President Donald Trump discusses current military operations with Gen. Joseph Votel, commander of U.S. Central Command Commander, and Gen. Raymond A. "Tony" Thomas, U.S. Special Operations Command Commander at MacDill, AFB, FL, Feb. 6, 2017. (DoD photo by D. Myles Cullen/Released)
Business Insider: Trump talks tough about the military, but he hasn't visited a war zone where US troops are fighting — unlike his predecessors
* President Donald Trump repeatedly portrays himself as a gung-ho supporter of the US military, but a year and a half into his tenure the president has yet to visit American troops in a war-zone.
* The vast majority of Trump's commander-in-chief predecessors dating all the way back to World War II visited troops in war zones, including George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
* Both Bush and Obama met with US troops in combat zones soon into their first terms.
President Donald Trump repeatedly portrays himself as a gung-ho supporter of the US military, but over a year and a half into his tenure the president has yet to visit American troops in a war zone.
Since Trump took office, American troops have been killed everywhere from Somalia and Niger to Yemen and Iraq. In 2018 alone, five US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan.
But Trump has yet to visit Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria, among other places where US troops are putting their lives on the line to execute his orders.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: As Commander in Chief it is now expected for a President to visit a warzone not only for the optics of morale, but also to send a message to the American public and to our allies (and foes) abroad on the U.S. commitment to these conflicts. But this is an unconventional President. And as long as there is no public outcry for him to go, I expect him to be more focused on his domestic and trade agenda than on conflicts in places like Afghanistan. Personally .... I think this is a mistake.
Hat tip to Fred for the above story.
I hope his bone spurs don't act up.
ReplyDeleteBeen in office almost 2 years and hasn't gone abroad to see the troops yet? What a guy. Way to go rubes.
Part of the problem with sending a POTUS to a war zone is the security aspect. We are already fighting a war and much resources are being devoted to this. Now to have to devote additional security for the security detail to a POTUS would generally be unacceptable in a tough situation. Anything he information he needs can easily be passed on to him by the commanders in the field or to his domestic advisors to him.
ReplyDeleteTruth is I never really liked the aspect of a POTUS doing photo ops in a warzone. I always believed this to be political grandstanding on the part of prior POTUSs. It is good to have a POTUS who is putting the success of the mission above such political grandstanding.
While I understand the optics (somewhat), imagine the optics of this for an enemy should they successfully take a POTUS as he visits a warzone for a photo op. As for troop morale, its already near rock bottom. While it could get lower, it would be hard to do so. I know just how we can do this!! Send POTUS to the warzone for a photo op!! This way the troops can divert resources preparing for the security detail for POTUS diverting finite resources from the war effort.
Essentially the costs of having OTUS visiting a warzone outweighs any benefits. There are financial costs associated with this (travel and security.) Additional costs are diversion of resources (security details and the diversion of resources away from the war effort to provide such things.) Bad optic, as clearly POTUS can't do anything directly to affect the outcome such as go on patrol or something to this affect. It looks like political grandstanding. In fact, GW Bush administration officials were accused of such. In the eyes of allies, we would look silly.
In terms of "optics," it provides a target for enemies. Should a POTUS be killed or injured pulling such a stunt as this, the optical benefit to an adversary would be enormous. As such, this is additional reason for him to stay away.
IF there is a reason for him to visit a warzone that is mission critical or necessary to achieve victory, then he should go. At this time, there is no upside potential for him to do so combined with huge costs and downside risks in doing so. For POTUS to visit a warzone right now has negative utility. As such, this is the right approach for him not to go at this time. I think the troops appreciate him staying away.
TL;DR
DeleteB. you're missing the point. It's a symbolic act, not a cost-benefit analysis.
ReplyDeleteDear Poster
ReplyDeleteIn America--you do not know this--our presidents DO go to war zones to show support for the wars our leaders have been responsible for
27 Times the Commander-in-Chief Visited a Combat Zone
Not sure how this is done in your country
Anon (10:53AM),
ReplyDeleteVery respectfully, I don't think I am missing the point at all. While I did mention the cost benefit aspect of it, the symbolism is bad as well. There is likely nothing POTUS can contribute to the effort by going to the warzone and it lowers morale for troops and other personnel who are now having to divert resources to provide for his security detail (bad symbolism).
