In meeting with military, Trump talks of 'calm before the storm'

[webfact]

In meeting with military, Trump talks of 'calm before the storm'

By Jeff Mason

 

U.S. President Donald Trump (C) participates in a briefing with senior military leaders at the White House in Washington, U.S., October 5, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After discussing Iran and North Korea with U.S. military leaders on Thursday, President Donald Trump posed for a photo with them before dinner and declared the moment "the calm before the storm."

 

"You guys know what this represents?" Trump said after journalists gathered in the White House state dining room to photograph him and first lady Melania Trump with the uniformed military leaders and their spouses.

 

"Maybe it's the calm before the storm," he said.

 

What storm?

 

"You'll find out," Trump told questioning reporters.

 

Classical music played in the background and tables were set in the nearby Blue Room for a fancy meal.

 

The White House did not immediately reply to a request to clarify Trump's remark.

 

Earlier in the evening, while seated with the top defence officials in the cabinet room, Trump talked about the threat from North Korea and preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

 

"In North Korea, our goal is denuclearization," he said. "We cannot allow this dictatorship to threaten our nation or our allies with unimaginable loss of life. We will do what we must do to prevent that from happening. And it will be done, if necessary, believe me."

 

During his speech to the United Nations General Assembly last month, Trump said the United States would "totally destroy" North Korea if needed to defend itself or U.S. allies.

 

The president on Thursday also had tough words for Iran, saying the country had not lived up to the spirit of an agreement forged with world powers to curb its nuclear programme.

 

A senior administration official said on Thursday that Trump was expected to announce soon he would decertify the landmark agreement.

 

Trump has filled top posts within his administration with military generals, including his chief of staff, retired General John Kelly, and national security adviser, Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster. McMaster, who normally dresses in civilian clothes at the White House, wore his uniform for the meeting.

 

Without being specific, Trump pressed the leaders to be faster at providing him with "military options" when needed.

 

"Moving forward, I also expect you to provide me with a broad range of military options, when needed, at a much faster pace. I know that government bureaucracy is slow, but I am depending on you to overcome the obstacles of bureaucracy," he said during their cabinet room meeting.

 

(Reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-10-06

 

[LannaGuy]

Don't worry Trump your 'true friend' will be right there by your side with his submarines, air ship and shiny new tanks.

[boomerangutang]

First off, military action by the US would be great for diverting press coverage away from Russia-Trump collusion investigation.  The 3 hurricanes and the Vegas massacre were good for that also, but not as good (for Trump) as military action.

 

I don't think Trump would be so stupid as to launch an attack on Iran.  However, Trump is telling top brass to draw up military strike options on N.Korea.  It's like with the Comey firing.  He has the goal (firing Comey or bombing NK) so he tells his top people to give him a report how he can justifiably (in their minds) implement it.  

 

A pre-emptive bombing attack on NK would accomplish some things, but the long-term repercussions would far out-weigh the gains.  Trump probably takes comfort in hearing that top Chinese academics are now (allowed by Beijing) saying that a Korea unified under Seoul would not be so bad for China.  Up until recently, China thought a destroyed N.Korea would be anathema.  Now they're inching toward seeing that it could be good for the China.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by boomerangutang

[tonray]

Oh gee...another war front and idle threats. What a blanking idiot. He cannot get any domestic policy implemented so he will do the only thing he can...order the military around and cause a mess to take the focus off himself.

[tonray]

3 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

First off, military action by the US would be great for diverting press coverage away from Russia-Trump collusion in election campaign.  The hurricanes and the Vegas massacre were good for that also, but not as good (for Trump) as military action.

 

I don't think Trump would be so stupid as to launch an attack on Iran.  However, Trump is telling top brass to draw up military strike options on N.Korea.  It's like with the Comey firing.  He has the goal (firing Comey or bombing NK) so he tells his top people to give him a report how he can justifiably (in their minds) implement it.  

 

A pre-emptive bombing attack on NK would accomplish some things, but the long-term repercussions would far out-weigh the gains.  Trump probably takes comfort in hearing that top Chinese academics are now (allowed by Beijing) saying that a Korea unified under the Seoul would not be bad for China.  Up until recently, China thought a destroyed NKorea would be anathema.  Now they're inching toward seeing that it could be good for the region.

 

 

I think what would have to happen is NK divided up into "east and west berlin" so to speak. the top half would be Chinese sector with the lower section American/SKorean. this would maintain Chinese border integrity with no western troops on its doorstep.

[baboon]

17 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Don't worry Trump your 'true friend' will be right there by your side with his submarines, air ship and shiny new tanks.

"Donald who...?"

