The strategic incoherence is thoroughgoing and comprehensive--from definition of problem to description of desired end state and everything in between. Whatever performative pleasure it might produce, the chest-thumping itself is deeply counterproductive, bringing more costs and risks than gains. In this context of complete incoherence, the notion of unconditional surrender doesn't even begin to make sense. I think you're on to something about the president liking the sound of the words. Kind of like the images of explosions on TV screens. Wow! Hell of a way to run a war, not to mention a country.
The only thing Trump cares about is how he looks on TV. This was his impersonation of Douglas MacArthur. What happens outside the TV studio does not interest him at all.
Pathetically, I think he said because he's heard at some point the phrase was heroically used by a winner and powerful leader, Gen. U.S Grant.(Unconditional Surrender Grant) He may not know who said it but his severe narcissism tells him it's a winner's phrase, and above all he is a winner. Trump is controlled by and incapacitated by his malignant narcissism. He does not have the capacity to make good presidential-level leadership decisions.
None of the following sentiments requires one to be a fan of Donald Trump.
You write: “The most serious was the decision to go to war in the first place without a clear rationale for doing so.”
First of all, 47 years of murdering Americans, fatwas on people residing in Weatern nations, serving as the world’s top sponsor of terrorism, threatening to kill American leaders, developing nukes, and facilitating Chinese military dominance in the Indian Ocean is sufficient rationale.
I suspect there was a clear proximate rationale—a near-term threat—that was not emailed to your Substack or mine. A sizable list of unlikely nations rapidly endorsed the war, leading me to suspect they were shown non-public intel. Without prompting, a Trump-skeptical former high-ranking intelligence official volunteered the same observation to me in a casual conversation.
As for “smart leader,” it’s difficult to name many post-WWII presidents who qualify for that appellation in matters of war. Declaring plans in advance and signaling lines we will not cross is how we got to the failures of Korea, Vietnam, Gulf I, Gulf II, Afghanistan. “Smart” leaders more or less told enemies how far they could push us and how long they’d have to wait.
You got me into polysci about 15 years ago with Origins because in the early 60s I majored in anthro and that's where you started. Great. But then I was reading your take on Trump 'making a mistake' in declaring unconditional etc. and scribbled in the margin "read Mary Trump" (I also worked in a psychiatric clinic). But then on page 3 you said the magic words: maybe he just liked the sound of the words. Bingo! WW II movies. Trump thinks he's in a movie because he can't bear his real life. Id all the way. - Oh gosh! Alexis got it too... and HP... and Judy.
The strategic incoherence is thoroughgoing and comprehensive--from definition of problem to description of desired end state and everything in between. Whatever performative pleasure it might produce, the chest-thumping itself is deeply counterproductive, bringing more costs and risks than gains. In this context of complete incoherence, the notion of unconditional surrender doesn't even begin to make sense. I think you're on to something about the president liking the sound of the words. Kind of like the images of explosions on TV screens. Wow! Hell of a way to run a war, not to mention a country.
The only thing Trump cares about is how he looks on TV. This was his impersonation of Douglas MacArthur. What happens outside the TV studio does not interest him at all.
Pathetically, I think he said because he's heard at some point the phrase was heroically used by a winner and powerful leader, Gen. U.S Grant.(Unconditional Surrender Grant) He may not know who said it but his severe narcissism tells him it's a winner's phrase, and above all he is a winner. Trump is controlled by and incapacitated by his malignant narcissism. He does not have the capacity to make good presidential-level leadership decisions.
None of the following sentiments requires one to be a fan of Donald Trump.
You write: “The most serious was the decision to go to war in the first place without a clear rationale for doing so.”
First of all, 47 years of murdering Americans, fatwas on people residing in Weatern nations, serving as the world’s top sponsor of terrorism, threatening to kill American leaders, developing nukes, and facilitating Chinese military dominance in the Indian Ocean is sufficient rationale.
I suspect there was a clear proximate rationale—a near-term threat—that was not emailed to your Substack or mine. A sizable list of unlikely nations rapidly endorsed the war, leading me to suspect they were shown non-public intel. Without prompting, a Trump-skeptical former high-ranking intelligence official volunteered the same observation to me in a casual conversation.
As for “smart leader,” it’s difficult to name many post-WWII presidents who qualify for that appellation in matters of war. Declaring plans in advance and signaling lines we will not cross is how we got to the failures of Korea, Vietnam, Gulf I, Gulf II, Afghanistan. “Smart” leaders more or less told enemies how far they could push us and how long they’d have to wait.
You got me into polysci about 15 years ago with Origins because in the early 60s I majored in anthro and that's where you started. Great. But then I was reading your take on Trump 'making a mistake' in declaring unconditional etc. and scribbled in the margin "read Mary Trump" (I also worked in a psychiatric clinic). But then on page 3 you said the magic words: maybe he just liked the sound of the words. Bingo! WW II movies. Trump thinks he's in a movie because he can't bear his real life. Id all the way. - Oh gosh! Alexis got it too... and HP... and Judy.