I thought I pointed this out in my post. I reread and sure enough I did. Maybe you didn't read it.
The symbolism of having POTUS visit a warzone right now is bad as are the costs versus the benefits. As such, there is no reason for POTUS to do this right now and doing so would have a negative impact on our national security as well.
Anon (11:11AM),
I am aware of how this works. Frankly, I have never really liked this. While each of the 27 visits would need to be examined individually to determine if it made sense either in terms of optics (symbolism) or had a material benefit, from the best I can tell most are purely symbolic. At this time, such a visit would have a negative impact all the way around.
One way to think of this is in the context of a natural disaster response. It works best if POTUS and his team provide resources to important team members on the ground, receive direct communiques from such officials, and make decisions based upon this. It does not work so well when POTUS or his team members come to the area for photo ops. Where I live in Southeast TX we were heavily impacted by Hurricane Harvey. When government officials did such things, we were deeply offended.
Having POTUS visit a war zone right now is bad optics (the wrong symbolism) and has huge downside risks with little to no upside potential meaning it would be a bad idea all the way around. While I cannot know what someone is thinking, to even be considering this right now looks like unserious minds at work.
Postguy
ReplyDeleteyou flounder in your response. Been in war zone and yes, optics not only nice but let's you know the people who sent you there are there to let you know they are with you. Also note that star entertainment folks often visit war zones when a war is costing citizens their lives...they go; leaders go. you stay at the computer and tell us it is bad? WRONG
Way back in 1948 I had the pleasure of meeting a former head of The Hollywood Canteen, in L.A., the group that offered our military entertainment, food, fun, encouragement...WWII had ended by then, but she told me how many of "my boys" came by to let her know how appearances either at home or in war zones meant so much to our troops. And yes: a visit by the commander in chief is always in order and always welcomed
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteIf I "flounder" it is only because you did not read my response. Given the current situation, there is no upside in terms of optics, huge downsides in terms of optics, huge costs associated all combined with huge downside risks. As such, POTUS has made the decision not to go which is clearly the right one for this particular time. Perhaps in your particular time in a war zone it made sense in terms of all factors. Today it does not.
I know how I would feel if a POTUS showed up for a photo op and I were in one of our current war zones. I know how I would have felt if he or one of his team members would have shown up and pulled such a stunt post Hurricane Harvey and such natural disasters are far less serious than war zones. It wouldn't be pretty. As I recall, GW Bush and some of his team members were rightly criticized for pulling such PR stunts.
Fred,
I was very careful to point out that each situation is different. Each of the 27 cases of a POTUS visiting a combat zone would need to be evaluated to determine if it made sense based upon factors to be considered. Frankly I don't have time to do this and generally I find when people bring up such things they are trying to distract from the current argument which they cannot win based upon its merits.
In the current situation, upside intangible benefit to a photo op by POTUS: none. Downsides to photo op: decreased morale for troops who already have morale issues seeing POTUS grandstand all while they are having to know they are diverting resources to provide for his detail that need to be devoted to the war effort. Upside tangible benefit to appearance in warzone: none as all information he needs can be communicated to him that is pertinent to decision making. While there could be a need for him to "find out" first hand what is happening, modern communication allows for much of this to be "found out" without the need for a direct visit. Think of it like a CEO of a large organization rarely if ever visits the plant. Such visits are a distraction with no upside benefit to the organization or its mission. Tangible costs and potential downside costs to such a photo op: In terms of the security detail and diversion of resources of an already taxed military this is enormous. Also, should the unthinkable happen which is a risk of such a stunt the propaganda boon to an enemy would be enormous. As a former coach of mine would call such an action, it would be an "unforced error."
There's no benefit to such a visit in terms of optics or tangible benefits. The costs in terms of optics and tangible costs are extremely high without the corresponding benefit anywhere. As such, it seems a "no brainer" that POTUS no matter who he or she is should stay away from warzones at this time. I'm actually puzzled as to why we are even having such a conversation.
There probably are benefits to sending Hollywood entertainment types to a warzone. Perhaps they can provide entertainment value for the troops and perhaps a temporary respite during a very stressful time. This may offset some of the financial costs of sending them there as I am pretty sure they are NOT paying their own way. Even if they are, they are low value targets to an enemy in the grand scheme of things. As such, the security detail will not need to be as extensive. As for a POTUS, sending him or her has no such benefits, the costs are greater, and it goes without saying this is a very high value target for an adversary.
