Especially when we find out that the word "moron" seems an understatement from Tillerson:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... nal-report
President Trump reportedly wanted to expand the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal by a factor of ten, a request that shocked top military officials. ...Officials told the network that they were surprised by the president’s reaction and questioned his understanding of the issue. According to NBC News, officials said they heard Secretary of State Rex Tillerson call the president a “moron” after that meeting.
At a July meeting of top military officials, the president indicated that he wanted to dramatically expand the country’s nuclear capabilities...Officials present at the meeting told NBC News that Trump referenced a point when the U.S. had 32,000 nuclear warheads in the late 1960s, and said that he wanted to have that many now. The U.S. currently has 4,000 nuclear warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists.
The officials added that they then explained to the president why such an expansion, which would violate existing treaties and weapons agreements, would not be possible legally, nor in the country’s best interest.
Naturally, Trump is trying to deny this with his usual cries of "fake news!":
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... re-fiction
It's downright scary when we're relying on the military to keep us out of a nuclear war. Here are a couple of articles that might be of interest. The first is a opinion and history piece I bookmarked earlier -it's in the Huffington Post, but by an army captain and former history instructor at West Point.
More, more, more.
I was guilty of it myself. Commanding a small cavalry troop of about 85 soldiers in southwest Kandahar Province back in 2011, I certainly wanted and requested more: more troopers, more Special Forces advisers, more Afghan police, more air support, more supplies, more money, more... everything. Like so many others in Afghanistan back then, I wanted whatever resources would protect the guys in my unit and fend off the insurgent threat.
... It’s funny, though, people sometimes ask me now, “What’s really going on in Afghanistan?” .... I mean, the implication is: If you served over there, unlike those (liberal!) pundits and politicians who regularly mouth off on the subject, who would know better? But I’ve learned over the years that what they don’t want to hear is my real answer to such questions, so I rarely bother to tell them that historians, analysts, and thoughtful critics, even ones who haven’t been within thousands of miles of our war zones, probably understand the “big picture” better than most soldiers.
That’s the dirty little secret of America’s wars: despite the omniscient claims of some veterans, most soldiers see their version of war as if gazing through a straw at 30,000 feet. ...
...Which is why civilian control of the military, and of the policymaking process that goes with military action, is not just a constitutional imperative but desirable for thoroughly practical reasons. Which, in turn, is why the makeup of the current administration ― with an unprecedented number of generals in key positions ― raises some serious questions.
He goes on to discuss the times in the past when a sensible president decided to overrule advice by his generals and this turned out to be the right decision (for instance, Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis). This makes it doubly scary that Trump is not someone who seems able to collect opinions from diplomats and other experts, as well as the military, and synthesize those various opinions into a reasonable decision.
The second is by Michael Hayden, former head of the CIA, who is also worried. And when the CIA is worried...
http://thehill.com/opinion/internationa ... y-mean-war
It’s pretty amazing what kind of behavior has become normalized around Washington these days. I mean, I don’t remember an earlier period where I was counting on the the leader of North Korea to have enough emotional maturity and geopolitical wisdom to ignore the taunts of an American president.
Really. I don’t remember that.
...Even more concerning for me was the president’s not-so-veiled critique of his own military leadership: “Moving forward, I also expect you to provide me with a broad range of military options, when needed, at a much faster pace.”
The president has a cartoon image in his head that all good generals are aggressively combative field commanders like his hero, the frequently invoked George S. Patton. In reality, I suspect that most of the flag officers in that White House picture more admire another general, George C. Marshall, who was all about the prudent use of American military power only when necessary and only in concert with the other tools of American power and influence.
...So take notice. The president just announced that he is growing weary of their caution.
On a different issue (a more survivable one), the Inspector General's office seems to have its hands full investigating Trump's administration:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... hin-travel
Treasury's inspector general is reportedly launching a second investigation into Secretary Steve Mnuchin’s travel habits after learning of inaccurate information provided by the department.
An official told CNNMoney that the Treasury did not provide an accurate account of Mnuchin’s Aug. 15 trip to New York to meet with President Trump, which cost taxpayers an estimated $25,000.