[boomerangutang]

10 minutes ago, tonray said:

Oh gee...another war front and idle threats. What a blanking idiot. He cannot get any domestic policy implemented so he will do the only thing he can...order the military around and cause a mess to take the focus off himself.

I agree, except for your use of the adjective 'idle' in your opening sentence.  I doubt it's 'idle threats' this time.   Fat Boy should be greasing the rails of his getaway cart, and packing some picnic lunches for the Russian or Chinese border - wherever he runs to.  

 

7 minutes ago, tonray said:

I think what would have to happen is NK divided up into "east and west berlin" so to speak. the top half would be Chinese sector with the lower section American/SKorean. this would maintain Chinese border integrity with no western troops on its doorstep.

Yikes.  The Balkanization of N.Korea would be even worse than the current situation. 

[tonray]

3 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Yikes.  The Balkanization of N.Korea would be even worse than the current situation.

Agree..but if you think the PLA (who really runs the country...not some academics...who will be jailed if they talk too far out of bounds) will allow US tanks on their border...I say no they won't

[jerojero]

Blowhard. Nuff said.

[Get Real]

Have somebody even looked at the picture.

Only one that´s laughing crazy is Donald. All other looking at him like they believe he´s crazy. Which is quite true by the way, but it´s nice that seems to be common knowledge in the White House too.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Get Real

[boomerangutang]

I watched the video of Trump announcing "This is the calm before the storm."  He said it twice. Both he and Melania were grinning for the cameras.  US top brass were lined up on both sides like sheep dogs.  This is Dr. Stangelove's new incarnation. 

 

We are seeing The Committee to Transform the World Into Radioactive Miasma.  CTWIRM.

 

We thought Nero was bad for fiddling while Rome burned, now we have the Trumps grinning while planning the torching of large swaths of our troubled planet.

[Golgota]

China alrewdy warned tangerine#45 that they will support north korea if any pre emptive strike is made by this moron. 

A war with china(and russia) even by proxy would be a huge failure.

 

[Krataiboy]

7 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

First off, military action by the US would be great for diverting press coverage away from Russia-Trump collusion investigation.  The 3 hurricanes and the Vegas massacre were good for that also, but not as good (for Trump) as military action.

 

I don't think Trump would be so stupid as to launch an attack on Iran.  However, Trump is telling top brass to draw up military strike options on N.Korea.  It's like with the Comey firing.  He has the goal (firing Comey or bombing NK) so he tells his top people to give him a report how he can justifiably (in their minds) implement it.  

 

A pre-emptive bombing attack on NK would accomplish some things, but the long-term repercussions would far out-weigh the gains.  Trump probably takes comfort in hearing that top Chinese academics are now (allowed by Beijing) saying that a Korea unified under Seoul would not be so bad for China.  Up until recently, China thought a destroyed N.Korea would be anathema.  Now they're inching toward seeing that it could be good for the China.

 

 

 

 

You may be  right about  the Chinese view of what America is up to in North Korea, but Russia, already on the back foot on its European borders, won't be keen to have another US proxy on its Asian doorstep.

[Baerboxer]

7 hours ago, baboon said:

"Donald who...?"

 

Farang Donald!

[Thaidream]

Trump is his own worst enemy- He spouts off and makes statements that sow discontent and discord.  On what premise can he attack Korea.  I say none unless he has evidence that is substantiated that NKorea has a nuclear weapon on a missile and is preparing to fire it and that evidence would have to be available to the World. Going solo with an attack would unleash a war involving a million dead and untold numbers of wounded.

 

Secretary of State Tillerson allegedly called Trump a moron.  He is a lot worse than that. He is a narcissistic meglomaniac who cannot accept that sometimes he is wrong. I hope the military Generals make sure he  does not start a war.

[over it]

Trump was probably talking about the dinner that was about to be served.

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

I am depending on you to overcome the obstacles of bureaucracy

Likely the "obstacles of bureaucracy" is the gathering and verification of intelligence for one of the most closed nations in the world. As Trump wants all the options, the US military needs to also collect current economic, social, transport and communication data. Action against North Korea will not be just hitting obvious military facilities and hardware.

 

Trump thinks in terms of "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war." The military thinks in terms of what, when, where and how for action that must serve an overall plan and integrate with an exit strategy. And then there are considerations for safety of South Koreans. Maybe in time for April 1st, April Fool's Day.

[craigt3365]

Let's hope those around him prevail.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/hr-mcmaster-iran-deal/index.html

Quote

Senate Dems sense McMaster not sold on decertifying Iran deal

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/trump-tillerson-iran-deal-plan/index.html

Quote

Tillerson's dramatic plan to save Iran deal, keep up pressure

 

[Morch]

 

Quote

What storm?