ReplyDeleteVery respectfully, comparing a Hollywood type to POTUS is not warranted as they are completely separate and should be evaluated differently. Also, comparison of the current situation to those in the past may not be warranted either as the facts and circumstances are different. One size does not fit all.
In the current situation, such a visit is not warranted. I had the thought a few months ago that POTUS had not visited a warzone and remember thinking that I am glad that our current POTUS does not use our troops in this manner as photo ops for his political advancement. The security of the American people and the welfare of our troops is very, very important. They are not to be used as pawns on the chessboards for those seeking political advancement or for news media personnel looking for a story.
ReplyDeleteI assume POTUS will get "over there" in due time and I am not upset since he could be said to be in a war zone here in this country. Undoing the often amateurish legislation of the recent head of the most transparent administration in American history and dealing with the likes of "The Great Entrenched" ie. brennan, clapper, etc, and disturbingly large numbers of the FBI, Justice dept, and others who are of a anti-trump mindset is quite warlike. No president in my lifetime has ever endured such willful undermining efforts from the employees of the American taxpayer and the once trustworthy public media.
No president that I recall has devoted so much attention to our volunteers in the military. Did the prior occupant of the White House ever chase after a wind blown cap and place it back on the head of one of his Marines pledged to unthinkingly protect TPOTUS's life and safety? I can think of one too busy bee-bopping up the onramp of a jet to think to salute or who walked down the ramp just sooooooooooo cool with a paper cup of something in his hand he didn't acknowledge that Marine pledged like the one who lost his cap in that strong wind but stayed at his post.
Shame on you hypocritical nitpickers. Go pour out your diatribes on the newly employed American millions and see where you get.
This from one who initially supported both the toooooo coooool nicotine addict, his dishonest attempts at medical reform, and other flawed legislation.
Roger. Please stop thinking for yourself and expressing thought that doesn't condemn Trump automatically. We all are being asked to pitch in. I'll help you:
DeleteBooming economy? A: Obama did it
Record unemployment? A: See above
Taking on China? A: Obama would have done it too but he first wanted to grow the economy so that this idiot Trump could challenge China on his behalf. Obama was way ahead of Trump in that regard ofc.
Taking on North Korea? A: Obama did it much better by being strategically patient. Genius. But Trump is the fool. Don't forget.
Iran deal? A: Best deal ever and the Obama admin was also so creative to help Iran use loopholes in money transfer. That's not money laundering by the way, that's just genius banking knowledge. Pioneering stuff.
Veterans loving Trump? A: That's because they don't get their medication. That monster Trump took their meds and sold them to China.
I hope you get it. Now please get with the program.
Thank you
GIVE THEM THE BIRD
ReplyDeletePoster
ReplyDeleteI use the entertainment example to show how our troops love the presence of folks from home. The President is the top one since he is commander in chief. Now I can not speak for you, but as a guy who had been in the army I know how important this is; it is so important that many presidents from both parties have turned up in war zones.
My real question: why do you insist at so long a length that Trump should not go to a battle zone?
a. to defend his non going as part of a job?
b. because you fear for his life but all the other presidents who went and that was ok?
After all: his absence has become evident and now, esp. after the McCain thing,our military are now much less enamourced of Trump then they were till recently, at the time the American Legion stepped in and told Trump he was out of order on the McCain issue and flag ceremony
Roger, you are aware that Deals got 5 deferments to avoid fighting in Vietnam.
ReplyDeleteHeck of a way to show support for your country, getting out of the draft due to occasional foot soreness. How many men died or were wounded in his place so he could stay home and soak his feet?
Oh, and as far as jobs; the number of jobs in the economy increased by 2.6% in Obama's last 16 months in office. It increased by 2.1% in Trump's first 16 months. Who is the great job creator?
Fred,
ReplyDeleteThe troops are at war. There is little time for the presence of folks from back home. Having POTUS fly in for a photo op would be an enormous distraction right now.
