The recent video released by Elissa Slotkin, Mark Kelly, and other Democratic figures has sparked significant backlash. The suggestion that U.S. military members should refuse ‘illegal’ orders from President Trump is unprecedented. This maneuver aims to create a rift between the military and the President, who is the Commander in Chief. It’s a tactic reminiscent of methods used by intelligence agencies during color revolutions abroad, and Slotkin’s background in the CIA contributes to this unsettling parallel.
A lingering question remains about the origins of this controversial idea. It seems unlikely that such a coordinated strategy emerged spontaneously within Democratic circles. Just weeks prior, Tom Nichols, a Never-Trump Republican and columnist for The Atlantic, provided what many see as a blueprint for this initiative. In his piece, Nichols warned about a so-called ‘civil-military crisis,’ claiming that Trump aims to exert control over the military by undermining its political neutrality—a time-honored principle that has guided U.S. armed forces.
He articulates a narrative that is not only alarmist but fundamentally flawed. The military exists under Trump’s command as stipulated by the Constitution. Nichols’s assertion that the military remains outside Trump’s grip is a gross misrepresentation of the structure of American governance. The President is the Commander in Chief, and to suggest otherwise is to misunderstand the very role of the military within the U.S. government.
Furthermore, Nichols’s column takes a particularly critical tone regarding Trump’s relationships with military leaders. He claims that the President has surrounded himself with “sycophants and ideologues,” moving away from the traditional counsel of experienced leaders. However, this portrayal rings hollow when one considers that many military leaders have consistently upheld the military’s oath to the Constitution above any individual’s political ambitions. The mention of Trump’s “dedicated run” at turning the military into a personal army deliberately mischaracterizes the situation. The reality is that the military’s loyalty lies not with Trump personally, but with the principles of the nation itself.
Moreover, Slotkin and her colleagues may have drawn inspiration directly from Nichols’s writings. The timing of their video just a month after his piece poses unsettling questions regarding collaboration or influence. When Nichols flippantly suggested Mark Kelly as a future Secretary of Defense, it raised further alarms about potential Democratic strategies involving military narratives. Is this just coincidence, or is there a deeper, orchestrated plan at play?
This entire scenario invites scrutiny. The actions of Democrats in framing a narrative that could potentially undermine the trust the military holds in their Commander in Chief merit a thorough investigation. It raises doubts about their intentions and the possible ramifications for civil-military relations in the United States.
The use of military force within political discourse is a serious matter. In portraying the notion that military leaders might have to refuse orders from the President, Slotkin and her associates risk destabilizing the critical balance of authority that has historically characterized American democracy. This discussion is far more than an electoral tactic; it touches upon the very foundational principles of governance and military oversight in the nation.
As events unfold, it is crucial for lawmakers on both sides to tread carefully. Those in the Republican Party, particularly, need to investigate the connections between Nichols’s ideas and recent Democratic messaging. The rhetoric surrounding the military should never devolve into partisan conflict. The stakes are too high.
"*" indicates required fields
