Trump has to clean the Department of Defense and his staff

September 25, 2018
Michal Krupa

Trump needs to purge and remove senior commanders from the Department of Defense, and most key figures from his personnel responsible for national security. If he did, he could replace them with people who are really loyal and support the strategic agenda of President Trump, expounded during the presidency campaign - underlines with the portal Kresy.pl, Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel in the United States army, military planner, author and deputy head of the company consulting company Burke-Macgregor, LLC.

Michał Krupa (Kresy.pl):

During the meeting in the White House, Polish President Andrzej Duda suggested that the United States should consider establishing a permanent base in Poland, which he called "Fort Trump". President Trump even pointed out that the Polish side would be willing to pay billions of dollars to achieve this goal. Many Poles are very critical of such an idea. Last year, General Sławomir Wojciechowski called the idea of creating permanent American bases in Poland "nonsense". He pointed out that it is not in the interest of Poland and the West to escalate tension with Russia. As a former military commander, how do you perceive the concept of an enlarged and permanent US presence in Eastern Europe?

Douglas Macgregor:

The problem with imitating what has been done in Germany during the Cold War is that the way the war was conducted has fundamentally changed. Large garrisons full of US troops will be attacked by precisely guided ground-to-surface missiles in the first minutes of the Russian attack. Personally, I think that all current and future bases in Europe should be transformed into advanced operational bases. They would be manned by a small number of American soldiers and airmen, and American forces routinely should routinely use them for the rapid deployment of forces as part of the exercise. My recommendation on this matter is included on  breakingdefense.com .

Michał Krupa (Kresy.pl): 

Did the sentence of Senator Richard Lugar, who claimed that after the end of the Cold War of NATO, should either "go beyond its borders or withdraw from business" is a sufficient justification for the Alliance's continued existence? It seems that the Alliance is really looking for a new mission for itself.

Douglas Macgregor:

No. When the interests justifying the existence of an alliance change or cease to exist, then the alliance is falling apart. I referred to this problem in my latest book , Margin of Victory . The problem with NATO is that not everyone shares the views of the American and Polish views on the Russian threat to Central and Eastern Europe. For example, Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece see Russia as a potential ally in a potential future war with Islamist Turkey, which remains a NATO member. Italy, Spain, Portugal and France focus on their interests in North Africa and not in Central and Eastern Europe. The British armed forces are too small to make anything significant. Norway and Denmark are concentrated in a comprehensive manner in the North Sea and in the area between Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. Thus, a new security system must be created that will take into account the security interests of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Germany and the Czech Republic, and will replace NATO. The independence of Ukraine is a permanent strategic goal for these countries, as well as for the United States. Washington can support this more promising strategy, but the president must take the initiative. Washington is suffering from bureaucratic sclerosis and is sticking to the Cold War past.

Michał Krupa (Kresy.pl): 

In a recent lecture you mentioned that the United States was able to win World War II with fewer four-star generals and more soldiers, while today the armed forces have fewer soldiers and more four-star generals. Do you think that this is the result of a more interventionist foreign policy, or rather a highly careerist and bureaucratic culture prevailing in the Pentagon?

Douglas Macgregor:

You are right. US armed forces are at the end of a long period of bureaucratic expansion, caused by conflicts with weak opponents in marginal areas, without strategic importance for Americans, which also resulted in unreasonably high spending on the old structure from World War II. Worse, the unspecified and endless nature of military operations destroyed responsibility in the ranks of senior officers. This period is just about to end. However, the huge expansion of the administration, which has progressed during the Cold War and in the last 27 years, remains a ballast. Reducing the number of four-star generals and admirals (currently 38) is key to restoring professionalism and unity of command / unity of effort. A more reasonable number would be at most 10 or 12, assuming we would also reduce the number of regional combat commands. It should be remembered that in 1943, when we had 8.2 million people in the army and in the military corps, we had only four four-star generals: Marshall, MacArthur, Eisenhower and Arnold.

Michał Krupa (Kresy.pl): 

Is the current US national security strategy right to label China and Russia as "competitors"?

Douglas Macgregor:

Yes. It's best to use the term competitor because conflict is never inevitable. As President Trump argues, there are common areas to be explored and, if possible, used for cooperation. Our strategic interest is to prevent the emergence of an alliance that could potentially dominate the Eurasian area.

Michał Krupa (Kresy.pl):

We see that some in Trump's administration are pushing for a more hostile attitude towards Iran. Is this approach in the interest of the United States?

Douglas Macgregor:

The idea of provoking a war with Iran is stupid and unnecessary. Iran is not a serious threat to the United States, and because of the nature of society and culture, Iran has the potential to become a strategic partner. A more serious potential enemy in the Middle East is Islamist Turkey. The Sunni Turks have a long history of conflict with the West and a strong war tradition, unlike in Iran.

Michał Krupa (Kresy.pl):

Many US authors and commentators say US policy in Syria is a direct result of the great influence of Israeli and Saudi lobbyists in Washington. Do you agree with this statement? Is this the right assessment?

Douglas Macgregor:

Yes. There is enormous pressure on Washington by both states to make their enemies also enemies of America. This is not a new problem. Great Britain managed to make enemies of America from Germany and Austria in 1917. The Americans later regretted this and removed Woodrow Wilson and Democrats from power after the First World War. Fortunately, so far, President Trump rightly resisted the pressure to start a conflict with Iran on behalf of the two countries.

Michał Krupa (Kresy.pl): 

How do you assess President Trump's foreign policy after almost two years of office and in the light of a recent article in the New York Times by an official who claims to be part of a Trump administration group that undermines the president's agenda, for example in striving for detente with Russia? Can we expect dramatic changes in politics and / or staff after the supplementary elections in November?

Douglas Macgregor:

Most of all, we can expect changes. Of course, for the change to take place, President Trump has to purge and remove senior commanders from the Department of Defense and most key figures from his personnel responsible for national security. If he did, he could replace them with people who are truly loyal and support the strategic agenda of President Trump during the presidency campaign. This is the only way to regain control over your agenda and to effectively rule.

Thank you for the conversation.

Interviewed by Michał Krupa (Kresy.pl)

Translated from:
https://kresy.pl/publicystyka/trump-musi-oczyscic-departament-obrony-i-swoj-personel/