I mean sure. But that was true under any administration with that many enlisted and career service people [as evidenced by base shootings, for example].
Bush directly caused more damage sending troops into Iraq for example. Did the JC make a fuss after that debacle?
The other is a conspiracy that is neatly attributed to DJT as if he ordered people into the Capitol. (We're attributing intent) We don't have to presume intent on Bush's part, history informs us not with attributions or guesses, but with evidence.
I really don't think you need to bring DJT into this. There are clearly and unambiguously some active-duty people who seem to be unclear about where their duty lies, and this is an unambiguous statement to them about where the military expects them to be.
True, kooks do exist there, no doubt about it. But this statement will do nothing to change their minds (if they had any plans --which I doubt any would be that stupid, but then we have had base shootings, so...)
> But this statement will do nothing to change their minds
On this point we disagree. I think most soldiers want to be good, loyal soldiers. DJT is Commander in Chief, and I think he has given them some seriously mixed messages of what that would entail, and may give further mixed messages in the next few days. This explicit, unambiguous statement of where a soldier's duties lie is important.
Hmm, ok perhaps you’re right about soldiers being confused. But if any CiC thought that path had a possibility for positive outcome, they’d be delusional. The institutions will not permit that.
Bush directly caused more damage sending troops into Iraq for example. Did the JC make a fuss after that debacle?
The other is a conspiracy that is neatly attributed to DJT as if he ordered people into the Capitol. (We're attributing intent) We don't have to presume intent on Bush's part, history informs us not with attributions or guesses, but with evidence.