. 

This is where Michael Robinson's work fits in--he wrote a great book that argues that even if the military stands still, if the observers are moving, the military will be seen as moving either towards or away--that they will be dragged into partisan politics--politicization--even if they resist it.  

As I discussed a few weeks ago, when Milley retired and spoke out about how the military serves the country and not a wannabe dictator, it was pretty clear that what might otherwise be a banal statement was a criticism of Trump.

The firing of Haugh is yet another dead canary in the coalmine (that coalmine must be packed with dead canaries at this point).  A few things stand out.  He is a white man, so the previous purge was perhaps just racist and misogynist (note I am not approving--I am incredibly angry) as Trump fired one Black general and two women four star officers. One could argue (foolishly) that this was not aimed at creating a submissive class of officers.   By firing Haugh, it is abundantly clear loyalty to Trump is the only criteria that matters.

And who decides?  Laura Loomer, who is a far right agitator.  She was briefly banned by social media for being racist.  It is quite notable that this firing happened basically at the same time as several people were purged from the National Security Council for not being sufficiently Trumpian.   

It will not stop here as Trump's fundamental insecurity produces an unquenchable thirst for loyalists.  He won't ever be confident in the loyalty of whichever people he promotes to admiral or general.  His own disloyalty gets projected in every direction.

And this happens as we have already seen many disturbances in the force--banning books at the Naval Academy, the commandant of the US Air Force Academy pondering firing civilian profs, civ-mil conferences cancelled at the Army War College. 

This will produce a less effective force.  Those who get promoted will be seen as less qualified, less meritorious, as they will be viewed as moving up due to their partisan loyalty.  The civ-mil literature shows quote clearly that when you promote on the basis of loyalty, you get bad results-Talmadge, Roessler, etc.  This will create dissension and friction within as unit cohesion will break.   [Any time a military seeks to include the previously excluded--Black Americans, gays and lesbians, trans people, the intolerant argue that this is bad for unit cohesion, and a coherent unit is necessary for battlefield success.  It turns out that the real problem are the intolerant people, as the diverse armed forces of the world have proven to be most effective.]

An officer corps of yes-men (and yes, I do mean men) may make it easier to issue orders to invade Mexico or shoot at Americans, but with disrupted unit cohesion, it will be more likely that the military will not engage in such efforts in unison--and those divides might become violent.

The only winners in all of this are those countries seen by normal people as America's adversaries--China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, ISIS, etc. 

Just like the tariffs, this is all so unnecessary, so destructive, so costly to so many individuals as well as to the country and to those who used to be America's allies.  

So that is my angry civ-mil riff du jour as another general is tossed for appearing to be not sufficiently loyal to the mad king.