But the new president is steeped in the ways of Washington rather than reality television. For decades, his dealings with officers have been marked by an insistence on showing he’s not intimidated by them. The difference between Biden and Trump isn’t that Biden is loath to confront the military-quite the opposite. “But when he turned on the military, well, the military turned on him.”Īnd so it is that, even inside the military, President Joe Biden is defined not so much by who he is but by who he isn’t-namely, Donald Trump. Paul Eaton, who pointedly refused to mention Trump by name. “I was really shocked by how many of my former colleagues voted for the former president and openly supported him,” said retired U.S. “You don’t know how to win anymore.”-so undermined his standing as commander in chief that, by the end of his term, the military was sick of him, with 2020 election polls showing a preference for Joe Biden among all ranks, an astonishing slippage in Trump’s support among a group that voted overwhelmingly for him four years prior. Trump’s reproachful and mocking manner-“You’re all losers,” he said during his first full meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in July 2017. Many in the military, even in its most senior and skeptical ranks, supported Trump and celebrated his off-the-cuff derision of progressives. The spending spree, which included pay raises for those in uniform, solidified Trump’s standing at the Defense Department and in the field. There were no immediate details on what the lower figure would have mandated.Early in his term as president, Donald Trump famously called America’s military leadership “my generals.” It was a description that might have rubbed the military the wrong way were it not for his decision to increase defense spending by some $100 billion over three years. The Pentagon argued that the uncertainty serves as a deterrent to would-be aggressors.Īdministration officials said the proposals for more radical reductions, advocated by Aspin’s staff and by some members of the National Security Council, were rejected by military leaders, who campaigned vigorously to head off any significant cutbacks.Īnd Pentagon officials said Perry himself moved to alter an earlier version of the plan in order to increase the number of warheads that the United States would retain. * The United States will continue to refuse to pledge that it will not be the first to launch a nuclear strike, even though Moscow has announced a no-first-use policy. The study calls for retaining 14 Trident submarines, four fewer than present levels, 66 B-52 bombers instead of the 94 planned, and 450 to 500 of the 600 Minuteman III missiles with single warheads now on hand. * The strategic nuclear force will be reduced at the current pace. Some analysts had suggested that the Administration destroy all its land-based missiles because they are so vulnerable. * The nation will continue its nuclear “triad,” in which some nuclear warheads are carried by bombers, submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles. nuclear weapons will continue on its current schedule, with Washington cutting its 6,000-warhead arsenal to about 3,500 under the START II treaty-enough to destroy some 2,500 Russian targets. Here are the major elements of Clinton’s decision: He added that Moscow was visibly behind schedule in reducing its nuclear arsenal. The Natural Resources Defense Council issued a statement branding the policy “Cold War lite.” If Clinton really fears Russian instability, it said, he should speed up weapons destruction, not slow it.īut Perry insisted that the policy is on target, asserting that it was only prudent to provide some hedges in the face of current uncertainties. Extending-and possibly strengthening-the treaty is one of Clinton’s key goals.Īrms-control advocates reacted sharply to the President’s decision. Third World countries have warned that they plan to insist that the current nuclear powers take additional steps to reduce their nuclear armaments before they will support a renewal. arsenal further would have in the push to win renewal of the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in March. Unclear for the moment was what impact the Administration’s refusal to reduce the U.S. Arms-control issues are high on the agenda. White House officials speeded up the study so that the decision would be completed in time for the summit meeting Clinton is to hold Tuesday and Wednesday with Russian President Boris N.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |