.

美國總統川普被軍方出賣?

 準備下檯,川普無法得到軍方的支持,還能連任總統寶座?

In a remarkable shift, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said Wednesday that he opposes using active-duty troops to put down the protests in American cities—in other words, he opposes President Donald Trump’s threat to do just that.

His statement is significant for two reasons. First, Esper would be the one to carry out such orders under the Insurrection Act of 1807, which Trump has threatened to invoke. Second, since becoming defense secretary almost a year ago, Esper, like many of his fellow Cabinet members, has kowtowed to Trump like a lap dog. Wednesday’s remarks might signal a bigger change, set off perhaps by his embarrassment at being used by Trump, for blatantly political purposes, at the photo-op in front of St. John’s Church on Monday.

Esper is not the only one who’s beginning to rebel at Trump’s misuse of the military. Senior military officers are turning against him as well. So far, this is a tentative, uncoordinated tilt—officers are trained, from the time they’re cadets, to stay out of politics and to obey lawful orders from civilian authority—but there is growing concern about Trump’s use of the military for his own partisan purposes and, with it, a growing recognition of the need to speak out.

The first public outburst came on Tuesday, from retired Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who wrote in the Atlantic, “I have to date been reticent to speak out on issues surrounding President Trump’s leadership, but we are at an inflection point, and the events of the past few weeks have made it impossible to remain silent.”

He was referring to Trump’s visit to St. John’s Church—after police and National Guard cleared the way by firing tear gas at peaceful protesters in nearby Lafayette Park—and to his call-up of active-duty troops for more attacks. With these acts, Mullen wrote, Trump “laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest in this country, gave succor to the leaders of other countries who take comfort in our domestic strife, and risked further politicizing the men and women of our armed forces.”

Mullen wrote that he was confident that the men and women in uniform “will obey lawful orders. But,” he added, “I am less confident in the orders they will be given by this commander in chief.” He also criticized Esper, without mentioning his name, who had spoken a few days earlier of the need to dominate the “battle space” in the fight against protesters. American cities, Mullen replied, “are not ‘battle spaces’ to be dominated, and must never become so.”

The admiral’s words followed similar commentary, mainly on Twitter, from retired Gen. Martin Dempsey, another former JCS chairman; retired Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and NSA; and retired Gen. Tony Thomas, former head of Special Operations Command.

Active-duty officers are also beginning to speak out. In a memo to his fellow service leaders, obtained by Air Force Times, Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, denounced the death of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis police. He noted that the Air Force is “not immune to the spectrum of racial prejudice,” and urged them, “as leaders and as airmen,” to “confront it head on.” The memo wasn’t an explicit critique of Trump’s approach to the demonstrations, but it was a clear stab at dissociation from the president’s approach.

Goldfein wrote his memo after Kaleth Wright, chief master sergeant of the Air Force, the top enlisted leader of the service, who is black, posted a statement—after receiving Goldfein’s blessing to do so—identifying himself with Floyd and other victims of police brutality. Noting that the Air Force is wrestling with “its own demons” on racism, urging his fellow airmen “to do what you think is right for the country, for your community … for every Black man in this country who could end up like George Floyd.”

Clearer still was a memo by Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria, superintendent of the Air Force Academy, not only calling for “introspection, reflection and discussion” about racial injustice, but also stating, outright, “Violence against our fellow Americans has no place in our work toward positive change” and “we have sworn an oath to defend” the right to peaceful protest.

A professor at the academy, who gave me a copy of the memo, wrote in an email, “Silveria and the rest of military leaders are pissed because we are one of the most well integrated institutions” and “also the only non politicized institution, and are we going to throw our military—black, Hispanic, white, etc., soldiers—in full battle to beat up American citizens??”

Esper—a former West Point cadet, Army infantry officer, and aerospace executive—may have been chastened not just by these statements but also by a letter from James Miller, a former undersecretary of defense, who on Tuesday resigned in protest as a leader of the Defense Science Board since 2014. In his resignation letter, which Miller sent to the Washington Post for publication, he wrote that, by accompanying Trump to St. John’s Church after nearby peaceful protesters were dispersed by tear gas, Esper had violated his oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution.” Miller continued, “Anyone who takes the oath of office must decide where he or she will draw the line. I must now ask: If last night’s blatant violations [at the church] do not cross the line for you, what will?… I hope this letter of resignation will encourage you to again contemplate the obligations you understood … as well as your obligations to the men and women in our military and other Americans whose lives may be at stake.”

