Once again the question here isn’t about liking Republican nominee Donald Trump or not. One can even prefer his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and agree with the following words. Yesterday the New York Times (NYT) published a letter written by 50 former Republican senior national security officials whom a large majority holds no longer official role. Broadcasted by many European media, this letter warns that Donald Trump would put the United States’ national security at risk and that one must logically prefer Hillary Clinton.
That these personalities take a stance against Donald Trump isn’t a surprise considering that they’re active members of US neo-conservatism that largely transcends the usual Republican-Democratic divide. More surprising has been the willingness of European media to convey this kind of message without being aware of two important facts. The first is that most of these senior officials have been, at one moment or another, involved in US politics.
Although it doesn’t change their competences and qualities, Cyceon reiterates its observation according to which if at the highest level of the US national security apparatus, the opposition to Donald Trump is strong – meaning the bureaucracy for which politics, political management are a day-to-day job – that’s rather the opposite once you leave those highest ranks. Among analysts, operational and special personnel, all the “small hands”; it’s even truer within the military among soldiers; the support in favor of Donald Trump is quite important.
The second fact lies in this formidable contradiction in the broadcasting of that letter of these senior officials accusing Donald Trump of being a security risk whereas they’ve launched the war in Iraq to which, for instance, French media and government fiercely opposed – and they were right to do so – in 2003. Considering the dire consequences of that war for which they hadn’t planned any viable post-Saddam Hussein political solution, one can doubt their legitimacy to write such a letter.
If today the threat has reached unprecedented high level both for the US and for Europe’s national security, this mostly comes from the Syria/Iraq region where an unprecedented terrorist galaxy able to destabilize our democracies with very lethal attacks plus migration submersion has grown, trained and expanded almost unabated. It’s thus quite daring to be the very cause of such a disaster – of which Donald Trump can’t be held responsible for at all – and accusing the Republican nominee, yet controversial, of being a security risk because he offered some common sense thinking like working with Russia and stopping “doing anything” in the Middle East. The worse remains to convey such an anti-Trump call without realizing how cynical it is.