“Vinson” Carrier’s Missing: Trump-Pentagon’s miscommunication?

Aidana Sapuan

In response to growing tensions in the Korean Peninsula and increasing number of nuclear tests by the North Korea, President Trump made a drastic order to head “an armada” - the US Aircraft carrier group named “Vinson” from Singapore in the northern direction towards the abovementioned region. The vast majority of public has interpreted this move as an act of deterring North Korea and showing-off the US military capabilities, as Trump puts it: “Very powerful, we have submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier, that I can tell you” in an interview with Fox News Business .

The most shocking revelation came out when Trump’s decision was an act of bluffing, since official photos on the US Navy website indicated that the carrier was thousands of kilometers away in the southern direction from the Korean Peninsula2. US military officials made an announcement that “Vinson” will first complete the joint military exercise with the Australian military, thereby disproving the implementation of Trump’s official order to head the carriers in an opposite direction. A little later, Secretary of Defense James Mattis told that the joint exercises had been cancelled and from now on the carriers will be heading back to the North Korea.

All of these confusions in reports both by President Trump and  military officials (such as DoD, Pentagon, Mattis) raises thoughts about many important aspects of today’s civil military relations in the USA. The conventional wisdom of US civil military relations has at least two fundamental premises framed by the constitution: 1) the president is the commander in chief of the US Army, and by ordering special operations he is held accountable for them; 2) the president has to be aware of the state and locations of different items of the country’s military assets, and to be able to employ them in the times of need. In the context of these responsibilities put before the newly elected US President, wrongly announcing the deployment of the 97.000-ton carrier and its 60-plus aircraft against the country with unpredictable changes in its foreign policy like North Korea, to put it mildly, decreases the level of credibility and trust attributed to Trump by the public.

The other issue is grounded in the ambiguity around questions of “who?” and “why?” ordered “Vinson” to steam towards North Korea. Due to this confusion between different US military structures in their reports about Vinson’s whereabouts, it is very difficult to understand, which of these actors were involved in the command formulation process. From the point of civil-military relations, this might have a huge degrading effect for the US current state of CMR since it would mean that military is losing some of its advisory responsibilities before the state, which were strongly advocated by Huntington’s (1957) theory of objective control.

One of the possibilities is that the decision about “Vinson’s” deployment was made by Trump’s administration, which does not cause problems in legal terms, since such kind of operational decision-making under threat to US national security is the presidential prerogative. Nevertheless, following inconsistencies in reports do show the lack of inter-organizational coordination between the civilian leadership and Pentagon highlights the lack of expertise of the executive and makes the functioning of Trump as a chief commander of the US Army less effective.

___________
Reference list:
Huntington, Samuel P. 1957. The Soldier and the State the Theory and Politics of Civil- Military Relations. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Web Sources:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/19/asia/uss-carl-vinson-north-korea-timeline/
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-in-a-nuclear-standoff-with-north-korea-trump-s/article_48f8c4aa-81f2-5494-916e-c27ef6c4a5a1.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/18/us-military-shoot-down-north-korea-missile-tests

Bombing Syria: The US Needs to Adopt a New Authorization for the Use of Military Force

Aidana Sapuan

In response to Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against nonviolent Syrian citizens, on April 7, 2017 newly elected President Trump authorized 59 Tomahawk missile strikes. This has raised serious doubts about the lawfulness of Trump’s unilateral decision both under the US Constitution and the international law.

The US Constitution in Article I clearly states that the decision and responsibility to start a war belongs to Congress, not the president. Though the president can make a sole decision to repel sudden attacks, Assad’s recent actions in Syria do not represent such worries for the US national security.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the Congress adopted the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to take violent actions against “those nations, organizations, or persons he (the president) determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”  This document has given a president of the US a mandate to make a unilateral decision to use force against a particular type of actors connected to a disastrous event in 2001. Nevertheless, during the following 16 years presidents have been using this resolution to justify operations in the Philippines, Yemen, Somalia and Syria, sometimes with a minimal connection to the main cause stated in AUMF.

In the context of this document, ISIS and Assad’s regime do not seem to fit the characteristics that would allow the sole decision to use force, since the former is an organization that did not exist in the time of 9/11 attacks, whereas Assad regime’s direct threat to US’s national security is under a big question. Therefore, the question of whether Trump’s decision violates US constitution still remains open.

There was a precedent during Obama’s administration that reflects today’s concerns around Trump’s order to deploy missiles in Syria. In 2013, Obama unilaterally authorized striking against Syria after Assad’s use of chemical weapons. This has provoked a big discontent among the representatives in Congress, which ended up by an unsuccessful presidential request to redesign and adopt a new AUMF . This precedent might explain the inactivity of current members of Congress as a kind of tacit consent to comply with Trump’s sole decision to use military force against Syria.