 

A. Another pointless threat.

B. Another information security fail.

C. Another covfefe.

D. All of the above.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Get Real said:

Have somebody even looked at the picture.

Only one that´s laughing crazy is Donald. All other looking at him like they believe he´s crazy. Which is quite true by the way, but it´s nice that seems to be common knowledge in the White House too.

 

Indeed. Kim's generals are far better trained, and usually appear laughing in sync with their leader.

[Publicus]

 

Admiral Mike Mullin who retired with 43 years-in has high praise for Mattis, McMaster, Kelley and also the lifelong civilian SecState Tillerson. It's having the country rely on four-star military brass for its stability that sets him up in his chair. 

Americans' Trust in Generals Problematic: Former Joint Chiefs Chairman

Admiral Mike Mullen (retired) served two terms as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 2007-2011. He was chief of Naval Operations from 2005-2007. Adm. Mullin is professor at the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs and Studies at Princeton University where he also advises informally U.S. Naval ROTC.

 

5 Oct 2017

 

"I am increasingly -- I'm not surprised, but I am concerned about the dependence of the American people on Jim Mattis, H.R. McMaster, John Kelly and Rex Tillerson," he told an audience at the U.S. Naval Institute's 2017 Naval History Conference in Annapolis.

 

"The question that I ask is how did we get here, to a point where we are depending on retired generals for the stability of our citizenry," he said. "And what happens if that boulder breaks, first of all, and when."

 

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/10/05/americans-trust-generals-problematic-ex-joint-chiefs-chairman.html

 

 

Former Joint Chiefs Chairman says Trump White House "self-generating" crises

"I don't have a lot of problems with the president and the administration disrupting D.C. because I think it has not  functioned well for a long time, but there has to be a process, there has to be a way to get through the issues in some reasonable way," said Mullen.

 

Mullen added, "clearly there is one issue after another, and to the degree the administration feels it's under siege, they keep generating the crises. If you continue to press hard on the intelligence community, the worry is the intelligence community may pull back on what they share with the president."

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-mullen-former-joint-chiefs-of-staff-chairman-trump-white-house-self-generating-crises/

 

 

Admiral Mullin who did not attend the retirement ceremony of LTG Michael Flynn admonished Flynn after the "lock her up" rant Flynn led at the Republican National Convention last year. Mullin reacted this way when he heard Flynn was appointed national security adviser to Potus....

 

"When I knew him, he clearly had the temperament. If it's the 'lock her up' temperament, that's not who I'd want to advise me from a national security perspective," Mullen said.

 

"Certainly the trip to Russia where he's sitting next to President Putin and his comments about Russian media tied to that raise questions, with respect, from my perspective and I think that's obviously something that will unfold pretty quickly," Mullen said.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mullen-isnt-sure-flynn-still-has-temperament-to-be-national-security-adviser/article/2607930#!

 

 

Flynn was as we know gone after a couple of weeks from his farcical appointment as national security adviser to Potus Donald Trump. Fortunately and by the design of the Founders, the military officer oath is to the Constitution only -- Potus is not included in the officer oath of loyalty. No person or official is in it. The officer oath is to the Constitution only, i.e., the three branches of the government.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Publicus
Lock Him Up and Away.

[Publicus]

 

 

One could wonder what advice Trump might get sooner or later from Mattis, Kelly, McMaster, the seven members of the joint chiefs and chairman, to include perhaps retired four-star armed forces commanders. Methinks the chaos of the Trump administration has only begun to begin.

 

 

Special Ops general: The government is in 'unbelievable turmoil'

General Raymond Thomas commander of U.S. Special Operations Command.

 

Raymond Thomas testifying on his nomination to be general and commander of the US Special Operations Command during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 9.

 

 

Speaking at a military conference in Maryland, Gen. Raymond Thomas told attendees: "Our government continues to be in unbelievable turmoil. I hope they sort it out soon because we're a nation at war."

 

 

When asked later about his comments, Thomas told The Times: "As a commander, I'm concerned our government be as stable as possible."

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/socom-commander-government-unbelievable-turmoil-2017-2

 

 

Let's look at the military officer oath as the Founders proscribed it:

 

I, _____, (name; SSN) having been appointed an officer in the _______ (branch of service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

 

The exact wording has changed since General Washington first wrote the oath for officers of the Continental Army and Navy. The Founders further proscribed the officer oath to be to the Constitution and to the Constitution only, i.e., to the government of the USA. The officer oath since 1789 has consciously and deliberately excluded Potus from it. The officer oath is instead to the government of the United States. Which means the three branches of the government. The idea was to protect against one man becoming a tyrant, or as a safeguard to a Caligula becoming Potus.

