Skip to main content

Why I Was Not Complicit


The "Why I Was Not Complicit" genre, with a full shelf of books from the Trump administration by now all saying "I was different from the rest of them -- I was the adult in the room" got a little more crowded in recent days with Mike Esper's offering. Esper was Trump's Secretary of Defense beginning in July 2019, when his predecessor, Jim Mattis, resigned. Let us just name the genre WIWNC, for short. (Maybe pronounce it win-see.)  

I'm not sure whether Mattis has himself written a book in the WIWNC style. But he has been the subject of one. An admiring book by Guy Snodgrass (apparently his real name) appeared soon after Mattis' resignation, called Holding the Line.

Anyway, today's subject is the Esper book. It offers a lot of behind-the-curtain gossip about the administration. 

With regard to the protestors who were in the streets after George Floyd was murdered, Esper writes that Trump wondered why the military couldn't just shoot them. 

"Can't you just shoot them. Just shoot them in the legs or something," was Trump's query. Esper says the tone was "almost technical, curious as to how that would actually be done, not whether members of the military shooting American civilians in a mostly peaceful demonstration was the right thing to do." 

But for all his protestations about how he stood up to the President and protected something akin to the principle of civilian domestic law enforcement, it was Esper who gave the order to fly 1,600 active-duty Army soldiers from Fort Bragg in one direction and from Fort Drum in another, into the Washington, DC area. those troops would have been available to the POTUS if he had decided to invoke the Insurrection Act.  

As a general rule, if former Secretary Whomever feels the need to write a WIWNC book, Whomever was likely complicit. 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

The Lyrics of "Live Like You Were Dying"

Back in 2004 Tim McGraw recorded the song "Live Like You were Dying." As a way of marking the one-decade anniversary of this song, I'd like to admit that a couple of the lines have confused me for years. I could use your help understanding them. In the first couple of verses, the song seems easy to follow. Two men are talking, and one tells the other about his diagnosis. The doctors have (recently? or a long time ago and mistakenly? that isn't clear) given him the news that he would die soon. "I spent most of the next days/Looking at the X-rays." Then we get a couple of lines about a man crossing items off of his bucket list. "I went sky diving, I went rocky mountain climbing, I went two point seven seconds on a bull named Fu Man Chu." Then the speaker -- presumably still the old man -- shifts to the more characterological consequences of the news. As he was doing those things, he found he was loving deeper and speaking sweeter, and givin...

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable a...