![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Toughness as a goal
Good discussion by three Times writers makes the point that most of the Trump administration has no strategic goals, whether in the Iran war or in domestic policy. They don't think about what they want to achieve in the long run, but instead concentrate on the tactical question of how they can act right now. Trump's entire career has been based on creating an image of success, strength, and winning, and that's all he can think about, not what he wants to win.
Trump and Hegseth haven't made clear why they're at war in Iran (or anywhere else), much less how to do it. For both of them, killing people and blowing things up in war aren't means to an end, but the end itself; that's how you demonstrate how strong you are.
In immigration policy, they haven't made clear why they need to get rid of millions of immigrants, only that using more force is always better.
"It is core to the ethos and world view of MAGA that, on problem after problem after problem, the underlying mistake of previous administrations is that we were never tough enough.... We haven't been punitive enough, we haven't tried to bully people enough.... We have to pummel people harder. That works with Republican members of Congress, but it doesn't work with other sovereign nations, because they don't like to be pummeled, and they will find a way to stop the pummeling, and it's not always the way you want.... It's not as if nobody thought of 'Well, why don't we use force?' before."
Related, Jamelle Bouie points out that since Trump doesn't entirely believe that other people exist or have their own interests and volition, he's completely taken off-guard whenever one of his opponents fails to follow his script. Who could have predicted that Iran, under attack by the US and Israel, would start attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz? Who could have predicted that criminal charges against everybody who's ever investigated or disobeyed Donald Trump would be fought, and would fail, in court? Who could have predicted that killing one Supreme Leader would lead to another one, younger, healthier, and more-extreme, taking his place? Who could have predicted that the Democrats in the Senate would make funding for DHS conditional on ICE and CBP acting like professional law-enforcement agencies? Answer: anyone who tries to put himself in his opponent's shoes could have predicted these things.
Every real military leader has heard the lesson "The enemy always gets a vote". It may work for a real estate promoter to paint a glowing picture of how wonderful things are going to be, get the check signed, and hope that people never notice that the glowing picture didn't happen, or that they dismiss it as "well of course the promoter made things sound wonderful; that's what they do." But when you tell people in March that the pandemic will be over by Easter, and it kills a million Americans in the next year, that's harder to hide. And when you're facing an actual sentient opponent who has a strong vested interest in not following your script, it becomes even harder to hide.
Trump and Hegseth haven't made clear why they're at war in Iran (or anywhere else), much less how to do it. For both of them, killing people and blowing things up in war aren't means to an end, but the end itself; that's how you demonstrate how strong you are.
In immigration policy, they haven't made clear why they need to get rid of millions of immigrants, only that using more force is always better.
"It is core to the ethos and world view of MAGA that, on problem after problem after problem, the underlying mistake of previous administrations is that we were never tough enough.... We haven't been punitive enough, we haven't tried to bully people enough.... We have to pummel people harder. That works with Republican members of Congress, but it doesn't work with other sovereign nations, because they don't like to be pummeled, and they will find a way to stop the pummeling, and it's not always the way you want.... It's not as if nobody thought of 'Well, why don't we use force?' before."
Related, Jamelle Bouie points out that since Trump doesn't entirely believe that other people exist or have their own interests and volition, he's completely taken off-guard whenever one of his opponents fails to follow his script. Who could have predicted that Iran, under attack by the US and Israel, would start attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz? Who could have predicted that criminal charges against everybody who's ever investigated or disobeyed Donald Trump would be fought, and would fail, in court? Who could have predicted that killing one Supreme Leader would lead to another one, younger, healthier, and more-extreme, taking his place? Who could have predicted that the Democrats in the Senate would make funding for DHS conditional on ICE and CBP acting like professional law-enforcement agencies? Answer: anyone who tries to put himself in his opponent's shoes could have predicted these things.
Every real military leader has heard the lesson "The enemy always gets a vote". It may work for a real estate promoter to paint a glowing picture of how wonderful things are going to be, get the check signed, and hope that people never notice that the glowing picture didn't happen, or that they dismiss it as "well of course the promoter made things sound wonderful; that's what they do." But when you tell people in March that the pandemic will be over by Easter, and it kills a million Americans in the next year, that's harder to hide. And when you're facing an actual sentient opponent who has a strong vested interest in not following your script, it becomes even harder to hide.
no subject
And COVID-19 is still killing and disabling Americans...and lots of other countries' people, too.