I very much appreciate your military service. I have been very careful to point out that each situation is different. There are times and places where the appearance of a POTUS might be warranted. Very respectfully, not now.
a.) I thought I explained. I will try again. We are already in a very difficult situation. The troops are taxed beyond the max. To bring in POTUS to one of these zones would divert resources and further deplete already low morale as resources are diverted for his security detail, his accomodations, and those of his team. In other words, doing so actually endangers the mission. Frankly, I'm glad POTUS does not do this.
b.)The concern for the life of any POTUS is important. Now, at the risk of belaboring the point, there will be times and places where POTUS or other top officials will need to visit a war zone. This is not one of them. If an enemy did succeed in taking him out, it would be a huge boost for this enemy. A bit off topic, but I think it was discussed for prince Harry I think that he should not serve in Iraq for this type of reasoning. At the end of the day, I think the British decided to do the photo op anyway. Maybe the good prince really did serve, no offense to him. Point being, there is no good reason for it, nothing to be accomplished, and the downside risks aren't worth it.
I wasn't aware that the troops who are serving in battle or elsewhere ever were "enamored" of Trump. Thank you for telling me this. I've learned something new!! As for the McCain issue, to the best I can tell, this started when McCain attacked him. As Trump often does, he counterpunched. As for the American Legion, they do excellent work for our veterans!! In this particular case, they might do best to stay out of it. With that said I can understand why they took the position they took. They need to keep their funding so they can continue their excellent work!! McCain has powerful friends who control the purse strings and could take that away or undermine it. Besides all that to oppose McCain in the media right now might mean bad publicity further threatening their funding. Lacking the so called "bully pulpit" that a POTUS has to fight back, they have opted for the path of least resistance. In their situation, I can understand why they did it.
Anon (2:48),
ReplyDeleteIf a person has foot issues, they are going to be a liability in a combat situation. To have them serve in such a capacity or in the military in general where they might be called upon to engage in combat, places themselves and others in danger. I have poor eyesight. This prohibited me from serving in the military. While I am not sure how the deferment process worked, I am pretty sure a physician would have had to certify this. I certainly would not want someone serving alongside me who physically is going to be a liability.
The media has often lamented about the number of military personnel who are serving in his Administration as though they don't have a right to choose how they wish to pursue their career paths. They would no doubt be aware of the facts and circumstances regarding the deferments and would have had no problems with it.
Thank you for the statistic on job growth. While I cannot speak for the country as a whole, in the area where I live in the Houston, TX area the number of high paying jobs, those that require professional skills has increased exponentially. The number of minimum wage jobs, not so much. During the same period of the Obama Administration the number of minimum wage jobs did increase at a much higher rate. The increase in higher paying jobs helps the tax base much more and increases the viability of the social safety net which those who do have minimum wage jobs are going to need. Very respectfully I think you are looking at the raw number of jobs, not how much they pay, or how much value they are adding to the nation as a whole.
Do you really think his foot issues were legitimate? That he didn't get a doctor's note to get out of serving? Don't be naive.
ReplyDeleteHe had his chance to serve his country, he pus$%ed out; the man's a coward.
Why do you think he overcompensates in every facet of his life?
ReplyDeleteAnon #4:42PM. Thank the heavens I cleaned my reading glasses this afternoon and was able to read your well done and most enjoyable and helpful Post For The Unenlightened of which I was once one. As Roberto Duran once famously said, "No mas". This too applies to me. I see the light, thanks to your efforts!
A friend in need is a friend indeed, sir.
Genius banking knowledge! Love it!
Roger
You're welcome. ;) :))
Delete
ReplyDeleteAnon@2:48PM.
Your point of the prior president's job creation record didn't mention the prior 80 months of his job creating efforts. He was in office 12 months x 8 years ='s 96 months. Add the debt this country took on, 9 to 12 trillion $$$ to get those jobs going is once again one of those presidential bragging stories that upon further investigation and understanding of the results causes some to question why weren't these trillions simply divided up and handed out to the unemployed to spend if it's consumerism that runs our economy as some would have us believe? Actually this was done to some extent in the form of extended unemployment benefits. This, in my personal observation kicked the can of job hunt search down the road for some.
Granted, the head of the most transparent administration in US history inherited a weak deck initially. Unfortunately the sums I've mentioned bought the weakest recovery from a recession in American history since WWII, as I have noted elsewhere on this blog. Other figures show economic performance numbers in fractions of 1% during some periods of the recession, I've recently read. All in all, the results of both obama and Bernanke's were nothing to write home about.
Money can't help anti business legislation and mindset which is the hall mark of the prior occupant's legislative efforts.