There are many things today’s military commanders do that leave me puzzled and searching for reason. However, when a military commander in the Middle East says our arch enemies are planning an imminent attack, I cannot find any reason why our Department of Defense (DOD) senior officials are taking the time to discuss these issues with the media.
An imminent situation equals a serious issue that requires our military’s immediate proactive actions, with the keyword “proactive” being the most important part of that equation.
If there is actually an imminent attack looming, why is defensive posturing General McKenzie’s primary concern instead of proactive action? While we cannot speculate precisely on the General’s own individual decision-making process, we can reflect on how our national security and warfighting policies became so politicized along with its cause and effect.
Looking at the totality of our warfighting posture over the past 72 years, it’s clear to see our DOD’s warfighting mentality has been too closely aligned with the Department of State’s liberal and globalist policies that do little to ensure our national security.
In 1947, the Secretary of Defense was created, and along with it the emergence of reactive global diplomacy and its dominant role in our nation’s defensive policies and actions. Since then, the U.S. has never been victorious in any war we have been involved in. This is evidence that shows clearly what happens when war is politicized.
General McKenzie’s statements with regards to an imminent Iranian attack is yet another disappointing example of the DOD’s continued politicization of warfighting; primarily made up of predictive, submissive policies influenced by the Department of State instead of effective warfighting planning.
Since the beginning of his presidential campaign in 2016, President Trump has continually stated that his national security policies are primarily focused on what is best for the safety and security of the United States. In stark contrast to this, the DOD along with the Department of State seems to be continuing their long-standing globalist focus on diplomacy based on what is best for the world over our own national protection.
President Trump would be wise to closely examine the DOD’s warfighting history and dissociate its long-standing subordinate relationship with the Department of State. Along with this shift back to warfighting and national security, the Secretary of Defense’s job should be regulated to function as an interpreter between the DOD’s senior officers and the president. Lastly, the generals and admirals should be punished, not rewarded, for making decisions based on politics, and their relationship with the media should be terminated.
When you look at the eagle on the Great Seal of The United States, you see his eyes turned toward his right talon, which holds olive branches, depicting diplomacy and peace. But if you look at the left talon, you see arrows that represent force and strength. The complete seal represents an equal balance of offensive military might and diplomatic hope for peace. On the global stage, effective diplomacy relies on a known threat of overwhelming military action which our nation holds in reserve. At one time, the eagle on the Presidential Seal faced the arrows, projecting authority on the global stage, but it was eventually changed to reflect the nation’s seal with diplomacy as the primary objective in global affairs.
Perhaps it is time for the president to reflect on that image of force before diplomacy as it pertains to Iran and its imminent threats. Anything less than this will only ensure the continuation of our nation’s failed warfighting capabilities, and our inability to be proactive in a world where diplomacy has succumbed to rhetoric and political correctness.