By Donald Kirk
NORFOLK, Va. ― President Donald Trump is noted for his outrageous remarks, none more absurd than his claim to have averted another Korean War by meeting Kim Jong-un three times for nothing more than a bonanza of breathless media coverage.
But wait. Now he's gone a step further ― one that may escape notice amid a wash of other news, including a report that he labelled thousands of Americans killed in war in Europe as "losers," even "suckers."
Actually, the Trumpster has denied repeatedly having made any such remark during a visit to France nearly two years ago in which bad weather purportedly forced the cancellation of a visit to a cemetery with the graves of 1,800 marines who died in the Battle of Belleau Wood in 1918. A lot of people, including the former national security adviser, John Bolton, who doesn't have much good to say about his ex-boss, were with him and agree with his impassioned denials of ever more "lies" about him.
As for the "four sources" to whom The Atlantic magazine attributes the report, none have been courageous enough to say, "Yup, I heard him use those disparaging words." Others are corroborating the story ― but only second hand. So far the original tell-all folks don't want the notoriety of having been The Atlantic's sources. As for the magazine's bold and brave editor, he has only to plead that old journalistic out, protecting sources, to shield their identities.
Here, however, is where Trump goes off the rails. Aware that "the generals" with whom he once believed he was on great terms have lost their love for him, he now says "the soldiers," that is, the rank-and-file troops, have quite a different view. Or, as he put it on Monday, the American Labor Day, "I'm not saying the military's in love with me, but the soldiers are."
Whoa, Mr. President. That's not the impression one gets from talking to rank-and-file enlisted people here in this center of American military power, including more than 80,000 troops from all services. Granted I've only talked to a few, but damned if I can find any of them speaking highly of their commander-in-chief, as I've heard them on previous visits.
Ok, some would no doubt profess loyalty to the man, but the fact is he's lost the love and more importantly the respect that military people had for his predecessors, including Barack Obama, the liberal Democrat whose policies and programs the Republican Trump has sought to destroy.
It's not so much that Trump avoided the draft by getting a podiatrist in one of his father's buildings in New York to certify that he had "bone spurs" in his feet that made him medically ineligible. (Obama didn't serve either, but he had a much better excuse ― the draft ended in 1973 as the U.S. gave up in Vietnam and Obama was too young to have to serve.)
Rather, it's the obvious ill will that Trump has shown toward military people, toward the armed forces, to those who died in wars that he believes were a waste of time and money, of the lives of those he sees as "losers," including the 55,000 killed in Vietnam. Trump was at his worst in his contempt for the late John McCain, captured when his plane was shot down over Hanoi, consigned to five years as a prisoner but fit enough to serve in the U.S. Senate and run for president against Obama in 2008. Seen as a hero by most standards, McCain in Trump's book was "a loser" like so many others who risked and often lost their lives in America's wars.
Maybe, on probing Trump's convoluted mind, one might say he was ambivalent about the armed forces. Having come of age in a time of protest against the U.S.' role in Vietnam, he looks on those who served as inferiors, too stupid to do what he did. For a soulmate in draft avoidance, Trump need only look to Bill Clinton, almost exactly his age, who jumped through hoops to dodge the draft before and after going to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar.
While not exactly anti-war, Trump is definitely anti-military. That's scary for American allies whom Trump could not be counted on to defend in a showdown. No way can "the soldiers" go on loving Trump when he so clearly scorns their service and sacrifice.
Donald Kirk, www.donaldkirk.com, writes from Seoul as well as Washington.
 |
But wait. Now he's gone a step further ― one that may escape notice amid a wash of other news, including a report that he labelled thousands of Americans killed in war in Europe as "losers," even "suckers."
Actually, the Trumpster has denied repeatedly having made any such remark during a visit to France nearly two years ago in which bad weather purportedly forced the cancellation of a visit to a cemetery with the graves of 1,800 marines who died in the Battle of Belleau Wood in 1918. A lot of people, including the former national security adviser, John Bolton, who doesn't have much good to say about his ex-boss, were with him and agree with his impassioned denials of ever more "lies" about him.
As for the "four sources" to whom The Atlantic magazine attributes the report, none have been courageous enough to say, "Yup, I heard him use those disparaging words." Others are corroborating the story ― but only second hand. So far the original tell-all folks don't want the notoriety of having been The Atlantic's sources. As for the magazine's bold and brave editor, he has only to plead that old journalistic out, protecting sources, to shield their identities.
Here, however, is where Trump goes off the rails. Aware that "the generals" with whom he once believed he was on great terms have lost their love for him, he now says "the soldiers," that is, the rank-and-file troops, have quite a different view. Or, as he put it on Monday, the American Labor Day, "I'm not saying the military's in love with me, but the soldiers are."
Whoa, Mr. President. That's not the impression one gets from talking to rank-and-file enlisted people here in this center of American military power, including more than 80,000 troops from all services. Granted I've only talked to a few, but damned if I can find any of them speaking highly of their commander-in-chief, as I've heard them on previous visits.
Ok, some would no doubt profess loyalty to the man, but the fact is he's lost the love and more importantly the respect that military people had for his predecessors, including Barack Obama, the liberal Democrat whose policies and programs the Republican Trump has sought to destroy.
It's not so much that Trump avoided the draft by getting a podiatrist in one of his father's buildings in New York to certify that he had "bone spurs" in his feet that made him medically ineligible. (Obama didn't serve either, but he had a much better excuse ― the draft ended in 1973 as the U.S. gave up in Vietnam and Obama was too young to have to serve.)
Rather, it's the obvious ill will that Trump has shown toward military people, toward the armed forces, to those who died in wars that he believes were a waste of time and money, of the lives of those he sees as "losers," including the 55,000 killed in Vietnam. Trump was at his worst in his contempt for the late John McCain, captured when his plane was shot down over Hanoi, consigned to five years as a prisoner but fit enough to serve in the U.S. Senate and run for president against Obama in 2008. Seen as a hero by most standards, McCain in Trump's book was "a loser" like so many others who risked and often lost their lives in America's wars.
Maybe, on probing Trump's convoluted mind, one might say he was ambivalent about the armed forces. Having come of age in a time of protest against the U.S.' role in Vietnam, he looks on those who served as inferiors, too stupid to do what he did. For a soulmate in draft avoidance, Trump need only look to Bill Clinton, almost exactly his age, who jumped through hoops to dodge the draft before and after going to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar.
While not exactly anti-war, Trump is definitely anti-military. That's scary for American allies whom Trump could not be counted on to defend in a showdown. No way can "the soldiers" go on loving Trump when he so clearly scorns their service and sacrifice.
Donald Kirk, www.donaldkirk.com, writes from Seoul as well as Washington.
![[INTERVIEW] Korea has great opportunity to lead green transition](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/7321cddf734c43269db9ae00b4d9ddd7.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] Namseoul University leads adoption of innovative IB education programs](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/5291e6a2f3df420e83c62c2c4f712591.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] Song Kang discusses evolving role in 'Sweet Home' season 2](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/6198bd8bdd3743dba999cb42454d5cc3.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
