While Trump passed on the opportunity to see tanks rolling through cities during the Vietnam War, he decided to bring the tanks to Washington DC for his 4th of July event. As with all things Trump, this event is a matter of great controversy. As with most controversial things in these partisan times, opinions tend to split along political lines. As such, it is tempting to dismiss this as a tank tempest in a teacup that has been magnified through political lenses. However, there do seem to be some meaningful issues here.
One obvious point of concern is that this event is going to be very expensive—although the exact cost is not yet known. Transporting tanks and other hardware is not cheap, nor is operating combat aircraft. There is also the cost of the damage that is likely to arise from rolling tanks through the streets. While Republicans used to pretend to be fiscal hawks, they have long abandoned their avowed principles here—hence it falls to others to make the fiscal argument: spending millions on a single event when there are so many better ways to use the money (such as paying for better care for veterans) is a huge waste and fiscally irresponsible.
A second area of concern is the role of the military in the event. While armed forces were obviously critical in the American revolution, July 4th is not a military holiday. Rather, it is a holiday that celebrates the declaration of Independence. To be fair, the 4th has been celebrated in Washington with military elements in the parades but having an explicitly military event on the 4th is odd and goes against well-established tradition. Part of this is because the symbolism of military events on holidays that are not explicitly honoring the military or veterans is linked strongly with dictators, most especially Communist dictators. This is not to suggest that there is anything wrong with the military; rather the problem lies with putting on such a display to appease the ego of a man who wishes he was dictator.
It could be countered that the military is present to honor the military. As noted above, the revolution was an armed conflict. One easy and obvious reply is that the 4th is not a military holiday—we have Veteran’s Day and Memorial Day. Another easy and obvious reply is that a better way to honor the military is to use the money to pay for useful things, like care for veterans and addressing problems. Allowing these soldiers to spend the day with their families would also be good.
A final, and perhaps the most serious, concern is that the United States has striven to maintain a professional, non-political military. That is, our military does not serve a specific person or party, their oath is to the Constitution. While I am not worried that the soldiers will spontaneously rally for Trump, I am worried that Trump will use the event as a campaign rally and thus use the military for political purposes and propaganda. Defenders of Trump might contend that Democrats would do the same thing; but even if this were true, it would obviously not make it right.
Trump might stay within the law and not use the public’s money for partisan propaganda. After all, he did manage to stick to reading the script during the D-Day events this year. However, there are many problems beyond this one—enough to indicate that tanks on the 4th is the wrong thing to do. Yes, I will say the same thing if President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decides to roll tanks through DC to celebrate Socialism Day.
You have hit all the high notes on this one, Mike. Hope that others will express their thoughts in writing throughout the country.
Thanks mom; I still have all ten fingers and both eyes after the 4th.
For once, I agree with you entirely, without reservations or quibbles. I do feel that this is tasteless and wasteful. Worse, it’s counterproductive, since it’s a target-rich environment for news stories about how the Americans couldn’t get their military display right, and will fail in its attempt to indicate the US’s military power when compared to displays in other countries. The parade of tanks and soldiers would have to continue all day, and probable for the rest of the week, to accurately indicate the US’s military strength against the rest.
As far as I am aware, despite his wild babblings for chaff, Trump has pursued a conventional conservative agenda, except fiscally. The cost for this will be negligible in the overall scheme of military budget, but still an ugly indicator of wasteful spending, and inconsistent with that agenda,
“President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez” is a terrifying phrase. While neither Trump’s nor AOC’s public statements have any relationship to reality, I’m quite sure he doesn’t believe anything of what he says for PR purposes. I’m terribly afraid she does, and otherwise sensible people are affected by her.
Worse, it’s counterproductive, since it’s a target-rich environment for news stories about how the Americans couldn’t get their military display right, and will fail in its attempt to indicate the US’s military power when compared to displays in other countries.
That’s a pretty weak argument AND an argument for weakness. Why it’s as if the stories about “how the Americans couldn’t get their military display right” were already written, isn’t it? There’s a reason Brits make movies about Dunkirk and Americans make movies about D-Day.
I don’t believe it would have been either a weak argument or an argument for weakness, even if things had happened as I (we?) expected. But they didn’t.
I fault myself. I should have known better. I do know better, even without Considering the Sources, as would have been appropriate here.
When I see an article beginning “Scientists today said” (it may be possible you can live to 200 if you eat only banana skins and Vaseline), my immediate reaction is: how many scientists? which scientists? based on what experiments or observations? and eventually find it was a junior PI and two postdocs pushing around a plateful of cells in vitro in hopes of a CV line and more funding.
When I saw “Trump is bringing tanks”, I should have thought: how many tanks? which tanks? to do what?
So I went on YouTube to see footage, and skimmed the parade and the speech. I could not spot a tank. Oh, there may be a couple around somewhere; I could easily have missed them. But my assumption was that there would be enough of a presence that they would not be easily missed, and would have been featured prominently on news footage.
I concede that one: Fake News 1, Me 0.
But where are the tanks
There ought to be tanks
Well maybe next year…
When I see an article beginning “Scientists today said” (it may be possible you can live to 200 if you eat only banana skins and Vaseline), my immediate reaction is: how many scientists? which scientists? based on what experiments or observations? and eventually find it was a junior PI and two postdocs pushing around a plateful of cells in vitro in hopes of a CV line and more funding.
Well then you must have a hell of a time getting through one of Mike’s posts. Speaking of which, where has DH been? These piles and piles of begged questions aren’t going to answer themselves.
My original impulse was to agree with Mike (except, of course, for the gratuitous snark), but after thinking about it for a while I think this is part of Trump’s plan to disengage from Afghanistan and other conflicts. The military is usually “out of sight, out of mind,” but by putting it center stage on July 4 it draws attention to the sacrifices we are asking of the young people who serve.
So I predict Trump talks peace and disengagement on the 4th.
That’s an interesting idea, and props to you for thinking of it, if it happens. It is also in line with Trump’s made-for-TV mindset. He would want to follow it up with exposure of individual faces, though.
I think it would be wildly inappropriate to make a withdrawal speech on the 4th, so I’ll also credit you if he makes that move in the week after.
You do raise a good point that the state has adopted a policy of keeping quiet about the military and the media tends to either run “feel good” stories (“Dog goes nuts when soldier comes home”) or critical stories.
Like most who serve the public, the military gets shorted far too often. Perhaps we need a public employee parade with teachers, police, soldiers, DMV workers and such marching the streets? Or maybe raises instead?
What is being celebrated on the 4th of July is America’s political independence from Britain – which was secured by American’s taking up arms and fighting. We sometimes look at THE AMERICAN MILITARY as somehow being something different than “Americans.” The military is not something different than what we are.
A military display is merely what you and I might look like if provoked into fighting. And, of course, we suggest that our hope is that we are never so provoked unless the cause is just.
All this talk about saving money is laughable.
When has government ever been interested in saving money? This money-wasting talk is just the democrats trying to discourage the republicans from using tax dollars to generate a spectacle that will be enjoyed more by their right wing partisans than by the dems left-wing partisans.