 

 

 川普沒戲唱喇,軍方臨陣逃脫,不支持川普,也不再願意繼續保護白宮.

美國正面臨四分五裂,川普四面楚歌,是否會被老百姓轟下檯,滾出白宮,情勢迅速變化,撲朔迷離.

 .

 

                                                                             

現任美國國防部部長Mark Esper.已經公開反對川普總統在白宮駐紮軍隊準備對抗老百姓.

川普會向軍方舉手投降?

川普無法掌握軍隊,誰人知曉,川普是越戰逃兵,

川普老爸透過關係,將川普身體搞弱成病,躲在醫院"治療",逃避征兵體格檢查,躲避美國公民服兵役的義務,川普黑暗的歷史記錄,美國軍方永誌不忘.

川普否認遭遇到"兵變"並說尊重他們的專業?

川普明知大勢已去扔要做最後的努力以赴競選連任美國總統.

美國總統川普遭遇到”軍事政變”?

深度”特朗普為何遭遇“軍事叛變”？

美軍內種族歧視是“地雷”

美國總統特朗普遭遇了一場“軍事叛變”！

這話說的，真真切切是美國媒體說的。美國網路雜誌“Slate”刊登的文章標題是《軍官們的反叛》，美國的軍事指揮官們開始對特朗普說不。

一開始支持特朗普觀點，同意向各地派遣軍隊的國防部長埃斯珀也改變了立場。而美軍最高將領、參謀長聯席會議主席米利上將，也發表了一份致美軍各軍種指揮官的備忘錄，言辭中暗含拒絕派兵的意味。

特朗普很生氣，甚至一度威脅要把埃斯珀開除了！而這場“軍事叛變”，對白宮和特朗普而言，更大的危機在於，未來他們與軍方已經心生間隙。特朗普要在大選中獲得軍方的支持，可能要畫個問號了。

 

 .

川普本身也不信任軍方,但是又渴望得到軍隊的選票支持,他連任競選總統.國際戰略觀察家認為,川普遲早會開除國防部部長或是參謀長聯席會議主席其中1人,以平息白宮內部的人事鬥爭
 

美國軍方內部也充滿矛盾,錯綜複雜黑白種族歧視?美國軍方高層的態度是什麼呢？

其中，最具代表性的就是美軍最高軍職、參謀長聯席會議主席馬克·米利上將親自向各軍種與戰區司令部發佈備忘錄，要求提醒官兵“不忘初心”，牢記入伍時宣誓捍衛憲法中“言論自由與和平集會的權利”。他還手寫道，美軍會“忠於誓言與美國人民”。

也正因為國防部、參聯會的“一把手”都表態了，而且很多軍方的將領也持同樣立場，美國雜誌“Slate”才形容，特朗普的軍官們正在“反叛”（revolt）。

為什麼美國軍方高層會“反叛”川普？

原因主要有三個：

第一，必須出於對政治正確的遵守。

在美國，無論是在政壇還是在軍界，符合政治正確是至關重要的。米利說，軍方成員們不分族裔、膚色與信仰，都代表美國憲法的理念。他還呼籲各級單位提醒軍官與士兵，美軍將時刻維護美國價值觀，基於聯邦法律與自身的高標準行事。

第二，必須保證美軍內部不出現重大分裂。 非裔美國人佛洛德之死，引爆全美反對種族主義及員警暴力的抗議後，美國軍方一些將領本來就對特朗普和白宮的做法持不同意見。但是，白宮過去一周至少兩次要求國防部各軍種負責官員就該問題“保持沉默”。這就引發了軍方內部不少人的不滿。

如果這時候軍方站在特朗普和白宮一邊，那會讓美軍在民間陷入反對聲中。由於對特朗普的說法保持沉默，埃斯珀與米利也遭到批評。美國國防部一名高級政策官員宣佈辭職，抗議埃斯珀為出動國民警衛隊驅散抗議者辯護。還有網友喊話米利辭職，因為接受特朗普的命令相當於“違背誓言”。