Nonetheless, though there might be a silent consensus between Congress and President Trump about the morals and motives for the use of US military force in Syria, do things have to stay the way they are? In terms of sustaining healthy civil-military relations, the answer is definitely no. The adoption of a new separate AUMF for Syrian conflict would define the scope of the mission and outline political and military objectives of potential military operations in Syria. Moreover, the Congress is in urgent need of providing the channel for public to check if the financial, human and military capability costs associated with the “war” is worthwhile for the Americans. President Trump’s unilateral decision to employ bombing attack in Syria and the following public debate over new AUMF is a real-world example of the theory by Avant explained in Bruneau and Tollefson (2008). Her theory, the division of civilian power between the executive and the legislature might potentially degrade the wellness of civil-military relations in the US, since instead of forming a bilateral decision, parties will try to “play one off against the other” and to promote its own interests (ibid, 61).

__________
Reference list:
Bruneau, Thomas C., and Scott D. Tollefson. 2008. Who Guards the Guardians and How: Democratic Civil-Military Relations. University of Texas Press

Web sources: 
https://www.justsecurity.org/39695/illegal-hard-part-begins/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-challenges-in-asking-congress-for-authorization-for-use-of-military-force/
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/military-force-syria-congress
http://www.concordmonitor.com/Congress-must-act-on-new-Authorization-for-the-Use-of-Military-Force-9250103

Trump’s Decisions about the Military

Kamila Shurmanova

President Donuld Trump has made some debatable decisions, for which he faced a lot of criticism. He has filled main posts in the Cabinet with recently retired generals, with an aim to shape national security policies of the US, another issue is that Trump has not appointed some major civilian posts that are responsible for watch over military personnel and their decision. Recent US attack of Afghanistan has triggered new debates, authorities are not happy about the freedom Trump has granted to Defense cabinet that lacks civilian control.

"What I do is, I authorize my military,” he said. “We have the greatest military in the world, and they’ve done a job as usual. So we have given them total authorization, and that’s what they’re doing. And, frankly, that’s why they’ve been so successful lately."

“The commander-in-chief and the people immediately around him are somewhat malleable when it comes to national security," Smith said, pointing to Trump’s about-face last week in ordering a strike on the Syrian military for its use of chemical weapons. “You can’t imagine anyone more opposed to military action in Syria than President Trump right up until he ordered the strikes. I’m worried President Trump is going to go with such a military-heavy set of advisers."

A lot of people are worried about the autonomy military has faced recently and the amount of trust Trump entitles them with. Syria appears to be the most vivid example of the autonomy military has recently gained. U.S. troops are currently helping their local allies in Syria to get ready to an offensive attack of ISIS’s headquarter that is located in Raqqa.


Trump’s decision imply to the subjective/objective control theory proposed by Huntington (1957). Objective civilian control militarizes military and makes them a tool in the hands of the government. Even though Huntington (1957) claims that  generally objective control is a better approach to professionalize military, he emphasizes the importance of balance between civilians and military. Trump, on the other hand, has granted a complete authority to military by putting on the commander positions recently retired officers (which is against the law of 7 years gap between military and civilian administration service) and by failing to fill the posts that supervise military policies.

________

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-military-strikes-generals-237214 

Secretary Problem

Dauren Koptleuov

Recent Donald Trump’s signing of the executive order designed to restrict access of seven Middle East countries to the United States sparkled a massive debate around it. According to The Guardian (Siddiqui, 2017) this executive order applies to the refugees and immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia. Besides common public concern about the future of refugees and discrimination of Muslim states, there are also considerations amongst the military men. As NY Times (Cooper, 2017) states, Pentagon is not quite comfortable with Trump’s decision. For example, military officials consider Iraq an ally after overturn of Hussein’s regime; and a considerable amount of efforts and money are spent on military campaigns fighting terrorism and autocracy.

Quite an interesting role in this situation is devoted to the newly appointed Secretary of Defence, James Mattis. On the one hand, his appointment is one of uncommon decisions of Mr. Trump. On the other hand, according to NY Times (2017), Mattis is quite concerned about the current situation:

“This kind of thing is causing us great damage right now, and it’s sending shock waves through the international system”.

