I hope you are well.
Since I do not fully understand "the chain of command" linking the president and "the generals," please clarify the following issue.
I believe it is true that the Pentagon -- and all branches of the military -- have declared environmental integrity a major security issue.
If "the brass" also believes that environmental integrity is not just a security issue but an existential issue (at least insofar as we are embarking a major "extinction event" for many species, if not our own) does military brass -- let's say the Joint Chiefs -- have the ability (or perhaps the obligation) to state that some significant portion of the 54 billion that Trump plans to invest in the Armed Forces (at the expense of the EPA and other federal agencies) should remain with the EPA.
Or, alternatively, could "the military" transfer that portion of the 54 billion that is being taken from the EPA back to the EPA, justifying the re-allocation as the best way to enhance national security?
All of which begs this question...
At what point does military leadership have a political obligation to declare Trump himself a national security threat?
Thanks!
Paz contigo,
Alan
PS Does your schedule have lunch openings in the next couple of weeks?
If Hillary Spawned A National Security Council As Laughably Shabby As Trump's...
No comments:
Post a Comment