Trump's administration: Veterans need not apply?

Some liberals are concerned that the veterans President Trump is appointing, or considering appointing, to key government positions will turn America into a dictatorship.

One author wrote:

Whatever the good intentions of the former officers who've been nominated, having a host of former generals in traditionally civilian positions would begin to erode principles of civil-military relations central to democracy, including civilian control and the political neutrality of the armed forces.

The author is unaware of the fact that once a general retires, he's no longer part of the military.  Troops will not follow his commands, and he is no longer required to obey commands from his military superiors because he's outside the chain of command.  A retired general is just like any other civilian.

The author seems to be arguing that serving the country in the military leaves an indelible moral stain on a man that precludes his ability to fulfill a civilian role in government. 

Apparently, liberals believe that in spite of their best intentions, veterans are inherently incapable of defending democracy.  To liberals, being a general means being so intrinsically bad that you will destroy the very government you've sworn to protect.  It's unlikely that JFK or Dwight Eisenhower would agree with that.

Essentially, liberals who share this perspective believe that those who have spent their lives defending America and following the rule of law aren't really citizens.  They are somehow tainted precisely because they gave up so much to defend American ideals.

This bizarre interpretation stems from liberals' longstanding hatred of the military.  Their idea of a "good" military man is John Kerry, who, after serving a minimal stint in Vietnam, came back and declared that his fellow soldiers were all monsters.

After years of having to pretend to respect the military, the cork on the bottle of liberal craziness is starting to pop out.  Liberals were comfortable with spitting on troops and falsely accusing them of war crimes during the Vietnam War.  But changing realities and the rise of Islamic terrorism forced liberals to at least pretend that they didn't hate the military.  That was a difficult pill for them to swallow.

With Trump appointing retired veterans to key positions in the government, liberals may think they have found a way to vent their hatred of those who are willing to die to protect America without having to suffer any adverse consequences.

But the public is not that stupid.  After admitting that American generals aren't like generals from countries where military coups are a time-honored tradition, liberals still argue that they will inevitably work against American freedom.

Fortunately, the average American knows the difference between American generals and the generals from various tyrannical regimes or banana republics.  Americans know that soldiers in the USA are taught that they have a moral and legal responsibility to disobey any illegal or unconstitutional orders.  Americans know that our generals work hard to minimize civilian casualties even when that increases the risk to American military personnel.

To most Americans, our military is a shining light of how war is to be fought and peace is to be maintained.  That doesn't mean that people in the military don't do things that are wrong or that those transgressions shouldn't be punished, but being an honorable veteran is something to be proud of.

But to liberals, the military is staffed by violent psychopaths who lust after blood and power – people who by their very nature will destroy democracy.

When the Democrats start trying to block Trump's appointments of military veterans because they say they fear a lack of civilian control, ask them when veterans stopped being citizens.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

Some liberals are concerned that the veterans President Trump is appointing, or considering appointing, to key government positions will turn America into a dictatorship.

One author wrote:

Whatever the good intentions of the former officers who've been nominated, having a host of former generals in traditionally civilian positions would begin to erode principles of civil-military relations central to democracy, including civilian control and the political neutrality of the armed forces.

The author is unaware of the fact that once a general retires, he's no longer part of the military.  Troops will not follow his commands, and he is no longer required to obey commands from his military superiors because he's outside the chain of command.  A retired general is just like any other civilian.

The author seems to be arguing that serving the country in the military leaves an indelible moral stain on a man that precludes his ability to fulfill a civilian role in government. 

Apparently, liberals believe that in spite of their best intentions, veterans are inherently incapable of defending democracy.  To liberals, being a general means being so intrinsically bad that you will destroy the very government you've sworn to protect.  It's unlikely that JFK or Dwight Eisenhower would agree with that.

Essentially, liberals who share this perspective believe that those who have spent their lives defending America and following the rule of law aren't really citizens.  They are somehow tainted precisely because they gave up so much to defend American ideals.

This bizarre interpretation stems from liberals' longstanding hatred of the military.  Their idea of a "good" military man is John Kerry, who, after serving a minimal stint in Vietnam, came back and declared that his fellow soldiers were all monsters.

After years of having to pretend to respect the military, the cork on the bottle of liberal craziness is starting to pop out.  Liberals were comfortable with spitting on troops and falsely accusing them of war crimes during the Vietnam War.  But changing realities and the rise of Islamic terrorism forced liberals to at least pretend that they didn't hate the military.  That was a difficult pill for them to swallow.

With Trump appointing retired veterans to key positions in the government, liberals may think they have found a way to vent their hatred of those who are willing to die to protect America without having to suffer any adverse consequences.

But the public is not that stupid.  After admitting that American generals aren't like generals from countries where military coups are a time-honored tradition, liberals still argue that they will inevitably work against American freedom.

Fortunately, the average American knows the difference between American generals and the generals from various tyrannical regimes or banana republics.  Americans know that soldiers in the USA are taught that they have a moral and legal responsibility to disobey any illegal or unconstitutional orders.  Americans know that our generals work hard to minimize civilian casualties even when that increases the risk to American military personnel.

To most Americans, our military is a shining light of how war is to be fought and peace is to be maintained.  That doesn't mean that people in the military don't do things that are wrong or that those transgressions shouldn't be punished, but being an honorable veteran is something to be proud of.

But to liberals, the military is staffed by violent psychopaths who lust after blood and power – people who by their very nature will destroy democracy.

When the Democrats start trying to block Trump's appointments of military veterans because they say they fear a lack of civilian control, ask them when veterans stopped being citizens.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

RECENT VIDEOS