This, however, is not an end to dilemma that stands before the Secretary: Politico (Wright et al., 2017) states that democrats as well as some republicans from the Senate decided to grant permission to Mattis to hold position of Secretary with hope that he would be “reining in a president-elect who has unorthodox views on matters of war and peace”. Mad Dog seems to be caught in the middle: officials as well as rallying civilians appear to be highly dissatisfied because of immigration ban, while Mr. President certainly relies on support of his colleagues, especially those who were personally chosen by him. This situation is intensified by the fact that Trump fires US general attorney in several hours after she was reluctant to approve his executive order about immigration ban (Smith et al., 2017).

Eventually, let us shift to the brief discussion of how the case appointment of Mr. Mattis can be significant in the context of the civil-military relations. Generally, it challenges fundamental theory of Samuel Huntington (1957), general principle of which is: military stays out of politics. In other words, in order to preserve objective civilian control, Secretary of Defense should not be military person, because it potentially may cause a conflict between civilians and military, so the latter should completely obey. What is more interesting is that both the President and the Senate, technically speaking, made a decision to appoint Mattis with different purposes and both rely on Secretary’s support. Such setting may cause tensions not only between military and civilian sector, but also within the government itself. Therefore, it can be said that James Mattis becomes one of the key figures of the United States straightforwardly after appointment. Internal security of the state (possibility of armed protests, insurgencies, and coups) as well as civil-military relations seem to depend considerably on the rightfulness of his choice whether to oppose, agree or give a “frank advice” to Mr. Trump’s in the light of recent events.

References:

Cooper, H. (2017). Trump’s Signing of Immigrant Ban Puts Pentagon in Uncomfortable Light. Nytimes.com. Retrieved 28 January 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-muslims-military.html?_r=0

Huntington, S. (1957). The soldier and the state (1st ed.). Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Siddiqui, S. (2017). Trump signs 'extreme vetting' executive order for people entering the US. the Guardian. Retrieved 28 January 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/27/donald-trump-muslim-refugee-ban-executive-action

Smith, D., Ackerman, S., & Jacobs, B. (2017). Sally Yates fired by Trump after acting US attorney general defied travel ban. the Guardian. Retrieved 30 January 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/justice-department-trump-immigration-acting-attorney-general-sally-yates

Wright, A., Herb, J., Bender, B., Schor, E., & Griffiths, B. (2017). Democrats’ role for Mattis: The anti-Trump. POLITICO. Retrieved 25 January 2017, from http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/james-mattis-confirmation-hearing-takeaways-233550

Trump to increase the US military spending

Gulnaz Takauova

Links: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/01/27/draft-executive-order-shows-how-trump-wants-to-grow-the-u-s-military-significantly/?utm_term=.48ec62087b15

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/report-draft-executive-order-would-give-pentagon-short-term-funding-boost

http://www.republicanviews.org/republican-views-on-military-spending/

Fordham, Benjamin. 2001. "Military Interests and Civilian Politics: The influence of the civil-military "Gap" on peacetime military policy." In Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security, by Richard H.Kohn Peter D.Feaver. MIT press.

On Friday, January 27, President Donald Trump, have signed an executive draft order what he called “The great rebuilding of the Armed Forces” aiming to sufficiently increase the military army size it’s and funding.

The executive draft charged the Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis to conduct what is called a “Readiness Review”.  For 30 days the Defense Secretary is required to re-examine the US national strategy and provide a plan to bolster the military. This includes the plan for the future training of soldiers, modernization of weaponry, equipment and infrastructure. In addition, the order was mandating the increased military funding and increased amount of troops in the Army. According to the Washington Post, these are the necessary steps to prepare the United States for the war against the ISIS.

According to the various speeches during his presidential campaign, Trump aims to increase the number of soldiers to 540,000, Navy fleet to 350 ships, Air Force fighters to 1,200 and also the number of Marine Corps infantry battalions to 36. In contrast, during the Barack Obama’s leadership, the Army shrunk to the smallest number since before the World War II.  At the end of November 2013 the Army number reached 470,465 soldiers and Obama wanted to continue this trend until the Army would reach 450,000 soldiers in 2018.

However, this is not the first case when the US military spending had been fluctuating under the leadership of different Presidents. The military spending is one aspect of the US budget that has been changing throughout all of its history. It rose under Presidents Raegan and Bush but has been substantially cut under Presidents Clinton and Obama. And now the military spending again is being raised by the President Donald Trump. What can be accounted for these changes?

According to the Feaver and Kohn, authors of the book “Soldiers and the State”, the partisanship and ideology play a crucial role in shaping the preferences on military spending. The authors argue that since 1960s Republicans became highly supportive of military spending   while the Democrats’ opinion towards the defense spending generally tend to unite into opposition. This trend is seen nowadays as under the Democrat President Barack Obama the US defense spending was substantially cut and under Republican President Donald Trump it was dramatically increased. 