 

Well thought through I'd say. 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Publicus
Bring me my horse.

[Publicus]

On 10/6/2017 at 9:59 AM, tonray said:

I think what would have to happen is NK divided up into "east and west berlin" so to speak. the top half would be Chinese sector with the lower section American/SKorean. this would maintain Chinese border integrity with no western troops on its doorstep.

 

Kim would never allow or accept it. He and his elites would turn to NK long term supporter Russia to include for strategic military support.

 

As has been pointed out in scrolling, the CCP Boyz in Beijing would see this as yet another super high risk option if might they think of it as an option, which I doubt entirely.  Further, Chinese and Americans staring at one another across yet another cold war "Berlin border" would be inviting new risks.

 

There are no good options. There is only the very bad status quo or the very bad alternative to the very bad status quo. Nor could I imagine any U.S. commander accepting a launch order from Trump for first use of a nuclear weapon.

 

[LannaGuy]

3 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Kim would never allow or accept it. He and his elites would turn to NK long term supporter Russia to include for strategic military support.

 

As has been pointed out in scrolling, the CCP Boyz in Beijing would see this as yet another super high risk option if might they think of it as an option, which I doubt entirely.  Further, Chinese and Americans staring at one another across yet another cold war "Berlin border" would be inviting new risks.

 

There are no good options. There is only the very bad status quo or the very bad alternative to the very bad status quo. Nor could I imagine any U.S. commander accepting a launch order from Trump for first use of a nuclear weapon.

 

 

This is NOT Thailand and military will do as they are told. Any more provocation and I think they should do a limited strike. Take out those scum before he gets even stronger.

[boomerangutang]

Admiral Mullen opines; "the worry is the intelligence community may pull back on what they share with the president."

                      The intel people were doing that even while Trump was the Republican nominee, and while he was prez-elect.  Mostly because intel didn't want to tell Trump all details of what they knew/suspected about his Russia connections. 

 

                       It's a sad state of affairs when the US's multi-billion $$ intel facilities keep secrets from the prez and his closest cohorts.  It's on-going.  

 

                        Do you remember when, during the closing 3 weeks of the campaign, Trump kept shouting, "If Hillary wins, it's because the election is rigged.  It's rigged, believe me!"

 

                      Anyone with half a brain who has followed Trump's antics knows that he always accuses others of his own personal failings and dirty tricks.  He's done it with a raft of issues.  His buddies do it also, as Flynn did when he shouted, "Lock her up! Lock her up!"   He and Trump were advocating draconian measures toward a small infraction (HRC's using a private email server) - when both Trump and Flynn knew at the time, that they were breaking more serious laws in more reprehensible ways.

 

 

[boomerangutang]

25 minutes ago, Publicus said:

There are no good options. There is only the very bad status quo or the very bad alternative to the very bad status quo. Nor could I imagine any U.S. commander accepting a launch order from Trump for first use of a nuclear weapon.

I agree there are no good option re; NK.  But one less-than-awful option would be as follows:

 

Surgical strike to take out Kim and as many of his top brass as possible.  In the ensuing turmoil, Chinese, S.Koreans, US and others come rolling in to try to establish order.  The incursions would be military, but primarily carrying multitudes of aid packages for regular people:  food, clothing, small appliances, gifts and so on. 

 

When the N.Korean people realize two things are happening at once:  A. the heads of the serpents are cut off, and B. they're inundated in food/clothing/gifts, ......they may start on the long path to recovery. 

 

The biggest impediment to that is the NK military.   They're all primed to mindlessly fight, similar to hornets whose nest is breached.  

 

Admittedly, it's a screwy scenario, but perhaps the less so than other scenarios.

 

Best would be an internal uprising, but that's near impossible, because everything Kim and his closest aides do is designed to protect against that. 

[Publicus]

22 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

 

This is NOT Thailand and military will do as they are told. Any more provocation and I think they should do a limited strike. Take out those scum before he gets even stronger.

 

Everyone is well aware the USA is not Thailand. In the USA the power to declare war is vested in the Congress, not the Executive. USA has no monarch with sole war making powers nor does USA have a Caesar with same. That USA has a Caligula in the White House does change the equation however.

 

The oath of the U.S. military officer is to the Constitution only and exclusively. That means the officer oath is to the Government of the United States -- all three branches of the government. The military officer oath excludes Potus as the Founders designed it to be exclusionary of Potus the executive. There is no person/official in the military officer oath. The military officer oath establishes an exclusive direct line from the military officer to the Constitution, i.e., the three branches of the Government.

