Quantcast
Connect with us

Ex-Pentagon spokesman unloads on Trump for using troops ‘as political pawns’

Published

on

With the 2018 midterms now in the home stretch, President Donald Trump is trying to fire up his voters by terrorizing them and describing the caravan of Honduran refugees that has been gradually making its way north as an “invasion.” Trump, determined to show his base that only Republicans can protect them, has sent U.S. troops to the U.S./Mexico border. But not everyone with a military background thinks this is a good idea—and former Defense Department spokesman/advisor David Lapan, a retired Marine colonel, has described the deployment as “unnecessary and inappropriate” in a new commentary for the Task & Purpose website.

ADVERTISEMENT

Lapan, in his article, offers a variety of reasons why he is opposed to sending troops to the U.S./Mexico border—and at the top of the list is the fact that border security should be left to law enforcement.

“The border security mission is a law enforcement one, and active duty military forces are prohibited by law from conducting domestic law enforcement activities,” Lapan asserts. “The troops being dispatched to the border are in a support role only.”

Second, Lapan does not consider the caravan (which originated in Pedro San Sula, Honduras and is presently in southern Mexico) an “invasion.”

“This caravan of poor migrants and refugees is not a national security threat to the United States,” Lapan explains in his article. “Its size—at this point—may be a bit different than what we have seen recently, but it is not unusual. Large groups of migrants travel north to the U.S. every year. This is not an ‘invasion.’”

ADVERTISEMENT

Third, Lapan believes that sending troops to the U.S./Mexico border takes them away from other parts of the world where they are badly needed (such as Afghanistan and Syria). According to Lapan, Secretary of Defense James Mattis’ “focus on lethality and combat readiness won’t be served by this deployment.”

Lapan observes, “Secretary Mattis has rightfully recognized that after 17 years of mostly counterterrorism operations, our military needs to refocus and prepare for the next war or contingency, not the last one. That means training for full-spectrum operations, something none of the thousands of troops deployed to the border will be doing. This ill-advised deployment takes them away from their homes, their families, their regular duties and their training for future contingencies.”

Lapan emphasizes that although the U.S. military still boasts “the finest fighting force the world has seen,” it doesn’t have an infinite number of troops—and sending them to the border is a waste of their skills.

ADVERTISEMENT

Lapan concludes that U.S. troops “shouldn’t be (mis)used as an adjunct immigration enforcement force, or as political pawns. They won’t ask for a break, but they certainly deserve one.”

Task & Purpose, founded in 2014, focuses on military-related topics.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump’s EU ambassador is using the ‘Don Jr. defense’ of being too dumb to break the law: national security expert

Published

on

Gordon Sondland, the man whom President Donald Trump appointed to be his ambassador to the European Union, told congressional investigators on Thursday that he didn't understand that President Donald Trump might be holding up establishing direct contact with Ukraine's government unless the government agreed to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.

However, given that the president did ask him to run all Ukraine policy through attorney Rudy Giuliani, and given that Giuliani was already publicly boasting about trying to get Ukraine to probe Biden, Sondland's testimony raises the question of what he actually believed the president's intentions were in withholding aid to the country this past summer.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Historians demolish John Yoo for claim Founding Fathers wouldn’t want Trump impeached in an election year

Published

on

Comments made by attorney and law professor John Yoo on Fox News on the Founding Father's intentions about impeachment received a brutal debunking by two historians -- including one of his colleagues at UC Berkeley.

Appearing with Fox News personality Laura Ingraham, lawyer Yoo -- who is infamous for providing President George W. Bush's administration with legal justifications for the torture of prisoners of war -- claimed that the Founding Fathers would object to the president being impeached in an election year.

According to Yoo, Democrats are getting it all wrong when they say the Constitution compels them to hold impeachment proceedings against Trump just one year before the election.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

McConnell drops a surprise on Trump — calls for an even stronger resolution to rebuke him

Published

on

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) indicated he opposes the bill out of the House to denounce President Donald Trump's military withdrawal in Syria because it isn't tough enough, reported Bloomberg's Steven Dennis.

https://twitter.com/StevenTDennis/status/1184840222846148608

"My first preference is for something stronger than the House resolution," McConnell said according to Bloomberg's Laura Litvan.

She went on to say that McConnel wants a bill that outlines what action should take place in Syria.

McConnell said the House version was "curiously silent on the issue of whether to actually to sustain a U.S. military presence in Syria."

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image