Trump is against NATO

Zhanara Omarova

New US President Donald Trump expressed his opinion that NATO is becoming useless. He stated that NATO is old because it was created long years ago and the main problem is that it cannot protect the United States from terrorism. He explained it by low funding which other countries should fund in order to support NATO. He also criticizes EU and says that Britain had made a good choice when they decided to leave the EU.  Trump criticized Germany and its leader Angela Merkel for the allowance of free movement of refugees and states that Europe can no longer protect itself from terror. Prussia or modern Germany the first country where military forces appeared as an effective organized structure (Huntington 1957) and now according to  Trump cannot no longer defend itself from terrorism.

I think  Terrorism is  a modern type of war. Different countries handle this problem in different  ways. This type war as other types need troops, funding and structure. As Porter(1994) states war leads to development of logistics, improvement of universal education and healthcare but first of all in order to do that  things we need money and that is why Trump emphasizes that lack of funding in NATO leads to its inefficient  function. Report from defense expenditures of NATO   countries shows that only 5  NATO member states out of 28 states spend enough money and the leading role take up USA which is very unfair according to US president.

I would like to explain this issue by collective action and free riders problem. Huntington states that military is monopolized by the state and if certain state has army this state allocates enough money and this army is governed by certain state. Which makes this army structured. However, NATO does not belong to one special country and here arises the question of free-riding where one state rely on another in terms of funding but all states want to use security that offers NATO. Huntington states that modern military officer should be educated expert with responsibility but in order to train such officer military needs financing which is core problem of NATO today. Last year Obama sent 3500 troops and more than 100 vehicles to Poland as a response to Russian aggression but now  there is a question:  will the new president return these troops back to the US?

__________
Huntington, Samuel P. 1957. The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.

Porter, Bruce D. 1994.War and the Rise of the State 1st ed. Free Press

Trump's Untraditional Appointments to Cabinet

Azamat Kabdrash


More generals were nominated to the President’s cabinet since WWII. Sounds intimidating, doesn’t it? At least three military generals are going to be appointed to Trump’s Cabinet. Retired General James Mattis has been nominated as the Defense secretary; retired Marine General John Kelly has been nominated as the Homeland security secretary; and retired Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn has been appointed as the National security adviser.

Is this situation going to affect civil-military relations in political decision making? Would it undermine peaceful resolutions of military conflicts? To what extent can US politics turn extreme?

Huntington (1957) claimed that Ministers of military affairs do not have to be former soldiers. He argued for what he called “objective civilian control” over military. He stated that military viewpoint in politics can undermine efficiency of decision-making. Favoring the neutrality of military in state politics keeps military as a state tool, which, in turn, should be controlled by civilian ministers (58).

It seems that Donald Trump has a different opinion. His appointment of General Mattis as the Defense secretary is the most noticeable among others. Constitutionally it is prohibited to take the position of Defense secretary for military officers. At least 7 years should pass since an officer retired from military service. As Mattis retired in 2013, he will need a special waiver approved by Congress (which seems to be almost done) to allow to take that position.

Are these appointments really justified so that Congress should process a special waiver for Mattis? I present two facts that would support that they are justified.

Firstly, military members (especially generals) tend to have very conservative overviews. They are well adapted to live by rules and orders. Liberal values such as individualism and self-determination are very uncommon among them. Building a presidential cabinet, own circle, a team needs reliable people whom you can trust and consult with. In this regard, competent and, what is more important, “obedient” generals is a good choice for Trump to appoint them as secretaries.

Secondly, the whole beauty of the US Government is laid upon the check and balance system. What does it mean? Constitutionally the three branches – legislative, executive and judiciary – function with no prevailing authority over one another. It means that no decision is made, no bill is passed, no law is issued without the approval of all the three branches. Therefore, even if the Cabinet secretaries (representing an executive branch) might have utterly different standpoints on the US politics, it wouldn’t have extreme changes as long as there are two other branches left.

The three mentioned above appointed secretaries are highly expert former military professionals.  Time will show us how they will perform their duties in civilian service. I hope that their unique military backgrounds would demonstrate how effective can civil-military relations be.

___________________                                                      
Drezner, D. W. 2016. My concern with Trump’s team of generals. Retrieved January 17, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/05/my-concern-with-trumps-team-of-generals/?utm_term=.05bc3932ee33

Huntington, Samuel P. 1957. The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.

Wright, A., & Herb, J. 2017. Democrats’ role for Mattis: The anti-Trump. Retrieved January 17, 2017, from http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/james-mattis-confirmation-hearing-takeaways-233550