 

If the general/admiral in command of the War Room of the Pentagon receives an order from Potus Trump to launch first use of a nuclear weapon against North Korea, the officer can have the option to call the SecDef. Or the Speaker of the House. Or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Or to call all of 'em....and others. He/she can determine what the other heads of the branches of the government might say about a Potus Caligula ordering the first use of a nuclear weapon since 1945.

 

No court would convict the general or admiral who showed this kind of exemplary and courageous professionalism. We know that no one in the military is required to obey an unlawful order. Equally, no officer in the U.S. military is required to obey a lawful order that is either blatantly unwise or questionable of its sanity.

[LannaGuy]

3 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Everyone is well aware the USA is not Thailand. In the USA the power to declare war is vested in the Congress, not the Executive. USA has no monarch with sole war making powers nor does USA have a Caesar with same. That USA has a Caligula in the White House does change the equation however.

 

The oath of the U.S. military officer is to the Constitution only and exclusively. That means the officer oath is to the Government of the United States -- all three branches of the government. The military officer oath excludes Potus as the Founders designed it to be exclusionary of Potus the executive. There is no person/official in the military officer oath. The military officer oath establishes an exclusive direct line from the military officer to the Constitution, i.e., the three branches of the Government.

 

If the general/admiral in command of the War Room of the Pentagon receives an order from Potus Trump to launch first use of a nuclear weapon against North Korea, the officer can have the option to call the SecDef. Or the Speaker of the House. Or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Or to call all of 'em....and others. He/she can determine what the other heads of the branches of the government might say about a Potus Caligula ordering the first use of a nuclear weapon since 1945.

 

No court would convict the general or admiral who showed this kind of exemplary and courageous professionalism. We know that no one in the military is required to obey an unlawful order. Equally, no officer in the U.S. military is required to obey a lawful order that is either blatantly unwise or questionable of its sanity.

 

There have been many instances of executive power being used in US if there is a direct threat. You are wrong. Nor do i believe that any General or Admiral would disobey the President.

 

Your last sentence is just foolish. Military OBEY lawful orders and it is not for them to decide how 'wise' or 'sane' they are period.

Edited October 8, 2017 by LannaGuy

[Publicus]

20 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I agree there are no good option re; NK.  But one less-than-awful option would be as follows:

 

Surgical strike to take out Kim and as many of his top brass as possible.  In the ensuing turmoil, Chinese, S.Koreans, US and others come rolling in to try to establish order.  The incursions would be military, but primarily carrying multitudes of aid packages for regular people:  food, clothing, small appliances, gifts and so on. 

 

When the N.Korean people realize two things are happening at once:  A. the heads of the serpents are cut off, and B. they're inundated in food/clothing/gifts, ......they may start on the long path to recovery. 

 

The biggest impediment to that is the NK military.   They're all primed to mindlessly fight, similar to hornets whose nest is breached.  

 

Admittedly, it's a screwy scenario, but perhaps the less so than other scenarios.

 

Best would be an internal uprising, but that's near impossible, because everything Kim and his closest aides do is designed to protect against that. 

 

Well intended and motivated but several governments would need to coordinate in advance of a surgical strike by one of 'em for all of 'em to move into NK into already agreed zones of possession to distribute the goodies. All the initiating governments would need to take out any and all NK military forces before they could destroy Seoul and launch against Japan. U.S. has 70,000 forces and a lot of families in each place in addition to the 150 million civilians living in the two places. Putin and all Russians would be hopping mad not to be included -- and that would be only if all the governments could work as the allies did in WW II. 

 

There are no good options. I wish there were some hope or optimism but the way I hear it the Pentagon has worked through a couple of dozen options and each one of 'em is a stinker. Methinks and fears it might make Trump believe all the more he has the magic bullet/bomb and that it is all on him to set things straight in his own unique way.  

[Srikcir]

26 minutes ago, Publicus said:

In the USA the power to declare war is vested in the Congress

To "declare war" - yes.

To mobilize the military against a foreign power - no to some extent.

 

War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows the President to commit armed forces to military action for up to more than 60 days without a Congressional authorization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Possible_repeal

In terms of nuclear and non-nuclear attacks, 60 days is a lifetime.

 

Recently Rep. Sen. Rand Paul attempted to repeal the WPR but defeated 61 to 36.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/war-powers-aumf-rand-paul-senate-242662

This curb on Presidential power has never been tested in Court, ie., as to its constitutionality. It is notable that President Clinton allegedly violated the law with military action in Kosovo in 1999, but no legal action was taken against him.