Putting aside the logistics and cost of a "separate but equal" branch of the military (and for that matter, the rather odd choice of phrasing for it, given the generally negative historical context of the term "separate but equal,") there is the issue of how it is being presented. From the way I see it being spoken about, it comes across as a sort of call to arms to be the "best" and while not clearly a call to be the most belligerent, it seems close to that.
"Now the time has come to write the next great chapter in the history of our armed forces, to prepare for the next battlefield where America's best and bravest will be called to deter and defeat a new generation of threats to our people, to our nation," said Pence. "The time has come to establish the United States Space Force."
I accept that a "space force" may be prudent, or at least some specific planning and organization that is optimized for the intricacies of orbital and electronic defense and offense. Whether a new military branch, or a subset of existing branch (or branches) would be the best way to manage such a thing seems pretty open to debate, but a POTUS is the Commander in Chief, and while they can't unilaterally create a new military branch, they do have an understandably large influence on such a thing. I suspect that a part of it appeals to Trump's ego as well, as the establishment of a new armed services branch during his tenure would be a legacy issue that would be quite unlikely to be done if he achieves it.
The deeper issue is that it seems to be part of a policy of belligerence, rather than one rooted in reality with a hope for something better. The militarization of space my be necessary, but I don't believe it should be lauded. It is a failure of diplomacy and any sort of march of progress towards peace. If it were to be approached as such, with at least the hope that it could be avoided should other world powers agree, I would have a better feeling about the sales pitch. Of course, maybe I'm naive in that regard. It might be more reasonable, and possibly more effective to take a belligerent stance. And IF militarization of space is inevitable, I would feel better if the U.S. had superiority, not that I think the U.S. is necessarily really "better," than other potential "space military" powers, but more because I believe that it is at least safer to be the bully than the bullied (although to be fair, I do believe that we are somewhat better overall than China when it comes to such things, but I admit that I am clearly biased based on my upbringing when it comes to that issue).
Seriously though, I suspect that the current administration didn't even consider some means of keeping space demilitarized. And if previous administrations tried to keep space that way, they didn't do much to advertise that position.
And so here we are.
- Trump Charity lawsuit by New York Attorney General
- FBI investigation (it keeps being called a Russian Collusion investigation, but I'm pretty sure more to it than that at this point)
- North Korea
- The Space Force
- The Border Wall
- Alien Children Detention/family separation
- Presidential Pardons
- Civil War Monuments
- Muslim Travel Ban
- China Tariffs/Trade
- Canada-G7 Tariffs/Trade
- NAFTA
- Puerto Rico response
- Military Parade in Washington
- World Trade Organization
- Covfefe Syndrome
- NATO
- Russia/Putin relationship
Giuliani still there as Lawyer
John F. Kelly still there as Chief of Staff - 6-29-2018 Trump says "Things Happen."
Jeff Sessions still there as Attorney General
Sarah Huckabee Sanders still there as Press Secretary, rumors continue to be denied.
Mike Pompeo - Secretary of State
John Bolton - National Security Advisor
Marc Short - White House Legislative Affairs Director - no denial of plans regarding his departure prior to the 2018 midterms.
Kirstjen Nielsen - Homeland Security Secretary
Joe Hagin - White House deputy Chief of Staff is resigning.- reported June 19th
Scott Pruitt - EPA Director - Resigned 7-5-2018
No comments:
Post a Comment