From the sound of it, they were talking down to him. And he didn’t take it well.
They weren’t answering his core concerns. How do we win in Afghanistan, what would victory look like, and how do we get there. And if there is no victory that can be articulated, why are we there?
I have no idea what was said between generals and POTUS, but I am pretty sure it didnt go down as the Washington Post states.
That said,sometime situations are such that you cant win militarily but you CAN lose. I suppose thats what some generals try to convey. Not sure its an applicable argument in the cases discussed.
Trump has asked the troops how to win, because they know. They all say the same thing. Send in the entire US army and wreck the place...stop fighting boutique wars with “Special Forces”.
But politicians don’t like the optics of that. So we struggle forth with “rules of engagement” and “green initiatives”.
Short of that... leave. Short of supplying the world with Oxycontin, what possible interest do we have in Afghanistan?
Sounds like questions a businessman would ask.
Two of those questions, what does victory look like and why are we there, are for him to answer, not his generals.
This ia a carbon copy, I MEAN A CARBON COPY, of the way Stanton and the other treated Lincoln, in fact they treated Lincoln probably worse, in the beginning.
Lincoln was very patient with them, and put in command loser after loser.
I don’t think these people, or even us for that matter, realize how smart Trump is, but more important HOW LONG HE’S THOUGHT AND DEBATED THESE ISSUES.
Maybe Bannon did have an influence on him.
Trump reminds me about how the press and others treated Ditka when he came to the Bears. Ditka had enough of the losing attitude not only with the players, but the press field that covered them.
Ditka, called them all cowards, when they told him to tone down his rhetoric about opposing teams esp the Packers.
Winning is everything...Trump got a couple wins in his pocket... that built his confidence to go further.
He did this all while under fire from all sides.
From this description, they were being extremely condescending, to the point of rudeness. That threw him into a rage. Sounds like he said some things in anger he shouldn't have said.
But, this reminds me of a story from early in the Gipper's term. Al Haig sat down with Reagan to explain why he needed to back a treaty, Law of the Sea IIRC. His argument was the treaty just codifies the way things have always been done. The Gipper responded that what this administration is about is not doing things the way they've always been done. Much more polite way of making he same point.