第三，絕對不能讓美軍內部的種族問題被引爆。

五角大樓之所以在面對種族歧視問題上陷入兩難，就是因為美軍在這個問題上也埋著“雷”。如果應對失當，引爆了美軍內部深藏的種族歧視問題，形成“黑白分裂”，那麼美軍不僅會成為輿論焦點，甚至有可能發生“兵變”。

在美國軍隊中，現役與預備役人員裡，有色人種占比超過40%。想想，美軍現役人員大約130萬，以40%來算，則超過52萬。軍方高層十分擔憂美軍可能被要求扮演的角色，將會導致失去軍隊中非洲裔官兵的支持。

此外，雖然美軍超過40%的人是有色人種，但是看看美軍高級將領，幾乎清一色都是白人。這個問題就很明白了，在美軍中本身就存在不平衡，白人將領在更高的決策層佔據壓倒性優勢。

在美國陸軍、海軍、空軍、海軍陸戰隊和海岸警衛隊的41名最高級指揮官中，只有兩名是黑人：陸軍司令部司令邁克爾·X·加勒特上將和太平洋空軍司令小查理斯·Q·布朗上將。美國網路司令部司令保羅·M·中曾根上將，算是第三代日裔美國人。此外前美國太平洋艦隊司令也是日裔美籍人士.

由此觀之美國軍方內部90% 以上扔然是白人的天下,就連第二次世界大戰派遣到歐洲戰場的美軍,也就是說以白人為主角,黑人士兵永遠只有後勤補級運輸等雜事可幹的配角.

.

美軍白人永遠都是擔任將軍指揮官

 

 

 

有色人種的美國軍人在軍隊中扔然遭受到種族歧視僅管宣示效忠美國但是心境不同階級待遇也不同.

F-22.F-35.隱形戰鬥機飛行員好像是就沒有黑人與亞裔人士.

 

 

 

 

美國核子動力航空母艦上的F/18.A.大黃蜂戰鬥轟炸機也沒有黑人飛行員?

 

 

 Maybe Miller’s letter prompted Esper to do just that. At his press briefing on Wednesday, Esper also backpedaled on his use of the phrase battle space, saying, “It’s part of our military lexicon that I grew up with. … It’s not a phrase focused on people. In retrospect, I would have used different wording.”

Earlier, in an interview with NBC News, Esper tried to dissociate himself from the St. John’s incident as well, saying that, after a meeting in the White House, he followed Trump and others toward Lafayette Park, adjacent to the church, thinking that he would be inspecting the National Guard troops who had been deployed there. “I didn’t know where I was going,” he said, a comment that provoked mirth and ridicule on social media—which may also have prompted Esper to explain himself and cut ties with administration policy more firmly. Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—who also posed at the St. John’s photo-op, and who strutted around Washington on Monday night, in full battle dress, as if he were a wartime commander inspecting his troops before they charged into combat—has not yet said anything about his behavior or the president’s policies.* Several officers have raised their eyebrows at Milley’s antics, especially since, as JCS chairman, he plays no formal role in military operations. Hayden tweeted that he was particularly “appalled” by Milley’s battle attire.

The wait is now on for other officers to speak out—and, perhaps, for active-duty officers, who are limited in what they can publicly say, to resign. In February 2017, retired Adm. William McRaven, former head of Joint Special Operations Command, the officer who planned the raid on Osama bin Laden, denounced Trump as the “greatest threat to democracy” he’d ever seen. This was in the context of Trump’s denunciation of the press as an “enemy of the people.” Other officers nodded quietly behind the scenes, but few joined him publicly. Trump’s presidency, after all, was barely a month old.

In December 2018, James Mattis, a retired four-star general, wrote a blistering letter to Trump, resigning in protest as his secretary of defense, mainly over the president’s dissing of allies. Several months later, Mattis wrote a memoir that barely mentioned Trump. While promoting the book, he told interviewers that he was constrained to speak out against a sitting president, but he also told Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic that his period of silence was “not eternal—it’s not going to be forever.”

 A question, then, for Mattis and many other quietly critical men and women in (or just recently out of) uniform, paraphrasing Jim Miller’s letter to Mark Esper: If Trump’s recent behavior doesn’t cross the line for you, what will?